DELEGATION REPORTS

2023-05-23 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 23 May 2023

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

DELEGATION REPORTS 1 DELEGATION REPORTS Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 146th Assembly of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, Manama, Bahrain 1 12:01 The SPEAKER 53517 I'm pleased to present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 146th Inter-Parliamentary Union Assembly held in Manama, Bahrain from 11 to 15 March 2023. It was a great honour and privilege to lead this delegation. Travelling alongside me as part of the Australian delegation was Senator the Hon. Linda Reynolds CSC; the member for Leichhardt, the Hon. Warren Entsch MP; Senator Fatima Payman; and the member for Robertson, Dr Gordon Reid MP. The theme of the assembly was promoting peaceful coexistence and inclusive societies: fighting intolerance. This theme is a high priority here in Australia. All members of the delegation played an active and vital role at various proceedings of the assembly. The delegation attended formal sessions and participated in the governing council. This year Australia became the chair of the Asia-Pacific group. The delegation also participated in meetings of the 12-plus geopolitical group, as well as the Forum of Women Parliamentarians and various standing committees. As chair of the Asia-Pacific group I spoke about my intention to work closely with all members of the group to ensure they have an equal opportunity to engage, particularly the Pacific member states. During the assembly I contributed to general debate on the topic of promoting peaceful coexistence and inclusive societies and fighting intolerance. I drew attention to the high-level support for ethnic diversity and multiculturalism in Australia. This gives our society a significant advantage in responding to the pressures placed on social cohesion, particularly intolerance and exclusion, which can be flamed by misinformation and disinformation. I also noted over the last few years that ideologically motivated violent extremism, mostly nationalist and racist violent extremism, accounted for approximately 50 per cent of the Australian intelligence organisation's domestic counterterrorism case load. Senator Payman contributed as a young parliamentarian on behalf of the Australian delegation, emphasising the importance for the Australian parliament to listen to the views of the more than three million young people in Australia, who make up 15 per cent of the population. Australia also put forward a proposal regarding measures to combat orphan trafficking and tourism to the standing committee on democracy and human rights, which will be debated and endorsed at the next assembly in Luanda, Angola in October 2023. I thank Senator Reynolds for all of her hard work on this matter. The Inter-Parliamentary Union is a unique opportunity for delegations and individual parliamentarians to meet and discuss issues of mutual interest. The Australian delegation had 12 bilateral meetings—with Ukraine and other Pacific group member delegations, including Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Japan, Malaysia, Maldives, Nepal, Laos, Singapore and Thailand. On behalf of the Australian delegation I'd like to acknowledge the Australian Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Mr Mark Donovan; Mr Jason Moore, Second Secretary and Vice Consul at the Australian Embassy in Saudi Arabia; the Australian Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, Ms Heidi Venamore PSM; and Ms Petra Aitken from Visits and Public Diplomacy. The delegation also acknowledges the staff of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Canberra who provided background briefing materials, including Ms Jennifer Grosch. I extend our thanks to the Parliamentary Library, in particular Mr Nigel Brew and his colleagues, who provided important briefing materials to the delegations, who were extremely helpful and informative. The delegation deeply appreciated the assistance and support of the International and Parliamentary Relations Office, with Ms Aleshia Westgate and Ms Kim Bulman deserving special mention for their tireless efforts to arrange travel and accommodation. Finally, the delegation would also like to acknowledge and thank Ms Elise Williamson and the delegation secretary, Dr Jane Thomson, from the Department of the Senate. I commend the report to the House. BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 1 12:05 Mr BURKE DYW Watson by leave—I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring in relation to proceedings on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023: (1) on Tuesday, 23 May the order of the day relating to the second reading debate on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 being immediately called on following the conclusion of the matter of public importance, and any division or quorum deferred under standing orders 55 and 133; (2) the second reading debate on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 continuing without interruption until the commencement of the adjournment debate at 7.30pm; (3) notwithstanding standing order 31, if the second reading debate has not concluded earlier, at 8 pm on Tuesday, 23 May, the bill being called on for further consideration, with the second reading debate continuing until either: (a) no further Members rise to speak; or (b) 10pm; at which point, debate being adjourned and the House immediately adjourning until Wednesday, 24 May at 9am; (4) on Wednesday, 24 May when the order of the day relating to the second reading debate on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 is called on following the conclusion of the matter of public importance, the second reading debate on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 continuing without interruption until the commencement of the adjournment debate at 7.30 pm; (5) notwithstanding standing order 31, if the second reading debate has not concluded earlier, at 8 pm on Wednesday, 24 May, the bill being called on for further consideration, with the second reading debate continuing until either: (a) no further Members rise to speak; or (b) 10 pm; at which point, debate being adjourned and the House immediately adjourning until Thursday, 25 May at 9 am; and (6) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister. I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for the consultation on this. I will explain the motion. All this means is that tonight and tomorrow night the debate will continue until 10 pm. If you're listed to speak on the adjournment, those speeches will still happen between 7.30 and 8 pm tonight and tomorrow night. There is still no intention that we have a vote on the bill itself until next week. Question agreed to. BILLS 2 BILLS Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Protecting Worker Entitlements) Bill 2023, Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023, Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 2) Bill 2023, Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Bill 2023, National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023 2

Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Protecting Worker Entitlements) Bill 2023

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023

Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 2) Bill 2023

Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Bill 2023

National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023

Reference to Federation Chamber 2 12:08 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, the following bills stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration: (1) Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Protecting Worker Entitlements) Bill 2023; (2) Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023, at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023; and (3) Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 2) Bill 2023, Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Bill 2023 and National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023, at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of each bill. Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023 2

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023

Second Reading 2 12:10 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I rise to speak on the additional appropriation bills for 2022-23. These bills—Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2022-23 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2022-23—provide for additional funds from consolidated revenue for the remainder of the 2022-23 year. Collectively, the additional appropriations bills 2022-23 appropriate approximately $6.2 billion from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The majority—approximately $5.5 billion—of this is to ensure that there is funding to cover upward revisions in demand-driven programs or other departmental funding. The opposition will be supporting the additional appropriation bills. However, this support should not be misconstrued as support for many of the ineffective or misguided policies of Labor's 2022-23 October budget. Labor's big-spending October budget was the canary in the coalmine for the big spending that would come in the form of Labor's May budget. In two budgets, in only a year in office, this Labor government has undertaken $185 billion of additional spending, while, at the same time, managing to cut infrastructure. How are they trying to pay for this new spending? Well, with two new taxes on regional Australia that will add to inflationary pressures and increase the prices of groceries: a new food and fibre tax on farmers in the form of a 10 per cent increase in agricultural levies; and a tax on truckies, with a 5.2c per litre increase in the heavy vehicle road user charge. This is just a snapshot of the failures of this Labor government on managing the economy and managing the budget. I could go on for hours, but, with some reluctance, I will restrain myself from doing so. The opposition will be supporting these additional appropriation bills, but we will also continue to hold the government to account over the budget decisions it has made. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 2) Bill 2023 3

Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 2) Bill 2023

Second Reading 3 12:13 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I'm pleased to rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 2) Bill 2023. I advise the House that the coalition will support this bill, as it implements a number of budget measures of the former coalition government. This bill, through these measures, provides support to primary producers and small businesses and for home ownership, and it provides relief to low-income earners struggling to deal with inflation. This is in marked contrast to the general themes of this government's budget, which left people in these categories behind. This is a Treasury laws omnibus bill containing five schedules. In my contribution, firstly, I want to outline what each of these schedules deals with; secondly, I will explain the reason for the opposition's support for the measures, very much based on the fact that such measures largely stem from the coalition's strong economic policies when in government; thirdly, I'll draw a contrast between the measures in this bill—which are sensible and which the coalition is pleased to support—and the budget, which leaves middle Australia behind and facing a cost-of-living crisis. I turn firstly, then, to the schedules in the bill. Schedule 1 amends the Medicare Levy Act 1986 and the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 to index low-income and family Medicare levy thresholds in line with the consumer price index. This will increase the number of people who are under the thresholds, who would otherwise be captured due to inflation. Schedule 2 addresses a grandfathering issue from the sale of the Commonwealth Bank that, if not amended, would prohibit the future sale of the Commonwealth Bank superannuation funds to another entity. Schedule 3 amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to allow primary producers to treat carbon abatement income as primary production income for the purposes of the farm management deposits scheme and assessing income tax averaging arrangements for primary producers. Schedule 4 amends the Taxation Assessment Act 1953 to reduce the GDP adjustment factor for the 2023-24 income tax year. The GDP adjustment factor is a key input in calculating pay-as-you-go and GST instalments payable to taxpayers. This schedule implements a measure in the 2023-24 budget entitled 'Small business support—helping small business manage their tax instalments and improving cash flow' Schedule 5 amends the NHFIC Act to allow NHFIC to be given direction in its investment mandate with regard to eligibility for home guarantees. This is achieved by adding into the act a new object for NHFIC: supporting early access to the housing market for Australians who have not owned real estate for 10 years. I turn to the reasons why the coalition is supporting these measures. Let me speak firstly about schedule 4 of the bill, which reduces the GDP adjustment factor. This builds on a commitment made by the coalition in our March 2022 budget to support small businesses with their cash flow by adjusting the GDP adjustment factor used by the Australian Taxation Office to calculate PAYG and GST instalments. This measure will be revenue neutral over time while supporting small businesses to keep more of their cash. This is critical because we know cash flow is one of the biggest challenges facing any small business. This legislation, long overdue, builds on the coalition's strong record of supporting small businesses to access finance and to improve their cash flow. Our record on this side of the House when it comes to these matters includes establishing the Payment Times Reporting Scheme to name and shame those who make late payments to small businesses; establishing the Payment Times Procurement Connected Policy to ensure that government contractors pay their small-business supply chain on government terms; shifting payment times for government contracts to 30 days, or five days for e-invoicing; shifting from monthly to quarterly BAS reporting, business activity statement reporting, for small and medium enterprises; restoring and expanding the instant asset write-off; cutting the small-business tax rate to 25 per cent and increasing the small-business tax offset for sole traders; and supporting Australian small businesses with over $35.8 billion of cash flow relief during the COVID pandemic. The strong track record of the coalition in supporting small businesses stands in stark contrast to a range of troubling aspects of the latest budget which, on the contrary, do not provide support to small business. The issues of concern include the fact that in this latest budget we've seen the government decimate the instant asset write-off and reduce the asset value cap; we've seen it end the loss carry-back scheme; we've seen it abolish the Entrepreneurs Program; and we've seen this government exclude more than 2.5 million small businesses from energy bill relief. There is a very stark contrast between the current government's withering indifference towards small business and the passionate and longstanding commitment on this side of the House to supporting small businesses. I turn to schedule 5 of the bill, which expands the role of the National Housing Financing and Investment Corporation, or NHFIC, in turn building on the previous government's work to support homeownership remaining within reach of as many ordinary Australians as possible. The change made by the bill before the House today will allow NHFIC to support those Australians who have not held a property interest in Australia in the preceding 10 years. The groups of people who are likely to benefit from this would include divorced women, older women and long-term renters. This measure will support Australians to re-enter the property market and achieve the Australian dream of owning a home. The expansion in eligibility recognises the importance of stable and secure housing in providing a foundation for social and economic wellbeing. Again, this stands in contrast to what is being done under the present government. For example, a year after the election, this government's much touted Help to Buy Scheme is nowhere to be seen. When the coalition left government, the housing sector was in strong shape. More Australians were getting into homes. More homes were being built. There was a large pipeline of residential construction in place. All of that—sadly—has disappeared under this government. So while the coalition certainly welcomes the measure contained in schedule 5, it is only part of much more that needs to be done. This government, through its inaction, is leaving so many Australians behind. Let me turn to the contrast between the measures in the bill before the House today and the approach more broadly being taken in the budget the government brought down just a couple of weeks ago. One of the reasons we've supported one of the measures in this bill is that that measure provides some assistance to a group of Australians from dealing with the cost impacts of inflation—that is through the measure that would increase the threshold, in relation to low-income and family Medicare levy thresholds, through the operation of CPI indexation. What is notable is the extent to which more broadly assisting Australians to deal with inflation was absent from the budget when it was brought down. It's clear from the budget that this Labor government has no plan to help Australians with the cost-of-living crisis so many are facing. On the contrary, in the midst of such a cost-of-living crisis what this Labor government has chosen to do—extraordinarily—is to put fuel on the inflation fire. After less than a year in office, government spending will increase by $185 billion. The fact is, a government cannot spend its way out of a cost-of-living crisis. What Australians needed and did not receive, in the most recent budget, was a budget that reduced inflation and reined in the spending to help combat the cost-of-living crisis that is facing so many Australians. As a result, it's a budget that makes life harder, not easier, for Australian families, small businesses, self-funded retirees and mortgage holders. Indeed, under this Labor government, a typical Australian family with children will be around $25,000 worse off. We have a budget that will not build a stronger economy. We have a budget that is not fair for all Australians. We have a budget that fails hardworking Australians—right at the very time when what they needed to see was a plan to address inflation and the cost-of-living crisis that so many Australians are facing. We have a budget that does not contain a plan to address the increase of 1.5 million in net overseas migration over the next five years. There is no plan to deal with infrastructure, to deal with housing, the needs that will follow from this increasing population. On the contrary, this budget cuts spending on infrastructure. The coalition wants Australians to do well. But at the moment we are being held back by a government with no economic plan for the future. Australians deserve better. Debate adjourned. Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Bill 2023 5

Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Bill 2023

Second Reading 5 12:24 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning I rise to speak on the Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Bill 2023. In less than a decade we will receive our first nuclear submarine, a Virginia class submarine, from the United States. This country has the task of becoming sovereign ready in that decade, which means we must be able to own, operate, regulate, maintain and dispose of a nuclear reactor. But that's in the early 2030s. The first gate we need to get through is 2027, with the establishment of Submarine Rotational Force West, which is the uplift of HMAS Stirling in Perth from a conventional base to a nuclear base, to receive on a rotational basis up to four US and one UK nuclear submarine in Perth. During that time, we will be building our own sovereign capacity—first from an industrial perspective, second from a technological perspective—and of course building the workforce to support those two projects. We also need to build up our expertise and experience in the Royal Australian Navy and build our workforce so that we can actually crew these submarines in the future. Admiral Mead, the commander of the submarine task force, at the News Corp Defending Australia forum last night stressed the importance of establishing Submarine Rotational Force West by 2027. He stressed the importance of establishing the workforce to support it, the infrastructure and also the regulatory framework. This bill is the first small step in the giant leap that we make towards becoming a nation that can operate nuclear submarines. It's a step towards becoming sovereign ready by the early 2030s. Last night's Defending Australia forum was also attended by US Ambassador Caroline Kennedy and UK High Commissioner Vicki Treadell, good friends of our country. Their presence reflected their countries' keen interest in and support for AUKUS, and we can't let them down nor breach the trust that they have invested in Australia with the transfer of very sensitive technology in the form of nuclear reactors and all the attendant technology that will be resident on the Virginia class submarines. Speed is of the essence, so we support this bill unamended as we see this bill as vital to the national interests and our long-term defence capability. What does this bill actually do? This bill will ensure that the relevant regulators, the CEO of ARPANSA, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, and the Minister for the Environment and Water can exercise their powers if and when required in relation to Australia's nuclear powered submarines without the risk of litigation. We are turning the sod, as it were, in establishing a regulatory framework for our nuclear submarines. It's the first of many steps required to implement and support AUKUS. The coalition wants to see works to prepare our nation for the arrival of nuclear submarines underway as quickly as possible, especially before 2027. Changes to legislation are required to start these urgent works, specifically in Western Australia at HMAS Stirling but also in South Australia in Osborne. The coalition has unequivocally supported the continuation of AUKUS and has committed to working on a bipartisan basis with the government to see it through to completion. So to play around with this bill, to play politics with this bill, to not support this bill is not in the national interest. I urge all members of this House to support this legislation in the best interest of our country. This is a multigenerational task. It is truly a national endeavour. One of the people who made a speech last night at this Defending Australia forum was the South Australian Premier, Peter Malinauskas. It was a great speech, I've got to say. I do compliment him on it. I did so personally last night, but I do so in this House. In it he said: AUKUS is a national endeavour. This is not just about expecting the Commonwealth to provide—state governments have to step up as well. SA is the defence state—we always have been, and we always will be. It is an honour and a responsibility that we do not take lightly, and we are already stepping up. It's great to see the Premier accepting the responsibility of this national endeavour and driving it forward with leadership, and I wish the Western Australian Premier, Mark McGowan, would do the same, because quite frankly he has been absent from the discussion on AUKUS. It's a huge opportunity to diversify our state. I am a member from Western Australia, and Stirling is about 35 minutes north of my family home. I have a lot of naval personnel in my electorate and a lot of submariners. It's a huge opportunity to diversify our state. We're going to have to uplift our educational institutions. We're going to have to support an industry around the base. We're going to have to build an industrial base. We're not just a resources state. We're also embarking on this huge project and there is a lot of opportunity for Western Australians, so we need Premier Mark McGowan doing his job, leading and getting us ready. There's also a huge need for more investment in housing. There's a massive shortage in Western Australia. There are children in my electorate living in caravan parks because their parents can't get a home. This is unacceptable. And we're about to see 1.5 million people migrate to this country, many of whom we'll need for this project. We're also going to see US and UK personnel, and their families, come to WA. Where are all these houses coming from? These are the sorts of things that the Premier must turn his mind to and start leading. I'm urging him to get on with the job and to show the sort of leadership that we saw from Peter Malinauskas last night. I also want to make a comment on the parliament, and how we will make sure this legislation—this is just the first of many bills—will successfully find its way through both houses. I've written to the Minister for Defence, and I've asked him to establish a parliamentary joint committee for AUKUS, with statutory authority, secrecy provisions—a committee that would operate, in many ways, like the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. It'll be a committee where we can debate important legislation behind closed doors, as we have done for many years in the PJCIS. We could also hold hearings in camera, hearings that it's necessary to keep out of public view, with defence industry and defence personnel. And like the intelligence committee, we need to have some of those discussions out of view from our strategic adversaries. I would encourage this government, given there is crossbench opposition to this, to reconsider the proposal to establish a parliamentary joint committee for AUKUS. I think it's a wise move and it will demonstrate that this parliament can adapt to the changing challenges before us. There will be turbulent times ahead, there always are, and we want to protect AUKUS from the turbulence of Australian political life. Finally, while the coalition supports this bill in full and without amendment, it should be noted that the coalition is currently examining the merits of zero emissions nuclear energy forming part of our future energy mix. We want to see low emissions. We want to see reliable baseload power. And we want to see the cost of energy come down—not just for families, not just for small businesses, not just for industry, but specifically for the delivery of AUKUS. As seen in other countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, there are significant benefits to civilian nuclear-powered programs in strengthening support for navy nuclear programs in areas such as workforce development and sustainment. My colleague the shadow minister for climate change and energy shall address some of these issues in his contribution to the debate on this bill. He and I will continue to work closely together as the coalition's assessment of next-generation nuclear technology continues. We do support this, and I look forward to working with the government on the many other bills that will come before this House. Thank you. Debate adjourned. National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023 6

National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023

Second Reading 6 12:34 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning The coalition cannot support this bill as currently drafted. And while the majority of proposed amendments in the bill are sensible reforms following the Richardson review that the coalition government commissioned back in 2018, Labor has unfortunately decided to play legislative games by adding an additional amendment to change the composition of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security without appropriate consultation. The bipartisan consultation and collaboration of this committee is the kind that the Australian people have come to expect on these matters, and now the government is trying to rush this legislation through, hoping no-one will notice. The National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023, implementing a number of recommendations of the Richardson review, proposes amendments to 13 related Commonwealth acts to support enhancement of the legislative framework for the national intelligence community. The bill also proposes to amend the Intelligence Services Act to clarify the level of detail required to describe activities issued under ministerial direction for ASIS. The opposition supports sensible changes to support the work of our intelligence agencies, which is why we agreed to all the relevant recommendations in the government response to the Richardson review in December 2020. Our sole point of contention is the proposal to increase the size of the PJCIS from 11 to 13 members and change the required representation from each chamber of parliament. The coalition was not consulted on these changes. Senator James Paterson, shadow minister for home affairs, submitted a question on notice to the Attorney-General's Department to clarify whether shadow ministers, crossbenchers and Commonwealth officials had been consulted on this change. In response, the Attorney-General's Department disclosed: The Attorney-General's Department did not consult with or advise non-government parliamentarians on the proposed changes to the membership and composition of the Committee. This measure was a recommendation of Government. What is clear here is that Labor is trying to rush what is an incredibly significant reform. The PJCIS was only given a month to complete its inquiry on this bill and only opened submissions for one week. No justification was given for this extremely short time frame. There is also no evidence which suggests this change is required. In fact, Labor needs to explain where it came from. Does the government intend to appoint a crossbencher or minor party member to the committee as a result of these changes, as the Gillard government did during the minority parliament? I think this would significantly and detrimentally change the character and culture of the committee, which has otherwise been for the parties of government. Adding a crossbencher or minor party member risks undermining the vitally important bipartisan consensus on critical national security issues which has long been a feature of the PJCIS and has served our nation's security well. I spent four years as the chair of that committee, and I must say that it is a very useful institution for having rigorous, robust national security debates that we want to keep out of the eyes of our strategic adversaries and doing so in a constructive manner. When the bill enters the committee, we go through our inquiry process, we have our debates and, when the bill comes back out, we step out into this place and the other place united. I think that's a really important part of the PJCIS, and I'm concerned that that won't continue. I worked very closely for four years with the now Attorney-General. It was a lot of phone calls, a lot of face-to-face time, a lot of patience on my part—and his, I suppose. It was an important part of delivering good legislation, and the former coalition government delivered a lot of national security legislation with the support of the then Labor opposition. The addition of two more committee members also increases the risk of classified material being leaked, either intentionally or inadvertently, as the Director-General of Security stated in his oral evidence to the PJCIS. This need not be a personal reflection on any member or senator, but it is the concern of the intelligence leadership. Could the proposed changes to the composition of the PJCIS be the result of internal politics within the government? I think this is a question that needs to be answered by the Prime Minister. After the May 2022 election, the government was not able to resolve its committee membership for three months. Despite the PJCIS being widely recognised as the most important committee of the parliament, it could not be reconvened until 6 September 2022. The committee's important work should never be held hostage by any party's internal machinations or deliberations. The government has tacked on these proposed reforms to a bill the contents of which are not time sensitive. The former and current governments have been working their way through the comprehensive review's 203 recommendations since December 2019. That is why, with considerable regret, the opposition was compelled to provide a dissenting report in the PJCIS inquiry on this bill. This is the first time in 17 years that the committee has not reached consensus on its recommendations. I learnt the game of brinkmanship by negotiating with the Attorney-General over four years. We went close to dissenting reports from the Labor opposition a few times, but we always managed to reach an agreement and a consensus. For some reason, this time they were immovable. I think that's a real disappointment. We do not do this lightly. In fact, not since the committee's report on the review of the original terrorist listing of the Kurdistan Workers Party has there been a dissenting report from an opposition in this committee. We are ready and willing to welcome engagement from the government on this bill to remove or amend the provisions affecting the size and composition of the PJCIS. In the opposition's dissenting report we recommended the following: That Part 3 of Schedule 1 of the Bill be amended to ensure that: The Government should have six members on the Committee, whilst non-Government members should be restricted to five and with no changes to the quorum requirements contained in s.28(3) of the IS Act; or In the alternative, if the Government insists on increasing the number of members on the Committee to thirteen, then the Government should be restricted to seven members and the non-Government members to six with a change to the quorum requirements to seven members; and Only members of parties of government are eligible to be appointed to the Committee; or That Part 3 of Schedule 1 of the Bill be omitted and the issue of the composition of the Committee referred to a further, broader inquiry into the operations of the Committee itself as dictated by the Intelligence Services Act (2001); consistent with the unanimous and bipartisan recommendation of the Committee in its annual report in 2020-21; or That the government affirm the convention that only members of the parties of government be appointed to the committee; or That Part 3 of Schedule 1 of the Bill be omitted in its entirety. It's not often that we part company on national security bills—in fact, it's very rare—so it is disappointing that the Albanese government has not reached across the aisle and sought to find a position of consensus. But we are acting in the best interests of this country because we believe that the current committee in its current form delivers the best outcomes for our national security as a nation. That's why we will be opposing this bill. Debate adjourned. Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 8

Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023

Second Reading 8 12:42 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes In continuation: in the few moments I have left I'd like to call out the double standards and hypocrisy we see in this country at the moment. We have the banks that are showing strong support for the Voice at the same time as they're removing their services by shutting down branches that serve Aboriginal communities. We've got the NRL supporting the Voice, but where were they when my wife and I were called upon to fund the guernseys for the Macintyre Warriors and the Toomelah Tigers so they could attend football carnivals? They're quite happy to do that, but where are they in supporting grassroots Aboriginal communities? We've got our friends over here in the corner, the Greens, who have come out today in support of the Voice at the same time as they're looking at closing down the resource sector, which is the major employer of Aboriginal people right across Australia. We go to the government, now pushing the Voice. But, by changing the distribution priority area for doctors, doctors have been removed from communities that have Aboriginal people in my electorate and moved to outer urban Labor electorates. How is that supporting people? We've seen the changes to pharmacies, where I'm getting letters from all the pharmacists in my electorate—and the minister has these letters—saying they are going to struggle to stay open to provide pharmaceutical services in these communities that have high Aboriginal populations. We've seen the changes to regional programs and talked about pork-barrelling National Party programs, but can someone tell me how the $10 million of federal funding that went towards the small-animal abattoir at Bourke, which provides 120 jobs for Aboriginal people, is pork-barrelling? These programs are now looking at being canned. We go to Inland Rail. Already hundreds of Aboriginal people have been employed for the construction. Indigenous businesses have done well in supplying these services. That has now come to a halt with the cloud that the minister has put over that. That Inland Rail was going to provide economic certainty, underpinning the economies of communities right through western New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria and providing long-term employment and hope for Aboriginal people. So what we're seeing in this debate is, I think, white middle-class Australia being given an opportunity to assuage some sort of guilt. We're going to see a small number of Aboriginal people receive high-paid jobs from which they can't be sacked, but I can tell you the good people that I've been representing in this place for 15½ years—the 16½ per cent of the population in my electorate who are Aboriginal—will get nothing from this program. I'm sick of the hypocrisy. We need to be doing more practical things to support our people, not this virtue-signalling we're seeing with this. 12:46 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon The American writer William Faulkner famously declared: 'The past is never dead. It's not even past.' What he meant is clarified in the less well-known sentence that followed: All of us labor in webs spun long before we were born, webs of heredity and environment, of desire and consequence, of history and eternity. Webs of history and eternity, heredity and environment—how could we not feel the weight of these words in this place today? The weight of heredity, of history, maybe even of eternity—we all feel it. We meet here to discuss a proposed amendment to enshrine an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice in our Constitution, a proposal that has dominated column inches, airtime in the media and political debate in our national life in recent times, and rightly so. It is a proposal that not we the legislators but we the people will be called upon to vote on in a referendum this year—a proposal whose meaning is impossible to grasp without feeling for oneself the fine webs of history it is spun from. Like the majority of members and senators in this parliament, I was not yet born when modern Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land rights began, but I know that the kind of Australia that I was privileged to grow up in was profoundly altered, and always for the better, by each of the many struggles and successes of First Nations people in our nation. Take the Yirrkala bark petitions, the beginning of land rights in 1963, when the Yolngu people from Yirrkala in north-east Arnhem Land protested the loss of their land to a mining lease. This petition from the Yolngu was addressed to this very parliament, to this very House—down the hill from here, but you know what I mean, Deputy Speaker. And what was the object of this protest? That the federal government had decided, unilaterally and without consultation, that part of the Yolngu people's homeland would be excised for a bauxite mine—unilaterally and without consultation. When that protest, that clear Aboriginal voice, was heard by the federal government at the time, it was dismissed. The mine was opened and the voice ignored. We would see a repeat of this pattern in the Yolngu people's 1971 Gove land rights case, in which the NT Supreme Court rejected their claim because it didn't conform to the European notion of property, so the case was thrown out. We see the glimmers of a new approach in the 1966 Wave Hill walk-off, when Gurindji man Vincent Lingiari led a strike for better working conditions at a cattle station in the Northern Territory. Vincent Lingiari also demanded the return of his traditional lands, which Prime Minister Gough Whitlam returned in 1975. On this occasion, the Voice was just as clear and strong as in the Yirrkala bark petition. Indeed, in 1972, in my electorate, the Larrakia people had petitioned for their land. When it comes to Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, that simple act of listening to and acting on First Nations people's concerns, where laws and policies affect them, an act which can hardly be called radical and should just be good manners, did reshape Australia into a fairer land. The whole country learned to listen, in the 1967 referendum, when 90 per cent of voters agreed to remove race based clauses from our Constitution and to treat Aboriginal people like full citizens by counting them at the census. Progress on restoring the land rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people was slow and hard going in Australia, but breakthroughs only came when they were listened to. The solutions we take for granted as great milestones today didn't come from non-Indigenous Australians and they didn't come from public servants here in Canberra. They came from First Nations people themselves, from local communities advocating to government, and we should always remember that fact. We saw this in 1976 when land rights legislation passed that would eventually allow Aboriginal people to have almost 50 per cent of the Northern Territory returned to them. We saw it in the landmark Mabo case in 1982 that threw out the concept of terra nullius, that old lie that the land belonged to no-one prior to colonisation. We saw it again in the far-reaching consequences of Mabo, which led this place to legislate the Native Title Act in 1993, through which 32 per cent of the Australian continent has now been recognised under native title. None of this is ancient history. It's recent history: 1993. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people weren't even given full voting rights, federally, by being required to register on the electoral roll like all other Australians until as late as 1984. But even the past is not yet passed. History is unfinished business in Australia. I learned this in 2004 when I joined the activist and legendary Essendon football player Michael Long's long walk to Canberra. What he wanted to do was to seek a meeting with the then Prime Minister John Howard, to talk about the abysmal state of First Nations affairs in our nation. I decided to go up the Hume Highway and support Michael. I got a lift up the highway with my brother, looking for Longy and the other walkers. I couldn't find him because they had been kicked off the Hume Highway onto the Old Hume Highway. It was a great experience to walk through country Victoria and then country New South Wales, to see people come out of their properties and say, 'Good on you, Longy,' and to give him a sausage in bread, or passers-by who stopped to walk with us for kilometres then went back to their cars and kept driving. They wanted to be part of what they saw as a massive deficiency in our nation. That was 19 years ago. Things haven't improved a great deal. For me, it was a great privilege to walk alongside Aboriginal elders. When you walk, there's lots of time for talking, and I was able to gain more understanding. I got more understanding, again, from spending time on country with Aboriginal soldiers, with NORFORCE, and with Aboriginal health professionals prior to coming to this place. Eventually, John Howard said that he would meet with Michael Long. But what he decided would be a solution was another imposition—the intervention, without consultation. So there is, I think, evidence in the Northern Territory that action taken to other people—in this case, First Nations People—without involving them does not get the outcomes we need. What it also showed me—spending that time walking with the Long Walk 19 years ago and reinforced last weekend with Michael and thousands of Australians as he announced he will walk again in September—was the intergenerational trauma and that original dispossession the Aboriginal people experienced of the land they are so closely connected to. The ramifications of that echo today. The guiding thread in the history of reconciliation in our country is: when non-Indigenous people have listened to First Nations peoples' desires on policy, on land rights, on culture and on their experiences as First Nations people over millennia, we have moved forward on the long and twisting back roads of reconciliation. But when we have ignored First Nations people and ridden roughshod over their concerns and requests, and when we have damaged their sacred sites or their rights, the good name of all Australians has been diminished. Martin Luther King Jr, that powerful voice of racial equality and a great conscience of all humanity, talked about the moral arc of the universe being long but bending towards justice, and I think our history bears out that prediction. Reconciliation is a gruelling walk for all involved, but every step brings us nearer to the promised land for our nation, which we all seek. The next milestone on that walk is clearly the Voice, and that's what this bill is all about. This bill is required to hold a referendum to amend the Australian Constitution to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Constitution through a Voice, in order to get better outcomes, in order to progress reconciliation in our nation, and so that there is a process by which we here, lawmakers, can listen to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples on the practical changes that will have an impact in their communities to address intergenerational issues. A Voice is a form of constitutional recognition called for by over 250 First Nations delegates from around our nation in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It is a modest request: that the Voice be established to make representations to the Australian parliament and to government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It will amplify the voices of those First Nations people that have the solutions. Now, listening to that Voice when we make and change laws and policies will improve the lives of First Nations people, I have no doubt. It will also help us to close the gap. We will get better outcomes when we work in genuine partnership with First Nations communities. Importantly, the parliament and executive government will also not need to wait for representations from the Voice before making laws or decisions. So the Voice's representations are advisory. It will complement the existing structures of Australia's democratic system. Every Australian voter will have the opportunity to vote on this important change. And I call on every Australian who can do so to vote. I began by speaking of history, whose weight every member in this chamber must feel on this day. As we consider this proposed Voice, the history of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' struggles for rights and for reconciliation are alive in our minds and in our hearts. Like many here, I have enjoyed the fruits of these struggles growing up—those of a fairer and more enlightened society today. That's the Australia I want my children to grow up in—an Australia where we listen to First Nations people and it's a natural instinct and a cherished part of our democracy; an Australia where First Nations peoples and their concerns are raised to the highest levels, not kicked down to the lowest levels and ignored; an Australia where the yawning gap between First Nations and non-Indigenous people is not only closed but where that gap is history. When Australian children ask their history teachers, 'Why did such inequalities persist for so long?' we want that conversation and those questions from Australian kids around our nation to be in the past tense: 'Why did it take so long?' Hopefully, we'll be able to say proudly that that is in the past. The past is what calls us—each of us in this place; each of us around the nation. It calls each of us by name, every Australian, and I hope the Australian people take the opportunity to support the Voice. 13:00 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom Just outside the little town of Delungra in northern New South Wales, as you head out towards Warialda, you'll find a turn-off on the left that takes you to the old cemetery. Go through the wrought iron gates and down along a dirt path lined with gum trees and you'll find yourself in another world, disturbed only by the usual bush noises and the occasional crack from the local pistol club. It's a place I sometimes go to, not just when I'm down visiting my relations in the area. I pay respect to the generations of Hamiltons and Kents who are buried there, but I also reflect on the country that was and will be. The last time I went there I took my daughter, Adeline, with me. As we were standing there she asked the obvious question: 'Dad, why is the cemetery split down the middle?' It's an innocent enough question, the sort of thing kids ask, and it makes you more and more curious as you stand there and observe the different family groupings on each side. On one side you've got the clearly identifiable Irish Catholics—the Mc's and the O's. On the other side you see a spattering of the squares and compasses of the freemasons among the Protestants. It's really difficult to explain to our children the divisions of the past, why our divisions mattered so much to us that we even separated ourselves in death. It's difficult, but it's important to do. It's not accidental that the old cemeteries around the nation are divided like that. The living nation of the time was divided. We were 'us and them'. As time has gone on, that 'us' has grown bigger and more inclusive. It means more. And whilst that big scar that split Protestant from Catholic Australians is still visible, there's a divide standing there that we don't see. What becomes apparent as you stand in that old cemetery in Delungra is that there are no Aboriginal Australians buried there. We were divided in ways we didn't even want to acknowledge back then. I'm very proud to say that that's not the nation we are today. That's not the nation my daughter was born into, and I'm very proud of that. At every step along the national journey we've taken, we have not just politely but vigorously ignored our differences. Instead of focusing on that which could divide us, the national will has been to seek strength in that which unifies us. At every opportunity, we have sought to create an egalitarian society where all are equal before the law, where all have the same liberties. It has not always been easy going, but we have pushed on together. As I stand here today, what I'm most proud of when I think of Australia's national journey is that I come to this place and I can stand side to side with 11 senators and members of Aboriginal heritage, and I am their equal. Our vote in this place or the other carries the same weight. While outside this place there is much to do to ensure equality of opportunity is spread evenly across our continent, and I remain as committed as ever to that endeavour, here in our parliament we allow no imperfections in our equality. Thankfully, we are beyond that. Australia's past holds our divisions. Australia's future must be a place where the bonds that unite us are made even tighter. I do not support the proposed Aboriginal Voice to Parliament on principle. I am fundamentally opposed to any move that seeks to distribute different rights and responsibilities through our Australian citizenship on the basis of race and, worse, that such division might be placed in our most important document, the Constitution. Beyond my position on the substantive question of this debate, I'm dissatisfied with the government's conduct in bringing it about. I do not believe that this referendum is being brought upon us by the government in good faith. The issue of changing the Constitution is one that Australians have never entertained lightly, with only eight of 44 referenda passing in our 122-year history. The nation has expectations of a government that seeks the people's support for a change to the Constitution, and they are not being met. I find it extraordinary that this proposal can be put without the usual process of a constitutional convention where proper and fulsome debate can be had, and it leaves me questioning the motives of the government as to why they would deliberately deny the proposal the national scrutiny it deserves. I don't doubt for a second that there are many who have formed their position of support with good intentions, but as legislators we are not in the business of intentions. Rather, it is consequences that must guide our decision-making. The purpose of the constitutional convention is to flesh out those consequences, and this debate on an amendment to the Constitution is poorer for its absence. How can this government advocate for an Aboriginal voice to parliament yet deny their voices the opportunity to debate it in a constitutional convention? Imagine if that right had been stripped from Neville Bonner in the 1998 convention on the republic, when his powerful speech condemning those who sought to speak on behalf of Aboriginal Australians carried the day. Under this Prime Minister, Bonner's voice would never have been heard on that day. But Bonner's voice was heard, and it echoes through today: … my heart is heavy. I worry for my children and my grandchildren. I worry that what has proven to be a stable society, which now recognises my people as equals, is about to be replaced. How dare you? I repeat: how dare you? You told my people that your system was best. We have come to accept that. We've come to believe that. The dispossessed, despised adapted to your system. Now you say that you were wrong and we were wrong to believe you. I'm not going to pretend to conflate this: Bonner was speaking of the republic, not of the Voice to Parliament, but he spoke powerfully and independently. Under this Prime Minister that voice wouldn't have been heard, because this Prime Minister denied Australia a constitutional convention. It's equally wrong of this government and this Prime Minister to advance the debate this far in the absence of details—to deliberately keep from the Australian people what they need to know. Once again, I find myself questioning the motives of this government when they seek to constitutionally enshrine a new body with, to quote the Referendum Working Group's Megan Davis, a 'self-determined scope'. In denying debate and denying the details required to have the debate, it is my belief that it is this government's desire to conflate Australia's genuine desire for constitutional recognition of Aboriginal Australians with a voice to parliament and hope that Australia doesn't notice. I repeat the previous observation of the Leader of the Opposition: it's extraordinary that the first television ad of the 'yes' campaign spoke of constitutional recognition whilst failing to mention the Voice. I don't think history will look too kindly on such underhandedness. I trust Australians. I trust their judgement. The government clearly does not. If they did, they would have given Australians the details and the proper forum to debate them. There is no problem for which more government is the answer. On this we can be clear: the Voice is more government. The clear consequence of a constitutionally enshrined voice is that no issue would be beyond its scope and no unwelcome decision beyond an appeal to the courts. That is not democracy. That is antidemocracy. This creates an Australia split between those who are equal and those who are more equal. Sadly, it creates an Australia where we are once again split down the middle, with one class of Australians on this side and another class on that side. With the most recent polling showing Australia split 53-47 and tightening, this shows that this referendum could not be more divisive. As a nation, we are being dragged back in time, back to the place where we've buried those past divisions, back to that old cemetery where Australia lays before us split in two—us and them—once again. This Prime Minister is no unifier. He is splitting the nation in two on the issue of race, his legacy a return to those dark times of us and them—everything we've worked for, the great ideas of liberal democratic nations, surrendered. The vast sweep of Western democracy's arc, which has bent evermore towards freedom, equality and justice, is turned back on itself towards division and the will of the few. What a shameful legacy. As a young boy, I was fortunate to have two very decent local political role models to look up to in Sir Llew Edwards and Senator Neville Bonner. Sir Llew had that great ease about him, that smile and warmth that I remember well, but it was in Senator Bonner that I found something I could really appreciate: the energy, belief and hardiness of someone who has had to fight for things. There were a lot of people in Ipswich at the time who had to fight for what they wanted—it was a hard town; it still is—but there were few who won as many of their fights as Senator Bonner did. In this way I was attracted to Bonner's story: the guy who was born under a palm tree, raised on the banks of a river, suffered terrible discrimination and yet went on to become Australia's first Aboriginal parliamentarian. Few people in Australia's history have ever risen so far through Australian society, yet he never stopped doing things his way. He never played it safe. A big part of me—call it boyish romanticism—wanted to align myself with Bonner's story, to imagine myself carrying on in his footsteps, continuing his triumph of will over circumstance, forcing my way through doors which had been barred to me, but I know that's not my role. It's with great happiness that Australia can celebrate that, today, there are 11 members and senators with Aboriginal heritage who get to carry on his legacy in this federal parliament. His story, his struggles and his hopes, in part, live on in them. Bonner's legacy lives on. But there is a legacy from that story that I get to continue—that is, the legacy of the members of the Liberal Party who on three occasions voted to put Neville Bonner on their Senate ticket, who chose to judge him not on the colour of his skin but rather on his contribution to society, who chose to view him as a equal, and who chose to throw their support behind him and have him as their representative here in parliament. I get to continue that legacy, and it is those beliefs of equality, fellowship and the equalising power of democracy to which I subscribe. I oppose the Voice because it stands against my principles and the principles of the Liberal Party, which I proudly represent. 13:10 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke I acknowledge and pay my respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples, on whose land we gather here. I extend this acknowledgement to the traditional owners of the Kulin nations, on whose land my electorate of Hawke sits. I also recognise my First Nations colleagues in this parliament, particularly Linda Burney, Senator Pat Dodson, Senator Malarndirri McCarthy, Marion Scrymgour and my very good friends Senator Jana Stewart and Gordon Reid. I rise in support of the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. Before us is an opportunity to put a question to the Australian people for the 41st time in our history, and for the first time in nearly 25 years. This bill asks a simple question, to right a wrong that has laid at the heart of our Constitution since Federation: A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration? That's it. It's not some bizarre Orwellian plot, as the Leader of the Opposition so shamefully insisted in this place yesterday; it's about long overdue recognition. It's about furthering the path to reconciliation. And it's about listening to First Nations people when it comes to the laws and the policies that affect them, their families and their communities. For over 60,000 years, Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander people have inhabited our continent. Theirs is the oldest continuing culture in the world, and we have all benefited greatly from their rich heritage, history and contributions. However, our Constitution, drafted only a century ago, fails to acknowledge Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the first people of Australia. This omission is a significant and grave oversight that we can no longer ignore. It is an integral part of our history and our national identity. The absence of constitutional recognition denies our First Nations people their rightful place in that history and that identity. Without recognition, we cannot adequately address the historical injustices experienced by Indigenous people or acknowledge their unique role in our Australian story. The Uluru Statement from the Heart represents the largest consensus among First Nations peoples on a proposal for constitutional recognition in Australian history. It is a beautiful, powerful and clear call to action, founded in the experience of thousands of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders from around our country. After the most proportionately significant consultation process that has ever been undertaken with First Peoples, it humbly offers a path to reconciliation through voice, treaty and truth, in that order. This referendum serves as the first step in responding to that call. By enshrining a voice in our Constitution, it provides Australians with the opportunity to walk alongside First Nations people on the path to reconciliation. The lead-up to this referendum has been marked by an extensive prereferendum process unmatched in our nation's history. Since 2010 there have been comprehensive consultations, parliamentary inquiries, expert working groups, councils, dialogues and reports. Indeed, no referendum has been preceded by more debate and more engagement by parliamentarians, legal experts and community members than this one. The referendum enjoys support from peak bodies representing First Nations people in each state and territory as well as the overwhelming popular support of First Nations people. What is being asked of us is a voice, a voice that we can no longer delay. It is time for this parliament to legislate with First Nations people, not merely for them. In 1996, Senator Dodson highlighted the need for reconciliation and an early path toward it during his address to the National Press Club. His words remain as relevant today as they were then. He said: 'The track behind us is littered with the remnants of failed policies, programs and projects that wasted taxpayers' money and failed to deliver real outcomes to those who needed them. They failed primarily because Indigenous people were not included in the decision-making process.' Yet for almost 30 years we have failed to heed Senator Dodson's call. Despite good intentions, substantial investments, consultation bodies and minor progress, no enduring, protected national mechanism has been established to enable First Nations people to have a genuine say in the decisions that affect them. The impact of that is not symbolic; it is real. It is felt in Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander communities around our country. It is seen in the shameful gap in outcomes for First Nations people and their fellow Australians. It is heard in the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which says: 'Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated people on the planet. We are not an innately criminal people. Our children are removed from their families at unprecedented rates, and not because we lack love for them. And our youth languish in detention centres in alarming numbers when they should be our hope for the future. These aspects of our crisis reveal the structural nature of our problem. This is the torment of our powerlessness.' The weight of these words arises from a painful history of dispossession, marginalisation, loss and immense suffering; from slavery, forced adoption, deaths in custody, high mortality and persistent and pervasive racism. The crisis is indeed structural, but there is hope because in a voice there is power. This referendum provides us with the best opportunity to address these past injustices and create transformative change for a better future. When we listen to that voice and collaborate with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities we achieve better outcomes. Evidence of this can be seen in Indigenous ranger programs, Aboriginal community controlled health organisations and Koori courts. In my home state of Victoria, the success of the First Peoples' Assembly, led by my brilliant friend Marcus Stewart and Aunty Geraldine Atkinson, showcases the immense power of an enshrined voice. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Victoria possess a democratic voice through the First Peoples' Assembly whose second election is currently underway. The Yoorrook Justice Commission, an established truth-telling process shaped by the community, holds extensive powers to examine ministers, senior public servants and decision-makers. Its mandate includes recording the impact of colonisation on First Nations people, fostering a shared understanding of this impact and making recommendations for reform and healing, all while the treaty process to properly acknowledge the sovereignty of First Nations people and improve their lives is advancing. Throughout Victoria's journey towards reconciliation, the First Peoples' Assembly has consistently advocated for further progress, securing better outcomes, and acting as a powerful voice for their community, while partnering with the Victorian government. The success of the assembly underscores the necessity of delivering voice, treaty and truth—in that order—and is precisely why we need a national voice for First Nations people. One year and two days ago, the Australian people elected this Albanese government with a mandate to fully implement the Uluru Statement from the Heart and present this referendum question. If successful, the Voice to Parliament will become a permanent, independent advisory body representing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It will make representations to the Australian parliament and executive government on laws and policies affecting First Nations people. The Voice will operate based on eight design principles, endorsed by the Referendum Working Group of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders. These principles stipulate that the Voice shall make representations to the parliament and the executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; the Voice will be chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples based on the wishes of local communities; the Voice will be representative of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, gender balanced, and include youth; the Voice will be empowering, community led, inclusive, respectful and culturally informed; the Voice will be accountable and transparent; the Voice will work alongside existing organisations and traditional structures; the Voice will not have a program delivery function; and the Voice will not have a veto power. It will not be, as the Leader of the Opposition claims, a voice from Canberra but rather a voice to Canberra. As Aunty Pat Anderson put it, 'It is about amplifying grassroots voices and channelling them into Canberra, representing the views and voices of their communities.' There are people in our community who still disagree with the idea of a First Nations Voice. There are many more who just don't know what it is about. But the privilege we have been given by our First Nations friends and neighbours is the opportunity to campaign for and pass this referendum. To do it, we will need to organise. We will need to have conversations around kitchen tables and on people's doorsteps, to bring those that don't know along the journey with us and explain the immense symbolic and practical value of this Voice. We stand on the precipice of something extraordinary. The concluding words of the Uluru Statement from the Heart remind us: In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard. We leave base camp and start our trek across this vast country. We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future. In 1967, the referendum passed with an overwhelming majority, serving as a unifying moment when Australia chose to do what was right and what was fair. In 2023, this referendum holds the same potential for national unification. It is an opportunity to show First Nations people that we see and recognise them, acknowledging their rights to have a say in their own affairs. The cost of failure is too great. When this question is put to the Australian people and the polls close, each one of us who has chosen to join First Nations people on the path to reconciliation must be satisfied that we did everything we could to see this referendum succeed so that we can wake up the next morning and know that Australia has changed for the better, because Australians will vote for it to be so, because Australians will have fixed a wrong, because we will give a voice to our First Nations people and build a better future for all Australians. 13:25 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne This land is an ancient land, home to the longest continuous culture in the history of the world. There were over 250 individual nations at the time of colonisation. There were over 800 dialects. But, without justice, how can they be heard? First Nations people were violently dispossessed of the land and are now, thanks to the legacy of colonisation, locked up and thrown in jail at a higher rate than any other group of people in the world. First Nations people are more likely to be imprisoned as children. In the Northern Territory, 100 per cent of the youth prison population under the age of 14 is First Nations. First Nations people are more likely to die in prison. Generations of First Nations children have been stolen from their parents, and it continues to this day. First Nations people have shorter lives and less secure homes and are in greater need of healthcare and education. They are inviting us to walk with them in a movement of the Australian people for a better future. The policies of this nation that have been made by this parliament have failed. Now, around this country, efforts are being made to lift the age at which children can be thrown in prison from as young as 10 to 14. Because First Nations people are too often ignored, governments are not amending our laws to be consistent with those around the world. The Uluru Statement from the Heart was an attempt to reckon with his past and to create a better future. It states: We are not an innately criminal people. Our children are aliened from their families at unprecedented rates. This cannot be because we have no love for them. The statement also says: These dimensions of our crisis tell plainly the structural nature of our problem. This is the torment of our powerlessness. The ask is simple: … to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. This is because with power, 'our children will flourish.' It is to empower through truth, treaty and voice. If you actually listen, you find it is non-negotiable to give those who have survived the power over their lives so that their children can flourish; for a chance, not a sentence; for a life, not a death behind bars. All of that is clear from the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The statement makes clear that the path forward is progress on all three elements. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, which is the subject of this legislation before the parliament this week, is just one part of this. Now, the Greens are firm in our view, informed by our strong First Nations network, that there will be no justice in this country without truth or treaty. We must begin to tell the truth about the history of violence and dispossession that lies at the heart of this country called Australia. We must reach a treaty with our First Nations people so that we can move forward together and create a better future together. These are key elements of the statement from the heart, and the Greens had hoped to see progress on these elements first, but the government has chosen to proceed with voice first, and the Greens want to see it succeed not only because it is a key element of the Uluru statement but because failure will take us further away from truth and treaty. But there are those in this parliament who want to deny justice to First Nations people. The Leader of the Opposition has taken this opportunity to divide instead of unite; to continue a long tradition of seeking to use race to win votes. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate will be resumed at a later hour. If your speech was interrupted, you will be granted leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 15 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Durack Electorate: Ord Valley Muster, Durack Electorate: Kununurra 15 13:30 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I had the absolute pleasure of attending the Kununurra Ord Valley Muster festivities last weekend. Highlights for me were the Kimberley Moon Experience and the Muster Idol final. There were some very good singers, but, let me tell you, most of them were just simply enjoying themselves. Well done to Sophie Cooke and her fabulous volunteer committee for overcoming the many obstacles to ensure a successful 21st muster. However, this tenacity comes as no surprise. The East Kimberley community member are doers. They are resilient and they make the most of every opportunity to showcase their beautiful part of the Kimberley, although this is not always easy. The impacts of recent flooding and youth crime continue to plague the region. Key Kununurra stakeholders recently wrote to the WA state minister for the Department of Communities. The letter outlines the group's views on the necessary measures to curb youth antisocial behaviour. It states, 'There is an urgent need for assistance and intervention around community safety within our town.' I commend the authors of the letter: the Shire of Wyndham East Kimberley, MG Corporation, Wunan Foundation, Kununurra-Waringarri Aboriginal Corporation and the East Kimberley Chamber of Commerce & Industry. I call on Premier McGowan to listen to this community's cry. Please take their letter seriously and take action. Kununurra deserves nothing less. They simply cannot resolve these issues on their own. Cunningham Electorate: Community Batteries for Household Solar Program 15 13:31 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham Today, with Minister Bowen and the member for Whitlam, I was able to announce that Warrawong and Dapto will receive community batteries, helping lower household electricity bills, reducing emissions and delivering renewable energy for local residents. Endeavour Energy will receive $1 million in grant funding to install a 720-kilowatt-hour battery in Warrawong and a 1,040-kilowatt-hour battery in Dapto as part of the government's Community Batteries for Household Solar Program. This is another example of the Albanese Labor Government delivering for the Illawarra region, as we invest $200 million to install 400 community batteries across the country. This is a great win for people in Warrawong, a community of around 500 households with some of the most vulnerable people in our region, who are now set to benefit from the Labor Government's investment in community batteries. This investment will see eight pole-top battery units installed and one small ground based unit in Warrawong, with the Commonwealth contributing just over half of the project cost and Endeavour investing the remaining contribution. Community batteries are just one of the steps the Albanese Labor Government is taking to drive down household and business energy costs and make homes and businesses cheaper to run. With Endeavour Energy given the green light, work will now begin to formalise the battery location, engage with the local community and start works in the coming months to plug the battery into the grid. Grey Electorate: National Security 15 13:33 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey It gives me no pleasure to tell this House, 'I told you so,' but: I told you so. The government has pulled the funding for the security scanners in regional airports right around Australia. I warned this place that it would affect Whyalla the worst, and it is the first one to feel the brunt of that decision. Rex Airlines announced last week that they are pulling out of Whyalla. The Whyalla City Council was left with a bill, facing around $1.2 million a year, as every other regional airport in Australia will face after 30 June. They decided that they would put that bill evenly on both airlines. Rex Airlines had telegraphed the fact they would pull out if that was the result, because their aeroplanes don't actually need scanning, because they are of a smaller variety. This is a position the Whyalla City Council should never have been put into. It is a position the government should never have taken. It is a decision which is impacting rural and regional Australia completely unfairly. National airline security is a national issue. It should be nationally funded by a national levy on every ticket sold in Australia, not piling it up on those who face the greatest tyranny of distance, who have to use the airlines for their health, for their family connections and for their business connections. This will drag $1 million plus a year out of Whyalla, Port Lincoln, Kingscote and Mount Gambier. It's a terrible decision. Buddhist Society of the Northern Territory 16 13:34 Mr 245392 Solomon GOSLING () (): Last Sunday I had the honour of attending the 40th anniversary celebrations of the Buddhist Society of the NT with the Deputy Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Nicole Madison, and the multicultural minister of the NT, Ngaree Ah Kit. It was a great event. The venerable chief monk gave us a blessing after lighting the oil lamp. The president of the society, Udara Weerasinghe, graciously welcomed us. We were treated, as you would expect, to wonderful traditional dances by Sadeepa Sandaruwan and Omaya Padmaperuma from the Sri Lankan Dance Academy of Darwin. The Buddhist Society of the Northern Territory was formed by members of many different Buddhist communities to practise and share the Buddha's sublime teachings and to carry on his legacy in Darwin and throughout the Northern Territory. The society promotes social welfare using Buddha's philosophy and teachings and educates the future generation of Territory Buddhists. It was a truly wonderful event to celebrate 40 years of pioneering work in establishing a Buddhist centre in Darwin, which really is a shining spiritual light for all Territorians. We're very grateful for their contribution to our community, whether it be the kids at school or members of professional industries. They contribute so much to our great Territory. North Sydney Electorate: Businesses 16 13:36 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney A future focused economy embraces skills development and innovation-based productivity and collectively strives toward a resilient and modern future. I am proud that when you look across my electorate of North Sydney that is exactly what you see. Recently I visited several organisations in my community that are leading the way and rising to the challenges and embracing opportunities in the green, care and digital economies. They include Samsara Eco, who, in developing revolutionary technology that can infinitely recycle plastics and textiles, is ensuring that plastics will no longer need to be made from fossil fuels and will not end up in our landfills or oceans. In health care we have Stryker, who are leading innovation in medical technology. They are working with former nurses to develop and deliver products that are safe, innovative and efficient. In climate we have PVT Lab, who have developed Coolsheet, an innovative climate tech solution that harnesses the waste heat absorbed by solar panels. This renewable thermal energy then replaces fossil fuels when heating water. In energy again, DNA Energy has developed a low-cost energy management system that can measure, manage and monetise the energy in your business, including the ability to turn your site or building into a virtual power plant. In green lifestyle, Koskela creates beautiful sustainable, handmade Australian furniture and provides solutions for communal and collaborative workplaces. The future economy is indeed green, digital and bright in North Sydney. Lee, Mr Aaron 16 13:37 M 157125 Pearce s ROBERTS () (): There are times in life when one is inspired by the incredible achievements of others who have faced adversity and pushed through to reach and exceed personal goals. Today I rise to speak about one such individual—Aaron Lee, a friend and former local government colleague. He competed in the World Transplant Games recently held in my electorate of Pearce. He won a gold medal for Australia in the individual cycling time trial and a bronze in a team trial and road race. These medals were won just two years after Aaron's life-saving heart transplant. Aaron has told me that he is so very grateful to his heart donor for giving him a second chance. Aaron wants to encourage more Australians to have the important conversation about organ donation so that more people can benefit from organ transplants. He says discussing organ donation is the best way to let your family know your wishes, and then to register that intention. I had the honour of presenting medals to Aaron, his teammates and medal winners from visiting countries at the World Transplant Games and left feeling very inspired by the energy and resolve of all the athletes who competed. I congratulate those remarkable athletes on their achievements and also thank those who chose to donate to give others a life-saving opportunity. Housing 17 13:39 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith Labor remains committed to its housing fund to gamble $10 billion on the stock market, to only spend some of the returns on housing and, even in the best-case scenario, to only cover three per cent of the shortage in social and affordable housing. Given that, I have a new proposal for funding politicians' wages. Rather than pay politicians directly, we all only get paid if a series of investments on the stock market pay off. In months where it doesn't pay off—too bad!—none of us get paid, and even when it does pay off, the vast majority of us won't get a single dollar. Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 It's not a surprise that people over there don't like that idea. Who would have thought? Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 You can here them again! They hate it. I wonder why it is that everything from politicians wages to nuclear submarines and stadiums gets guaranteed adequate funding but all we get for public housing is this dodgy investment fund that will see the housing crisis get worse. Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 They keep yelling about the politicians' wages idea. People are fed up because Labor keeps telling us that all we can hope for is crumbs while it turns around and hands over billions of dollars in tax concessions to billionaires. It's not unreasonable to suggest that in the middle of the worst housing crisis in generations the government should invest $5 billion a year directly to build public and affordable housing or use federal funding to coordinate a rent freeze. Maybe Labor should reflect on why people are angry that nuclear submarines get half a trillion dollars in guaranteed funding but housing doesn't get a cent. Macquarie Electorate: Health Care 17 13:40 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie The efforts we've made in the budget to maintain access to bulk-billing GPs, with a tripling of the bulk-billing payment to them, have been well reported. This is on top of the $1.5 billion boost to the indexation of Medicare, which will mean the biggest increase across the board to Medicare rebates since Paul Keating was Prime Minister. There has also been a tripling of the payment GPs receive for treating veterans, and I was pleased to take veterans minister Keogh to Winmalee Medical Centre to meet Dr Mike de Vries and representatives of the Blue Mountains Vietnams Veterans Association—Chris McKay, John Fenton and Jack Lake. Some local veterans may be missing out on the veterans healthcare benefit. There are more than 4,000 people in my electorate who identified themselves as a veteran on the census but less than half have a healthcare card. GPs actually receive a higher payment to bulk-bill veterans than the wider community, so we're keen to identify those who may be eligible but haven't applied. If you have served, there is a benefit to both you and your GP if you have a healthcare card, so I would urge you to apply. On top of GP benefits, I'm looking forward to supporting veterans in my electorate with a new veterans and families wellbeing centre. This is something that we promised in the election and will bring together government services to make it easy for veterans to access the things they are entitled to. Napoli Football Club 17 13:42 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to acknowledge and congratulate the great Napoli soccer club on being crowned Italian league champions this year. Their draw with Udinese secured them a lead on the table that is now insurmountable. On 4 June, the historic final game of their season will be held at the Diego Maradona stadium in Naples. That is very appropriate, given that the last time Napoli won, in 1990, Diego Maradona was in that famous team. I very proudly have in my electorate the largest Italian community of any electorate in this parliament, and within that Italian community, the strongest grouping is of those from Campania. I have three excellent Campanese clubs, in San Giorgio, Altavilla and Molinara. They will all have that game broadcast live. The entire Campanese community will be coming together from across my electorate, and no doubt from across the whole city of Adelaide, to watch that game and the unbelievable celebration that will happen afterwards throughout Naples. I congratulate the team and I'm with all of my constituents who are going to be there celebrating and basking in this great moment for the Napoli soccer club. Bennelong Electorate: Energy 18 13:43 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong I represent a community that is passionate about taking action on climate change. So important is that issue for them for them that for only the second time in 70 years they elected a Labor MP in Bennelong. They voted for Labor because they trusted this government to take climate change seriously and start the country's long overdue investment in renewable energy. Before the election I promised to deliver a community battery for north Epping, and I'm proud to tell the House that the application from Ausgrid and Hornsby council to install one was successful. In the first round of funding, $500,000 was awarded to install a 240 kilowatt community battery in north Epping. It is one of 400 batteries that Labor has promised to deliver across Australia. We know those opposite would prefer we install nuclear reactors in North Epping, but—thank goodness for the people of Bennelong!—the Liberals are not in charge. This battery will mean that those who have solar will be able to continue to export solar power and store it for the community to use later in the evening. This battery will support the grid, it'll drive down emissions and it'll put downward pressure on everyone's electricity bill. I'd like to thank the former member for Berowra, now the Mayor of Hornsby, Councillor the Hon. Philip Ruddock, for his support of this project. His council has worked closely with Ausgrid to get where we are today and, in particular, proposed the land at North Epping for its installation. I eagerly anticipate the next round of community consultation and the battery's installation. Housing 18 13:45 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin With new dwelling construction at its lowest level in over 10 years, housing investment dropping even further and Australians struggling through a housing crisis, Labor now plans to increase migration to 1½ million people by 2027. Where does the government think the people in this enormous influx are going to live? We know there's no coherent housing plan from the Labor Party to house those extra 1.5 million Australians. Labor have completely given up on younger Australians ever owning a home, and they've given up on young Australians who are suffering in the rental market at present. The floundering Housing Australia Future Fund, which is in absolute tatters, is a dodgy scheme from the government that is being held up in the Senate for very good reasons, because it does not guarantee one dollar for social and affordable housing. A government that's committed to improving housing outcomes should be delivering. Even worse than that, the government's lofty ambitions of 30,000 homes over five years, supposedly to house 1½ million people, have now been downgraded to fewer than 10,000 homes, because the government have said they will only deliver 1,200 to each jurisdiction. Shame on Labor! Boothby Electorate: Schools Upgrade Fund 18 13:46 Ms 296272 Boothby MILLER-FROST () (): Education is a fundamental building block for a better Australia. While it's what goes on inside the schools—the quality education, the curriculum and, most importantly, the teachers—that can make all the difference, being able to provide education in well-equipped modern facilities is also important. So I'm pleased to announce that the following schools in Boothby have been successful in the open round of the Schools Upgrade Fund: Hamilton Secondary College, for shade structures and maintenance; Black Forest Primary School, to upgrade existing outdoor learning space; Blackwood Primary School, for refurbishing classrooms; Urrbrae Agricultural High School, for air conditioning, Our Lady of Grace School, for ICT equipment; St John's Grammar School, for air conditioning and ventilation; IQRA Islamic college, for repairs and maintenance; Sunrise Christian School at Marion, for air conditioning and to upgrade an outdoor learning space; and, last but not least, Edwardstown Primary School, where I was pleased to welcome Minister Jason Clare last week. The student leaders—Phoebe, Luca, Louis and Emmerson—showed us the outdoor learning space that the students have been designing, and principal Vicky Bashford spoke about how the school was such a part of the local community, with generations of local families attending the same school. Her own mother attended the school, she's now the principal, and her daughter attended the school as well. Congratulations to those student leaders for their exciting designs. I can't wait to come back and see it in real life. Gambling Advertising 18 13:48 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey On Sunday afternoon, before I jumped on a plane up here to Canberra, I was excited to spend some time with my family. It doesn't happen very often, as we know, but my daughter and my son and I got to sit down to watch the football. For us, as Collingwood supporters, it's a good time to watch the football—nine and one, sitting one game clear on the top of the ladder. So we were looking forward to that. About eight or nine minutes before the game started, it cut to an ad. It cut to an infomercial where a betting company talked about the odds on the game, the first goal kicker, multis and multiple other things for over a minute. The most distressing part of that was that my two children were there and my seven-year-old daughter said to me: 'Dad, what are the odds? What are they talking about? What does that mean?' She shouldn't be having those conversations. We should have been enjoying a game of footy. That's why I'm so excited and so proud of the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, announcing that we will ban betting ads from an hour before games to an hour after games so families can enjoy their sport together without seven-year-olds and nine-year-olds having to understand what betting odds are and how that influences the game. I support betting. Everyone's free to have a bet. I don't mind a bet every now and then as adults. But young children should not be subject to those odds, and parents shouldn't be having those conversations and normalising that behaviour. So I hope the government will work with us on this policy. Foreign Affairs 19 13:49 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton We've witnessed some great changes in the first year of the Albanese-Marles government, but I want to particularly focus on our relationships with our Asian and Pacific neighbours and the wider world. No longer is foreign affairs used as a springboard for domestic politics—or, worse, a lobbying opportunity for jobs after parliament. I'm sure Australians recall former foreign minister Downer slotting straight into the board of Huawei, former trade minister Andrew Robb walking out of parliament straight into a lucrative job with a billionaire closely linked with the Chinese Communist Party or, even worse, former prime minister Tony Abbott going to work for the UK government to advise them on trade deals. And our Pacific neighbours will never forgive or forget the current opposition leader joking about our Pacific neighbours' homes being destroyed by climate change. What a breath of fresh air Foreign Minister Penny Wong, Trade Minister Don Farrell and their teams—I see the member for Gellibrand in front of us, the minister at the table—have been, strategically and methodically going about repairing the relationships damaged by the coalition, re-engaging with our Pacific neighbours via diplomacy and significant financial support. A safe and secure Pacific is important to the future of Australia, and good trade relations with Asia are the key to our future prosperity—and I don't just mean for our barley farmers, wine exporters or crayfish exporters. One by one, the Albanese government is repairing our trade relationship with China. It was good to see the lifting of restrictions on our $700 million timber trade last week. Foreign Minister Penny Wong is doing a great job. Forensic Science 19 13:51 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson In the short time that I have today, I want to add my voice to those who are advocating for the application of advancements in forensic and genetic science to improve the way investigators solve cold cases and potentially review other cases. I've long been an advocate for science and the immense value new scientific discoveries can deliver. Obviously, the justice system is enhanced by advanced investigative tools that can help provide new insights on the guilt or innocence of individuals. Where such advancements occur sometime after a crime has been committed, their retrospective application, where applicable, is both appropriate and just. Anna-Maria Arabia, chief executive of the Australian Academy of Science, is on the public record as saying, 'It is imperative that we do not miss an opportunity to develop a more scientifically sensitive legal system.' I agree with her. Conversely, there is a strong responsibility for those who provide forensic evidence to ensure best scientific practice at all times. We have a glaring example of how that can go wrong outlined in the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Forensic DNA Testing in Queensland. I look forward to discussing this issue further in this place when time permits. Bendigo Electorate: Defence Equipment 19 13:52 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Those who have been in this House a long time would know that I am a big fan of the Bushmaster, built in Bendigo. We are very proud that we manufacture the Bushmaster—and we're not the only ones. It's a great vehicle for the Australian Army. It's credited with saving over 300 Australian troops' lives in the Afghan and Iraq conflicts. It's also what the Ukrainian president asked for in his address to this parliament; one of the only words of English we all remember was when he said 'Bushmaster'. But, at the time, little did he know or all of us know that the site was actually in trouble. The previous government had left the site without any future work plans. The jobs were going to be lost and the site was facing potential closure. Thankfully, the Australian people elected the Albanese Labor government, and I am proud to say that last week the Minister for Defence Industry visited Bendigo to announce a new contract for the site. An extra 78 Bushmasters will be built at Bendigo to lift the Army's capability back up to where they would like it to be. That contract also secures the jobs at the site for another three years—men and women, proud of what they do, manufacturing Bushmasters. Their jobs are secure for at least the next three years. That is what this government is doing, and that is what I am proud to stand here today to say. Forde Electorate: Beenleigh Community Events 20 13:54 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde We all have a range of wonderful events across our communities, and one of the terrific events that was reinstated to the Beenleigh and district community back in 2021 was the annual Beenleigh Cane Parade and the Beenleigh Cane Gala Ball. These events are a celebration of the history of the Beenleigh region. Saturday week ago, we saw the Beenleigh Cane Parade, with over 50 floats, showcasing the wonderful community organisations, businesses and other opportunities that exist across our community of Beenleigh and in the surrounding areas. Importantly, it was celebrating 150 years of the history of sugarcane, which was a foundation of the economy for so long and still is today in many parts of our local community. I take this opportunity to thank the Beenleigh Rotary Club and its president, Janee Hong, who is here in the chamber this afternoon along with her husband, Allan, for the terrific work they do each and every year to make the cane festival parade such a success. On Saturday night, we also had the opportunity to celebrate at the Beenleigh Cane Gala Ball, which was a terrific time to celebrate. Importantly, both events raised money for the Mini Farm project at Loganlea State High School which provides much needed food for those in need right across our community. Thank you to all involved. Albanese Government 20 13:56 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor One year ago, Australians voted for change, and I am reminded with incredible pride, the same way I have been since I first walked into this place, that our roles here provide us an opportunity in government. But every day we're also incredibly humbled by the responsibility. Never so more than in 12 months of being in government. We've got to work as a government cleaning up the mess we inherited and laying strong foundations for a better future. We've been able to achieve a lot in 12 months—the biggest-ever investment in bulkbilling, cheaper medicines, fee-free TAFE, action on climate change, cheaper child care, getting wages moving, energy bill relief—but there's more to come, and we're still working hard. We're investing in affordable housing, creating secure jobs, boosting renewable energy and making more things here in Australia. We were elected to build a better future and that's what this Labor government's about. Victoria: Forestry Industry 20 13:57 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland In my 15 years as a member of parliament I have never been more disgusted in a government decision than I am today. The Andrews Labor government has kicked every hardworking native timber industry family in the guts today and not one of those opposite, not one member opposite, has raised a single word of protest in relation to this issue. People and wildlife die in poorly managed forests, and Victorian Premier Dan Andrews has a plan to shut down the native timber industry in 2024. It's a plan to kill country towns. It's a plan to kill wildlife. It's a plan to kill Australian jobs. This is a 'Dan-made' disaster which will devastate Gippsland communities and take us a generation to recover from. Old Labor MPs were never this gutless, and there's no point in those opposite trying to find their voices now. Where were any of you when the workers needed your help? My communities are resilient and have stood united as they've faced fires and floods and droughts, but nothing can save a town from the madness of Dan Andrews. He didn't tell the unions. He didn't tell the mill owners. He didn't even tell the workers. He sent them a press release! I repeat: this is a 'Dan-made' disaster for regional Victoria, and gutless Victorian Labor MPs should have stood up for the blue-collar workers and protected their jobs from those inner-city Green policies. I'll give you a clue: if the Greens are cheering, you've made the wrong decision! Leader of the Opposition 20 13:58 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition attacked the Voice. He said, 'The government hasn't provided even the most basic of detail on the Voice.' That comment about detail took me back. It took me quite a way back, to budget day 2014—better known as the day that the current opposition leader, then health minister, announced plans to charge people a co-payment for the right to visit a doctor in Australia. Given his penchant for detail, I thought I would go back to that time and look at how much detail he provided when he was proposing to gut our healthcare system. Do you think he announced the gutting of Medicare with a 500-page report? Sadly, no. Back then a press release was enough detail. Do you think he announced the gutting of Medicare after extensive consultation with stakeholders? Sadly, no. He dropped it on Australians without a word of warning. So it turns out that the opposition leader's love of detail is something of a new-found passion—you know, one of those things you adopt later in life; you put on the chunky glasses and you start to think of yourself as a bit of an intellectual—or maybe it's just about politics, because it is curious that, when it comes to the Voice, no amount of detail is enough, but, when it was about gutting Australia's healthcare system, a press release would do! The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 21 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Albanese Government 21 14:00 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, middle Australia is hurting. Labor's inflationary budget is putting upward pressure on interest rates. Labor's aged-care policy is causing nursing homes to close down. Labor's industrial relations policies consistently ignore and then harm small businesses. And Labor's gas market intervention is increasing power-bill pain. Middle Australia is hurting. Why does Australia always suffer when Labor makes it worse for them? 14:01 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I'm asked about middle Australia. Well, middle Australia cares about the wages that they receive, and wages are increasing under this government. I'll tell you what middle Australia cares about: they care about their kids getting access to cheaper childcare—that's what they care about. I'll tell you what middle Australia cares about, particularly in our regions: they care about manufacturing jobs—that's what middle Australia cares about. I'll tell you what middle Australia cares about: they want to be able to go to the doctor for free and receive bulk billing, and 11 million Australians in middle Australia will be able to do that as a result of this government's actions. I'll tell you what middle Australia cares about: middle Australia want to pay less for their medicines, and, under our government, they will. I'll tell you what middle Australia cares about: when it comes to aged-care workers, 250,000 of them will receive a pay increase—that's what middle Australia cares about. They are so out of touch, they only talk to each other about themselves. They should get out there and talk to middle Australia about what their concerns are, because, when I was out and about, after the fantastic budget delivered by the Treasurer just two weeks ago, when I visited Cook and Makin and Spence and McEwen and Fadden and Brisbane and Higgins—and yes, even Goldstein—and talked with Australians about what their concern was, what they were pleased with was the fact that this is a government that has their back; this is a government that is delivering for middle Australia. And that's what our budget did. International Relations: Australia and India 21 14:03 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government working to strengthen Australia's relationship with India? And how important is Prime Minister Modi's visit to Australia this week? 14:03 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Lalor for her question, and I indeed will be delighted to welcome Prime Minister Modi to Australia today. It will be the sixth meeting that we've had together since I was sworn in as Prime Minister one year ago today. It shows how important the relationship between Australia and India is. India will grow to be the third-largest economy in the world. It's already the most populous country in the world. And it is an important neighbour in the Indian Ocean that we share. That is why this is a relationship that we need to invest in. Tonight I will have the privilege of joining Prime Minister Modi on stage at Qudos Bank Arena in Sydney. This event will celebrate Australia's large and vibrant Indian community. And Australia is a better place because of the contribution of the Indian diaspora. They have brought the spirit of the world's largest democracy to Australia and helped make our democracy stronger and more inclusive. I note that, last night, there was a new Lord Mayor of Parramatta. I congratulate Lord Mayor Pandey on his election. He is the first Indian Australian to hold such a high office in local government, in what is Sydney's second CBD and very much a centre of the community. Prime Minister Modi and I are optimistic that we'll conclude discussions on the comprehensive economic cooperation agreement before the end of the year. That will create Australian jobs, helping our industries prosper and sparking growth and innovation. When I was in India, in March, we announced the presence of the opening of the first ever foreign university to operate in India, Deakin University. It will be operating in Gujarat, and it will be followed by Wollongong university—again, providing such an important arrangement. One of the things that's happening with our population in Australia is the return of Indian students to Australia, which is something that this side of the House welcomes because of the difference that it will make. Renewable energy is also a focus of our partnership. Our businesses are already cooperating on that renewable energy partnership, and we're extending the critical minerals partnership as well. Our security and defence links are growing, and Australia will host Exercise Malabar for the first time this year. India is a key strategic partner. We have a rich friendship. We have a very affectionate sporting rivalry, of course, on the cricket fields of the world, and we'll contest the championship once again very shortly. We are both part of a growing and dynamic region, and Prime Minister Modi is a very welcome visitor to our shores. 14:06 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson on indulgence—I want to join with the Prime Minister in his words of welcome to Prime Minister Modi. I saw him last 18 months ago, and I look forward to seeing him tonight in Sydney for a bilateral meeting. Tomorrow, in Sydney, it's an opportunity to reinforce the bipartisan nature of our approach to our relationship with India. We have an incredibly important diaspora community here in this country. I was having dinner with some Indian friends in Sydney the other night, talking about their stories of success. Some who'd come here as students have amassed incredible success and wealth, in some cases, but their adoption to our country has been a remarkable story. The depth of our relationship now through the Quad and the importance of our discussions in relation to a number of areas is only just starting. The opportunities ahead for our two countries to grow even closer together, given particularly Prime Minister Modi's approach to our country, the welcome nature of the Indian people, the way in which we are able to work together and to have the fierce competition on the sporting field, as the Prime Minister points out, creates for a very exciting dynamic into the future. The possibilities within this relationship are absolutely endless, and I look forward to seeing many Indian friends in Sydney over the next 24 hours. Budget 22 14:08 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Prime Minister. The words 'middle Australia' somehow made it into the budget talking points last week, but the problem is they were completely forgotten from the budget itself. The word 'infrastructure' didn't even make it into the talking points, let alone the Treasurer's speech. And now the Prime Minister is going to bring in a further 1.5 million people over five years at the same time he is cutting infrastructure and raising taxes. Middle Australia is hurting. Why does Labor keep making it worse? A government member: Time! The SPEAKER 53517 The time had expired, but there was a question just at the end about Labor again. I just remind members to put the question in before the 30-second mark. If there are some after that, that's okay, but the question needs to be in before the 30-second mark. The question needs to be in within 30 seconds. The SPEAKER 53517 Order, the member for McEwen! The Prime Minister has the call. 14:09 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler That mess of a question was messier than the last government. They actually workshop these things in a meeting, and come out and put it in writing, that word salad that I'm asked. To return to the issue of middle Australia and our commitments that we made, we promised that 1.2 million families would pay less for child care. Are we delivering that? Government members: Yes, absolutely! Mr ALBANESE R36 We promised that Australians would pay less for their medicine. Are we delivering that? Government members: Yes! Mr ALBANESE R36 We promised to boost bulk-billing and to strengthen Medicare. Are we delivering that? Government members: Yes! Mr ALBANESE R36 We promised to rebuild manufacturing and establish a National Reconstruction Fund. Are we delivering that? Government members: Yes, absolutely! Mr ALBANESE R36 We promised a royal commission on robodebt. And boy have we delivered that! We promised to increase the minimum wage. Was that delivered? Government members: Yes, absolutely! Mr ALBANESE R36 We promised to look after aged-care workers. Was that delivered? Government members: Yes! Mr ALBANESE R36 We promised to lift wages. Was that delivered? Government members: Yes! Mr ALBANESE R36 We promised to have climate change targets of 43 per cent by 2030 and net zero by 2050. Was that delivered? Government members: Yes! Mr ALBANESE R36 We promised to have a safeguard mechanism. Has that been delivered? Government members: Yes! Mr ALBANESE R36 The truth is, we on this side did the hard work, in opposition, to develop policy to implement in government, policies deliberately aimed at middle Australia—to make a difference—after the wreck that we replaced, who were more concerned with themselves and, ever since the election, are more concerned with themselves still. The opposition leader, of course, has a meeting tomorrow. He may well not be here at two o'clock. I look forward to that. Economy 23 14:12 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby My question is to the Treasurer. How has the Albanese Labor government worked to build a stronger, fairer and more secure economy following years of neglect, and how will it continue this work in the months and years ahead? 14:12 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I thank the member for Boothby for her question and congratulate her on her first year of giving the people of Boothby the representation that they need and deserve in that really lovely part of Adelaide. Australians have every right to be proud of what our nation has achieved together over the past 12 months: the most jobs created under a new government on record, and unemployment near a 50-year low. Wages have started moving again after nearly a decade of stagnation and deliberate suppression. We have begun the hard yards of repairing our nation's finances, not as an end in themselves but as a foundation for everything we want to do for our people. We know that Australians are under the pump, and that's what motivates the Albanese government each and every day as we work to take some of the edge off these cost-of-living pressures without adding to inflation and as we clear away the wreckage and the debris of a wasted decade in this country. We are delivering, as the Prime Minister said, cheaper early childhood education, cheaper medicines, cheaper education with fee-free TAFE. We are expanding paid parental leave. We're taking the sting out of energy price rises, through price caps, while providing bill rebates to more than five million households and a million small businesses. We're increasing the base rate for payments like JobSeeker, youth allowance and Austudy. We successfully advocated for wage increases for minimum and award wage workers and funded pay rises for those in the aged-care sector as well, and we are increasing the maximum rate of Commonwealth rent assistance by 15 per cent—its biggest increase in over three decades. At the same time as we've delivered this responsible cost-of-living relief, we are laying the foundations for future growth by investing in skills and training and supporting businesses to innovate and grow so that we can ensure our economy manages and maximises some of the big shifts that are underway—like the growth of the care economy, the possibilities of data and digital, and the vast industrial and economic opportunities of net zero. This month's budget was an important part of pursuing our economic agenda, but there's more to be done in the months ahead: a wellbeing framework, an intergenerational report, an employment white paper and more work to be done on financial market reform and sustainable finance as well. A year ago today, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and a handful of us were sworn in for the first time. We are grateful for the opportunity to serve the Australian people and to do what we can to strengthen their economy. There is lots we can be proud of from our first 12 months, but we do know that a lot of Australians are doing a tough, and we do know that there's plenty more work to do to strengthen our economy and to deliver more opportunities for more Australians in more parts of our great country. Coalmining Industry 23 14:15 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. Last week the World Meteorological Organization warned global temperatures could reach 1.5 degrees in the next five years while at the same time you approved a new export coal mine in Queensland that will reportedly produce 500,000 tons of coal a year and destroy koala habitat. Minister, why is Labor approving new coal mines in the middle of a climate emergency, and how many more coal and gas projects will you approve in the coming months? 14:15 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I want to thank the member for her question, and I want to say how proud I am to be part of a government that is acting on climate change—the first government to take serious action on climate change. It's been really instructive watching those on the crossbench line up with the Liberals and Nationals all too often to prevent and delay that action. On this side, we want to transition to renewable energy. We are looking for a renewable energy target of 82 per cent by 2030 because it's cheaper and because it's better for the environment. Those opposite engaged in a lost decade of climate action. In contrast, I have approved 11 renewable energy projects since taking government, at more than twice the rate of those opposite. In fact, as well as those renewable energy projects that we have approved, I've got 101 additional renewable energy projects in the pipeline that will come before me for approval in coming months. I am also, incidentally, the first environment minister in Australian history to reject a coal mine, so you might remember that when you are thinking this stuff. I am very proud of what we on this side are doing to become a renewable energy superpower. We are catching up on a wasted decade by legislating emissions reduction of 43 per cent by 2030 and zero net emissions by 2050. We invested $2 billion for green hydrogen in the last budget because we know that that will help make us a renewable energy superpower exporter. We've got $1.6 billion for home and small business electrification in the budget. We passed the safeguard mechanism, which will see emissions come down. We've got $20 billion for Rewiring the Nation, upgrading our transmission lines, because those opposite were so hopeless for 10 years that our transmission network can't cope with all of the renewable energy that we want to put into the network. We've got $3 billion in the National Reconstruction Fund for clean energy projects, green steel, green aluminium, green industrial chemicals— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will resume her seat. The Leader of the Australian Greens on a point of order. Mr Bandt M3C Yes, Mr Speaker, on relevance. There is 30 seconds to go, and the minister hasn't once mentioned that new coal mine that she approved that was the subject of the question. The SPEAKER 53517 The question was also about government policy and reports and koala habitats and projects, to which the minister is being relevant. If she strays, she will be pulled into line, but at the moment she's being directly relevant. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M It's a shame we've only got 30 seconds left because we've got a lot more on this side of the ledger of what we are doing to protect the environment, including signing up to the Global Methane Pledge, legislating for better ozone protections, changing our Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to better protect nature, investing in electric cars and all of those things that will see us reduce emissions on this side. Medicare 24 14:19 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. How is the Albanese Labor government undoing previous attacks on Medicare and making it easier for Australians to see a doctor? 14:19 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the member for Tangney for his question. He knows that, after nine years of cuts and neglect of Medicare, it has never been harder than it is today to see a doctor. He also knows the pressure on bulk-billing rates in WA, because they are some of the most severe anywhere in the country. That's why he campaigned so hard on our promise to strengthen Medicare. Our budget two weeks ago delivered on that promise, with $6 billion in new investments to strengthen Medicare, including the centrepiece—an initiative to triple the bulk-billing incentive, which is what we in Labor describe as the beating heart of Medicare. I was delighted to have the opportunity last week to meet with the member for Tangney and a number of doctors in Willetton in his electorate and talk about the difference that that initiative would make to the 74,000 people who live in his electorate who are eligible for the bulk-billing incentive. The member for Tangney also knows that the challenge in finding a doctor is often most acute when someone in your family needs urgent care—when your kid falls off a skateboard and breaks their arm or when there's a deep laceration that needs urgent stitching. These non-life-threatening emergencies could quite adequately be dealt with out in the community in a primary care setting. Instead, we know that every year in Australia there are more than four million presentations to emergency departments classified as non-urgent or semi-urgent, many of which could be dealt with in a primary care setting. This means more pressure on hospital emergency departments and it means patients waiting for hours and hours to get treatment that they should be able to get in the community. That is why Labor committed to funding 50 urgent care clinics across Australia, including one around Murdoch in the member for Tangney's electorate. It will be open seven days a week for extended hours, from 8 am to 10 pm. It will be open for walk-in patients and, most importantly, it will be fully bulk-billed. All you will have to take is your Medicare card. Last week I visited the first site in Perth with the Minister for Early Childhood Education and the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister. Over coming weeks more sites will be announced. All 58 clinics will be up and delivering services over the course of this year, which we promised in the election. We have received huge support from states and territories, who are now driving many of the expression-of-interest processes. There is huge interest by general practices who want to take their practice to the next level. They are submitting tenders under this process. Our network of fully bulk-billed urgent care clinics is going to make it easier to get out in the community the care you need when you need it. They're going to take pressure off hospital emergency departments across Australia. It's all part of Labor's plan to strengthen Medicare. Roads 25 14:23 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories. Will the minister guarantee that the life-saving Roads to Recovery Program will remain in existence? 14:23 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro It is a very important question and it has a very simple answer: yes. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister for international development will not interject. Defence 25 14:23 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. What mess did the Albanese Labor government inherit in the Defence portfolio and what actions has it taken to address this over the past 12 months in order to keep Australians safe? 14:24 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I thank the member for his question. It was great to be with him on Friday at the 150th Ipswich Show. A year ago today the Albanese government took office. It has been a transformational 12 months for our nation's security because this time last year it was all very different. Under the former government, Australia was drifting through a sea of broken relationships with great powers, with friends, with countries which should be our friends and with our region. There was a culture of making grand defence announcements on the basis of absolutely nothing—$42 billion worth of defence programs without a cent behind them. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Nationals will cease interjecting. Mr MARLES HWQ And, when those opposite did spend money, they were completely out of control—28 different defence programs running a combined 97 years over time. They worked out that the world had become a complicated place, but they were incapable of making the difficult decisions to give rise to a strategic response, and that's because the defence ministry was a revolving door: six—really seven—different defence ministers during the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat. The— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Opposition is entitled to raise a point of order. Mr Dutton 00AKI Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's on relevance. There's no mention yet of AUKUS and the relationship with the US and the UK delivered during that period. The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. Mr Dutton 00AKI It'd be relevant to— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! There is far too much noise. The Deputy Prime Minister in continuation. Mr MARLES HWQ In 9½ years, there were 24 different ministers in the Defence portfolio, because they saw being defence minister as a trophy and they saw the Defence Force as simply an opportunity to raise money for the Liberal Party. Well, all of that has completely changed. In our first 100 days in office, we commissioned the Defence Strategic Review, and the government's response to it has recast our Defence Force for the first time in 35 years, giving it a clear direction for a new strategic posture, because we are able to make the difficult decision to prioritise money where it's needed most. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Nationals is warned. Mr MARLES HWQ We now do have a pathway for acquiring a nuclear powered submarine capability, with the first Australian flagged submarine in the water a full decade earlier than was anticipated this time last year. We are growing the defence budget significantly beyond what those opposite provided, and we are completely transforming our standing in the world, being treated far more seriously by our allies and beginning the process of stabilising our relationship with China. But there is much more to be done, because this is long-term policy which actually requires application and follow-through. We know there are going to be many more difficult decisions ahead, but we're up for that because we understand the consequence of this moment and we are completely committed to giving this country a government which will keep it safe. Infrastructure 26 14:27 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield My question is to the Prime Minister. In the May budget, the government has made cuts to infrastructure and referred hundreds of congestion-busting projects to yet another review, yet the government's own budget papers say a further 1.5 million people will come to Australia over five years. Why is this government putting at risk projects like upgrades to the M5 Motorway and the Western Sydney Airport Metro rail? The SPEAKER 53517 The minister for immigration will cease interjecting. Government members interjecting — The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right, there is far too much noise. A general warning to members on my right has now been issued. The Prime Minister will be heard in silence. 14:28 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I'm asked a question about infrastructure. I'm asked a question, as well, about infrastructure around Badgerys Creek airport, remarkably, from a minister who presided over the purchase of land that had been valued at $3 million for over $30 million. I would have thought that, if there were one word that should never pass that former minister's lips, it is 'Leppington', because Leppington is a great reminder of how hopeless they were in delivering value for money. If you want to look at why you would have a review of projects where they paid more than 10 times as much as land had been valued at, that is a great example. We on this side of the House, of course, in the budget have our infrastructure commitments that we made, all of which will be delivered. We had, previously, the absurd question about Roads to Recovery— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Manager of Opposition Business has asked his question. Mr ALBANESE R36 which is funded in the budget in the budget papers. We are a government that have always delivered for local government. We believe, indeed, that local government is best placed to deliver community infrastructure because they can determine what local priorities are. They have proper auditing procedures. It's far better than setting up a committee of a few people sitting around with colour coded spreadsheets deciding where taxpayers' money would be used. That's what they did. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. The SPEAKER 53517 The Minister for Home Affairs will cease interjecting, so I can hear from the Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Fletcher L6B On relevance: the question is about the M5 Motorway and Western Sydney airport metro rail. It was not about local government and local projects. I would have thought this Prime Minister, of all people, should know the difference between local infrastructure and major road and rail projects. The SPEAKER 53517 The question was also about budget cuts to infrastructure and other projects. I'm listening carefully to the Prime Minister, and I'll make sure he stays relevant to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 These projects are actually under construction. They're funded. The money has been forwarded, of course, our portion, to the New South Wales government for those important projects. But I make this point: when I became infrastructure minister I inherited 12 years of the Howard government. It's really easy to recognise the big change that occurred, which was: instead of $0 being spent for not a single urban rail project anywhere in Australia over 12 years, we increased rail funding by more than 10 times. I make this point about their performance on infrastructure: Inland Rail, originally costed at under $10 billion, has been costed at $31 billion, without going to a port anywhere—literally inland! It won't deliver anything to a port. (Time expired) Mining Industry 26 14:32 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce My question is to the Minister for Resources. How has the Albanese Labor government delivered for the critical minerals industry in its first year? 14:32 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand Thanks to the member for Pearce for her question and for her ongoing and enduring support for the resources sector of this country. This government recognises the role of critical minerals in our net zero ambitions and the role critical minerals will play in helping Australia and the world to decarbonise. As I have said before, the road to net zero runs through Australia's resources sector. Over these past 12 months since the election, the Albanese government has been delivering in spades for the Australian critical minerals sector. Last weekend the Prime Minister met with President Biden and enhanced Australia's relationship with the US by establishing climate, critical minerals and clean energy, alongside defence and economic cooperation, as the third pillar of the Australia-United States alliance. This is encapsulated in the Climate, Critical Minerals and Clean Energy Transformation Compact signed by the Prime Minister and the President last week. As part of this compact, I'll gladly be spearheading a new Australia-US task force on critical minerals that will fast track critical minerals supply chain development between our two countries. This task force will be administered by my department, in cooperation with the US National Security Council. This is a very important step and a significant step for the critical minerals and rare earths industry of this nation. That's just one of the many ways this government is helping to build the critical minerals industry in this country since taking power. We've also entered into agreements on investment and development of critical minerals and rare elements with Japan, the United Kingdom, Germany, Korea, France and India. And it does not end there. I recently announced close to $50 million in grants to 13 projects across Australia as part of the second tranche of the Critical Minerals Development Program. Those grants are expected to drive up to $120 million of private sector investment and support up to 900 jobs, including around 100 roles for First Nations Australians. These projects will produce critical minerals— The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, if she interjects again, will be warned. Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 such as cobalt, graphite, high-purity alumina, tungsten and rare earths and provide key inputs into strategic supply chains. The support for the sector does not stop there. We also in the recent budget announced $57 million for the international partnerships program, aimed at securing strategic and commercial partnerships, and $23 million to extend the operation of the all-important Critical Minerals Office. This is in addition to the government's $1 billion Value-Adding in Resources fund that is part of the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund, which those opposite failed to support. The National Reconstruction Fund will support the development of our critical minerals, which those opposite used to say they support. In abandoning the space in supporting the National Reconstruction Fund they have also abandoned the critical minerals sector of this country. The SPEAKER 53517 I give the call to the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher L6B The minister referred to a number of documents in her answer. She referred to a compact. She referred to agreements with Japan, Korea and so on. Will the minister table those documents? The SPEAKER 53517 I'll hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW To the point of order: the standing order in reference to Practice is if somebody is reading from a document, not whether they mention it. The SPEAKER 53517 I'll hear from the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Dutton 00AKI It's a serious issue, and there's a history in this parliament: where ministers read verbatim every word from a document they should table that document. I would ask you to ask her to table that document. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I was listening carefully to the minister. She was talking about the reports. I don't believe she was reading directly from the reports. Was the minister reading from confidential documents? Infrastructure 27 14:36 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders My question is to the Prime Minister. In the May budget the government made further cuts to infrastructure and referred hundreds of congestion-busting projects to yet another infrastructure review. Yet the government's own budget papers say a further 1.5 million people will come to Australia over five years. Why is this government putting at risk projects like the Melbourne Airport rail line, where work has now been halted? 14:37 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I'm very pleased to get a question about infrastructure from the member for Flinders. She has a look at the budget papers. There are no cuts in the budget papers. The dollars remain attached. Why don't you have a look at the budget papers? Whoever gave you that question—I think the tactics committee need to reconsider their strategy. As the Treasurer said, the next level from asking me questions about infrastructure will be asking me questions about the South Sydney rugby league football club. Workplace Relations 28 14:38 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to close the labour hire loophole that currently lets employers undercut workers' pay? 14:38 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I want to thank the member for Hunter for the question. I also want to thank him for taking me out to Mount Thorley last week to meet with miners there. I also thank the member for Hunter, just like his neighbour the member for Paterson, for being tireless in fighting for the wages and conditions of mineworkers. When I was there last week one of the workers I met with had only recently become a permanent employee of the company. He'd worked for 10 years as a labour hire employee. He didn't blame the company for this. He said that it's all over the industry and if it's going to be fixed it has to be fixed everywhere. One of the things he said to me was: 'It's a bit ridiculous. I was doing the same job as the person I was working beside, with rubbish conditions, and being paid less.' This is because of a labour hire loophole where, in this industry, the casuals—you normally think of casuals in terms of casual loading—doing the exact same work don't just lose security; they're even on a lower hourly rate than the permanent workers they're working beside. I know there's been some interest in this in the newspapers over the last couple of days. One business has claimed that they've calculated exactly how much closing the labour hire loophole will cost them. Given that we haven't finalised the legislation, I'm not sure how they did the calculation. But my favourite part was a headline today. It began with the words 'union admits.' I thought, oh, no. Whenever you see the word 'admits,' you think, okay, this will be trouble. Mr Dutton 00AKI Could it be corruption? Could it be the CFMEU? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr BURKE DYW And here's what it said, 'Admits Labor policy aims to drive up pay.' They've got us! Labor policy aims to drive up pay. That's exactly why we're determined to close the Labor loophole, and it's exactly why those opposite are so determined to keep the loophole. They've never seen a tax loophole that they didn't want to keep forever, and they've never seen a loophole that drives down wages that they didn't want to defend just as earnestly. The Manager of Opposition Business has described this as a made-up issue. That's his description of it. Well, it's not a made-up issue if you're a casual working side by side and being paid less. It's not a made-up issue for two workers with the same expertise, on the same job, with the same classification, one being played less than the other. For them, it's not a made-up issue. For the mine workers dealing with this, it's not a made-up issue, and for the government that's determined to act, this is a loophole we're determined to close. Universities 28 14:41 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark My question is to the Minister for Education. Minister, you'd recall that last year I challenged you about skyrocketing HECS-HELP indexation charges, and you committed to having the Universities Accord panel look at it. Here we are 10 months later, and charges are set to rise further by a record 7.1 per cent. Minister, in the circumstances, will you freeze the indexation, at least until the Universities Accord final report is delivered in December? 14:41 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I thank the member for Clark for his question. You're right; I made a commitment to get the accord team to look at that, and they're doing that. The accord team will report at the end of June with its interim report and provide a final report to me at the end of December. The short answer to your question is no, we have made no change to HECS in the budget. What we've done in the budget is to provide extra support to students through an increase in youth allowance and Austudy and extra support through an increase in rental assistance. That will help a lot of students with the cost of living. More generally, HECS has helped millions and millions of Australians get to university and get a university degree. When I was a little kid, only about seven per cent of Australians had a university degree. When most of us were knee-high to a grasshopper, very few Australians had a university degree. We're a different country today. Almost one in two Australians in their thirties has a university degree, and a big part of that is because of HECS, which has helped to fund an increase in the number of students going to university. But that's not true everywhere. In the member for Clark's electorate, it's only about 30 per cent. Where I grew up in Cabramatta, it's about the same. In the member for McMahon's electorate, it's less than that. Only 25 per cent of people there have a university degree. In the Treasurer's electorate, it's lower still, only about 19 per cent, and even lower in the bush. And it's an order of magnitude less for our Indigenous brothers and sisters; only seven per cent have a university degree. This is what we've got to fix. The cost of university degrees is important, and the cost of living is important, but the cost of those kids from those communities missing out is important too. This is what we've got to fix. This, at its core, is what the Universities Accord will be all about. Vocational Education and Training 29 14:43 Ms DOYLE 299962 Aston My question is to the Minister for Skills and Training. What has been the uptake of the Albanese Labor government's fee-free TAFE policy? What has been the response? 14:44 Mr O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I thank the member for Aston for her question. I congratulate her on her election and thank her for her support for the VET sector. In fact, it wasn't that long ago that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Early Childhood Education and I accompanied the member for Aston to Swinburne university to talk to students about enrolment in TAFE courses and what it means by removing cost barriers by having fee-free TAFE arrangements. They were saying to us that, as a result of this initiative, they were enrolling in large numbers. We of course were aware upon election we had a trillion dollars of Liberal Party debt, but we also had a massive skills deficit across the economy. Wherever you looked, whatever profession, whatever trade, whatever sector of the economy, we had shortages. It was for that reason we announced at the Jobs and Skills Summit 180,000 fee-free TAFE and vet places, and I'm happy to inform the House today that 150,000 of those places have been filled. They have been filled by people across this country. Of those enrolled, 60 per cent are women and 30 per cent are in courses in the care economy. That's a sector of our economy that is absolutely in dire need of supply of labour and skills, and we're seeing it because of the enrolment in these courses. Now, it is true to say that not everyone agrees with this approach. The opposition has said that initiatives like this are a waste of money. Tell that to students in these TAFE courses that would not have enrolled in these courses if it weren't for this initiative. Frankly, that is not true. In fact, in speaking to businesses, we hear them say they are crying out for skills. They understand we have to encourage students to enrol. You just heard the Minister for Education talk about the need for us to increase the opportunities for people to go into higher education. So too with the vet sector: we have to improve our opportunities here. We have the largest skill shortage in the last five decades. We're responding to that in a number of ways, and I'm happy to say it is improving. Can I say by way of example—and we've met many students in this situation—New South Wales students in hospitality courses would have to find an extra $4,000 to enrol in those courses. Queensland students in aged care would have to find over $2,000. South Australian cybersecurity students would have to find over $6,000 in an area that's in critical demand in our economy, and if we did not have this initiative we would not be supplying these skills. It's therefore critical that we do that and do more. For that reason, this government is working with state and territory governments to add to this initiative. We're now planning 300,000 further fee-free TAFE and VET places for the VET sector so we can supply the skills that this economy needs. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 29 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS St Mary's Primary School Crookwell 29 14:47 The 53517 SPEAKER (): I'm pleased to inform the House that today we've had students visiting from St Mary's Primary School Crookwell, in the member for Hume's electorate. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 29 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Housing 29 14:47 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin My question is to the Minister for Housing. The government's own budget papers say a further 1.5 million people will come to Australia over five years, but Labor's half-baked Housing Australia Future Fund is only promising to provide 30,000 homes over that same five-year period. Where will the other 1.47 million people live? 14:47 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I thank the member opposite for his question and for another opportunity to talk about our ambitious housing agenda. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Deakin has asked his question. Ms COLLINS HWM I would say to the member opposite that we know that under their plan migration would have been higher than is being predicted in the budget. Ms O'Neil 140590 That's exactly right. He left out that bit! The SPEAKER 53517 The Minister for Home Affairs is warned. Ms COLLINS HWM Indeed, the member for Wannon over here just last year said: Well, we need to get our international students back, we need to get our working holiday visa maker visa holders back. We've got to … get all those people back as soon as we can. That shows that they actually wanted more people here. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will pause. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker will cease interjecting. I'll hear from the member for Deakin. Mr Sukkar 242515 Mr Speaker, I appreciate we're only 30 seconds into the question, but my question did not invite a comparison. I want the minister to answer the question, and she should refer to the 1.5 million migrants that Labor is bringing in. The SPEAKER 53517 The question was also talking about Labor's policy. I'm going to invite the minister to return to that part of the question. She is being directly relevant. It was a broad question. If you include statements about Labor's policy, or however you describe that, that means the minister can refer to Labor policy as part of the answer. I give the call to the minister, and I will be listening carefully to what she says. Ms COLLINS HWM I'm very happy to talk about the Housing Australia Future Fund, the fund that those opposite are opposing both down here, where they voted against it, and in the Senate, where they are still holding up a vote on it. That is 30,000 social and affordable rental homes that you are not supporting— Mr Sukkar 242515 Why did you drop 20,000 off? Ms Collins HWM that could be on the ground faster—homes for people that need them most. Mr Sukkar 242515 How are those million homes going? You don't mention them anymore. Honourable members interjecting — The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Deakin will cease interjecting. So will the member for Lalor. Ms COLLINS HWM We moved immediately by unlocking $575 million for more social and affordable rental homes. We had the National Housing Accord in our last budget, with funding for another 10,000 affordable homes, to be matched by the states and territories— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Bowman is warned. Ms COLLINS HWM to be matched by the states and territories with another 10,000 affordable homes—20,000 affordable homes coming out of the National Housing Accord. And, of course, in the last budget there was another $2 billion in financing for the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, which will be up to another 7,000 affordable rental homes. We are investing at every opportunity in more homes. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Deakin, if he interjects one more time, will leave the chamber. Ms COLLINS HWM The build-to-rent changes in the budget, the Property Council has said, will be between 150,000 and 200,000 additional units here in Australia because of changes that our government made. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Bowman will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Bowman then left the chamber. Ms COLLINS HWM Those opposite had no plan when it comes to housing. We have a plan, and the Housing Australia Future Fund is part of that. It's critical to it in terms of building capacity in the community housing sector and leveraging institutional investment. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Nationals is on a warning. Ms COLLINS HWM We want this fund to get through the Senate, and every day of delay is the fault of senators in your party and the Greens party. These are homes for people that need them most. These are homes for women and children fleeing family violence. They're homes for older women at risk of homelessness and homes for our veterans who are at risk of homelessness. The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned. Ms COLLINS HWM We want to get more homes on the ground more quickly, and you are standing in the way of that. We're about to go out to consultation for our National Housing and Homelessness Plan. The other side really need to get out of the way when it comes to the Housing Australia Future Fund. We have a comprehensive, ambitious plan. It is being supported by every state and territory housing minister. It's being supported by the housing peaks. It's being supported by the HIA and by the Master Builders association. Our Housing Australia Future Fund is being supported by everybody, it seems, except the Liberal senators and the Greens senators. It is being supported because it's a good idea to get more investment into housing right across the country. Environment 31 14:51 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. After a decade of neglect on the environment, how is the Albanese Labor government protecting more of what's precious, restoring more of what's damaged and managing nature better for our kids and for our grandkids? 14:52 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney No government in Australian history has done more for the environment than the Albanese Labor government, and there is no member in this place who is more committed to environmental action than the member for Fremantle. So I thank him for his question. Opposition members i nterjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! There is far too much noise on my left. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M We are investing more in nature in this budget than has ever been invested in nature in any Australian budget in the past. We are spending more on nature than has ever been spent before, because we want to protect more of what's precious, restore more of what's damaged and manage nature better for the future. In our first 12 months, we've passed our net-zero legislation. We're setting up our new environmental protection agency and reforming our national environmental laws. That means stronger protection for nature. It also means faster decisions for business. It also means a tougher cop on the beat. We've approved a record number of renewable energy projects. As I said, we've doubled the number that those opposite previously approved. We've also doubled funding to our national parks—precious places like Kakadu, Uluru and Booderee. Of course that's great for nature, but it's also great for jobs—hundreds of extra regional jobs in tourism and nature protection, many of those done by First Nations Australians. We're delivering on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan after a decade of sabotage by those opposite. I delivered more environmental water in my first nine months than those opposite did in nine years. We're planning to triple the size of the Macquarie Island Marine Park. We're protecting endangered penguins and whales. We're also protecting the sustainable fishery operating down there. We're funding 48 new recycling facilities, of which 12 are already up and running. There is more funding for recycling through the CEFC and through the National Reconstruction Fund. We're investing $1.2 billion in the Great Barrier Reef, and we have doubled funding for marine science. We're also proclaiming 10 new Indigenous protected areas. We're doubling the number of Indigenous rangers. We're establishing a new nature repair market. We've nominated Murujuga for World Heritage listing. We're working on a listing for Cape York as well. We're protecting koalas—the threatened plants and animals and places that make Australia special. Isn't it incredible that, under those opposite, we're now at a situation where koalas are endangered on the east coast of Australia! Who ever thought we'd get there? Ms P 83M We're looking after our urban rivers, we're looking after our environment for our kids and our grandkids so we can leave— (Time expired) The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has continually interjected during question time, and particularly during that last answer. If she interjects one more time she'll leave the chamber under 94(a). Ms Plibersek 83M They're very nasty, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister for the environment will also cease interjecting. Climate Change 31 14:55 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah My question is to the Prime Minister. Contrary to the misleading statement made earlier about climate policy by the environment minister, it's the Albanese government that voted with the coalition to frack the Beetaloo basin and to expand gas expansion, even more harmful to short-term global warming with methane emissions. Recent warnings predict we are going to tip over 1.5 degrees by 2027. Do you accept that it is greenwashing to approve new coal and gas projects when the advice is clear that this must stop? 14:56 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Warringah for her question. I acknowledge the fact that she has a genuine commitment to act on climate change with the majority of this parliament, but the leadership for that is coming, of course, from government because it's governments that change policy, it's governments that change direction of the country and it's this government that inherited more than a decade of denial, delay and neglect when it came to climate change. This government was elected with a platform of 43 per cent reduction by 2030, and we delivered that legislation and that target. This government was elected with a platform of net zero by 2050, and we delivered that. This government was elected with a platform of making renewables 82 per cent of our renewable energy market by 2030, and if you look at what has happened to investment in renewables since we were elected, that is happening. Why it's happening is that we have provided investment certainty through the safeguard mechanism that was also delivered by this government. In addition to that, we signed the methane pledge at the UNFCCC meeting that was held in December of last year. Just on the weekend, in conjunction with the G7 countries meeting in Japan, I engaged constructively with Germany about the opportunity that is there for hydrogen; with the United Kingdom about the opportunity that is there for exchange of critical minerals, and renewables as well; and with Prime Minister Modi, who we'll have further discussions with tomorrow about our renewable energy partnership and what is possible for the benefit of both our countries going forward. We continue also to engage with the United States, which through its Inflation Reduction Act, has by far the most significant investment by any government in driving down emissions not just in the United States but globally as well. The arrangements that we have, which will enable much more cross-fertilisation of engagement through the changes that President Biden is putting forward to Congress, will open up opportunities for business. What we understand is that good action on climate is good for our economy and good for jobs. That's why we're delivering it and that's why this government, including our energy minister and our environment minister, will continue to deliver that better future by acting on climate change. Migration 32 14:59 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. How has the Albanese Labor government's approach to our migration system addressed the immediate challenges for businesses and workers, and how is this laying the foundations for a better future for all Australians? 14:59 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I thank the member for Holt for the question. I recognise her keen interest in immigration policy and also her deep understanding of what the mess left by those opposite means for her community and the aspirations that she's been standing up for in this place so strongly for the last year. When the borders were closed, those opposite had a great opportunity, a once-in-a-generation opportunity, to examine and re-orientate our immigration system so it was working for all Australians. But what did they do? A government member: Nothing. Mr GILES 243609 'Nothing' is generous. It was worse than that. They told people who were here to 'go home'. They cut visa and migration staff by 20 per cent. What they did, in walking away from their responsibility for the immigration function of national government, was leave a terrible mess. A terrible individual mess but also a mess that impacts every Australian and every Australian community today. There were nearly a million visas waiting for us. Members opposite should think about this when they think about some of the comments they make about the challenges this government is dealing with. There were nearly a million visa applications unattended. They should think about that. Today that number is down by 40 per cent; and 70 per cent lower in the temporary visa system. We also understand that our migration system has got to work with, not opposed to, the other ways in which we regulate our labour market and, particularly, the work that's being done by ministers Clare and O'Connor in the education and skills space, instead of running in the opposite direction, as it did for more than a decade, running down our future. The member for New England should reflect on his role in running down our future, I reckon, because he is a gold-medal performer in that regard. Today, businesses, migrants and families around Australia have certainty when they use the visa system. Waiting times are down, particularly for health and education visas, where regional communities in particular are benefiting. The former government left nearly 20,000 skilled regional visa applications pending. These were people who were living and working in regional communities who were left behind by those opposite. We didn't stop at that. We also tripled the number of skilled regional visa places, to recognise there are real issues in regional communities. Unlike those opposite, we're not talking about it; we're getting on with fixing the problem. Zero agricultural visas were granted by those opposite. I don't know if anything was talked about more by those opposite than the ag visa. That delivered not a single visa place. On the other hand, we are getting on with the job. We've got bridging visas down. Bridging visas, a sign of a system in chaos, are now down by more than 50 per cent, because we recognise the critical role of immigration in building our economy and supporting Australian communities. (Time expired) Aged Care 33 15:02 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. Already, 23 aged-care homes have closed under this government, compared to 300 that were opened under the former coalition government. This follows the Albanese Labor government's decision to implement the royal commission's recommendations and impose rigid constraints on the sector. Will the government now make a commitment to expanding the exemption criteria until the current workforce crisis has been addressed? 15:03 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley I cannot believe that those opposite, of all weeks, would choose this week to try to lecture the government on management and funding of the aged-care system and to suggest, to dare to criticise us for trying to pull every single lever we have at our disposal to try and lift the standard of aged care as quickly as humanly possible—to walk into this chamber and criticise us for trying to take that action to lift the standard of care for residents. It is unfathomable that they have learnt nothing. After neglecting the sector for nine long years, they walk in now and criticise the people left cleaning up their mess. It's a workforce crisis that was formed on their watch. It's a workforce crisis that has taken 12 months to address through working on migration settings with the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, the Minister for Home Affairs, the Minister for Skills and Training, the Minister for Education, the Minister for Health and Aged Care, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. Every single minister has had to spend time cleaning up their mess to address the crisis in aged care. And they've seriously walked in today to say, 'You're doing it too fast. You're cleaning up the mess too quickly. How dare you try and address a crisis in an urgent manner.' Unbelievable! Yet here we are, after 12 months, with them having learned nothing. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will resume her seat. The member for Gellibrand is warned. The member for Deakin, the member for Moncrieff, the member for New England and the member for Banks are continually interjecting. You are not sitting in your correct seats, so if you do that one more time you will be removed. I will give the call to the member for Durack. Ms Price 249308 Thank you, on relevance. The whole of Australia wants to know: is the government going to expand the exemption criteria? Can the minister please address that issue. The SPEAKER 53517 The question contained information regarding the royal commission and the issue of aged-care facilities being closed. I'll ask the minister to return to the question. She is being relevant. I will listen carefully for the remaining half of her answer. Ms WELLS 264121 I agree the whole of Australia wants us to fix aged care. That, I agree with. I agree the whole of Australia went to the election last year and voted for a government that would actually take the aged-care crisis seriously. That, I agree with. I agree that the whole of Australia considered the two offerings from each of the two parties of government and said, 'We trust Labor to address this crisis and to try and lift the standard of aged care in this country.' Mr Sukkar 242515 Do your job! Ms WELLS 264121 Having had 15 long months with the final report of the royal commission into aged care, having chosen to address only nine of 148 recommendations, when the opposition raises the 24/7 nursing policy, they don't have a stance on a 24/7 nursing policy. They don't have a position on 24/7 nurses. They walk in here, having not used 15 months to address the problem and still do not have a position on an aged-care 24/7 nursing policy. They didn't do it. They didn't fund it. They didn't roll it out. They didn't address the workforce crisis that dawned on their watch. We are addressing a workforce crisis that stems from 2017, $2.5 billion worth of funding cuts that they chose to make, which set in place a rolling crisis of neglect, addressed by a royal commission. Even now, they walk into this chamber and say, 'We see that you are urgently acting to address the crisis. How dare you do it so quickly? How dare you act so quickly?' (Time expired) The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Deakin was continually interjecting during that answer. He will leave the chamber under 94(a). Veterans 34 15:07 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. How has the Albanese Labor government improved support for veterans in its first 12 months? 15:08 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt I thank the member for Hasluck for her question and congratulate her on her first 12 months as the member for Hasluck. It's been fantastic having her as part of team WA on this side of the chamber. All Australians can be proud of what we've achieved for veterans together over the course of the last year. Supporting defence personnel, veterans and families is one of the key priorities of the Albanese Labor government. When we came into government, the Department of Veterans' Affairs was chronically underfunded and under-resourced. That has had serious consequences for veterans. The former secretary of the department made that clear in estimates last year—that the department, based on resourcing constraints from the previous government, would have never cleared the veterans compensation backlog. We've now turned that around. In September last year, the claims backlog was upward of 45,000. Now we're down to about 36,000, a 20 per cent drop from the peak. That's due to the investment of the Albanese Labor government. We're delivering $322.3 million to employ and retain additional staff in DVA, to get through the backlog and make sure it never happens again; $341.1 million to fund the modernisation and sustainment of ICT systems that the former government left to degenerate; $46.7 million to fund the delivery of 10 veterans and families hubs across the country, unlike the opposition who announced hubs and then didn't fund them; and a $24-million veteran employment program. We fixed the backlog in paying invoices to those that provide services to veterans. We have increased the annual totally and permanently incapacitated payments by $1,000. We've enhanced crisis support for working-age veteran families and extended this to grandcarer veteran families. We've improved access to mental health supports, including $22 million to extend the PTSD therapy dog program and $2 million to continue mental health awareness and suicide intervention training. Veterans will also be able to better access GPs with the tripling of the veterans access payment. We have expanded defence homeownership for both defence personnel and veterans, and we're developing a Defence and Veteran Family Support Strategy. Vitally, we've acted on all 13 recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide interim report, including fixing staffing and resourcing in the department, bringing the claims backlog down, improving access to information for loved ones and breaking down the barriers that were deterring people from giving evidence to the royal commission. And we're reforming more than a century of veterans legislation, which has been an absolute nightmare for veterans and their families, by simplifying this into a single scheme. After just one year, we can now confirm that DVA is better funded than it has been in three decades. We will ensure we're laying the strongest possible foundations for a better future for our veterans. Budget 34 15:11 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. The Westpac consumer sentiment index reveals some 60 per cent of the falling consumer sentiment in May is attributed to the federal budget. Middle Australia is hurting. Why does Labor keep making it worse? The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Longman will leave the chamber under 94(a). I can't believe he even tried that one, honestly. The member for Longman then left the chamber. 15:11 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I thank the member for Bass for her question. We're proud of the budget we delivered 10 days ago. It's a budget that delivers for all Australians and delivers on our election commitments. It's a budget that ensures that, with a hard head, we're able to deliver in 12 months what this mob over here couldn't deliver in nine long years. That is a budget which is bringing the finances back under control. Because we did bring the finances back under control—something that they promised to do for over eight years but couldn't deliver on—we're able to have a budget that also has a big heart. It has a big heart to ensure that we can fix the mess that they left us on Medicare. When we came into government, Medicare had been flogged to within an inch of its life. We ensured that we are tripling the payments for bulk billing to ensure that those who most need it are able to get to see a doctor. We're making medicines more affordable. We're making child care more affordable. As the Minister for Aged Care has just demonstrated, in a masterclass on how to respond to the ridiculousness from those opposite, we are ensuring that not only are residents in aged care getting the treatment they need but the people who look after them are getting the pay that they deserve. Step after step after step, the budget that we have delivered is ensuring that we're delivering on our promises, building more sustainable finances and also building a fairer Australia, something that that mob on that side couldn't do in eight tawdry long years. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left will cease interjecting. There is far too much noise. Albanese Government 35 15:13 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm My question is to the Prime Minister. What are some of the actions the Albanese Labor government has taken during its first year in office to create a stronger foundation for a better future, and how will the government build on this over the next two years? 15:14 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Chisholm for her question, and I thank her for the contribution she made to us being able to sit on this side of the chamber by winning her seat on 21 May of last year. One year ago, Australians voted for change. The next day, we began the work of building a better future. By this day one year ago, we were heading to the Quad leaders meeting to reengage with the world, particularly the United States, Japan and India, to drive that change through with our renewed commitment to acting on climate change and engaging in our region. On election night I said that a government that I lead will have two important values: no-one left behind, because Labor will always stand up for the disadvantaged, but also no-one held back, because Labor is the party that believes in aspiration and opportunity for Australians. And I'm proud of what we've achieved in our first year. More jobs have been created in our first year than with any previous new government on record. Historic investments in Medicare, cheaper child care, fee-free TAFE, cheaper medicines, getting wages moving, acting on climate change—these are very strong foundations for the better future we promised. We know there is so much more work to do, and we don't take the privilege that we have—of being the government—for granted on any day. But we inherited a decade of delay, denial and inaction, a decade of division and chaos on the other side, where they had three different prime ministers over that period. So I know the opportunity to shape that future is a privilege, and Australia need us and have trusted us to keep investing in affordable housing, strengthening Medicare, creating more secure jobs, training Australians for those secure jobs and making more things here in Australia, powered by homegrown renewable energy. Importantly, we understand that facing our challenges and seizing those opportunities that are there depend on bringing the country together. We are a government with a sense of purpose. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Fairfax will leave the chamber if he interjects one more time. Mr ALBANESE R36 When it comes to creating and seizing those opportunities and engaging with the regions of the world, we'll continue to put forward a positive agenda. We'll continue to reject the sort of campaigns that we've seen reflected again in the nature of the questions that we've been asked today, where, at the same time as welcoming Prime Minister Modi and the Indian diaspora here, we have questions about people coming Australia to make Australia their home and the students who are coming here as well, which is a good thing, and that will be the message that I give as I give to other communities: that this is a great country and will be even better in the future. (Time expired) Mr ALBANESE R36 I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 35 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report No. 8 of 2022-23 35 15:17 The SPEAKER 53517 I present the Auditor-General's Audit report No. 24 of 2022-23 entitled Defence's management of the delivery of health services to the Australian Defence Force. Document made a parliamentary paper. DOCUMENTS 35 DOCUMENTS Presentation 35 15:17 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 36 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Albanese Government 36 15:17 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Gippsland proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government pausing and cancelling infrastructure projects at the same time as bringing 1.5 million more people to Australia. I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:18 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland What an orgy of self-congratulation we've experienced this week. The one-year anniversary of the Albanese government has proven that hubris and arrogance are more contagious than COVID itself. I'm not sure whether it was the Prime Minister or maybe the Treasurer who started the outbreak, but they've both been superspreaders, haven't they! The whole ministry has a case of long hubris. 'That's enough about me. Let's talk about you. What do you think about me?' One minister after another has strutted in here, strutted up to the dispatch box and, in that overdose of hubris and arrogance, they've pumped up their own tyres. It was like a clearance sale at the fig-jam factory! I thought I was trapped. I thought I was trapped in a Kath & Kim marathon—'Look at moi, look at moi, look at moi'—all preening themselves in front of the Prime Minister, auditioning for a job in the next reshuffle. But there was a notable exception. Someone actually missed out on getting a question on their own portfolio. Who was it? The poor Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government couldn't get a question from her own side on her own portfolio. I've been here for 15 years, and I've never seen anything like it after a budget. Just a couple of weeks after the budget, you'd expect the minister for infrastructure to be selling her achievements too. But then I read the Treasurer's speech again—I know, it's a lonely life in opposition when my night-time reading is the Treasurer's speech, but I read it again. I need to get out more often! There's not a single mention of the word 'infrastructure' in the entire speech made by the Treasurer on budget night. I know he couldn't say what those things were that we sell overseas or speak of high prices for things we sell overseas like coal, iron ore, gas or agriculture products. He couldn't say those naughty words, but I thought he'd say 'infrastructure'. No, he didn't mention infrastructure and he didn't even mention the word 'roads', not once. He didn't mention roads, so then it was obvious. It became obvious why the minister for infrastructure and transport couldn't get a question to tell us about her infrastructure achievements; she wouldn't be able to speak for three minutes. At a time when those opposite are opening the doors to another 1½ million new arrivals, they are actually cutting back funding for infrastructure in the communities that need to cope with and house the new arrivals. When you look at the budget papers and you listen to those opposite, there's one program in particular which has stood out as being a high-profile budget victim: the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program. This is the most mean-spirited part of the federal budget for rural and regional councils because it is one of the most successful programs of the coalition era. It was hugely popular among local councils. It has received no additional funding and has effectively been abolished; it's just going to run out of gas over the next couple of years. They are effectively robbing our regional councils and urban councils of an important source of funding for those pipelines of community projects which are so important in those small and regional areas in particular. Remember, under LRCIP, the federal coalition government actually gave power to local government. We let them set their own priorities. We trusted them to make decisions because we decided that they would be best placed to know what community infrastructure would be required in their communities, and not the bureaucrats here in Canberra. We saw things like sporting ground upgrades, new skate parks, pump tracks in my community of Gippsland, library improvements and road upgrades. They were all completed earlier because councils had more money and didn't have to rely completely on their rate base to get things done. It was good policy delivered well. Local governments loved it. Labor abolished it in the budget. Labor doesn't trust the democratically elected councils right across Australia to make the right choices. They would rather have those choices made by Canberra based bureaucrats. It's probably true that some of the urban councils won't notice it quite as much, but in those rural and regional areas it was an incredibly important part of their funding, and they are very disappointed and devastated by the fact that they won't be able to build that infrastructure going forward. In my electorate of Gippsland, which I know everyone would love to visit it one day, East Gippsland Shire received $16½ million, Shire of Wellington received $17 million and Latrobe City received $11 million. That was repeated right across Australia. Over the course of the program, multimillion-dollar contributions were made to community infrastructure. Every council received funding on top of their financial assistance grants, on top of Roads to Recovery and on top of black spot funding. It was new money. Now to my friend the member for Ballarat, the minister who can't get a question. Ballarat, the home municipality of the minister for infrastructure, Catherine King, received almost $11 million under the program. She was glowing with praise for the program. She turned up to the Ballarat tramway project last year. Minister King said at the time: This project is a great example of what the LRCI Program is all about—supporting locals to deliver projects with a great importance to the community. She loved it so much, she abolished it. By failing to fund LRCIP going forward, Labor is sending a message to our local councils: 'You simply can't be trusted with money, and we're going to make decisions. We're going to drag all the power back to Canberra, and we won't let you make decisions on local priorities.' I mentioned the minister for infrastructure's double standards. The hypocrisy of some of those opposite becomes more and more palpable every time we walk into this place. The minister for infrastructure comes in here, ridicules the previous government, attacks programs that delivered hundreds of millions of dollars across the community, makes a bunch of allegations and then sneaks out to open them. She takes credit and hopes no-one notices. Now, the minister for local government is here and she is sitting really quietly. I think I know why, because she does the same thing. The minister for local government is all about taking credit for coalition government announcements, coalition government commitments, coalition government projects actually delivered in her community. The minister for local government went to the Eden Killer Whale Museum. The Eden Killer Whale Museum received its biggest grant ever in 2019. Ms Price 249308 Who was that? Mr CHESTER IPZ I think it was the coalition government. That's right, the coalition government was in power at that point—$640,000 from the previous government. Even though she stands up here and attacks— Mr CHESTER IPZ You didn't want the 640? Okay. Even though the minister walks in here and attacks our regional grants programs, that did not stop the minister for local government turning up to the opening and taking credit for the $640,000 that she does not want any more, apparently. The minister said: The Australian Government is proud to have funded this expansion project, making it a reality for Eden. Now bigger, better and more accessible than ever, the Eden Killer Whale Museum is a real treat to visit and learn about the town's whaling history. She also said: I am thrilled to be here today to see this fantastic space and what our investment in critical regional tourism infrastructure means to the communities it benefits. Another minister loves the program, so let's abolish it. Let's get rid of it. It is not just members in this place, not just ministers, even senators get in on the act. Senator Raff Ciccone from Victoria went down to Gippsland. It was the first time he had been there, actually. No, this was his second time. He came to Gippsland Grammar and opened a $4 million project. The rush to cut ribbons and unveil plaques is unbelievable. But they don't want to work that fast to deliver infrastructure themselves. Mr CHESTER IPZ The member for Barker is right: I have never seen a ribbon they don't want to cut. They will knock you over in their rush for their photo opportunity. I'm being a bit harsh on the minister for infrastructure and transport; it is not like she has been doing nothing. She has announced a review. She has hit the ground reviewing. She has announced a review. She will review all those infrastructure projects that haven't started, all of them except the ones announced by Labor in the election campaign; they will not be reviewed. They will review everything else but not those ones. We heard last night in Senate estimates that Roads to Recovery is included in the review, along with other sub programs like Bridges Renewal and the Black Spots Program. If you cut those programs, surely you will understand what a threat that is to road safety. Surely those opposite understand it is a threat to the viability of a local council. The minister says, 'We do not hear an answer.' You love local roads and community infrastructure. You turned up and said how great it was, but you cut that, so why would I believe anything you say about Roads to Recovery? I don't say this lightly because this is very serious. Those opposite need to understand if those infrastructure projects, particularly in regional areas, involving intersection upgrades, highway safety improvements, do not go ahead, people will be killed and injured on those roads. People will be killed on those roads, and all we have been doing over the last 12 months is watching your government delay and make excuses. So on this side of the chamber, we are proud of our achievements in government. We had a record investment in infrastructure, which changed lives and saved lives. We actually built roads. We built railway lines. We built airports and we funded councils to build community infrastructure. After 12 months, we're still waiting for the Albanese government ministers to build anything other than their own egos. 15:28 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro I am so incredibly excited to be standing here on this side of the House answering this MPI because I know that facts are nice to have in the toolbox of those opposite but it would be lovely if they pulled them out and actually used them. Here are a few facts for you. The Eden Killer Whale Museum: in 2019, who was the Mayor of the Bega Valley Shire—me. Who advocated for it—me. Who actually came and asked for it—me. Who worked with the Eden Killer Whale Museum? Guess what, you were in government. That was $640,000 for a museum that is community-run by a good lot of people who volunteer their time, and you are crowing about giving $640,000 to a community-run project that was one of the only BPRS projects that the entire region ever got. Mr Chester IPZ Why did you abolish the program? Ms McBAIN 281988 Local Roads and Community Infrastructure was a terminating measure under the previous government. That was you guys. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Order! Member for Barker. Ms McBAIN 281988 It was a Liberals and Nationals terminating budget measure. So when you come up to the dispatch box— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Member for Barker, do you want to leave the chamber? Ms McBAIN 281988 facts sometimes—usually—are good. Mr Pa 240756 Not under your order. I'll leave myself. Ms McBAIN 281988 That is absolutely the calibre of people we have opposite, who don't even recognise the Deputy Speaker's order. Ms McBAIN 281988 And he's still carrying on on his way out—absolutely ridiculous. There was a terminating measure—the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program—under those opposite. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Member for Groom, don't intervene. Ms McBAIN 281988 What we did on this side of the House was that we went to last election with an additional $250 million for the program, more than those opposite ever announced, because they didn't announce any additional funding when they had the chance at the last election, which we had in 2022. We have seen so many talking points from those opposite. They've delivered nothing and talked about a lot. The baseless fearmongering in our regional communities, playing politics with the future of our nation, is ridiculous. Resorting to fears on immigration and baseless claims about projects being cancelled, they've learnt nothing from a wasted decade, and they clearly didn't learn enough from the message that voters clearly sent in 2022. It is outrageous that our infrastructure pipeline grew from 150 projects to 800 yet, at the same time, there was no additional money put into the infrastructure pipeline. It was always about a press release, an announcement or a 30-second radio grab. The problem is that you cannot build a bridge with a press release and you cannot build a new playground with a 30-second radio grab. If you want to build things, pull out a shovel. Better yet, grab your calculator and add some additional money to the infrastructure pipeline. That's how you get things done. There are so many examples of failures from those opposite that we will not be taking lectures from those opposite about mismanagement and rorting taxpayer dollars. That's absolutely not going to happen on this side of House, because their failures are there and highlighted for everyone to see. There was the hopelessly mismanaged Urban Congestion Fund—imaginary car parks in marginal seats, with costs that were 200 or 300 per cent more to actually deliver. There were projects committed to under the Liberal and National government that hadn't even started because they could not be delivered. It was the same strategy with the Inland Rail, which was underfunded and mismanaged—a project that was meant to connect to our ports but didn't actually connect to the ports. What about the $10 million to the North Sydney pool, an inner-city pool getting regional water safety money? I've never heard of something more ridiculous. If the Nationals were so concerned about it, they should have done something, because I don't know how many constituents of New England are going to go and use the North Sydney pool. There are not a lot of constituents in Eden-Monaro who are off to use the North Sydney pool. There was the Wellington Road duplication, with its $110 million allocation, in Alan Tudge's former seat of Aston, but it was actually $640 million to deliver. Do the maths. It's not enough. It's sad to see those opposite stoking fear in local government. Local government are absolutely the best delivery partners for us, and to go around running these lines that we're going to cut roads funding and put community safety at risk is absolutely ridiculous. We are committed to funding longstanding road programs, which are essential to keep our country connected. We know how important those road programs are to local communities, especially in our regions, and we are committed to the delivery of these programs through our community in the best possible way over the long term. We want to see our councils have more flexibility and less of an unnecessary administrative burden, and that is the reason that we are making sure those programs deliver better for them. This year alone, there is $760 million in the budget for Roads to Recovery, the Black Spot Program, the Bridges Renewal Program and the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program. We want to make sure that our government is helping our communities deliver more resilient infrastructure. It is surprising that the Liberal and National parties do not support this given the damage done to our ageing road infrastructure during recent floods, especially in our regions and our remote communities. It's also surprising that the coalition would not support helping more local councils deliver programs in their communities in a more effective and efficient way. After 10 years of mismanagement of the infrastructure pipeline, putting political priorities above deliverability, it is time for the Albanese government to fix the mess left by those opposite. Not only did they absolutely muck up our infrastructure investment pipeline; we came into office with another flailing program—migration. It was complicated. It was slow. It was an unplanned mess. The system was left in the lurch, with close to a million visa applications stagnating. We saw people desperate to stay in Australia, and already contributing in our local communities through jobs and through their taxes, completely abandoned by those opposite. Have you ever heard of a more oxymoronic term than 'permanent temporary visas'? It's an oxymoron. So many people in our communities filling jobs in aged care and child care or running their own businesses were not able to get a permanent pathway to citizenship in Australia because those opposite left them on permanent temporary visas. Employers were left in the lurch at a time when skill shortages were at their peak. Those opposite left us with no system, no plan and no way to give certainty for the future to their staff. Even the planning they did have saw the Liberal-National government forecast a bigger Australia than what we have today. So, as I said, facts might be a 'nice to have' in the toolbox of those opposite, but if they go and look at their own budget papers they were forecasting a bigger migration number than we have in our budget papers today. It was a migration system left to stagnate, with no plan, no direction and no vision for what Australia needs. We will maintain our commitment to a 10-year $120 billion infrastructure pipeline. We will ensure infrastructure projects are delivered that are nationally significant and nation-shaping. The evidence is clear: the pipeline was broken. We are undertaking a short and genuine review, supported by the states and territories at National Cabinet in late April. It is not about savings; it is about being realistic and understanding the project pipeline and not selling false promises to communities, like those opposite did. We need genuine delivery partners. We need to make sure we've got funding for those projects that are there. We want to make sure that the projects can be delivered with the economic conditions that we face. We are working with the states and territories through National Cabinet on a better approach to housing supply, infrastructure and migration. We are developing a sensible system through migration strategy and the long-term management of the system. We want a manageable infrastructure pipeline that we will work with the states and territories on and can be delivered in a way that eases pressure on costs and leaves room to deal with the new challenges we have. There is a clear theme here—absolutely clear. Our national programs are needed for growth. They are needed for stability. They were left in an absolute mess by those opposite. Those opposite managed these nation-building programs without a plan, without a vision and without a clear understanding of what is needed for our nation. It's one of the reasons we've had to do reviews. It's because we need to make sure we can deliver for communities. The other interesting fact today is that, of the 40 MPIs we've heard in this 12 months of government, the coalition have only let the junior partner do this twice. It's time for the Nationals to step up. Are you serious about regional development? Then come and work with us, because the Liberals don't take you seriously. 15:37 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes It's a shame that the minister couldn't fill in her full 10 minutes. I think she's a little concerned. She's coming up on some sleepless nights because, in a couple of weeks time, we have the Australian local government conference. I'm just wondering how she's going with her speech. Who was the local government minister that doubled the Roads to Recovery program during the drought? Me. Who was the local government minister when LRCI was introduced? Me. Who was the local government minister who got a standing ovation at the last ALGA conference he went to? Me. The minister will have some sleepless nights as she tries to work out what she is going to say to the 517 local government councils that are coming to Canberra in a couple of weeks time. Today's matter of public importance is about pausing and cancelling infrastructure. One of the things that I'm particularly concerned about—and I certainly hope this is a pause, not a cancellation—is Inland Rail. At the moment, there is a cloud over the greatest infrastructure program that Australia has seen in 100 years. We've heard speeches over there about Aboriginal disadvantage, but, at the moment, in my electorate, we've got Aboriginal people who had jobs working on Inland Rail who now don't. We've got young guys having a go in my hometown who have gone to the finance companies and bought a truck and a couple of side-tippers and been working seven days a week on the Narrabri to North Star section. What are they doing now? They're lying awake at night, wondering how they are going to make their next payment as they are waiting for an announcement from the minister on what's going to happen with this project. I can see what the minister's priorities are. She's actually banned me from attending sites in my own electorate. I actually had to write to the minister, 'Please, Minister, is it okay if I go and inspect the progress on the Narwonah infrastructure site at Narromine?' 'Oh, no, you can't do that.' Or: 'Minister, could I go to the soil turn for the new bridge at Dubbo that the previous federal government funded 80 per cent of?' 'Oh, no; you can't go to that.' Or: 'Minister, maybe I could open the new museum in Warren.' 'Oh no; we'll send some senator out.' Thanks to Google Maps these senators can actually find towns in my electorate. They would have had some trouble a few years ago. But back to the inland rail: this is not just the Commonwealth's project. State governments have also put millions of dollars in. Private companies have put millions of dollars in, and local councils have. We've got the Special Activation Precinct at Moree that would basically give Moree an economic base that would see it through droughts and seasonal fluctuations. It's already a productive agricultural shire, but there would be permanent local jobs in that activation precinct. In Narrabri, at the inland port: connection to gas, so that we can start to develop the already strong recycling industry in Narrabri as well. And all the way through—Gilgandra, which was looking at turning one of its subdivisions into a village to accommodate the workers. But what about the 120-odd farmers between Narromine and Narrabri who are halfway through negotiating sale of property, access and all of those things? They are already uncertain about their future. Do they sell the property? Is this coming through? What's happening? This uncertainty is causing an enormous amount of grief. The minister needs to come clean. If she's going to knock this project on the head—and God help us if she is—she should do it now, rather than drawing out the pain, the uncertainty, that is impacting hundreds of people across western New South Sales as we speak. This is a disgrace. This is a project that's going to build our nation. It's going to put cheaper groceries on the shelves in supermarkets in Melbourne and Brisbane, and it's now under a cloud. 15:42 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Before I get into my main remarks, I want to do a bit of a history fact check for those opposite. On Roads to Recovery funding under the previous government, we helped them to fix the mess they created. Remember when they introduced an increase to the fuel excise and couldn't get it through the parliament? They couldn't get it through the Senate, couldn't get it through the House. It was actually the current Prime Minister—then the opposition spokesperson for infrastructure—who came up with the solution and suggested, 'Let's roll that extra money you've collected, without having authority from the parliament, into Roads to Recovery.' You couldn't get a better champion for the Roads to Recovery program than the Prime Minister of this country and the Australian Labor Party. That's how committed we are to it, and that is why the minister could answer that question in question time with one word: yes. On black spot funding, I've got the privilege of being the Victorian chair of the Black Spot Program, carrying on the tradition from when they were in government, when it was being chaired by the member for Monash. It's a privileged position. It meets once a year. We've met. We're continuing. That program is not under threat. Again, this is another opportunity for those opposite to try to play politics. These are programs that continue to be funded, programs that we're proud to be part of and have backed in. But we shouldn't be surprised at the hypocrisy of those opposite. This MPI reeks of it. Then there is the most recent fearmongering that they're trying to introduce to the Australian public and body politic: the 1.5 million extra migrants that they keep saying are going to take all our homes. For a moment I felt like it was 1901 and all of a sudden the White Australia policy was back, hearing those opposite talking here—the White Australia policy. Let's bring back the fear about migrants! It has been abolished, for those opposite. You might have missed the memo. It has been abolished, so why are we standing here today, trying to divide our community about housing and having a debate about race? There is the hypocrisy of those opposite in all the speeches we've had so far from the Liberals and the Nationals about the Voice. They say, 'We can't support the Voice, because we believe it is about dividing race. We believe it is race based.' Yet in the very next breath they come in here in question time and continue to ask questions and put forward MPIs that are about nothing but race, trying to suggest to Australians, 'If you are struggling to find a home, it's because of migrants coming in,' and failing to be honest about what they did in government. There was a pause in migration in this country during the pandemic. That happened worldwide. Borders were shut. Prior to the pandemic they were quite happy to have the place flooded with temporary migrants—migrants who were exploited, migrants who went from visa to visa, desperate to stay in this country. They wanted to contribute to this country but couldn't get a pathway to permanent residency. Those opposite are happy for you to come, but not to establish roots, not to establish a future, not to establish a base. When so many of us have a proud migrant history in this country, they want to deny that in the future. They want to deny it to the people who are here right now who say, 'I want to stay.' All of us have met those beautiful international students, those beautiful temporary skilled workers who say, 'Lisa, what's my pathway? How can I stay? I love this country. My kids love their school. I want to stay.' This government is proud that we've established that pathway. We are saying: 'An end to the rollover of temporary migrant visas!' We are establishing a pathway for those people who are making a contribution and are restoring that proud legacy that this country has. If we are genuinely going to be a country that is built on a proud multicultural migration policy, then we need to end the exploitation of temporary migrant workers that has been occurring. That is the legacy of those opposite. It is hypocrisy, fearmongering, and now we see a return to some colonialistic ideals, where they're saying, 'You can't get a home because of this other issue, or if you're struggling to get a home, it's because of migrants.' It's embarrassing and shameful that those opposite are invoking this kind of fear amongst the Australian people. I call on them to do better. Do better not just for this parliament but for the Australian people, because they are exhausted and tired of this divisive politics. Do better with what you do on a day-to-day basis in this place, and do better in your communities. 15:47 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls Advice to me and other new parliamentarians on giving our maiden speeches suggested that the theme be: who are you, where you are from and why you are here? There are a number of reasons why I'm here, but the key one is that I really believe in regional Australia and regional Australia's future in helping to deliver for and build this nation. The electorate that I come from is such an amazing example of a proud migrant history and of people coming with not much to have a go. I really reject the assertion that there's anything about race in this, and that's certainly not the experience in my electorate. The people who came to my electorate from an incredible array of places, including Albania, Greece, Italy and, more recently, the subcontinent and the Middle East, and built businesses and got ahead did so because governments helped build infrastructure in regional areas, and that's what I want to do in this place—build infrastructure in regional areas. My experience is that the previous government, the coalition government, with a lot of great leadership from the Nationals, lived up to this. There are some great examples in my electorate. One is the Shepparton Art Museum, which was opened by the member for New England. With the leadership of Senator Fiona Nash, it is a great investment in a cultural icon in the Shepparton area. Another is the Echuca-Moama bridge, which the member for Gippsland, when he was transport minister, drove. We actually built a bridge. We didn't talk about building a bridge. A bridge now exist between Echuca and Moama, and it has drastically improved the lives of everyone in that region. The Shepparton rail corridor, which was funded by the then Deputy Prime Minister, the member for Riverina, is being built right now, and it's going to mean that the people of Shepparton and all along those areas can get to Melbourne and back on many more train services. So I'm really disappointed that those opposite don't seem to be as focused on regional infrastructure as the previous government was. One example is the Shepparton bypass. It's a really important project. The previous coalition government made a commitment to it. The Victorian government sat on its hands and has not been serious about the project. But in my electorate what they've said—and this is serious—is: the floods really impacted, and are still impacting, the people in my region, but it would have been business as usual had we had a second river crossing. Now, that bypass gives us a second river crossing. I implore those opposite: think about the wealth that a place like Greater Shepparton delivers to this nation, through the agricultural produce and through the hard work of people who came from all over the world to build great businesses; fund infrastructure that will help continue that agricultural production in the region, and one of those is the Shepparton bypass and the second river crossing. I can't tell you how hamstrung we were by having the only bridge over the Goulburn River cut. It was terrible for our perishable produce. It was really dangerous for our emergency services, who couldn't get across. This is the sort of infrastructure we need to build, and it's in your 90-day review. I'm disappointed that the state and federal Labor governments aren't more committed to this project, but we need to build it. And we really need to focus on what makes Australia great. In my maiden speech I also mentioned the fact that Germany has 80 million people, yet its biggest city is three million people. It has a really good set of industrial manufacturing centres in cities connected by high-speed rail. That's a country that has taken its regional infrastructure really seriously. And they are benefiting as a result. I think we can do the same thing—I really do. Don't cancel airport rail. Increase airport rail, so we can get regional trains in via Tullamarine airport and into the city. Get serious about Inland Rail. Don't pause it. Let's build it and lower emissions from transport of goods between Melbourne and Brisbane. These are exciting projects that are important for building this country, which is what we should all be doing. I implore those opposite to take infrastructure, particularly regional infrastructure, seriously. 15:52 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa Australians want solutions, and they want a government that governs for all. They want a government that's responsible and they want a government that is accountable. Those opposite seem to have forgotten their record on infrastructure. This government inherited a lot of promises, but these promises rarely had a delivery plan. There was a $120 billion infrastructure pipeline full of under-costed commitments. Many projects were left without adequate funding and were of no real benefit to the public, and too many projects were never started because they were unable to be delivered. So let me take you on a little survey of the opposition's history on infrastructure spending, or the lack thereof. When I think of the previous government's infrastructure spending, my mind is immediately drawn to pork-barrelling. What was the previous government's record? What those opposite did was to deliver thought-bubbles, without the investment to back them up. When they did decide to spend money on infrastructure, they left a trail of rorts and waste behind them. Let's start locally, in the electorate of Werriwa. The Leppington Triangle was purchased for approximately $30 million. In anyone's language, that's a lot of money. It was! It was 10 times what it was worth. And what about commuter car parks? That even has its own Wikipedia article. Not only were car parks grossly overpriced, but many were targeted to Liberal-held seats. The list could go on: sports rorts; the Napoleon Road upgrade; the Wellington Road duplication; the North Sydney pool. This Albanese government could not be more different from those previous coalition governments. We take seriously our responsibility to govern for all Australians fairly and equitably. The most recent budget handed down by the Treasurer demonstrates the Albanese government's focus on delivering transformational infrastructure. We want to deliver projects, not press releases. And we want to deliver them on time and on budget, because that's what responsible government does, and it's what our Australian people expect. I am delighted that the Albanese Labor government is continuing to invest in nation-building infrastructure, including $1.6 billion for the M12 Motorway, a road that will provide access to Western Sydney airport for workers and tourists. And on a smaller but just as important scale, the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program will deliver funding to fix local roads in Werriwa. In my community, councils will receive over $5 million to fix potholes and make our roads safer. These investments will make a real difference; they'll make it safer for motorists and quicker to get to work. We are a multicultural country, and I am proud to represent one of the most multicultural communities in Australia. When the Albanese Labor Party came into government there were almost one million visa applications. As we heard from the minister today, that's been reduced by 40 per cent. Under the stewardship of the then minister for immigration, the current Leader of the Opposition, the path to permanency was deliberately made harder, leading to a greater reliance on temporary migration and causing heartache to the people who live in Werriwa. I can't count how many people I've had in my office in tears because of the previous government's policy. The migration review found that the previous government's efforts to plan for the impact of population growth from migration was insufficient—the perfect characterisation of the previous government's decision-making. And for all the noise that those opposite are making about immigration, the numbers do not lie: the Australian population is forecast to be significantly smaller than was forecast by the former government. We do have a plan to manage the effects of population growth over the next few years. The Albanese government is working with states and territories to better coordinate migration, housing supply and infrastructure, while the budget delivers an additional $2 billion for small social and affordable housing. And if those opposite really cared about housing, they would have voted for the Housing Australia Future Fund. This MPI shows us that those opposite have learnt little over the last 12 months. The Australian people want an Australia where no-one is left behind and no-one is held back. The Australian people rejected the political games of those opposite. They want responsible government that gets on with the serious task of governing for all, and that's what the Albanese government is delivering. 15:57 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom Aren't MPIs fun! I'm going to address some of the issues that have been raised here. It was suggested previously that we can't talk about immigration and its impact on infrastructure without somehow raising the prospect of the White Australia policy. That was raised in the context of the current debate on the Voice. So let's have some truth telling. The White Australia policy is a Labor policy dismantled by a Liberal government. Let's have that. That's a little bit of truth and I'd like to hold onto that. It's one that I'm quite proud of. They talk about immigration; they talk about the projected number being bigger under us. What they're conveniently forgetting is the cap of 160,000 that was put on immigration by the previous government. Again, another piece of truth for us. We're told that we're fearmongering, that we're raising fears amongst councils. And, yet, in Senate estimates just this week it was confirmed that not only projects but also programs are under review. This is an important point for us to go through. To add to this, we had the minister confirm that they will deliver the $120 million pipeline, but also confirmed that the pipeline is under review. What's the review for? What's the value of the review? You've got two pathways here that don't make sense. Either they are under review, either there is something that's going to change because you're reviewing it, or they're not and you're going to deliver them. Which one is it? It's just a complete mess of communication coming through here. This brings me to the Inland Rail, certainly the most important and significant piece of infrastructure that will come through my part of the world. It will impact regional Australia in a way that we cannot even yet foresee. This is something that has been talked about for the best part of 100 years. We've seen this opportunity, and it's here in front of us now. We have the opportunity to deliver it. When they came into government, they made a big noise about putting this through a review. They were going to sort this all out. This was all going to be sorted out. Inland Rail was going to be solved by the Schott report; it was going to be fantastic. What we get from the Schott report—I've been the loudest critic of the ARTC's delivery. I've sat the kitchen tables of people who've been affected by, quite frankly, their poor consultation standards. Let's see what the review comes at. There was this great review that was going to solve Inland Rail. They've come up with putting it at Ebenezer. This doesn't even have a business case on the table yet; this end point doesn't have a business case. There's a one-lane road each way next to the Cunningham Highway. It's already high risk and it runs right through a significant residential area. Imagine running B-double trucks through that area, thinking that's going to pass through your approvals. It's absolutely ridiculous. There is no way that Ebenezer fits up, yet this is the result of the review. What does this do to Inland Rail? It absolutely puts it under threat, because it's not a viable end point. When we're told the projects and the programs are under review, yes, there is a threat that ridiculous outcomes like Ebenezer might be found for other projects. Toowoomba has the most to gain from that project. I will fight continuously for that. We must get that project to Toowoomba. The hard work has been done. To not get us there, to not deliver that project now—the opportunity cost is immense. One thing that being a regional Liberal provides me, particularly in a seat like mine, is the importance of investment in road infrastructure. Our government delivered the second range crossing that takes trucks out of 17 sets of traffic lights through Toowoomba. This is a significant $1.2 billion investment in improving safety throughout the city of Toowoomba. It's transformed it. Our government invested in the flood protection works right up along East and West Creek that have stopped Toowoomba flooding every time it rains. This is a significant change. Just last week, I was at the corner of the Perth Street and Curzon Street works progressing under the black spot program—crucial for our area. Anyone who has driven out west of Toowoomba across those plains and sees what happens to the roads through there will see that this needs constant work and renewal. The Warrego, the Gore and the New England highways running north-south—these roads need our attention. These programs are specifically designed to help the people who are there, who are closest to them, to work on them. That's the councils. That's what these programs are for. When we're told we're just fearmongering: no, we're passing on what was revealed in Senate estimates—that these projects are under review. And when these reviews happen, adverse outcomes, like the ridiculous selection of Ebenezer, can happen. So, yes, there is a threat and, yes, will do the right thing and speak to our councils and pass this on because this is important, to make sure we continue to grow our country. 16:02 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence I must say that I feel extremely fortunate to have been able to get a glimpse of the MPI the member for Gippsland submitted for consideration today. I was fearing that the next time I was unleashed for MPI duty I'd be reprinting one of the many speeches I've made to one of their many motions on the cost of living. Adding variety to one's diet is important, after all. It gave me quite a shock to see those opposite diversifying their complaint portfolio at MPI time. But then you take one look at the motion. It's about putting a stop to the unfettered green light those opposite gave to many infrastructure projects—projects that came about on spreadsheets with metadata opaque enough to keep many veteran auditors-general up at night. This should be obvious for most, but I feel it needs to be said for some here: votes are not the sole criteria for a proper business case for infrastructure spending. The relevance of what's been struck in a coalition agreement is not relevant either. It was their Utopia for nine years. I love that TV show, but I will not miss their government! On the other hand, our government is reviewing white elephant projects. If one falls it won't be due to malice, but those opposite certainly take it very personally. It's almost as if they pre-purchased all those ribbons, which, frankly, would equate to the only level of funding put towards some the projects listed in this review. The government is probing projects for their lack of probity, and the Nationals are certainly feeling that sting. I also note—cutely, I might add—the member for Gippsland adds a kicker into the mix, on migration: 'How dare the government review these questionable projects in the face of net overseas migration rising.' Far be it from me to see a National Party signature on a page that holds a position fearful of migration. Maybe we are back to groundhog day after all. If the member for Gippsland wants to lead his foot soldiers into this place to talk about infrastructure funding, I will reluctantly fight that fight, despite my apprehension that soon we're going to return to cost-of-living MPIs after this display of creativity by those opposite. The member for Gippsland leads this MPI as the shadow minister regional development, local government and territories, but the senior partner in their portfolio team is in the other place. It is none other than Senator McKenzie, a senator whose personality mirrors her spreadsheets—colourful. The senator and the member for Gippsland are in lockstep when it comes to thinking of Australia's infrastructure pipeline as one giant pork barrel. This government has put a handbrake on many projects that stack up as well as the famous commuter car parks of those opposite. Three expert reviewers are looking into numerous projects that are not just undelivered but also underfunded. A total of 160, in fact, have had less than $5 million committed to them. Under the former government, that would seldom have covered the cost of a pull-up banner and a lectern at the announcement of the project itself. If taxpayer dollars are going to a project that is effectively no more than a media release or two, it had better stack up. What do those opposite have to fear from the review if they possess the knowledge that the projects that stack up aren't destined for the chopping block. I think we all know the answer to that. It's as plain as day as the animus behind the motion entering the debate about migration. Those opposite turned off the migrant tap alongside many other Australians who were stranded and unable to return for many long months during the pandemic. Nature is healing. We have skilled migrants coming and returning to Australia. Those opposite have heard us talk about our dire skill shortages. They should know. They voted against the Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill as recently as last sitting week. International students are returning, although there are not as many as projected. They know that migration will be 315,000 migrants lower than the number in the pre-pandemic projections for June 2023. It's all sad in the face of those opposite who consistently demonstrate themselves to be so flexible with their positions that they have at times voted against policies they endorsed while they were in government. Yet with this, with infrastructure spending and with migration they are very inflexible with their flexibility, constrained by something we can't quite see in its entirety. I think back to being in the Federation Chamber yesterday evening, listening to the member for Riverina say, 'Let's build a better Australia'—not necessarily a bigger Australia but a better Australia. When it relates to infrastructure spending I could not agree more with the member's statement to a great extent, but not so much when it refers to migration, as it did last night. 16:07 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies I thank the member for Spence for focusing on the topic of this MPI, unlike many others. There has been a really disturbing and sad tendency for some who claim to go high when others go low to do the opposite in their actions. Unlike others, the member for Spence actually focused on infrastructure. No party has a perfect record to tell, so he was well within his rights to do that. But many others who spoke before him went low. I will single out some truths here. Behind me is the member for Casey. His father, Dominic Violi, came from Italy as a young boy, like many in my electorate. My electorate is eight per cent Italian, and I am extremely proud of that. Six per cent of my electorate is of Greek heritage; I'm extremely proud of that. My electorate is the third-highest for Chinese heritage, and I am extremely proud of that. And lately the fastest growing community in my electorate is those from Iran, and I am extremely proud of that and proud of them. So when we talk about infrastructure and migration, to suggest there is any form of dog whistling or racism is going as low as you can go in a country that is a multicultural migrant country, a country that has more than half of its residents being first- or second-generation migrants. We can do better than that. We all can do better than that, and the member for Spence did better than that. We talk about a particular number that wasn't in the budget and we ask questions about infrastructure. If we're not allowed to ask that question about the number, then what is the number? What if it said 5 million or 10 million? We have to have a reasonable discussion about population policy. I'm from the great city of Melbourne. Sadly, it is not as great as it could be. After today's state budget it's the highest taxing state in Australia. It's got the highest amount of debt in Australia. In fact, the debt of New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania combined doesn't add up to the debt of Victoria. I remember that for years Melburnians would brag about topping the Global Liveability Index. We were No. 1 from 2011 to 2017. We are now ranked No. 10. One of the challenges in livability and quality of life is managing infrastructure in proportion to your population growth. It's not easy. When you look at the Global Liveability Index, with cities like Vienna, Copenhagen, Zurich, Vancouver, Geneva and Frankfurt, all bar one have fewer than five million people, because what we know is that, when a city goes over five million people, the infrastructure challenges get extremely hard. No matter which party you come from, they're hard. It's difficult. You need to build more roads, more bridges, more public transport, more hospitals and more schools, and you need to reserve more green space. It's difficult. It requires governments, state and federal, who will do the hard work and not just tax you more. When we ask these questions, I think of families in my electorate from mostly migrant backgrounds. Seventy per cent are first- or second-generation migrants. Right now, when they're struggling to find a space at the Doncaster Park + Ride, they are entitled to ask if government has this under control. Right now, when people in Melbourne are stuck at the end of the Eastern Freeway, which ends at Alexandra Parade, they are entitled to ask if government has this under control. In the Fiveways intersection in Warrandyte, many families risk their lives as they move into that intersection. It desperately needs funding. They're entitled to ask if government has infrastructure and population under control. It is the same with the North East Link and Templestowe Road in my electorate. When many people, including students and families, seek to get a seat on a train at Box Hill Station, they're entitled to ask if government has this under control, because, when we think and talk about this, they're not just things that we build in our electorates; it's about the most precious thing we have, which is time. We are giving up time when we are stuck in traffic—time that we can otherwise spend with our families, coaching a sporting team, teaching our kids or being with friends, having a better life. That's what we're talking about, and it's not easy when you get to be a city such as Melbourne, at five million. Melbourne is projected to be the largest city in Australia. I'm extremely proud of our migrant background. I myself am one. I wasn't born here, and I still remember the day when Dad came home and said, 'Sorry, we didn't get the points to come to Australia,' and we thought the dream was over. Someone took a chance on us, and I'd like to think we'll always take a chance on migrants. Don't ever take this debate lightly. This side cares about migrants, and to say otherwise is a disgraceful accusation. 16:12 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur One of the reasons I'm in this place is to try and make life better for my electorate, which is now, by population, the biggest electorate in the country and growing twice as fast as the next-biggest electorate. We're growing by over five per cent a year. In the last 10 years, my electorate has dramatically changed from basically a semirural area to a dormitory city for Sydney. Farms that I've known in the last 40 years have now changed to suburbs like Willowdale and Gregory Hills. A whole range of different little towns have been turned into these huge suburbs. In the last 10 years, we have really lacked any reasonable infrastructure development by state and federal coalition governments. From the Abbott years to the Turnbull years to the Morrison years, Macarthur was neglected under the coalition. I made many, many calls on previous infrastructure ministers, including, most notably, the member for Bradfield, now the Manager of Opposition Business. When he was infrastructure minister, I begged him to make a rail link from Macarthur to Western Sydney airport and to upgrade Appin Road, which is a really important road connecting the Illawarra to Wollondilly, Camden, Appin and greater Macarthur, through to Sydney. Nothing was done. I really would like to just focus for a few seconds on Appin Road. Appin Road is a single-lane road each way. It's now a conduit from the port of Wollongong through Macarthur to Sydney and also through to Western Sydney airport and the north. As I said, it's a single lane each way. It separates the Georges River and the Nepean River, and it's home to the last healthy urban colony of koalas in Australia. I begged previous environment and infrastructure ministers, including Josh Frydenberg, the previous member for Kooyong, and Melissa Price, the member for Durack, when she was environment minister, to try and do something to put in koala protections and to develop a Twin Rivers koala park. We even had the environment ministers from the state come out and visit the area and agree that we needed to turn this into a koala protection area and put in safety improvements to the roads. We shouldn't forget that almost 30 people have died on Appin Road in the last 40 years—absolute tragedies—including some people that I knew very well, like teachers of my children and one patient of mine, who died on Appin Road in motor vehicle accidents. It's an absolute shocker—terrible—and continues to this day. We had a near-fatal accident the week before last, and that person is in hospital with multiple injuries. This is terrible. I approached the coalition about this multiple times. I virtually begged for it to be done. We had Angus Taylor, the shadow Treasurer and the member for Hume, make lots of announcements about improvements to Appin Road and commuter car parks for Campbelltown. The only infrastructure that he came out and announced which happened was Wedderburn Bridge, which I actually got the funding for, yet he refused to have me at the opening of it. It's a tragedy that the coalition government behaved in this way. The comments from those opposite today are really—if I can use medical terms—a lot of renal output and flatus, because they don't believe what they say. They did nothing for the most rapidly growing electorate in the country, and it's a great, great shame. The people of Macarthur know this all too well. We know because that's what happened in south-west Sydney in the latest state election. South-west Sydney delivered for Labor because of the neglect of federal and state Liberal governments. The member for Gippsland has targeted the increase in people coming to Australia. Well, we are now a huge multicultural electorate. I'm proud of that, and I'm proud of the way that people who have come to my electorate are contributing to Australian society. I love the fact that their kids are growing up as young Australians who will contribute to our society in the future. The dog whistling from the other side and the lack of support for my electorate of Macarthur are just a great shame. Mismanagement, underfunding, no proper infrastructure for a rapidly growing electorate—that's all we've got from the coalition, and they should be ashamed of themselves. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The discussion has now concluded. BILLS 46 BILLS Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 46

Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023

Second Reading 46 16:17 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne Unfortunately, there are those in this parliament who want to deny justice to First Nations peoples. The Leader of the Opposition has taken this opportunity to divide instead of unite, to continue a long tradition of using race to seek to win votes. The Leader of the Opposition is someone who claims there is sexual abuse in Alice Springs but refuses to report it to the police. The Leader of the Opposition opposes lifting the age of criminal responsibility, which currently sees Indigenous children locked up at record rates. He doesn't think that there should be a federal voice to parliament, and he opposes a federal body to listen to, consult with and consider the views of First Nations peoples. The Uluru statement was presented to the last government when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. He vigorously opposed it then as he vigorously opposes it now, because if there's one thing about the Leader of the Opposition worth noting it's that he doesn't change. Last time he was in opposition, when there was a formal apology made to members of the stolen generation, he turned his back and walked out. He said he couldn't support the apology. He was deaf to the cries of anguish. He is a man who has built a career on attacking those in a weaker position than himself, on making people seeking asylum 'illegals', on fearmongering about different racial groups, trashing them in the media and in his public comments and seeking to further his lot through the marginalisation of the weakest in our world. It's the sort of approach you would expect from One Nation, but it's coming from someone who wants to lead this country. That is his record on immigration, where he built and ran prison islands which saw human rights abuse on an industrial scale. When women were raped, he accused them of trying it on. When people were left with no other option but to set themselves on fire, he claimed it was hype. And he accused refugee advocates of coaching self-harm. That's the history of this man. He has both denied the climate crisis, siding with coal barons and gas corporations to continue to pollute, and attacked those who would be the victims of the climate crisis in the Pacific island, with his unforgettable 'water lapping at your door' joke. He thinks the oceans rising and lapping at the doors of the Pacific islands is funny. The Leader of the Opposition falsely claimed that people in my hometown of Melbourne were afraid to go out for dinner because of African gangs, and that unleashed and gave licence to hate—hate on the streets and hate in our communities—and people are still suffering from it. He claimed allowing Lebanese Muslims to immigrate was a mistake. He accused the now Prime Minister of being an agent of the Chinese Communist Party. He was opposed to marriage equality and even attacked 'Same Love', the song choice of a band playing at the rugby league grand final, and demanded that the anti-marriage-equality argument got equal time. The Leader of the Opposition is scared of a voice to parliament. He's scared to listen to what a voice might have to say. He's scared of the voice of First Nations people while he pushes for them to be silent in prisons. We need a voice to parliament enshrined in the Constitution because of people like the Leader of the Opposition and Senator Hanson. Without a First Nations Voice, they will continue to see the First Nations people of this country as criminals, not as equals. They will ignore how the laws of our parliament have impacted First Nations people. They see the Voice as a threat. Justice, liberty and equality, according to the far-right-wing Liberals and One Nation, is a threat. But this country is changing. We want a different future. We want to be more than a prison island. We want to come to terms with how we all came to be here. We want to punch up and not down. We want a country which treats everyone fairly. We want to be brave and bold, not weak and cowardly. We want to be proud of our future. So we will back the Voice. But it must be just the beginning. The Greens will fight to make sure the government also implements truth and treaty. We must reckon with the truth of our history and move forward together through treaty. That is the only path. I repeat: if the Voice referendum goes down, we will be further away from those critical next steps for justice. We can all live on this ancient land. We can replace the centuries of racism and division with a shared understanding and a new political settlement which embraces the millennia of human history. This is in all of our interests. There's a profound beauty in this land. We must understand the connection that First Nations peoples have to it. If we all took a moment to shut up and listen, we might actually learn something and build a country and a nation that we can all be part of; build something far more powerful, honest and just. 16:23 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm It is my privilege to speak on the crucial matter of amending our Constitution to recognise the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This bill, Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023, is required to hold a referendum to amend the Australian Constitution and recognise our First Nations people through an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. This is the first referendum that I'll be old enough to vote in, and I'm looking forward to voting yes. This bill and this referendum is about recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, who've been here for over 60,000 years, as the First Peoples of Australia. This is about listening to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples on the practical changes that will have an impact in their communities. This bill is the product of robust and detailed consideration by the Referendum Working Group, by the Constitutional Expert Group and within government. It reflects the working group's advice to the government. A Voice is the form of constitutional recognition called for by over 250 First Nations delegates in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It's a modest request, but the Australian people are issued with a very generous invitation to say yes and to ensure that we can move meaningfully to true reconciliation in this country. I'm a strong advocate for this constitutional alteration, a change that holds the potential to rectify past injustices and pave the way for a more inclusive and truly equal Australia. I'm not a constitutional lawyer or expert, but I know that those who are, like Professors Anne Twomey and George Williams and former High Court Justice Kenneth Hayne, have cast their find opinions here and found that the proposed amendment is legally sound. It is not just the letter of this law, though, that we should be discussing and that is so significant; it is also the spirit of this law. I want to acknowledge the rich and ancient cultures that have thrived on this land for tens of thousands of years. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, the first nations of Australia, have an intrinsic connection to country that stretches far beyond the establishment of the Commonwealth—the colonies that came together at Federation to comprise Australia. Specifically, I would like to acknowledge the Wurundjeri Woiwurrung people and the Bunurong people, who are the traditional owners of the land where my electorate, Chisolm, is located. Their voices have been marginalised for too long, and it's time that we rectified this historical, terrible injustice. The proposed constitutional alteration aims to address a systemic exclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples from the decision-making processes that shape our nation. By providing a constitutionally enshrined voice, we can ensure that their perspectives, knowledge and aspirations are given due consideration in matters that affect them directly. This change is not about symbolism or tokenism. It is about substantive representation and genuine empowerment. It's about recognising that Indigenous Australians have a unique perspective, informed by their cultural heritage and their lived experiences, which can enrich our national discourse and guide us to more equitable and sustainable policies. To those who argue against this constitutional alteration: let me remind you that we are not creating a separate or divisive power structure; rather, we're acknowledging the rightful place of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in our national governance, alongside the elected representatives of all Australians. This recognition is essential to creating a more inclusive society where the voices of all citizens are heard, respected and valued. This enhances our democracy. It is essential to dispel the misconception that this constitutional amendment would undermine the sovereignty of our parliamentary system. On the contrary, as I have mentioned, it will strengthen our democracy by ensuring that decisions made in this place reflect the diverse needs and aspirations of our entire population. This will foster dialogue, reconciliation and genuine partnerships, moving us closer to the ideals of equality and social justice that lie at the core of our national identity, and that much-cited value of a fair go. The process of constitutional change can be complex and challenging, but it's not insurmountable. We've done this before. In 1967 we changed the Constitution to include all Australians in lawmaking, and, as part of our population, specifically Aboriginal Australians. These changes have enriched our nation and enhanced our democratic fabric. Back then, though, it was the case that both major parties of government endorsed the referendum. Unfortunately, today we are in a parliament where not everybody embraces equality as they did in 1967, and that is a great shame. We have an opportunity here to take the next step in our national story, to build upon those foundations laid in 1967 and to forge a more inclusive future in our Constitution for all Australians. This is a remarkable opportunity before us. Imagine this. In our ordinary lives, we often encounter situations where a simple act on our part may seem inconsequential, but we know deep down that it has the potential to bring about immense positive consequences for others. This is about empathy. It's about what our moral obligations to one another are. That's why I'll be voting yes, and I'm really pleased to be part of a government that recognises the moral obligation to and the empathy that we must hold for all people in this country. This is a simple question that Australians are being asked. By supporting the Voice and amending the Constitution to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voices, we are changing what is possible for us in the future. This referendum presents us with a chance to rectify historical wrongs and dismantle the barriers that have silenced Indigenous voices for too long. This referendum is a chance for us to forge a future where every Australian, regardless of their background, is granted the dignity, respect and equal opportunities they deserve. By voting in favour of the Voice we declare our commitment to justice, reconciliation and a truly inclusive and equal society. We have the power, in this referendum, to reshape the narrative of our nation, to rewrite the story of our shared identity and to say what kind of a country we want Australia to be. Through the Uluru Statement from the Heart, Australian people have been given an incredibly generous, gracious invitation. Let us accept that and say yes. By voting yes in support of the Voice, we send a powerful message, an unequivocal declaration that we stand with our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander brothers and sisters, that we refuse to perpetuate a status quo that marginalises and overlooks their voices. By voting yes, we demonstrate our embrace of a future where the wisdom, perspective and aspirations of First Nations Australians guide us towards a better Australia. This is our chance—the chance of everyone in this parliament, of everyone in this nation—to stand on the right side of history, to be remembered as part of the generation that took the bold, decisive and moral action. The consequences of our choice will extend far beyond the vote. They will determine the trajectory of our nation for generations to come. Let's not squander our opportunity for meaningful, positive change for all Australians. I don't want to be part of a generation that hesitates and shies away from progress. We need to be the generation that embraces the collective power and rises above the complacency we sometimes encounter and that rises above the divisiveness and negativity that, unfortunately, have been too often heard in this place, and outside this place, when it comes to talking about the lives of our First Nations people. That lacks the empathy and respect that discussions about our First Nations people deserve. Here are some reasons as to why I believe this constitutional alteration is essential, beyond the moral imperative. We need to recognise their rights and empower Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to acknowledge their unique cultural heritage, the historical significance of their presence on these lands and their rightful place as the First Nations people of Australia. We need to vote yes for meaningful representation so that there is a constitutionally enshrined platform for First Nations voices to be heard, ensuring that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives, knowledge and experience are considered, deeply, in decision-making processes that directly impact lives and communities. We need to alter the Constitution so that we can get closer to closing the gap. There are far too many disparities faced by First Nations people compared to the general population of Australia. We must do more to close this gap, and what we've been doing has not worked. Let us try listening to communities. Let us try to work together to bring about the change that we must have. We must get closer to reconciliation and healing in this country. And when the Australian people are offered such a generous opportunity by those who participated in and wrote the Uluru Statement from the Heart, we cannot turn our backs to that. We must listen. We must take that step, that very important step, and vote yes so that we can truly have reconciliation and healing in this country. We must see this as an opportunity for this country to create a new narrative and for the people able to participate in this vote to leave a legacy of justice, equality and unity. This is an incredibly important piece of legislation before us today. Let us embrace this moment with courage, with empathy and with a shared commitment to justice. As a nation, I hope we seize this chance to create a nation where every Australian, regardless of their background, has a true and equal voice in shaping our collective destiny and that we are able to continue the work of putting some of the wrongs to rest and create a more positive story for this nation. This is an important step towards a more just and harmonious Australia, and I'm very pleased to support this bill today. 16:35 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright Unfortunately, I will not be able to support this bill before the House, the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023, in its current form. With the time afforded to me, I'd like to touch on three particular points. I want to share how my family is intertwined with our First Nations people; I want to share correspondence and feedback that my office has received on what the people of my electorate of Wright have been saying—and I mentioned those people in my maiden speech and labelled them 'the silent majority'—and I want to share some data from previous referendums, of which only eight of 44 proposals with constitutional change have been approved, and, moreover, how the eight that were successful navigated their path to success. We all seek a respectful and caring debate. It has saddened me. Professionally, I compliment all of those in this place that have lent into that space, but there have been others that have chosen a different pathway, and that has saddened me. With reference to the data collected from my office, being for those for the vote that have either contacted our office by email or telephone, we have recorded as best we could so that the data is accurate 'for', 'against', 'undecided' and 'alternative wording suggestions'. In a nutshell, 72 per cent of those people that have contacted my office are not in support and 28 per cent are in support. Telephone traffic from across the electorate, in the main, has been asking for more detail. Telephone traffic says they do not want another giant bureaucracy set up in Canberra, and they don't want boots on the ground. They want more boots on the ground where they see issues unfolding, such as Alice Springs, Logan and Townsville. Following are some extracts of correspondence that have been received, for example, from Randall and Pam: 'There are already too many representative bodies milking the system, not to mention the National Indigenous Australian Agency of $3.4 billion. All the rest of us are worthy.' The sentiment they were offering was that this was divisive. David from Harrisville wrote: 'I'm very worried about Labor's proposal. If it's passed, it'll wreck our parliamentary system.' Mark sent an email: 'I'm not in favour of changes to the Constitution that give advantage to one part of the community over another. I am in favour of appropriate changes to the Constitution, and I'm disappointed at the lack of proper discussion.' Otto from Laidley believes the Voice will divide Australia and that the process is divisive. Paulo and Anna wrote: 'The Westminster system has served democracies around the world for hundreds of years. We have an Indigenous population of three per cent and five per cent of Indigenous democratically elected sit in the parliament. How is the current system of an equal voice of representation broken?' One of those democratically elected senators is Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price. She said: I don't want to see my family divided along the lines of race because we are a family of human beings and that's the bottom line. She also went on to say: I'll be voting 'no' because this will not unite us, this will divide us. Finally, I'll read from a press article titled 'Why acclaimed Aboriginal activist Richard Bell won't vote Yes'. When asked the question, he says no: No … way. It's just going to be a layer of bureaucracy filled by all these … people pushing it. It will probably cost a billion dollars to administer it. Why don't [we] build houses for black fellas with that? Why don't we try to help raise the standard of living? We have the lowest state of living in the whole country—why … aren't they doing something about that? And I've toned down his colourful language in that correspondence, but it is on the public record. It did sadden me this week, or last week, when we saw senior proponents from the Indigenous community in the 'yes' campaign using slanderous, intimidatory narratives, berating Indigenous leaders, belittling them, bullying them. The parliament is probably well aware of Noel Pearson's comments, when he took on another prominent Indigenous Australian. I found that to be unacceptable in a debate, and I'm calling for a respectful engagement by all of those in the debate. Where you have a difference of opinion, those opinions should be respected, on both sides of the debate. No-one has a licence to berate, to belittle or to bully. Mick Gooda, in response, said that he would not be bullied into conforming with Pearson's position and the Australian public will not be bullied into voting 'yes' for this referendum. And I suggest that he is right. I suggest that he is spot on. Warren Mundine said: I see the Voice as effectively reversing the 1967 Referendum, entrenching race and segregation in the constitution and bringing it back. He went on to say: It will enshrine a monolithic bureaucracy to end all bureaucracies in the constitution and a permanent and enduring part of Aboriginal lives. Like a great, big new protection board. There have been those that have voiced their objection, as I have, and it also saddens me that they have been tarnished loosely with the assumption of being racist. That is appalling—absolutely appalling—and no-one should be subjected to that, whether the comments come from this place, from the fourth estate or wherever. I remind those who wish to comment to hearken back to the US Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, when she, speaking in New York in 2016, labelled Americans who supported her opponents a 'basket of deplorables'. Nothing will send this debate south quicker than dividing our nation. In my last point, I'll refer to previous referendums. Since Federation, only eight of the 44 proposals for constitutional change have been approved. The most recent successful referendum was back in 1977. To put that in context, I was nine years old, so it was some time ago. Of the eight, six passed with over 70 per cent support. And I would hope that one day, through this process, we end up with some wording that passes with over 80 per cent, because I think that, if we put to the Australian public 'that the Indigenous community be enshrined in our Constitution', full stop, there would be an overwhelming majority, and that this bill, if amended, would join those outcomes and the privileges that we enjoy in Australia today. The highest percentage 'yes' vote of any referendum was in 1967, as to an act to alter the Constitution to omit certain words relating to the people of Aboriginal race in any state so that Aboriginals were to be counted and reckoned in the population—a 'yes' vote of 90.77 per cent. So Australians have an appetite for the Indigenous community to be recognised. University of New South Wales Pro Vice-Chancellor and Uluru Statement from the Heart co-chair Megan Davis said last year that, whilst she understood the attention paid to bipartisan support, in this particular case it may not be as important as it used to be. I beg to differ. I would have liked to have seen the parliament land on wording that had bipartisan support to give this referendum the best chance of passing. Of the 44 referendum questions since 1901 to change elements of the Constitution only eight have been successful, and they had bipartisan support. That's the very point I'm making. There is a pathway for us to ensure that we get a high outcome on this. Unfortunately, in March this year the Prime Minister said, 'It would take a lot of convincing before I'd support any amendments.' He has been true to his word. There have been no amendments. There has been no compromise. There has been no consideration of the voices of the democratically elected in this House. It has put fear into those who have told voters, 'Yes, but we'll sort that out afterwards.' In the couple of minutes afforded to me that I have left I want to share with the House a yarn that President Reagan offered. This metaphor I think is very poignant to this debate. A set of parents had two children who were twins. One was an extreme optimist and the other one was an eternal pessimist. They took counselling. The counsellor said: 'I'll rectify the behaviour patterns. We'll put the pessimist in a room with a heap of the newest, shiniest toys we can find. From the stables at home I'll bring in wheelbarrows of manure, which we'll put in a room. We will put the optimist in there.' The parents agreed to the experiment and the children were put into the rooms. The pessimist cried tears. The counsellor asked, 'Why are you crying?' He said, 'Because these are the best toys I've ever seen and I know that someone is going to take them off me one day.' The optimist was throwing manure over his shoulders and having a wonderful time. He had a smile on his face. The counsellor said to him, 'Why are you so happy?' He said, 'Because I know in here there's a pony somewhere.' My point is that I think that when we scratch the surface and move beyond this there'll be a pony in here somewhere. 16:48 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I'm very proud to be a member of the government that has brought the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 and, ultimately, the referendum to the people of Australia. We're a country with a very rich and varied story. Every one of us has a story to tell. We have many institutions that are based on community values and ideals. We have vibrant multicultural communities made up of people who have come here from across the globe and have brought their languages, their food, their songs and their cultures to us, to our great benefit, and yet our national document, our national Constitution, and the parliament have failed to make room for the First Peoples of this land. That is why I think this legislation is so important. It will set in motion a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to appropriately recognise in our Constitution the Indigenous people of our country and provide them, as has been said, with a voice to our parliament and to our decision-makers. I'm old enough to well remember the 1967 referendum. I can remember, at that time, the opposition to that referendum. My father was a dentist in quite a disadvantaged community in the south-west of Sydney, in Punchbowl. There was a large housing commission area that had lots of Aboriginal families. My father had been quite a good sportsman in his youth and had quite a number of Indigenous friends. I can remember speaking to him about the 1967 referendum and his views. He felt very strongly that it was well over time that our Indigenous people should be heard and should be part of our community. I think this referendum will very much set that in stone, if it's recognised in our Constitution, and I fully support it. I understand there are different views, and I understand people have, in those views, many variations of those views. I think we have to be very respectful about this discussion. I think this legislation is extremely important. I feel it will succeed. I speak to a number of people in my community, some of whom are Aboriginal, some of whom are not, and I think they all agree this debate needs to be held in a respectful manner and we need to be very careful about divisive language and divisive methods of putting across a point of view. I thank very much my colleagues in the Indigenous caucus, in particular the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Linda Burney, who has done a wonderful job—as have Senator Malarndirri McCarthy and the great Pat Dodson, who, unfortunately, is not well but is a big part of the Voice. When it is part of our Constitution he will be remembered very strongly for his role. I wish him well and I hope that his recovery is swift. I think we have many other members across the parliament, on both sides of the parliament, who strongly support this legislation—not least of which is the member for Berowra. I commend him for his bravery and for his role in what has been quite a long debate. Like most Australians, I don't want this to be a dividing issue. I don't want it to be a nasty debate. I call on all of us and those in our communities to conduct this debate in a respectful manner. I thank the member for Dunkley, who has done incredible work on the referendum joint select committee and has conducted that in a most respectful manner. Her unwavering support for our First Nations people has been fantastic. At the heart of the Voice to Parliament are two key principles: to recognise, and to listen. They say that all politics is local. It is, and I have a wonderful example in my electorate of the Tharawal Aboriginal Corporation and the Tharawal health service, which is run by CEO Darryl Wright and his committee. I have the utmost respect for Darryl and his team, and I've had a close association with the corporation since it opened over 32 years ago. What they have done in Indigenous health has been absolutely remarkable in improving the health of Macarthur's Indigenous community, which is quite large—and not just their health but their education and their care for their community and their old people. We now have a Tharawal housing corporation that is helping provide housing support for a whole range of Indigenous members of our community, including older members. This community run health service has been able to influence the way our health service deals not just with Indigenous people but with many other people of disadvantage, including refugees, people who have struggled to get housing and people who have a non-English speaking background. It has influenced the whole way our health service deals with the broader communities that are flocking to Macarthur, with its rapid growth. I can see how at a local level hearing Indigenous voices say what they want and how they think their community should be treated and how their community should deal with issues—like housing and social welfare, drug and alcohol problems, education, early childhood education—we now have quite a large preschool at Tharawal—have made our community better. They're in control and they're talking to us about what they need. We have services at Tharawal that include things like Centrelink, a legal service, a women's health service, specialist services in cardiology and neurology, and a diabetes team. We've actually been able to dramatically improve the health and wellbeing and social engagement of the whole community because of the work that Darryl and his team at Tharawal have done, so I can see how local involvement has actually made a huge difference. Being able to communicate to our politicians, our health bureaucrats, our senior health management people and our criminal justice system has made a huge difference in my own community of Macarthur, so I am a strong believer in the Voice. I really am strongly of the view that my community will fully support the Voice to Parliament. I have met with Tharawal's people, and I am very keen to get the minister to come out and conduct a roundtable for us. I believe this will happen in the not-too-distant future. I would like to thank Tharawal and my Indigenous community for being so supportive of a respectful discussion about this legislation. This will only improve our society in general, if we can get a Voice to Parliament for our Indigenous people. I'd like to echo the words of Aunty Pat Anderson, who told the committee that our First Nations people are not asking for a Canberra voice, they're asking for a voice to Canberra. It's important that we get this distinction right. This is not a political exercise. This is an exercise in giving our First Nations people the ability to talk about how they think we should manage their issues. It's not coming from Canberra to them. It's really important that community will only be made better for this voice to Canberra. And I commend Pat Anderson, who is known by all of us for her many years working as a really important part of improving the health not just of Indigenous people, but of disadvantaged people around Australia over a very long period of time. It's important that we address these critical issues by listening to what our First Nations people want. We have focused a lot on the Closing the Gap targets. One of the problems with the Closing the Gap targets is they focus too much on short-term fixes, which don't exist in this situation. Any changes we have in Indigenous health, Indigenous education, Indigenous social interaction and Indigenous engagement in work and business are long-term solutions. That's why focusing on the Closing the Gap targets has, in many ways, not been helpful. Certainly, in some of the issues regarding birth weight and growth and nutrition—the principles that I am heavily engaged with in the first thousand days health policies—need long-term solutions. We need to look for those, and things will only improve when we listen to and connect with Indigenous communities. This is not something that we can send from Canberra. We have to get it from our Indigenous communities. I strongly, strongly believe that. I cannot emphasise that enough. I think this referendum will change Australia and it will change Australia for the better, and I fully support it. It doesn't mean that we don't have to do things in acute health. We must act on things like fetal alcohol syndrome, Indigenous incarceration and Indigenous children's involvement with the criminal justice system. We know that. But the solutions must come from the communities. We will support them, and it is very important that we do so, but those solutions are long-term solutions. I know that. We're talking generational solutions. There is no short-term answer. I see it in my own community. In my electorate we have a very large juvenile justice centre, Reiby Youth Justice Centre, in Airds, near the suburb of Campbelltown. It is absolutely tragic to hear the stories of the children that are in that institution. I know that the solutions to those problems are generational. I've seen it over many generations, working as a paediatrician in Macarthur, in Campbelltown, and I've seen it as I have travelled looking at Indigenous health issues around the country, from Palm Island to Bourke and Brewarrina and Arnhem Land. We must act in the long term and we must act according to the wishes of the communities. When we read about some of the issues in these communities, it's very sombre reading. I can't emphasise enough that we must have a bipartisan commitment to making change. I think that we have to be very respectful in this debate. I know there's a lot of debate about the wording. I know there is debate about how this has been presented to the community. And I want some of that division to stop. We can argue so much about the detail, but the principles are what is important. There's always going to be a need to discuss these issues. There are always going to be people who will try and create division around this issue, but I'm very hopeful that our debate will continue to be respectful, and I'm very hopeful that a very large proportion of the Australian population will vote for this legislation. To me, it's really important that we don't forgo this opportunity not just to right the wrongs of the past but to create a better future for all of us. I'd like to see the same result as the 1967 referendum. I would love to see that, and I'm very hopeful something like that will happen. I'm an optimist, and I do really feel that this will happen. I'd like to thank everyone who has been involved in bringing this legislation to the parliament. I'll be out there urging a 'yes' vote for this referendum. I hope I'm right. I thank the House for listening to my view. 17:03 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler We are one people, we are one country and we are all equal, for we are one and free. I will be voting no to this legislation, the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023; I will be voting no to the proposed changes to the Constitution; and I will be campaigning for the 'no' side of the case. For me, this is a values based decision. I believe all Australians are equal, not that some Australians should have a different level of democracy or a different approach to democracy, not that one group of Australians has different rights to others. It is a fundamental tenet of this country that we are all one people, and those values are what I have used to make a decision in terms of this legislation and the proposal that has been put forward by the Labor Party. We recently ran a survey in my electorate. We are still accumulating all of the inputs from the many thousands of responses, but, to date, when asked whether they would support this proposition, 62 per cent of respondents said no, 27 per cent said yes and 10 per cent were undecided. I would say to the Prime Minister and the Labor Party: the voters aren't mugs. They are not. They want to see the detail. They understand that this is a significant change to the Australian Constitution. It's not just a piece of legislation, it's not a code of practice and it's not a guidance note. It is a significant change to the most important document in this country, and they genuinely want to know. They want to know what difference it will make. They want to know what it will cost. They want to know how it will work. They are not willing to vote on the vibe, on the feeling, on how it will make them feel on the day that they take the decision. They absolutely want to see the detail. That detail is simply not being provided. This has been a topic of great interest right across the country. I talk to a lot of people, as do others. I met with a constituent named Peter—I don't want to identify him in total. Peter is an incredibly successful local businessmen and in fact runs multiple businesses in one of my regions. I didn't even know he was an elder of a particular tribe. I simply didn't know. He was just a guy who ran this business who I got on with well. He came in to have a chat about this issue and some others. His advice was really straightforward: we just have to work together. He is opposed to the Voice. He won't be supporting it. It's as simple as that. We have to work together because we are one people. How on earth can you not create division, which is exactly what is happening right now? A lot of speakers already have spoken about the 1967 referendum. That was two years before I was born. I wasn't even a twinkle in the eye at that stage, so I thought I should probably do a little bit of research and see what it was about, and I've done that. In my view, there are some incredibly powerful images associated with the 1967 referendum. In some of them they were holding signs like this: 'Count us together. Make us one people.' 'Give us equal rights throughout Australia.' Those signs are held by young individuals. How is it possible that there is now a proposal to divide the nation, to make one group of Australians different to others? I find it unacceptable that the Australian people will make that decision. I want them to be informed. I want it to be an informed decision. It is up to them. Like everyone in this place, I am just one vote, but this is an incredibly important decision. As I've said, we continue to see division, and it is growing division. I refer to a report in the Australian, an op-ed by Noel Pearson on the weekend, on 20 May. I want to quote a couple of lines from that op-ed: The boomer readership of this paper is of course antipathetic to recognition. They are mostly obscurant and borderline casual racists in their views. Seriously! It continues: The change that is needed to secure recognition of Australia's First Peoples is happening beyond that group of boomers who want this to be about the culture wars. The problem is that too many party activists and parliamentary candidates and members of the Liberal and National parties want to recreate America in Australia. Nothing is further from the views of the Australians I know. They are incredibly proud of our country. They're proud of our history, they're proud of our culture, they're proud of where they came from and proud of how they arrived here. So, no matter what your connection is to this country, whether it's a cultural connection, whether you have relatives on the First Fleet, whether you were born here, whether you arrived last week or whether you took the oath of citizenship yesterday, we are all Australians and we are all equal. The idea that we have sporting bodies, for example, telling Australians how to vote—I don't think they'll wear that. They know this is important. We have Marcia Langton saying that if you don't vote yes there'll be no more welcome to countrys. I'm not being facetious—I have no particular view—but I saw an inrush of calls and correspondence saying that's fantastic, because they are over it. The mob are over it. They are quite happy for, where there is a culturally significant event, these to occur, but the idea that it's at every P&C, every meeting and everything else—it's just too much for them. They actually warmly welcomed that, which was quite surprising even to me. If we look at the legal opinions—I'm not a lawyer, but many of us in this place have dealt with legal opinions over a long period of time—they are costly, generally they are different, and quite often they're not right. There is a broad range of views on what the proposed changes to the Constitution will do and how they will change the way our nation operates and the government of Australia manages this country. I am particularly concerned about the proposed changes that include the executive. Having been a member of the executive and seen what happens when activists—how people utilise the legal system to shut down important projects in this country, I am very worried. As many of us know and has been outlined by any number of well-recognised specialists, that won't be determined until there is 10, 12, 15 years worth of case law. In the meantime, the country will be absolutely held up, held back at a time when we need to be strong and we need to move forward. The budget is 346 million over three years. Most of the Australians I know would say, 'Why don't we take that $346 million to Alice Springs and help them with what is happening there, which is absolutely terrible.' It is awful. There is youth crime, lawlessness and unlawful behaviour. They are desperately crying out for help. Instead, $364 million will be spent on a referendum asking the Australian people to do something which splits the nation. It won't unite us; it will divide us. I'm very, very disappointed about that. I want to acknowledge the work of the member for Cowper; Senator Jacinta Price in the other place; and others who have been working incredibly hard. Like everyone, I recognise that there will be different views. It is the purpose of the referendum. They've been involved in the committees. They've been involved upfront. There will be different groups with different ideas for different outcomes, but ultimately, it's a binary choice. You will vote 'yes' to change the Constitution, and entrench all parts of what's being proposed—not what's been advertised, not what's been seen on TV, but all parts of all words that are in this bill—or you will vote 'no' to remain united, to remain one country, to remain one people. That is why I am so strongly supportive of the no case. I think it is just so critical that we do not divide the nation. If we go back to 1967, that was the ask: count us together; make us one people. For those of us who live in the regions, Aboriginal people are part of our local community. We don't see them separately. We don't see them as different. We just see them as part of everything that happens every day. While there are significant challenges, particularly in remote communities, that is not all Aboriginal people. Most are incredibly successful. They work hard, they get wages, they pay their taxes, many pay wages and many are in business. They're no different to any other Australian. But I am absolutely opposed to the idea that the nation will be separated because of an outcome of this referendum. But it is up to the individual. It is up to the Australian people. It is up to them. The voters of Australia are not mugs. They want the detail, and if it's not provided then suspicion will win. They will vote no. They will. The voters of Australia want to see what the change will mean. They want to see what it will cost. They want to see how it will be implemented. They want to see what difference it makes to the nation. The idea that you should vote 'yes' on a feeling is the wrong approach to a referendum, which is why, in my view, it is likely to be defeated. The Australian people will make this decision. We will all play our parts. We will do so with respect. We will be very, very careful. But I continue to be concerned about the division that this will place on our nation. We see it over and over. I will leave my remarks there, assuming the honourable members are ready. But to all Australians: we are one people, we are one country, we are one and free. Vote 'no' at this referendum. 17:14 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa I rise to make my contribution on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. Today this government makes history, because we are also informed by history. In the steps of Whitlam and Lingiari, of Keating and the Redfern address, and of Rudd and the apology, this government seeks to join the ones before it in listening to and being guided by Indigenous voices, their needs and how Indigenous people want their families and themselves to be treated. I'd like to paraphrase the writings of the late John Clarke, penned over 20 years ago. Australia has a vibrant and resourceful people. We share a freedom born in the abundance of nature, the richness of Earth and the bounty of sea. We are one of the world's biggest islands. We have one of the world's longest coastlines. We have plants and animals that cannot be found anywhere else in the world. We are one of the few countries on earth with our own sky. We have a fabric woven of many colours, and it's this that gives us our strength. We have been here for over 200 years, but before that there were people living here. For thousands of years they lived in perfect balance with the land. There were many nations, just as there were many nations in North America and across Canada and many Maori peoples in New Zealand. The Indigenous people of this land lived in areas as different from one another as Scotland is from Ethiopia. They lived in an area the size of Western Europe. They didn't share a common language. They had their own laws, their own beliefs, their own ways of understanding. In this legislation we seek to show our own understanding and what we have learned from the generous and gracious Uluru Statement from the Heart. I want to focus on that last part, 'from the heart', because that is what has been profoundly demonstrated: heart—a courageous willingness to believe in the good that can be done by this parliament and this country. I find that belief, that hope that was put in us, to be humbling and inspiring. Here we have a people who've endured through the darkest of times, through a history of stolen land, stolen lives and stolen generations. Yet here they are offering to us an extended hand, an invitation to join together, to recognise one another, to change. We will take this hand. We will join together to recognise the promise of reconciliation, to change for the better the story of Australia. That's what this legislation is about: a story—a long story. It began long before any of us were alive, and it's my hope that it will continue long after we're all gone. But we most definitely have a part to play in shaping that story and in creating a lasting legacy—a better legacy than the one that has been left so far, because the decisions of the past were not confined to our history books. They ripple and cascade and bleed into the present. They have given a disadvantage to our Indigenous people before they were even born. In Australia today, the Indigenous infant mortality rate is almost double the rate for non-Indigenous infants. I know losing a child is heartbreaking, but for that to be almost twice as likely for our First Nations mothers is unacceptable. Sadly, this disadvantage continues as they grow up. Young Indigenous men are incarcerated at an appalling 10 times the rate of other Australians, and this trend even diminishes their very lives. The gap in life expectancy is a staggering eight years. The fundamental role of government should be to care for its people, improve their lives and provide them with opportunities for success. But these numbers show that people—our people—are being left behind. This country has so often striven for the ideals of egalitarianism and equality. I think it's one of our most noble characteristics. But equality is not simply achieved by a change in behaviour; it is brought about by a change in action. And, until everyone is equal, no-one is equal. Unfortunately, what's being discussed here isn't new or revolutionary. Indeed, I am certain there are many who have noticed these same problems being talked about again and again, because what has happened in the constant theme of our treatment of our Indigenous people—our central failing—is that we rarely listen. Even when we do, it's only on our terms, not theirs. It started with terra nullius, where Europeans declared the land to be no-one's because it didn't resemble the cultures of their homelands; where land was taken because we thought we had more use for it; where the original ways of caring for land were dismissed because we thought we knew better; where alcohol and disease were introduced because we didn't think about the consequences; and where children were taken from their families for reasons I still can't fathom. When this nation was officially declared in 1901, we did not want the original inhabitants of the land standing with us. Every effort was made to diminish their very existence. We put it into our Constitution—the foundation of our nation and our emerging democracy. In section 127 it was written: In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives should not be counted. The message we sent was loud and clear: 'We do not count you as one of us.' It was the manifestation of our shameful history: ignore, dismiss, marginalise, silence. Yet the parliament's ability to legislate, to act on Indigenous issues, was severely curtailed from the start. Section 51(xxvi) says: The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: … … … (xxvi) The people of any race, other than the aboriginal people in any State, for whom it is necessary to make special laws. For decades, treating Indigenous people separately was not only legal; it was constitutional. It allowed the gaps between us to grow even deeper, in health, education and income—all the benefits of federal legislation that didn't reach those who needed it most. The damage was generational, and it will take generations to fix. It's why every government since has started on the back foot when it comes to Indigenous issues. But after over 60 years, the Australian people were able to remove these sections from our Constitution. The 1967 referendum was a historic moment in time—a moment that is being compared to the moment that we live in now. And I hope we have the same outcome. As it said in the Uluru Statement from the Heart: in 1967 they were counted; now they will be heard. It occurs to me that this moment in time may eventually be in the history books as well—that, even generations from now, there will be students learning about this referendum. They will learn what was said and what was done by all of us, and we must make sure not to disappoint them. And we must remember why we are undertaking this referendum. Put simply, it's to stop the cycle of Indigenous people offering to us their voices, only to be silenced, because this referendum is not about changing the past; it's about stopping the repeat of past mistakes. Every time there has been some form of Indigenous advisory group with Indigenous members, it has been either slowly diminished and then dismissed, or disbanded by a later government. The National Aboriginal Consultative Committee was created by the Whitlam government in 1972. It was then removed by the Fraser government in 1977. It was replaced by the National Aboriginal Conference, but it was continually stripped of funding until it was finally discontinued in 1985 by the Hawke government. We then had the longest-serving group, in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission—started in 1990 under the Hawke government—until it was abolished in 2005 by the Howard government. At around that time, the then Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Dr William Jonas, wrote that this unfortunate decision sought to ensure that government would only have to deal with Indigenous peoples on its own terms and when it chose to and only on issues on which it wished to engage. He described it as revealing a deep antipathy on the part of the government towards engaging with Indigenous peoples and acknowledging the legitimacy of aspirations and goals expressed by them. He surmised that abolishing the commission would simply silence Indigenous people at the national level, while the deeply entrenched crisis in Indigenous communities would continue unabated. These words ring true today, and, sadly, this trend of silencing voices has continued. We cannot move on if we're taking one step forward and one step back. It would be ludicrous for this parliament to not be consistently advised on issues like health, education and defence. Why then do we always single out Indigenous people? Their wellbeing should not be dependent on changing government priorities. Quality of life is not a political issue; it is a human right. This is about having a guarantee that there will always be a voice for Indigenous people, regardless of who is in government. This is stability, this is consistency and this is what the country wants—what voters decided in the May 2022 election, when the mandate was handed to the Albanese government. Under previous systems, Indigenous people would only have as much to say as would be allowed, and even this could be taken away on a whim. This legislation seeks to create a bulwark against the default state of inaction. This government seeks to lead the way for future generations, as it was led by those who came before us. On this day, we look to our forebears. We look to former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, who once held the seat which I am proud to represent. In the lead-up to the 1972 election, he took this cause to voters. He said 'all of us are diminished' while our Indigenous people are 'denied their rightful place in this nation'. He said that Australians 'ought to be angry with an unrelenting anger' that our Indigenous people have the world's highest infant mortality rate. On 16 August 1975, he returned the traditional lands to the Gurindji people in a ceremony held with Vincent Lingiari, another great leader of their time. Whitlam said, 'I want to promise you that this act of restitution which we perform today will not stand alone.' This legislation will continue that promise. We look to the Redfern address given by then Prime Minister Paul Keating in the wake of the Mabo decision, another important moment that expunged the false narrative of terra nullius. When you read the Redfern address today, it shows it was as clear then as it is now that recognition and raising our Indigenous peoples' standing is just as much about ourselves and our national identity. Keating said: This is a fundamental test of our social goals and our national will: our ability to say to ourselves and the rest of the world that Australia is a first rate social democracy, that we are what we should be—truly the land of the fair go and the better chance. He also said something that could well be said about the Voice to Parliament: … there is nothing to fear or to lose in the recognition of historical truth, or the extension of social justice, or the deepening of Australian social democracy to include indigenous Australians. There is everything to gain. That was as true then as it is now. We improve the lives of those around us, we improve ourselves. We fix the wrongs of the past, we fix ourselves. We reach out with compassion and understanding, we stand to benefit our whole entire society. We look to the apology delivered by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, a moment that Indigenous people called for, and the government of the day listened and acted on that. On 13 February 2008, an important day, some of the most important words were uttered in this chamber. It was an emotional day. There was sorrow for the pain that had been caused, but there was also pride for the new relationship that might now be forged. It was there in the apology itself: We apologise for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians. It went on to say: The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australia's history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future. This future is the one that is based on mutual respect, mutual resolve and mutual responsibility. This Voice to Parliament is that future that has been long promised, a way to ensure that Indigenous voices are no longer silenced. They will be heard. They will be respected. I thank all those who have worked so hard for this day and acknowledge the work still to be done. Today is another part of the story of Australia. It's always been enriched by adding more stories to it. Today we ask ourselves: will we remember our story thus far, our history? Will we learn from it? Will we make it better? Will we walk together hand in hand towards a better future for our country? The only answer is yes. I commend the bill to the House. 17:28 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper I'd like to start my response by acknowledging the Minister for Indigenous Australians and the speech that was heard in this place yesterday. The minister made a number of insightful and compelling points in her very impassioned speech. She acknowledged that this is not a decision or a plaything of politicians; it is a decision of the Australian people. She noted that 56 years ago Australians voted in a referendum with a similar goal. It was a major turning point in the Australian story, a unifying moment, one that appealed to Australians' innate sense of fairness. She also noted Indigenous Australians continue to be left behind on many key life indicators. There is almost a nine-year gap in life expectancy, a gap in infant mortality and a disproportionate incarceration rate. She noted that it isn't good enough and that something has to change, and change for the better. She identified that the disadvantages experienced by Indigenous Australians are not the fault of any single individual today, and it is the responsibility of all of us to strive for a reconciled future. On every single one of these points I wholeheartedly agree. In fact, there is much that the Minister for Indigenous Australians and I strongly agree on. I sincerely thank her for her continued dedication to what she believes is right for Indigenous Australians. The beauty of our democracy is that we are able to respectfully differ in opinion when it comes to the methods in which our shared goals can be achieved. It should be noted that the incredible initiatives that the Minister for Indigenous Affairs acknowledged in her speech, like Indigenous-led health clinics that are improving health outcomes and saving whole families from endless travel; or the Indigenous Rangers program, which has reduced unemployment rates and given young people a sense of purpose, while boosting the protection of our unique natural environment, are already in play. Similarly, practical initiatives can be created and expanded via updates to legislation alone. Enhancements and changes to programs and initiatives can be made swiftly without a referendum on constitutional change that divides the nation along the line of race. Enhancements and changes can be made without the delay that a referendum requires. Enhancements and changes can be made without the cost of a referendum. Positive steps can be taken without unintentionally encouraging Australians to have a conversation that contains the words 'us' and 'them' in place of 'one' and 'all'. This bill conflates two entirely separate issues: firstly, recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Australian Constitution, a point upon which we all agree and that does not have unforeseen consequences; and, secondly, support for a constitutionally enshrined Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander advisory body, a point that is a cause for concern for many. These two distinct and separate issues may not have been made clear to the Australian public throughout this inquiry and appear to have been designed with that intent. In my view, the suggestion that to vote no on the Voice is to deny historical atrocities is recklessly dismissive and encourages Australians to vote on emotion rather than logic. Constitutional lawyers who oppose the current changes are not denying the plethora of significant mistakes made by governments at all levels since our Federation. They are looking at a legal document and its potential unintended consequences. Acknowledging serious missteps and mistreatment in our past does not necessitate the changes to our Constitution that are being proposed right here. I'm proud to say that I am born and bred a Kempsey boy, a regional town on the Mid North Coast of New South Wales. Around one in seven residents of Kempsey are Indigenous Australians. I was raised in the household of the local GP. My father physically delivered many of our current community members into this world. He treated the physical and mental health of the members of our community and helped them whilst sometimes at their worst. I was recently in Kempsey attending the 20th anniversary of the circle sentencing program at the Kempsey Local Court. This program provides young Indigenous people an alternative to the judicial system, where they sit with members of the community, sit with the families and sit with the victims and talk about what it meant to the victims and what it meant to the community. This program has been so successful that some of the young men who went through it 20 years ago are now running it. And to my astonishment and amazement, as I was standing there, Aunty Shirley said, 'I would like to say something,' and she said, 'Dr Conaghan was the first doctor to allow Indigenous people into his clinic.' Whilst I was very proud of that fact, I was equally appalled that it had to be him, in the 1960s, not that long ago. To think that in the 1960s, Indigenous people were being precluded from medical treatment. So I'm extremely proud to be able to tell that story. He welcomed both Indigenous and non-Indigenous into our home at all hours of the night. He turned nobody away. I saw first-hand the differences in the standards of health amongst the Indigenous community. I saw first-hand the influence that grassroots support can have, not just on an individual but on an entire community, when that support is provided without judgement or division. I started my own career as a police officer in Kempsey and saw first-hand the disparities in the rates of domestic and family violence, the rates of incarceration, with the number of people outside the court mainly being the Indigenous population. I also saw first-hand the distrust for government and authorities. I saw entire families without birth certificates being pulled up for offences like driving without a licence when they were unable to get one because they didn't have a birth certificate. An issue as seemingly as simple as this continues to negatively affect Indigenous people throughout their lives. I continued my career as a police prosecutor and criminal defence lawyer. There I continued to see these same issues play out again and again. More recently, I took part in the Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum. I heard first-hand the testimonies of those suffering as a result of historical atrocities. I heard of the failings of the past and the gaping holes that exist in our current systems. These were very passionate and moving testimonies, each and every one. What I did not hear is how the Voice specifically will tangibly affect any of these issues. I did not hear how it would deliver outcomes and close the gap. I did not hear how enshrining potential division in our Constitution will encourage Australians to act and move forward as one. Unfortunately, what I did not hear were concrete answers to some important questions. Who will be eligible to serve on the proposed body? What are the prerequisites for nomination? Will the government clarify the definition of Aboriginality to determine who can serve on the body? How will members be elected, chosen or appointed? How much will it cost taxpayers annually? Importantly, what are its functions and powers? Is it purely advisory, or will it have decision-making capabilities? How will the government ensure that the body includes those who still need to get a platform in Australian public life? How will it interact with the Closing the Gap process? And will the government rule out using the Voice to negotiate any national treaty? As the assistant shadow minister for the prevention of family violence, I recently travelled to Darwin and to Alice Springs for consultations with individuals, community groups and specialist organisations on what is happening on the ground and how they feel governments at all levels can best assist with breaking the cycle of violence. While I was there with a specific focus on the prevention of family violence, I did take the opportunity to ask each group for their opinion on the voice and what it will achieve for them. I was there to listen and learn, not to provide my personal thoughts or views. Interestingly, those who intended to vote yes and those who intended to vote no both acknowledged a lack of detail provided by the government and had questions about how it would affect them personally. Both sides of the argument requested more detail to properly inform themselves and their community. It was surprising to hear how many hadn't made up their minds. Even the ones who are voting 'yes' were somewhat cynical that it would not make any difference in their life or to their mob, which I found quite disheartening for them. This sentiment was reiterated in a recent survey that I put out in my electorate of Cowper. Over 10 per cent of respondents answered, 'I don't know,' to the question, 'Do you support the Indigenous Voice to Parliament?' What all individuals I have spoken to unanimously did suggest was that to fix problems, like social disparity, domestic violence, substance abuse and education and health outcomes, governments at all levels must provide more on-the-ground solutions and manpower at the coalface. What our community needs is less red tape and bureaucracy and more immediate action. In my final words on this issue I want to make a few things clear. I will always vote 'yes' on legislative reform that I believe will move the dial when it comes to meaningfully closing the gap. I will vote 'yes' on initiatives that support the prevention of family violence. I will vote 'yes' on reform that provides the right manpower on the ground to improve health and education outcomes. I will always vote 'yes' on tangible solutions that provide measurable results. But I will not vote 'yes' on a change that divides the nation arbitrarily on the lines of race and that leaves too much to individual interpretation. I'm passionate about doing what I can to provide better outcomes for everyone in my community, including Indigenous Australians, who deserve action over symbolism and swift response over delay. I recognise the entrenched systematic and historical changes faced in many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, particularly those in remote Australia. These issues must be addressed, and in my view the delivery of evidence-based, community-led initiatives will better address these challenges and improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples better than a referendum. 17:42 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I rise today to speak on a bill that's going to be a defining moment in our nation's history. I start by firstly acknowledging the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia and as the traditional owners of this land. I acknowledge the traditional land owners here in Canberra, the Ngunnawal people, and I also acknowledge the traditional owners in my electorate of Richmond, the people of the Bundjalung nation. This bill—the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023—is a powerful marker of our respect for the First Nations peoples of Australia. I pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have occupied the Australian continent and maintained relationships with Australia's land, waters and sky for more than 60,000 years. We are so incredibly fortunate to live in a country where our First Nations peoples represent the oldest continuous living cultures in human history. Despite this remarkable fact, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are not recognised in our Constitution. This is not alright. This is not acceptable. This needs to change, and I'm incredibly proud to be part of a government that will make that change. The constitutional amendment in this bill will rectify more than 120 years of explicit exclusion from the provisions of Australia's founding legal document. This bill is to amend the Australian Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing the Voice. It is the first formal step towards holding a referendum by the end of this year. It's a form of constitutional recognition that is practical and long overdue. We, importantly, need to recognise and acknowledge the atrocities in our past and the actions that have led us to this moment—the dispossession of lands, languages and cultures, and the infliction of top-down harsh government policies. All of these have contributed to the deep and continuing wounds of generations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and their cultures. The fact is that there are moments in our history that are shameful. However, there are also moments in our history that we can and should be proud of in terms of reconciliation, like the 1967 referendum, where more than 90 per cent of Australians voted to amend the Constitution to allow the Commonwealth to make laws for Aboriginal people and to include them in the census. In 1992 the Mabo decision overturned the legal fiction that Australia was terra nullius. This was legal recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people's relationship to their country. I was so incredibly honoured to be here in this place in 2008, when then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd apologised to the stolen generations, their descendants and their families for the profound grief, suffering and loss caused by their mistreatment. The apology was very, very powerful and it did make a difference. Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in our Constitution and listening to their views on laws and policies that matter to them will also make a difference. I am credibly honoured to be a member of the Albanese Labor government that is taking this next important step in the future of our nation. At so many events, gatherings and functions in my electorate, people continue to raise the issue of the Voice and the upcoming referendum. It is a conversation that my community and many other communities are having. They are having it because this will be a defining moment for our nation's history. The overwhelming feeling in my community out there is one of hope and excitement about the Voice and the change will bring. People know this is an important moment, like the apology was a moment, like marriage equality was a moment. People want to get involved in this referendum. They want to help, they want to volunteer, they want to be part of history in the making. What is also really wonderful about it in my community is that so many people, regardless of their backgrounds or political allegiances are supportive of the Voice to Parliament. It's great to see that support. That includes representatives from local councils, state government representatives, local organisations, small businesses and many individuals themselves. They all want to come together on this particular issue, and that's because they want to be on the right side of history and to take up what is an incredibly generous offer from our First Nations people to walk hand in hand into a better and more respectful future. The Voice has the support of every single state and territory leader across Australia. The business community, unions, sporting organisations and faith groups are all backing 'yes'. Constitutional recognition is supported by 80 per cent of Indigenous Australians, the largest First Nations consensus on the way forward in this country. I have great faith that my community on the north coast will get this right. Let's be very clear. This pathway, this future, is supported, as I said, by the overwhelming majority of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander delegates. It was supported by those delegates who gathered from all points under the southern sky in May 2017 on the 50th anniversary of the 1967 referendum to endorse the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It is time to accept that generous invitation in the Uluru Statement from the Heart for all Australians to walk with our First Nations people towards a better future. The Uluru Statement from the Heart was supported by over 250 delegates following consultation with 1,200 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who were involved in the Uluru dialogues. The resounding message from the dialogues is reflected in the call from the Uluru Statement from the Heart: voice, treaty, truth. Our government is committed to implementing the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full. This means having the referendum later in the year to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in our Constitution. It is about giving Indigenous Australians a say in their future. Essentially, the referendum is about two things: recognition and listening. That is, recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia, with more than 60,000 years of history and continuous connection to this land; and listening to the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people when it comes to laws and policies that affect them. We know listening to communities leads to better policies, better laws and better outcomes, and making a practical difference on the ground in areas like health, education and housing. That's what the Voice will help deliver. We know outcomes are better when we partner with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, and the evidence is there through a whole range of programs; we know this is the case. And it's clear that outcomes are better when communities are actually at the heart of that decision-making. And the best way forward to do this is through the Voice to Parliament. It's a simple proposition. Australians will be asked a very simple question at the referendum: A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration? If approved at the referendum, a new chapter will be written into our Constitution, and it will recognise, finally, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia and establish the Voice to Parliament. Chapter IX, titled 'Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples', will read as follows: (i) there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice; (ii) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; (iii) the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures. The constitutional amendment confers no power on the Voice to prevent, delay or veto decisions of the parliament or of the executive. What it does is create a critical link between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and the parliament and the executive government. That's vitally important. It gets the balance right. It will enhance our democracy and our democratic institutions. Very importantly, it ensures the Voice will be an enduring and independent representative body that cannot be taken away by any governments or politicians. It will be there. The Voice will complement and enhance existing structures of our democratic systems. Indeed, the Solicitor-General says the proposal to enshrine the Voice in the Constitution is not only compatible with Australia's system of representative and responsible government; it will actually enhance that system. That's what is so vitally important. The fact is it is a very straightforward design. It has been designed and developed through an incredible amount of consultation and collaboration with many people. Last year we went to the election with a clear commitment to implement the Uluru Statement from the Heart, including holding this referendum. And the Australian people elected us. They know we are committed to holding this referendum, and I think they know how important it is. With the introduction of this bill the Albanese government is taking the first formal step to honour that commitment. It's a commitment we made not just to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; indeed, we made that incredibly important commitment to all Australians. I would like, for a minute, to talk about some of the design principles of the Voice. The Voice will give independent advice to parliament and government. It will be able to make proactive representations as well as respond to requests. The Voice will be chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities' people based on the wishes of local communities, not appointed by government. It will be representative of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities with a gender balance that includes youth. It will be empowering, community led, inclusive, respectful and culturally informed. It will be accountable and transparent. The Voice will work alongside existing organisations and traditional structures. The Voice will not have a program delivery function. It doesn't have a veto power. It's very clear what the design principles are. The Voice to Parliament referendum gives us all an incredible chance to write a new chapter in our Constitution, to make history. The 2023 referendum later this year will be an incredibly unifying moment for all Australians. For over 120 years we have not recognised Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians in our Constitution. We have the opportunity in this referendum, which is why it's so incredibly important to have people voting yes right across the nation. Indeed, voting yes is the best chance we have to create change and to deliver a better future. I know, talking to people in my community, the commitment they have—in fact, they want to be a part of history because they see how important this is. They know this is overdue. It was one of the very big issues in the election campaign, our commitment to making sure that the Uluru Statement from the Heart was followed through. We are doing that now with this bill for the referendum for the Voice. Australians have generous hearts, and they want to see a better future right across the nation. People in my electorate have reflected to me about wanting to vote yes, and I certainly encourage people across the nation to do the same. Together, in a positive and generous way, we can walk together to create that better future. As I said previously, I was very fortunate to be here in 2008 when then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd gave that apology to the stolen generations. It was an incredibly moving moment here, it really was, in terms of the reactions in this place, and across the nation. It changed the nation. It really did. We have an opportunity to do that again. We need to embrace that moment and move forward together. I encourage everyone to vote yes to make this happen, and I strongly commend this bill to the House. 17:56 Mr BATES 300246 Brisbane I acknowledge the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples, who are the traditional custodians of the land on which the Australian parliament meets. I acknowledge their elders past and present and their connection to the lands, waters and skies around us. It is an honour to represent the constituents of the electorate of Brisbane in this House. The lands of Brisbane belong to the Yuggera and Turrbal peoples. The traditional name for Brisbane is Miguntyun, or Meeanjin. The southern border of the electorate of Brisbane is Maiwar, the Brisbane River. Colonisers first surveyed Moreton Bay and greater Brisbane in 1799. In the 1820s, New South Wales Governor Thomas Brisbane tasked John Oxley with finding an alternative site for a penal settlement for convicts. In 1824, Oxley sailed into Moreton Bay and recommended that greater Brisbane be the side of this settlement. This marked the beginning of the Yuggera and Turrbal peoples being deliberately killed. With the intent of the destruction of their nations, they were subjected to genocide. Cutting through my electorate is Boundary Street in Spring Hill. My colleagues the member for Ryan and the member for Griffith also have a Boundary Street or a Boundary Road in their electorates. These street names originate from the 1860s, when those remaining Yuggera and Turrbal peoples were pushed to the fringes of Brisbane by British colonists. At each location in Bardon, Spring Hill and West End there were boundary posts. First Nations peoples were only allowed to cross these posts during working hours so that they could be used as labour for the benefit of white people in the township of Brisbane. Mounted police would patrol the townships and the boundary posts after 4 pm to exclude First Nations peoples from their own land. If caught inside the boundaries of the township, punishment would presumably have been severe. What is now known as Australia—the lands of the Yuggera and Turrbal peoples and the lands of those hundreds of other sovereign Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander nations—was invaded. Sovereignty from First Nations peoples was never ceded. Successive governments at federal, state and local levels have perpetrated grave injustices, dispossession and imprisonment since colonisation. These injustices continue to this day. Systemic racism is embedded into the fabric of our laws and social policies in this country and impacts every aspect of First Nations peoples lives. It is through this lens that the Australian Greens and I come to the consideration of this legislation, the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. The Greens will be supporting the 'yes' campaign during the referendum. It is important to acknowledge that the Voice to Parliament is one element of the story of the Uluru statement. As the first party to endorse the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full, we support progressing truth-telling and treaty-making alongside the Voice referendum. A successful referendum later this year could be the start of a decade of change for First Nations people as we move towards truth-telling, treaty-making and self-determination. We have an opportunity to change things for the better with First Nations people throughout this nation. The Greens are committed to working with the government to advance First Nations justice while listening to the concerns of First Nations people around the country. I note the Prime Minister has said he is committed to implementing the Uluru statement in full, and in the October 2022 budget the government committed $5.8 million to a makarrata commission. But they are yet to show any real action or progress on truth-telling and treaty-making. I urge the government to advance these elements of the Uluru statement this year. I am disappointed that there are those in this place, namely the coalition, who were seeking to derail the Voice referendum and stand against advancing First Nations justice. This referendum is about recognising and respecting the First Peoples of this country and their culture, the oldest living culture in the world. The dog whistling, racist rhetoric by many of those in this place should be rejected, and it's certainly rejected by the people of Brisbane. I thank those residents of Brisbane who have contacted me about the Voice referendum. I have considered all of your correspondence and thank you for sharing your views with me. I note that the overwhelming sentiment of this correspondence was in favour of progressing all elements of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Lastly, and most importantly, I would like to thank the elders who have spoken to me about the upcoming referendum and who are the traditional custodians of the lands now known as Brisbane. I thank those elders who represent community controlled organisations in my electorate who have spoken with me about the issues over the past year. I also thank the Australian Greens and Queensland Greens First Nations networks, whose representatives have met with me over the past year about the Voice referendum. I deeply appreciate the time that local elders, community controlled organisations and First Nations networks have taken to outline their views and engage with me. I deeply respect your views and understand your positions on the referendum. I hope that we can continue to work together in the lead-up to the referendum and long after as we work towards truth-telling, treaty-making and true justice for First Nations peoples. 18:02 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I rise to speak on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 bill, which is probably the most consequential bill that will come before this parliament and probably the most consequential bill in my time representing the people of Lyne, which is my great honour and privilege. I have grave concerns about parts of this bill. In truth, I can't support the question that is being put, because of some existential problems, which I will outline. Lyne has been a seat in the Federation since Federation, and it currently covers from the Hastings River in the north-west down to the Hunter River, from the mountains to the sea. It is the traditional lands of the Birrbay and the Warrimay, and, at the north of it, some of my constituents were in Dhanggati areas at various times since 2013. After redistribution I inherited some of the other tribes, the Wonnarua, around the Hunter region. Essentially, it's mainly Birrbay and Warrimay historical country. Many people support pieces and the intent of Indigenous recognition in our Constitution. In fact, I spoke about getting Indigenous recognition in the Constitution in my maiden speech. But what is proposed in this has gone much further than that simple act of recognising that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders were the first peoples who inhabited this continent. Going through the bill and the explanatory memorandum has to be done with serious consideration. Many of my constituents won't ever look at an explanatory memorandum, so I'll explain it to them: every bill has an explanatory memorandum explaining with much more detail how the bill will enact powers and processes. But the bill creates a whole new chapter in the Australian Constitution, which has been working well since Federation. The obvious problems were corrected in 1967, by removing race from the Constitution and giving the right to vote to all Indigenous Australians, which had been limited, and they were also counted in the referenda. Subsequently, the first bill to enact that referendum came through in 1966 under Prime Minister Menzies, but the bill lapsed, and then it was brought back in under Prime Minister Holt. It was different to now because it was fixing an obvious wrong without complicating or changing the whole nature of how our government and our Constitution would work, which parts of this proposal will existentially change. I will outline those. The 1967 referendum had a long gestation. It was one of 14 bills proposed at the end of World War II to enable changes to the Constitution. Earlier proposals brought in by Mr Calwell failed. This one didn't, because it had broad bipartisan support and united the nation instead of dividing it. Ninety-one per cent voted for it. It corrected an obvious fault. Since that time, it's had the effect of Aboriginal Australians receiving the vote. It was also strengthened by changes in 1984, which made voting compulsory for Aboriginal Australians. Most people would support the original intent to get recognition in the Constitution for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. When I was supporting it in my maiden speech, it had been discussed as possibly being mentioned in the preamble, a statement of the obvious, to honour and acknowledge them. Section 129(i) of this proposed bill mentions that there will be a body to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, as a way of getting formal recognition. It creates a whole new chapter and a whole new section 129. Section 129(ii) provides for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to be able to make representations to the parliament and the executive government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. That also has to be taken in part in synchronicity with section 129(iii) and the explanatory memorandum. Section 129(iii), where the parliament will have powers to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures, are outlined extensively in the explanatory memorandum. I've heard a lot of descriptions of what the Voice will do. Some of them are quite simplistic and misleading. I've heard people say that it will miraculously fix reconciliation, it will allow the gap to be closed, and it will correct all the historical wrongs and rewrite history. There are so many misleading concepts of what this will do. What you must read are the works of the policy promoters and those that did a lot of work about driving the Uluru Statement from the Heart and their depositions at the very rushed five-day inquiry. Changing the Constitution was afforded only five days. Some of the committee inquiries that I do go for months, half a year. But this was proposing to change the Constitution, and it was afforded only five days. Many of those policy proponents and the people who made depositions, and the explanatory memorandum, say that the right to make representations engages a lot of procedural and administrative law. Making representation requires a lot of prerequisites. The people making the representation have to be informed. It ensures that they should be consulted, there should be procedural fairness, and they should have the right to seek judicial review of executive decisions. The Solicitor-General, in his comments, said that section 129 doesn't enable all these other proposed representations, but other sections of the Constitution will be engaged once this is created as a standing body under the Constitution. Section 75 of the Constitution ensures that the Voice will be entitled to consultation, procedural fairness and the ability to seek judicial review of executive decisions. We have all seen that the power to delay executive action of government by referring it to the High Court is a well-worn path in constitutional matters. I too have been to the High Court, and it is a significant process. The proponents, the legal architects, of the Uluru statement have confirmed that this is their intent—to have many representations proactively about other matters besides those which are peculiar to Indigenous Australians. In fact, the explanatory memorandum confirms that. It will require them to satisfy procedural fairness and a proper consultation process. Inevitably they will need legal assistance to make sure what they are proposing is done correctly and all those administrative law procedures are followed. It will mean huge resources will have to be appropriated to it. What they have said both in the press and in their depositions to the inquiry is that they expect to make representations to executive government about laws of general application because all those laws affect everyone. Some of the significance of it is that presenting to executive government means they will be able to make representations about budgets, for instance, or about education policy, foreign policy, defence—you name it. They can make representations to APRA, the Reserve Bank, any minister of state about any existing legislation and, most importantly, proposed legislation. Every bill that goes through this House will have to be sent off to the Voice to get their opinion. It really will gum up the works. Section 129(iii), in effect, to me, has shown that the Attorney-General has realised that these are the consequences of (i) and (ii), so they are trying to limit the constitutional power that is being conferred by the first part of this bill. There is a comment that was made by the Leader of the Opposition that you can't over-legislate the Constitution. Even though section 129(iii) is giving the powers to this parliament to make bills about the Voice, the existential problem is that they can't be out-legislated, because that's why the High Court is there. It will mean that if representation is made but procedural fairness has not been followed, or a full explanation not given, or a deep consultation not had or a proper legal explanation not there, it will lead to any of these decisions that the current parliament and past parliaments have made and will make will be up for challenging and perhaps rescinding if they win in the High Court. It will result in a major transfer of power from this parliament to the courts, who are not elected, and there are problems with the make-up of the Voice. It is yet to be defined. We do not know the full details of how it would work. The government is asking us the Australian people to take things on a promise, that they will work it out after it's been created. But there will be a lot of procedure that is currently not required. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned in his speech practical examples of how it could query decisions about defence matters, education policy, funding—you name it. For instance, in the department of the environment, any coal, gas, mineral or water rights could be challenged by the Voice, by making representations to the minister for the environment. That is why, in truth, I can't support it. It really is going to create an unelected body, solely chosen on the basis of heritage and race. After getting rid of restrictions in 1967 based on race, we are now putting it back into our Constitution. And it is dividing people. It's not dividing Indigenous and whites or non-Indigenous people but people of all races. People are coming to me and saying, 'What's going on here? I thought Australia was egalitarian.' Some Indigenous people in my electorate are for it; some of them think, 'I can't understand what it's doing. All we're hearing from is these top-level people down in Canberra who fly off to the Northern Territory when they're talking about Indigenous matters.' They want to be treated the same as everyone. Australia is an inegalitarian nation. The 1967 referendum fixed a lot of that. It made us all the same. We're all equal before the law, and we have the same set of laws. There is no legal impediment for any Indigenous person to run at local, state and federal elections. We should allow our 11 senators and any Indigenous person who gets elected to be the voice this parliament. 18:17 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I speak today to support the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. It is unequivocally a good thing and right that the Australian people will get the opportunity to vote in a referendum that will enable an important change to our Constitution that will recognise our First Nations peoples through a voice to the parliament. Because of some sad and crushing personal circumstances, I might not be present to vote on this bill, but I want to put on the record of this parliament my wholehearted support for this important step in our nation's history, one that will take significant steps to right some wrongs of the past. Recognising the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples of Australia in the Constitution, through the Voice to Parliament, will never make everything right, but it is a good start and a start we must make to reconcile us all with those dark and tragic parts of the history of this nation that sit alongside Australia's great achievements. Enshrining the Voice to Parliament will enable us to turn a corner and take up the generous offer of the Uluru Statement from the Heart to walk together in a movement of the Australian people for a better future. Soon after I was elected to this place in July 2016, nearly seven years ago, I went to Bertram Primary School, in Kwinana in my electorate, to a school assembly. I'll be honest. Before I was elected, I didn't have a great deal to do with school assemblies and have not been to many, and they sure have changed since my last day at primary school—in 1982 or something. At this assembly, two Noongar students did an acknowledgement of Whadjuk country in their own language. It was beautiful. While I've seen many acknowledgements of country and welcomes to country, it was a new experience for me to witness two young local Noongar kids recognising their own country in their own language. It was an acknowledgement of country that Bertram Primary School had been doing for some time and continues to do. I think about those two young students from time to time. This year they will probably be 18 years old—hopefully, in time to enrol in the referendum on the Voice. Recognising Australia's Indigenous peoples will be entirely natural for these young people and their peers, and I imagine many of the older teenagers across Rockingham and Kwinana in my seat of Brand will wonder why this took so long. In 2018, in the 45th Parliament, I had the opportunity to witness one of the meetings of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. It was before the Barunga Festival, where the committee met with the four Northern Territory land councils: the Anindilyakwa Land Council, the Central Land Council, the Northern Land Council and the Tiwi Land Council. The committee was co-chaired by Senator Pat Dodson and, of course, the member for Berowra, two keen and enthusiastic supporters of the Voice. The meeting was held under a large canopy in Barunga, about an hour's drive from Katherine in the Northern Territory. I had never imagined in my life that I would witness such a meeting of such remarkable people in such a place. Together with my friend and colleague the member for Newcastle, now the Deputy Speaker, Sharon Claydon, I sat under this tent and watched and listened to the hearing for many hours. As we watched, the member for Newcastle asked me quietly, 'Where have you ever seen so many people deeply engaged in such a lengthy and detailed discussion about the Constitution?' It was a remarkable observation. Of course, I'd never seen such a sight. I've studied constitutional law, I've been a lawyer, I worked at a university for 10 years and I've been a parliamentarian for seven, and never in that time have I seen such an engaging discussion about the Constitution of this country—not in a lecture theatre and not in this parliament. At Barunga, more than a hundred Indigenous Australians, organised in their land councils and various groupings, sat, listened and caucused on how they would speak to the committee that day. They talked about the points that needed to be made and what had been said and what had not yet been said. There was good humour, there was some harsh reality and there was thoughtful consideration of recognising Indigenous Australians in the Constitution by those who had themselves been seeking to be recognised and included since they were excluded in 1901. All Indigenous communities face significant challenges. That is, of course, undeniable. Appalling inequality exists between remote communities and urban areas. But, as all those land councils know and as our Indigenous sisters and brothers know, you can fight battles on more than one front, and the people at Barunga who participated in the inquiry on that day know that. The First Nations gatherings from around the country that wrote the Uluru Statement from the Heart know that as well. Despite the challenges, our First Nations Australians argue for a better constitution and a better country. We need to listen, and we must listen. We must listen to what the Barunga Statement said 30 years ago, and we must listen to the more recent Uluru Statement from the Heart—both documents coming from the ground up, from Indigenous peoples themselves, from right around the country; both petitions presented to parliament. Enshrining a Voice to Parliament in the Constitution is our opportunity to act and listen and ensure that, quite simply, Indigenous Australians will have a recognised Voice and a say on matters that affect their lives. In my first speech in this place, in October 2016, I made some observations that I'd like to repeat in this parliamentary debate: Fear is a tremendous and dangerous weapon, and its use is as old as the hills of this, the oldest continent on the face of the earth. In one of his many popular essays published in the West Australian in the late 1930s, Sir Walter Murdoch observed that we spend too much time: … seeking for a continuing city … where it can never be found: in a fluid world. He spoke about fear and considered it to be the case that: … the fear we have to conquer if we seek wisdom—is the fear of change. Sir Walter Murdoch was the founding professor of English literature at the University of Western Australia. He was a self-confessed conservative, and he lamented: … I feel like kneeling down daily and praying to be delivered from this shameful fear of change, and praying that my country may be delivered from it. He was reflecting that things must change and they should change and we should not be afraid of change. I'm a bit more optimistic, perhaps, than Sir Walter in my language, and I know that Australians do embrace change. We have seen that. But it is a word of caution for some conservative forces that seek to use fear and misinformation in holding Australia back from doing what is right, and it is indeed the right thing to do to recognise Indigenous Australians in the Constitution through a Voice to this parliament. Voting 'yes' in the upcoming referendum on the Voice is not a revolution; it is a modest and respectful and meaningful change to our Constitution that will enable the First Nations people of Australia to have a say in the matters that affect them. After 65,000 years of their caring for this unique country, we should listen to and hear the voice of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sisters and brothers. I very much look forward to engaging more with the Western Australian community and the people of Brand on this important moment for the nation. There is much to discuss. We have this chance to work together to achieve a positive change for Australia and all who have the enormous great fortune to live here. 18:25 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert The work we do in this place is extremely important. Much of the time legislation is debated and passed which will affect some Australians, not all. A lot of it goes unnoticed by the general public. But every now and then there comes a time when a piece of legislation has the potential to shape the future of our country for generations to come. This is one of those times. The constitutional amendment which we are voting to put to the people in a referendum will have a lasting impact. In my view, it is not something that will impact us for the better. I do not support the Voice. I will not be voting in favour of the Voice. At a time when the government wants to divide us on the basis of race, we must walk together as one. This is anything but a modest proposal. We don't believe the rhetoric of the Prime Minister, who is looking for a political victory. This political victory would be to the detriment of the very people who the Prime Minister says this will improve the lives of. The Voice will not work. The Voice will create a small group of people based on race who will supposedly represent the views of the entire Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population. We need to see real and concrete outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We need local and regional bodies that can feed back to government from the grass roots, because I can tell you a Canberra voice will not know what the people of Palm Island or the people of Townsville want or need. A Canberra voice cannot speak for the hundreds of different—unique—Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities across our vast land. My position on the Voice is something I considered from a range of different perspectives. It stems from my close personal connection. My mother-in-law was born on Palm Island. Her parents were part of the stolen generation. My wife is Aboriginal. It stems from a lack of detail about the government's proposed Voice and how it will work. And it's from a real concern that there will not be any concrete action to help address some of the unique challenges of our First Nations population as a result of the Voice. It is extremely personal for me. As I said, my wife is Aboriginal. My daughters—Astin, who is five, and Emery, who is three—are Aboriginal. I made a promise when they were born that I would do everything I could to create a better future for them. Will the decisions I make today create a better future for my children and other children throughout Townsville, Palm Island and Australia? This is a question I ask myself every day. Will the Voice create a better future for Aboriginal children facing significant challenges right now? Will the Voice put an end to children as young as four smoking marijuana? Will the Voice stop the five-year-old being sexually assaulted by a family member and returned to the perpetrator because the authorities didn't want to remove an Aboriginal child from its Aboriginal family? That child is at risk right now. Will the Voice stop the high incarceration rates? Will the Voice bring us together as a nation? Will the Voice stop domestic violence? My view is that it won't. It will not come close. So I do not support the Voice. The Aboriginal people in my family and the many I've spoken to in the community and around the country do not support the Voice. In 10 years time, will I be able to look my Aboriginal daughters in the eye and say, 'I bent the knee because of emotional blackmail,' which is what we're seeing from the Albanese government? I cannot, and I won't. I remember the first time I saw my wife, Jenna. I did not consider her race, her ancestry or her Aboriginality. I simply thought she was the most remarkable woman that I'd ever met. I saw a person who I knew I wanted to walk beside in life, as equals. Together we have built a life and created two beautiful daughters, as equals. We make decisions about our lives together. I'm a proud Australian. My wife is a proud Aboriginal Australian. My children are being raised to be proud Aboriginal Australian women. We are walking proudly towards our future together. And we are saying 'no' to the Voice, so that we can remain as we've always been: equals. The wording of this proposal that we are putting to the people of Australia is extremely concerning. There are many legitimate questions to be asked. There are procedural questions about the process that has—or, in my view, hasn't—been followed to get us to this point today. Why did the government establish a committee to establish a permanent change to our country's Constitution with only six weeks for submissions, public hearings across the country and a report back to the parliament? There wasn't enough time. There were 270 submissions and a few hearings here and there. The closest hearing to my city, to where I live, in Townsville, was in Cairns. The views of the people of Cairns or Yarrabah are not the views of the people of Townsville or Palm Island or Mackay. Another question is: why did the government refuse to provide any detail that would explain how the constitutional change will operate? Why must we wait until after the referendum to find out how the Voice will affect our nation? It is never a good thing when the government says to its people: 'Trust us. We're the government.' Other questions which are constantly being put to me, when I meet people at street stalls and events throughout the electorate of Herbert, are: Who will be on the Voice? How will they be appointed? How will their eligibility be determined? Why do we need the Voice when there are members of parliament and senators who are already the voice of the people for all Australians? Why haven't we had the standard opportunity to thrash out these questions at a constitutional convention? Why do we need to put the Voice in the Constitution when it's something that can be implemented by the parliament anyway? If it's about constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, why don't we insert a sentence in the preamble that acknowledges Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the first inhabitants of the land? It's something I believe we all support. If the Voice has to give advice to both the parliament and the executive government, how will anything ever be done in a streamlined way? The executive government and ministers make dozens, if not hundreds, of decisions a day. Does the Voice need to be consulted on every one of them? And, given that the Voice will be in the Constitution, how can we be assured that we will not end up in a position where the High Court is constantly deciding whether the Voice has been properly consulted on issues? What safeguards will there be put in place against High Court activism? Just how powerful could this Voice be, when the Prime Minister himself has said that it would be a very brave government that didn't accept its advice? As one commentator said, the Voice will create constant opportunities for a tiny minority of actors to hold the parliament and executive government to ransom by using the immense leverage and opportunities for lawfare carefully woven into the Albanese amendment. It is no exaggeration to say that it will cause the end of parliamentary democracy as we know it. These are all valid, legitimate questions, which the Prime Minister and the government have, arrogantly, refused to answer or even vaguely address. They are answers the people of Australia deserve before being sent to the ballot box. At the centre of this debate are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We need to remember to ask ourselves: why are we having this debate in the first place? There are many reasons, but I believe the reason we have to hold first and foremost in our minds is that we need to be doing better when it comes to addressing the systematic social and societal issues that our First Nations people are experiencing. It's the concrete outcomes that we need to be seeing on the ground in the community. I mentioned before the little Aboriginal boy smoking marijuana and the sexual assault victim being returned to the perpetrator. As I said before, a Canberra voice of 20-odd people—or whatever it may be; we haven't been told—will not know the solutions to these problems. We must deliver better outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We need a sensible, considered approach, not a risky or divisive one. That's why we must have local bodies that are at the coalface, which can feed up through the chain to the decision-makers in a structured and considered way, focused on real solutions. A grassroots model will prioritise local and regional bodies and be focused on delivering practical outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians in accordance with the framework provided by the Calma-Langton final report. This would see Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians' insights, life experiences and moral authority moving up to Canberra, rather than down from it. If you can't get local governance right, you definitely won't get national governance correct. In government we allocated $31.8 million to support the first year of required work to design the local and regional structures, and we stand by this commitment. Our approach ensures that local and regional voices are heard and that these bodies deliver real and tangible improvements for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, including making women and children safer and improving education and health outcomes. The problem is we don't know what the government intends to do with the Voice. The Prime Minister hasn't said which parts of the Calma-Langton report he agrees with or will support. We all want a better future for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, a better future for all Australians. We want to walk together as equals and want a better future for our children. A voice to parliament says this will never occur. If it is in our Constitution, it cannot be removed. In conclusion, we as a nation need to be extremely careful here about what it is we are trying to achieve. We must not be held to ransom by a government that is wanting to emotionally blackmail the Australian people. Ultimately this referendum will go ahead and it is Australians who will have their say, as is their democratic right. My message to them is: 'Know your facts. Do your research. Make sure you don't take everything on face value.' As the federal member for Herbert I believe it is my role to outline my position to the community, which is why stand in this place today. I cannot support this constitutional change which divides Australians on the basis of race. I encourage Australians to think very carefully about their own decision. We must walk together as one. 18:38 Ms M 133646 Dunkley URPHY () (): The member for Herbert just ended his speech with the line, 'We must walk together as one.' I absolutely agree with him that we must walk together as one. While there are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in today's Australia who have had magnificent lives, have succeeded and are role models—and I'm sure the member for Herbert's wife is absolutely one of those people—the truth is as a country we haven't walked as one. We haven't walked as one since 1788 and we surely haven't walked as one since the Constitution was adopted in 1901 and didn't recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the First Nations people of this country and, in fact, didn't recognise them as people. The ancestors of the member for Herbert's wife, not that long ago, weren't recognised by our Constitution or Australian governments as people. When we ask, 'Why are we having this debate in the first place?' and the member for Herbert says, 'Because we need to do better; because we need concrete outcomes on the ground,' I agree with him. We need to do better. Because the unfortunate and damaging and distressing history of our country is that our ancestors did very badly at the start, so damagingly badly. And governments over the years—some with bad intention, I would say, and bad attitude about race; others with the best of intentions—haven't done well enough. They haven't. Where I part with the member for Herbert, the Leader of the Opposition and the National Party is at the conclusion that the Voice won't do anything to fix that. It is inexplicable that anyone in this chamber could stand here and say, 'We need to do better—more needs to be done—but we don't want to do it differently.' We know that one of the problems that has existed in this country for 200 years is that non-Indigenous people have done things to Indigenous people, not with them. The policies that have been introduced, from the stolen generations onwards, have been done by non-Indigenous Australians to Indigenous Australians, not with them, and most of the time—pretty close to all of the time—without even having consulted them. When people talk in this chamber about horrific circumstances that some of our First Nations people live in, that children experience and that communities grapple with, they should acknowledge that is not because First Nations people are inherently alcoholics or don't love their children or don't know how to look after their children or don't want to live in secure accommodation. It's because, for a very long time, we—those of us who aren't Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander—have said, 'This is how you should live your life,' or, 'This is how you should address the problems in your community.' Now, in 2023, we have an opportunity to change that. We can say that we might not be the people who committed the wrongs, that wrote the Constitution that ignored 60,000-odd years of civilisation—that wasn't us—but we're going to be the people that address it. The Voice might not immediately fix the situation of the young boy that the member for Herbert was talking about, but how can you say that making sure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people get to play a role in decisions that are made, in policies that are developed, that impact them directly couldn't be better than what we've got now? This is not a political plaything. This is not emotional blackmail from the Albanese government. This is not the Albanese government's Voice or Labor's Voice. This is the culmination of a decade of consultation, of so many processes, which Aboriginal people have designed themselves and have participated in themselves. They have produced one of the most beautiful pieces of writing we will see in modern Australia, in the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and have said, 'We ask for voice, treaty and truth, and we ask you to walk with us to get there.' This is not emotional blackmail of those on the other side or of any Australian to say why you should vote for the Voice. It is just a clear and simple entreaty to say: be part of a new chapter in Australia's history where we aren't divided on race, where we don't have to hand down a Closing the gap report every year that shows that First Nations people struggle under socio-economic conditions that are far worse than in the rest of the community. Be part of a once-in-a-generation opportunity to say, 'We are bigger and better than that, and so can our future be.' I thought I was going to come in here a bit angry about some of the spurious arguments that have been put forward in this place—which is supposed to be a place of fact and debate—against the Voice. But I can't find it in myself at the moment to be angry as much as just so deeply disappointed on behalf of my Indigenous friends who have dedicated their lives to making the lives of their community better. I am disappointed on behalf of two women who work in my electorate of Dunkley, Karinda Taylor and Deb Mellett—two smart, hardworking, fierce, take-no-rubbish, take-no-step-backwards women. Deb Mellett runs the Indigenous gathering place, and Karinda Taylor is the CEO of First Peoples' Health and Wellbeing. If anyone met these two women they would say, 'That's who I want my daughter to grow up to be.' Whether they be black or white or Asian, whatever their background is they would look at these two women and say, 'They possess all the characteristics—love, compassion, strength and a dedication to others—that I want my children to possess.' But they also have to fight every day for their community—and they should be heard. Neither of them want to be a parliamentarian—although I think Karinda should be! They don't want to be in parliament; they want to be with and for their community, but they want their knowledge and the knowledge they have inherited from generations and generations of First Nations people to be heard when governments and politicians are making decisions about their lives and the lives of their children and grandchildren. That is not too much to ask. Put aside the legal sophistry about proposed section 129, because, as I've said in this place before, the overwhelming majority view of legal experts is that that section is properly crafted and will adorn our Constitution, and that the ridiculous arguments about it gumming up parliament and ending democracy as we know it are just that—ridiculous. Do what the member for Herbert said: know your facts, do your research. Put aside the ridiculous arguments about 'not enough information about the Voice' and the far-flung suggestions about the consequences of section 129, and just look deep into your heart. Which side of history do you want to be on? I want to be on the side of history that says, as a country, we want to move forward, to honour our First Nations people and make sure that no government ever again can dismantle the mechanisms for them having a role in issues that affect them. I tell you what: a lot of good people do. A lot of good people want to be on that side of history. In conclusion, I want to say how proud I am of the Criminal Bar Association in Victoria, of which I used to be a member before I got elected to this parliament. Dave Hallowes SC, the chair, who is an old and dear friend of mine, put out this statement: The Victorian Criminal Bar Association supports the proposal to amend the Australian Constitution to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as the First Peoples of Australia by the establishment of the Voice. As the Uluru Statement from the Heart recognised: Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated people o n the planet. We are not an innately criminal people. Our children are aliened from their families at unprecedented rates. This cannot be because we have no love for them. And our youth languish in detention in obscene numbers. They should be our hope for the future. The unacceptable over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in custody persists notwithstanding that more than 30 years have passed since the landmark final report of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. That report examined the many ways in which our criminal justice system failed to deal justly with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons. It also examined the disadvantages that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons confronted, disadvantages that frequently continue to inform the prevailing circumstances when First Nations persons come before our criminal courts. Whilst criminal justice primarily falls within the province of State legislatures, it does not do so exclusively. Moreover, the Commonwealth has wide scope to make laws on matters relating to, or which affect, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons. The Voice would provide a mechanism by which First Nations persons could communicate their views on such matters. The Victorian Criminal Bar Association—whose membership consists of barristers who prosecute criminal cases, barristers who defend persons charged with criminal offences and barristers who do both—considers that mechanism to be a fair and proportionate measure which has the very real potential to address injustices that are so often seen by those of us who practise in criminal law. To Dave Hallowes SC and all the members of the criminal bar in Victoria: I acknowledge your support for our brothers and sisters who are Indigenous Australians and for those of us who aren't Indigenous Australians who want to take up the generous request of the Uluru Statement from the Heart and say, 'We want to walk with you, and we want to walk forward into a country where we're walking beside each other, as one and equal.' 18:53 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan First Nations people have been bravely raising their voices for decades, for centuries, from the resistance in the frontier wars and the Australian Aboriginal Progressive Association in the 1920s to the Tent Embassy in the seventies and the Australian Black Lives Matter and sovereignty movements today, alongside countless other instances of local organising and campaign work led by First Nations people. If you had to draw up a balance sheet, you'd have to say that they have, on the whole and despite progress here and there, been shamefully not listened to by both sides of politics. In fact, the dispossession that came with colonisation has continued in many ways. In some ways, things have actually been getting worse. We are seeing growing, absolutely disproportionate incarceration rates. They have doubled in the last three decades. First Nations children are now jailed at 20 times—20 times!—the rate of non-First Nations children. Eleven-year-olds are being locked up and abused for minor offences. Over 540 First Nations people have died in custody since the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. This all connects with the absolutely shameful lack of housing for First Nations people, the poor funding for Aboriginal legal services, the lack of support for First Nations-led education across the country, the abysmal health outcomes that stem from underinvestment in First Nations-led health and underinvestment in our universal health system more broadly, particularly in regional areas. When social issues emerge from this, the response from governments, both Labor and Liberal, has been the opposite of empowering First Nations people to co-design and to lead their own solutions. They have been paternalistic disasters, like the Northern Territory intervention. On top of this, governments of both persuasions have allowed the ongoing destruction of First Nations country for the profits of coal and gas corporations. Queensland Labor swung its support behind the Adani's Carmichael mine against the wishes of the Wangan and Yagalingu mob. We've seen destruction of sacred sites, like Juukan Gorge, for the profits of these fossil fuel corporations. We've seen the destruction of sacred sites like the Djab Wurrung birthing trees in Victoria and at Deebing Creek Mission, near my electorate, which are the sites for highway expansions and for the profits of big developers. Against all of these injustices, First Nations people have fought back. They've raised their voices, only to have those voices silenced and ignored. So the idea that alongside truth and treaty Australia will have a Voice to Parliament is an important and timely one, and the Greens support the campaign for yes. In fact, the Greens were the first to support the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full, and we see Truth, Treaty and Voice as intimately bound up with one another. A truth-telling process can set the record straight on the crimes and the impacts of colonisation and can unite the nation around a shared understanding of our history, not sweeping it under the rug. A treaty can unite Australia on a shared future, helping empower First Nations people to be in charge of their own destiny and formally recognising their sovereignty. A Voice alone won't be enough. We need truth; we need treaty. But a successful referendum could be the start of a decade of change for First Nations people as we move towards this truth-telling, this treaty-making and towards self-determination—and that self-determination concept is absolutely critical here. We need to ensure that this Voice is properly democratic and reflective of the interests and the will of everyday First Nations people in this country, that it represents the grassroots of First Nations communities who fully understand their own lives and the way forward for their own communities. We also need to make sure that the government listens. To do that, we all need to join up with First Nations movements to build the community power that will hold the government to account, to open up space for real change and build solidarity between First Nations and non-First Nations communities. Because at the end of the day, the same big corporations that are ruining the planet for profit and undermining all of our futures are the same big corporations destroying First Nations country. The system that puts the profits of huge multinationals ahead of everyday people's needs is the same one that systematically puts First Nations communities last. Thank you. 18:59 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith I am, of course, supporting the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. I'll be campaigning for the 'yes' case and encouraging members of the Kingsford Smith community to also support this important constitutional alteration to establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament. The Gamay Rangers are an Indigenous rangers group that care for country around Botany Bay. They're a team of dedicated, skilled rangers that bring thousands of years of historic and cultural knowledge to their management and conservation of the land and the waters of Botany Bay. They have been part of that water and that land for centuries. They know its ecosystem better than any other human on earth. There is a team of scientists from the University of New South Wales that are looking to do work on seagrass restoration in Botany Bay. They have been consulting the experts. They have been consulting the Gamay Rangers. They've taken a different approach to traditional science and conservation projects, and it's paying dividends. Professor Adriana Verges from UNSW, who is leading the project, said: 'It's been rewarding getting to know and understand their connection to the bay. As an ecologist, we have ideas about what is important for habitat, but by listening to the rangers, we now know it's important to understand what species are culturally important to help build habitat around that as well.' Here we have an important environmental program that is benefiting from listening to people that know that habitat best: First Nations Australians. Consulting First Nations Australians about issues affecting them will ensure that governments of all levels make better decisions and get better outcomes for First Nations Australians across our continent. First Nations Australians have known this for a long time, but we have not been listening. Well, it's time for us to listen. In 2017, 250 representatives from First Nations communities across Australia came together at Uluru. They spoke with one voice and they said: 'Enough is enough. We are the most incarcerated race of people in the world. We have lower life expectancies than the average Australian. We have inferior health outcomes to the average Australian. Our children's educational outcomes are below mainstream Australia. We have been dispossessed of our lands, our culture destroyed, our languages ruined, our children taken from us. Enough is enough. We want to be respected, and we want to be recognised. We want to have a say about issues affecting our communities. We want to be heard.' They spoke with one voice when they said in the Uluru statement, 'We want a Voice to Parliament about matters affecting us and our communities.' They asked the Australian people to talk with them, not to them. This bill and this referendum represent the government and the parliament respecting the views of First Nations Australians and listening to their view. Most importantly, it represents the government acting to deliver First Nations Australians a constitutionally enshrined voice to the parliament in Australia. Although the Albanese Labor government sought and received a mandate at the election to hold this referendum, this is not the government's referendum. This proposal to alter our Constitution does not belong to one political party or a particular politician. This referendum belongs to the Australian people—Australians who recognise that 65,000 years of continuous cultural connection to this continent by First Nations Australians is a source of pride for our nation and should be celebrated in our Constitution; Australians who believe that the lives of First Nations Australians can be improved if we listen to and respect the views of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians about issues affecting them; Australians who believe that we will be a better nation, a better people, if we work together to amend our Constitution to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as the First Peoples of this continent and enshrine in that Constitution a voice to parliament for them. All Australians are invited to be part of this change as we move towards this era of acknowledgment and respect. This bill, if passed, will allow the government to get on with that process. This bill allows the government to hold a referendum of the Australian people within six months. That referendum will ask the Australian people to vote on a proposal to amend the Australian Constitution to do three things: to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the first people of Australia; to establish a body to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice and to outline that the Voice may make representations to parliament and the executive government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. That's it. It's as simple as that. This is a proposal whose time has come. Since 2010, there have been seven inquiries, investigations and reports into constitutional recognition of First Nations Australians, involving the parliament, expert panels and the Australian people. Despite all these reports, there's been excuse after excuse—predictably from, unfortunately, the former government and from certain political leaders, kicking the can down the road and providing excuses about why we couldn't do this. Well, the new government, the Labor government, is saying: 'Enough is enough. If not now then when?' The latest inquiry into this proposal, which was conducted over the last couple of months, was by the joint select committee that's investigating this constitutional alteration. They received 270 submissions from Australians. There were 71 witnesses and five public hearings. That committee, the latest in a long string, has again recommended that this bill be passed without amendment, and that is what this parliament should do. The time has come to recognise First Nations Australians in our Constitution. I know that Australians have busy lives. Some may not be aware of this proposal, and some may want more information before they make a decision. I and members of the government respect that, and that is why the government will conduct an education campaign to inform Australians about the background to the Voice proposal, how it will work, what it will mean for all Australians and the wording of the referendum question. In the community I represent, I will be holding public forums across the community, inviting members of the community to come along and hear and be educated about this proposal before they make a decision. Those community forums will be open to all members of the public. There is quite a bit of information that has been released by the government on the advice of the expert working panel, a group of First Nations Australians, members of various political parties and leaders of Australia who came together to advise the government about how we establish this Voice to Parliament. There are a number of principles that they have laid down for the design of the Voice to Parliament that we know. First, the Voice will make representations to the parliament and the executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Second, the Voice will be chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander people based on the wishes of local communities. The third principle is that the Voice will be representative of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander communities, will be gender balanced and will include youth. Fourth, the Voice will be empowering, community led, inclusive, respectful and culturally informed. Fifth, the Voice will be accountable and transparent. Sixth, the Voice will work alongside existing organisations and traditional structures. This means that the Voice will respect the work of existing organisations, including the parliament. Seventh, the Voice will not have a program delivery function. And, importantly, the final principle is that the Voice will not have a veto power over the work of this parliament. That is important to highlight. The Voice will be an advisory body. It will be up to the parliament whether or not it accepts the advice that comes from the Voice, and the Voice will certainly not have a veto power over the actions of government or the actions of this parliament. It will simply be an advisory body. It will simply reflect Australians finally recognising the 65,000-year connection that First Nations Australians have had with this continent and enshrining a mechanism in the Constitution, that can't be taken away by governments of the future, to allow First Nations Australians to be heard by government about matters affecting them. I have lived in the community that I represent my entire life. I feel fortunate to represent that wonderful community of Kingsford Smith. I have had a deep connection, particularly, to the waterways around my community, the fantastic beaches and Botany Bay. I grew up surfing, fishing, playing and swimming in those waters. I feel a deep connection to that important place. Robert Cooley and his team of Gamay Rangers have educated me and others in our community about traditional food sources, about the fragile nature of the ecology of Botany Bay and how to conserve that ecology into the future. Our community and all three levels of government are now much wiser in the approach that we take to environmental and development policy around Botany Bay because we have listened to the experts, because we have had the opportunity of being educated about the historical connection and the cultural connection and the importance of that to First Nations Australians. The Voice gives us an opportunity to achieve better policy outcomes for First Nations Australians and all Australians on a national scale. Let's not waste this opportunity. Let's not cast aside this welcoming hand that's been offered by First Nations Australians. Let all Australians accept the invitation to listen and learn from the First Australians, to finally show them the respect that they deserve for their continuous connection to country over 65,000 years. It's time for the First Nations Voice to Parliament, and passing this legislation is the first step in ensuring that all Australians can work together to finally deliver a constitutionally enshrined voice to parliament. 19:12 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to speak on the second reading of this very historic opportunity to contribute to a debate around our Constitution and the proposal that this Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 bill will be putting to the Australian people. I note the historical significance of us having a debate around changing our Constitution, because it happens very rarely. There was a debate that didn't proceed to referendum back in 2012-13, of the Gillespie government, the last time there was a proposition to change the Constitution discussed in this chamber. The last time we passed a bill for a referendum was for the Republic referendum in 1999. Before that you go back, on average, more than a decade between each time proposals come forward. Many speakers have noted that it is very difficult for a referendum to be successful. It has been a rarity, given the number of proposals that have been put forward, for them to be successful. I know other speakers have talked about the mechanism that we have, not only achieving the national vote but the majority of states as well. This proposition I come to with an interesting point of view. I will be supporting the bill because I do support this question being put to the Australian people and this proposition being resolved, much like the 1999 referendum resolved the question around constitutional monarchy for many decades into the future. I, equally, have already been very clear and public in the fact that I will have a vote like the 17½ million other Australians for this referendum and I will absolutely not be supporting the proposal to change our Constitution as outlined in this bill. But I am very comfortable with the people of this country having their say, and I hope to be a part of the campaign to convince them that this is not a change that is in the best interests of our nation and the good government of this nation. South Australia was very central to the drafting of our Constitution. Sir John Downer, in particular, was one of the pioneering early drafters of various proposals through the 1890s that culminated in the Australian Constitution, which was adopted both in the United Kingdom parliament and, ultimately, in Western Australia, thankfully. We love having Western Australia in the Commonwealth. Deputy Speaker Goodenough, I know that you're very proud as a Western Australian that the good people of Western Australia are in the Commonwealth and remain in the Commonwealth, as they so should for a long time into the future. At Federation, something that's not very well understood is that the voting enfranchisement for the first Commonwealth elections was based on people that were on the electoral roll in the various colonies that became the states. In my home state of South Australia, we had Indigenous enfranchisement in South Australia. At the first Commonwealth elections, in the state of South Australia—and only in the state of South Australia—Indigenous South Australians had a vote. At one stage, in the 1890s, South Australia was going to be the only state that enfranchised women to vote at that first Commonwealth election. Regrettably, it was the case that the South Australian electoral roll became the federal roll. If you were an Indigenous South Australian on the electoral roll at the time of Federation, you stayed on the electoral roll, but Indigenous Australians could not then join the Commonwealth election roll in the early decades of our Commonwealth. That was shameful. I'm very pleased that more than a century since, we have broken down so many elements of inequality around race, gender, religion, age, and all sorts of things, that held back certain Australians in different ways within not just the formal structures of government but also the way in which our society operated in the past. We have spent so much time breaking those divisions down. I feel that we've never been a more united and more equitable nation than we are now in the year 2023. There are no doubt more opportunities to continue to improve the equity of this nation. I have three serious concerns with the proposition that this bill will put to people to change our Constitution. The first is very much rooted in that sense of equity, and particularly equity of citizenship, in our nation. I have great concern that what we're doing through this proposal is suggesting or creating a different treatment for certain Australians in our Constitution to other Australians. Even though there is great virtue in elements of arguments that people may put as to why certain special treatment should be or is justified, that can always be the beginning of a very dangerous and unforeseen trend and one that had not gone the way some early proponents thought it might when they stepped down this path throughout history. I think equity of citizenship in this nation is vitally important. It was wrong when we had inequality of citizenship. It was wrong when Indigenous Australians weren't entitled to vote in elections. It was wrong when women weren't entitled to vote in elections. It was wrong when Australians, for different reasons, have been discriminated against throughout our history. So, here in 2023, I stand very firmly against that kind of inequity being reintroduced in any way, shape or form, particularly into the Constitution of our nation. Secondly, I am very sceptical about the benefit of creating a new bureaucracy in Canberra and its likely effectiveness in addressing real and serious issues of Indigenous disadvantage, which are important and should have our focus. I'm not so convinced creating a new bureaucracy in Canberra, with all the various examples that we could call upon as to when more government has been created, particularly centralised here in Canberra, would ever achieve the kind of benefit that some people might claim through this proposition. I'm desperately concerned, and I think everyone in this House is desperately concerned, about the serious challenges for Indigenous Australians that need our attention—particularly in remote Indigenous communities, where the issues are most acute. I think it is regrettable that, at the moment, the only topic regarding Indigenous assistance, welfare and support from government is whether or not this new bureaucracy should be created in our Constitution, rather than the kinds of discussions we could have right now about, instead of this topic, the ways in which we could do better to provide assistance with the most significant challenges that are facing Indigenous communities. We know what they are. We have the Closing the Gap process and the annual report against those metrics. Some have had better progress than others but we are in no way close to closing the gap. And we are spending an inordinate amount of time on text in our Constitution and a bureaucracy in Canberra, and whatever the costs are around that, which I think is time that could be much better spent talking about serious practical solutions to the challenges in those communities. My third concern is very much around us, frankly, becoming like the United States of America. It is a country I greatly admire, but one thing I think they get wrong in the United States is that their courts decide things that are in the purview of parliaments and the democratic process. I don't want to see a situation where we change our Constitution and create open lawfare over a whole range of questions, and where we've got no control over whether jurisprudence may head or land on a whole range of things that occur when you dramatically change the Constitution of our nation. The Constitution has supremacy, and the High Court has the ability to interpret that Constitution with no ability for this chamber or this parliament to interfere with or change that interpretation whatsoever. We have heard through evidence to the committee on this and the public debate that there are many former High Court justices with varied opinions on this, former eminent jurists, and people coming from both sides of the argument around advocacy for this change. But none of them are saying there is no risk as to how the powers of what we are creating might be interpreted by the High Court, and what that could lead to around the way in which our government functions. I love our Westminster system of government. I love the fact that the executive of government comes from the legislature and is accountable to the legislature. Yes, we have an independent judiciary, and they quite rightly adjudicate questions of interpretation of law and, most importantly, in the case of the High Court, the Constitution, the governing document of our nation—which is why changing the Constitution is so significant. In doing it, you don't come back from the consequences of that. Right now, if people don't like the current government, and their local member of parliament is in that government, they can vote them out at the next election. They can come to see me, as their local member—and we'll all have a great deal of advocacy from our constituents who are for or against this very issue we're debating right now and many other issues that will come into the court of public opinion, into the public domain and into this parliament. And we are accountable to those voters and their views. Every three years—I think we could change that to four at some time—they get to choose whether they're happy with their local member of parliament and the government of their nation. And that accountability is to every Australian who gets a vote in selecting their representatives and the composition of this parliament. We must cherish that and the fact we are such a strong vibrant democracy because of that. I don't want to see a situation where we have that except in a whole range of cases where the High Court has determined that because we've changed our Constitution in a certain way there are now elements of our democracy that are taken away from our democracy and are taken away from this parliament. That is unequivocally the consequence of creating an additional power in the Constitution and creating another body within our governmental framework that has rights and powers that may be determined in whatever way by the High Court into the future. When we find out the answers to all these questions it will be when we've already changed our Constitution permanently. We've about six months to debate this. It's my understanding from the indications of the government that, once this bill is passed, the referendum question will be put later in the year—around October and November. We are going to have a spirited debate—and that's one of the great things about our democracy. I commend the contribution of my good friend the member for Menzies, who made the most important point in the debate I have listened to so far—without disrespecting the excellent contributions from all members—and that is that we must have civility and respect in this debate. Everyone is contributing to it because they love their country and they care about our future. They have views about what will make this country even better in the future. A debate about our Constitution couldn't be a more fundamental conversation for lawmakers to have, for civic leaders to have and for every Australian to have. Those conversations will happen over the next six months. At times there will be nasty contributions, and we should call out those nasty contributions. At times people will get personal, and we should not tolerate that. At times wild claims will be made that are not relevant to the debate and are seeking to trick people into believing certain things might occur that might not. It's possible that that will happen on both sides of the argument. There's no question about that. I come at this with a view on what should happen, and I will call out people who seek the same outcome as me if they behave in that way. I hope all members have that same attitude—I'm sure they do. I will support this bill through the parliament. I'm very comfortable with the people of my electorate having their say on this. I think it is very important. It is something that needs to be resolved by having a referendum. I will support the bill. I will campaign against changing our Constitution in that referendum campaign. I will vote against it, and I will absolutely respect the result of that referendum when the people of this country have the final say. I commend the bill to the House. 19:27 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth The earliest photo I have of me in Boorloo, the Perth electorate, is at a rally. Ron and Wendy, my mum and dad, are walking down William Street, marching for Aboriginal land rights. In my dad's arms is a six-month-old baby—me. My mum is pushing the empty pram. They're smiling for a staged photo, but the reality of these protests and rallies in 1985 was different. Dad tells me they were yelled at and hateful slurs came from the street to Aboriginal leaders and all who supported them, like my mum and dad. On one occasion mum and dad, with six-month-old me, were spat on—hate in physical form. But we know that compassion overcomes hate. I'm a realist. We'll see division, racism and hate in this debate, but time and time again hate loses the policy argument. It has no moral authority, no integrity and no longevity. For some Australians it will be confronting to see the racism that so many Aboriginal people have experienced throughout their lifetime. Other Australians will learn for the first time the truth of Australia's treatment of First Nations people. Together we can learn and grow. We can choose our future, choose to heal, choose to take responsibility and choose to recognise and consult with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, because it is the right thing to do. My parents were both primary school teachers. They taught me not just to stand up for what is right; they taught me to make what is right a reality. Our home on Hampton Road was opposite Fremantle Prison, which was then a working prison that was disproportionately filled with Aboriginal people. Australian prisons are both symbols of justice and symbols of injustice. Fremantle Prison has long since closed and become a World Heritage site, but Indigenous incarceration continues to be an unacceptable national failure. As the Uluru Statement from the Heart says: Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated people on the planet. We are not an innately criminal people. Our children are aliened from their families at unprecedented rates. This cannot be because we have no love for them. And our youth languish in detention in obscene numbers. They should be our hope for the future. It is this hope for the future that dominated my recent discussion with Dr Robert Isaacs, a great Western Australian Aboriginal leader. He said: 'The government must honour its commitment to the Uluru statement. The Voice will take not only Aboriginal people but the Australian community into the future—a new beginning, a new era for Aboriginal affairs in the community at large.' Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 73 ADJOURNMENT Gippsland Electorate: Infrastructure 73 19:30 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I rise to raise my concerns with the complete lack of respect demonstrated by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government towards the people of Gippsland since coming to office one year ago. The delays in the infrastructure program caused by the dysfunctionality of the minister's office are actually putting lives at risk in my community. I come here with some degree of reluctance to make this speech tonight, because I have tried to work constructively with this minister from the day she took office. I engaged with her office and engaged with her advisers within weeks of her taking on this portfolio, because I knew how important it was for my community, and I knew about the delays that had already occurred in trying to get the federal department to get some action out of the state department to actually build the infrastructure that my community needs to change lives and to save lives. So I am reluctant in standing here today and expressing my extreme disappointment and frustration with this minister's complete incompetence and lack of respect for Gippslanders. I wrote to the minister, on the first occasion, in July last year. I've written to her six more times since then. Finally, being exasperated by the lack of response—not a single response from the minister—I raised my concerns on ABC radio. The minister came onto the radio program and said herself to the ABC: Well, I actually have responded to Darren, so I'm not sure where those letters have gone astray, but I have signed letters, I've seen them across my desk and I've signed them. So, we'll chase that up for him today. That must have caused quite a furore in the minister's office and the department, because 10 days later I got a letter from the minister, acknowledging that in fact I'd written to her seven times and this was actually her first response on any of the issues that I had raised with her. These are issues that I raised in relation to funding programs and concerns about priorities in my community. There was not a single political comment in any of those letters. All were genuine requests for information and genuine offers as to how I could work with her to establish local priorities which would save lives in Gippsland. Also, it's important to note we're not talking about a funding program with any risk of any blowouts. This is a set amount of funding from 2019, $300 million for the Princes Highway in Victoria, to allocate within the headroom to fix intersections and to improve sections of the highway where we know there has been a crash history or there is a risk of people losing their lives. I also asked the minister for a detailed breakdown of previous work that had occurred in partnership with the state government, to get some understanding of how much money may still be available within that fund. The reason I was so determined to work with the minister to try and achieve a positive outcome is that I know that investment in safer roads, better roads, will save lives of people in my community—the people I love, the people I work with, my family, my friends and my workmates right throughout the region. Not getting a reply for 10 months was one thing. Then, to find out that the minister now is obsessed with the review process, which is an opportunity to cancel projects, makes me sick in the guts. This review process is going to put at risk projects that I have been working on now for the best part of three years, trying to get a recalcitrant state government to stump up its money, trying to get a department here in Canberra to stop being a dumb bank just taking orders from state governments and actually look at the local priorities and work with the community to improve these infrastructure outcomes for our region. We're at the point now where lives are at risk. There are several highway intersections and arterial roads which are directly impacted by this minister's review, and there is simply no guarantee whatsoever that that money will still be there after the review process has ended. Gippsland has been punished twice. First of all, the state government—the state Labor ministers—failed to do the work, and now we're being punished because they haven't gotten on with the job and started construction. We're being punished by the federal minister as well as the state minister. You wouldn't see this in an episode of Utopia. So I say to the minister and her department: just do your job. If it's too hard, just leave. Let someone else do it. The federal department has failed Gippslanders. The minister has failed Gippslanders. I've been trying to get these projects started for the best part of four years. I've worked constructively with the minister from day one, and she has shown my community no respect whatsoever. In all seriousness, if projects like the Marine Parade upgrades, the Eastern Beach intersection and the McEacharn Street roundabout don't go ahead, there will be blood on the hands of the bureaucrats who failed to get the work started. We need to get on with the job of delivering the infrastructure that our community needs. Paterson Electorate: Albanese Government 74 19:35 Ms 264170 Paterson SWANSON () (): Good governments deliver, and this government lives by the thinking that no-one should be left behind and no-one should be held back. Ninety-one thousand nine hundred and four people and 58 general practices in my electorate of Paterson will benefit from that thinking when we deliver the largest ever investment in bulk-billing and ensure that thousands of families aren't left out of pocket when visiting the doctor. This government is 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—no-one left behind, no-one held back. Our budget ensures that 8,070 people across my communities of Maitland, Port Stephens and Kurri Kurri benefit from a sensible increase to income support payments and the provision of an expansion to support for single parents, meaning that around 695 eligible single mums and dads will be able to receive parenting payment until their youngest child turns 14, up from the current age of eight. Whether or not they've ever had children, people understand that an eight-year-old is very different to a 14-year-old, and this is one of the most sensible decisions we could have taken. Eligible single parents will be $176.90 better off each fortnight—I just want to say that again: $176.90 better off—receiving a base rate of $922.10 per fortnight, compared to the current JobSeeker payment rate of $745.20 per fortnight. These amounts are important—no-one left behind. Around 6,175 of the most vulnerable households in my electorate will benefit from the increase to rent assistance. Our government is ensuring that all parents will be able to access government-paid leave at the same time as employer-paid leave, something not currently available to fathers. Again, it's good to see that it will be available to the dads of our nation. They play a really important part in all families, and it's good to see men and women more equally sharing the load of paternity and maternity leave at such a critical time in the establishment of new or expanding families—no-one left behind, no-one held back. The Albanese government is delivering cheaper child care from July, just a couple of short months away. Our government's childcare package is expected to make around 7,800 families in my seat of Paterson better off, because more parents will be able to get to work. That's not only going to make those parents better off; it's going to help our employers, who are screaming out for workers or for people to be able to do more hours in the businesses and workplaces across our electorate. When I speak to people about this across our business and employer community, the very first thing they are still saying is: 'We just need more workers.' That is where this important economic lever will really come into its own—no-one held back, no-one left behind. And the kids are going to be very well educated. Our government is providing 20,000 additional university places for disadvantaged Australians, including 6,867 additional places in New South Wales. Importantly, the University of Newcastle will also benefit from that. We've committed $1 billion for road safety infrastructure and grant programs. That is part of the National Road Safety Action Plan. We know that local councils manage 75 per cent of all roads across the network, and that's why this funding is so important to our councils in Paterson. I want to say thank you to our councils. They do a terrific job. They've got one of the hardest jobs in any area of government across our country. Thank you for the effort you've put in. But, more broadly, to the people of Paterson: we know there's a lot more to do, and we're working hard for you. Cost of Living 75 19:40 Ms LE 295676 Fowler It has been one year since I took office as the first-ever Independent to win the seat of Fowler. In that time, I've advocated strongly for the government to provide measures that would help our families in Western Sydney and Fowler, with the cost-of-living crisis the biggest issue facing our community. The skyrocketing rise in grocery prices, rent, energy and gas bills is affecting so many families and businesses in my community and, no doubt, in other parts of the country. And, with 11 interest rate rises in 12 months, that is anything but death by a thousand cuts to our people and economy. That's why I've been in this House since my election constantly asking the government to implement measures that will ease the cost-of-living pressures for families. I was excited, to say the least, when I discovered there was a Senate Select Committee on the Cost of Living. I reached out to the committee and urged them to visit Western Sydney to hear firsthand from people and businesses at the grassroots level about the daily challenges they face. The committee held its hearing on 21 April at Holiday Inn Warwick Farm. It was the first time that a Senate committee has come to Fowler, and I want to take the opportunity to thank Senator Jane Hume and Senator Jana Stewart for coming to our city. Many individuals from Fowler had the opportunity that day to share with the committee the genuine struggles they're seeing daily in the community. I would like to thank local residents, not-for-profits, small businesses and chambers of commerce for sharing their insights. A common theme shared during the hearing is that there has been an increase in double-income or middle-income families needing help more than ever. Kirsty Parkes, founder of Community Cafe, runs a community pantry in south-west Sydney. She told the committee, 'The line now between the poor and the disadvantaged is blurred, and there is a growing number of working poor in the community who are struggling to put food on the table.' She says there have been record-breaking numbers coming through their door, reaching 237 people in one day. Government do not have the solutions for everything, but where government can be effective is improving how it facilitates coordination, for example, within the charities and not-for-profit sector who are providing emergency support and relief. There are often barriers and gaps in service delivery, as they do not fully understand what other services provide. Mohan Gunasekara, Acting CEO of Western Sydney Migrant Resource Centre, highlighted his concerns around the inconsistent allocation around TPV visas. The Albanese government went to the May 2022 election promising to abolish TPVs and SHEVs. But in March this year they announced a pathway for TPV and SHEV holders to apply for permanent residency—just to apply. This group of people is still in limbo about their ability to work and support their families. They need this certainty now more than ever, with the inflated cost of everything. This is an underutilised group of people who are wanting to work and contribute to our society. Our government must drive this change, and our bureaucracy must enable this. Michael Foulkes, Chair of the Cabramatta Chamber of Commerce, shared that local small restaurants and businesses are being affected by the high energy prices—the same stores that I often hear from when I walk through the streets of Fowler speaking to local business owners. Small businesses are crucial to the infrastructure and backbone of my electorate—of any electorate, actually. In Fowler nearly 28,000 small businesses contribute immensely to the social fabric, making up nearly 99 per cent of all businesses in Fowler. It is stories of families, individuals and businesses who are struggling that the Senate Select Committee on the Cost of Living heard this month. I hope that the committee walked away enlightened by the diverse stories and lived experiences of our local people. I look forward to seeing the committee present to the government the tangible and practical solutions that can make a practical difference to families, businesses and individuals. I also welcome other Senate committees to come to Fowler and to hear our local stories. Werriwa Electorate: Volunteers 75 19:45 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa Every time I attend the Sydney Olympic Park, I'm reminded of the halcyon days back in 2000 when Sydney hosted the best ever Olympics and Paralympics. Apart from the cauldron so famously lit by Cathy Freeman and the stadium itself, the other prominent feature that captures my eye is the forest of poles that record the 74,000 names of those men and women who volunteered their time to make our Olympics and Paralympics run so smoothly. It's an impressive sight and a timely reminder that volunteers were the lifeblood of the 2000 Olympics and Paralympics. The vital work and the spirit of volunteering that were so evident back in 2000 continue today, and, like back in 2000, volunteers continue to be the lifeblood of our local communities. Volunteering, in essence, is time willingly given for the common good and without financial gain. Last week was National Volunteer Week, and we should use every day possible to recognise our unsung volunteer heroes. Our community, over the last few years, has endured significant hardship, from lockdowns to floods, and our volunteers have been there supporting us all the way through. This year I was able to host a morning tea for the recipients of the 2023 Werriwa Volunteer Awards. This is the seventh year I have formally recognised just some of the volunteers in Werriwa. It was really lovely to meet them all and talk about our community needs and how we can encourage more people to volunteer, and to present them with awards as well. I would like to congratulate Vera, Navya, Tasneem, Bob, Maree, Mira, Adele, Prakruthi, Tracey, Yogs, Rajani, Lorraine, Vijeesh, Vinod, Steven, Suresh and Atenai. Bob Goodall has volunteered for more than 12 years at the Ingleburn Tennis Club. Vera, despite a number of medical issues, serves tirelessly at the Salvation Army op shop at Macquarie Fields. Steven is a member of the Miller Public School P&C and supports fundraisers and provides general support to the school. Tasneem Elzahr is a 15-year-old at Al-Faisal College, Liverpool, and serves her community at the college via Clean Up Australia Day and Iftar dinners. And the list goes on. Maree Harding was recognised for her eight years of work with the Salvation Army, Liverpool, while Yogs Naidoo was similarly recognised for their four years volunteering at the Sallies. Vinod and Suresh are both volunteers at Friends of India Australia—Vinod by assisting with the distribution of RATs, and Suresh by helping the organisation and the community with financial matters. Lorraine Perry has volunteered with Liverpool Quota and as a JP for an amazing 26 years. During this time, she has also worked on community desks for numerous community libraries, as well as at the desk as a JP at the Liverpool Court House. Mira Ibrahim of the Democratic Kurdish Community Centre has been involved in many facets of the organisation and helping their community. Turbans 4 Australia has been fortunate to have Tracey Lynch, who has been a long-time supporter and volunteer. And Adele Jago has been a volunteer and a leading instructor for Search Dogs Sydney Incorporated over the last 12 years. They use their dogs to help find people who are missing. School prefect Atenai Vilai at Miller Technology High School is an active volunteer at his school, a role model in the Pasifika community and a real indication of the youth in Werriwa and just how wonderful they are. Vijeesh of Edmondson Park Malayalee Club is an integral part of the club, which has seen its membership grow from 10 to 80. South Western Sydney Local Health District is fortunate to have Rajani Nayak as a volunteer in palliative care. And finally, it was my pleasure to recognise both Navya and Prakruthi of Sewa Australia. Navya assisted with the Lismore convoy, volunteered during COVID and regularly gives blood and plasma, while Prakruthi is a student who dedicates her time to helping others. Sewa has just celebrated 25 years in our community. Werriwa volunteers may not be recognised on a pole in Olympic Park, but their contributions are just as significant and important. I look forward to supporting our volunteer organisations for the rest of the year and look forward to the Werriwa awards next year. Gambling Advertising 76 19:50 Mr COLEM 241067 Banks AN () (): Sport is central part of Australian culture—playing it and watching it. For many families, watching sport on TV is one of the main times that they all come together. That's always been true, but it's even more true today. With everyone on their own devices, doing their own thing, it can be hard to get the whole family together. Watching sport does bring us together across the generations, and that shared experience is precious. That time, footy time, should be family time. Sport should be about the players and the fans, but now it's hard to watch a sporting event without being bombarded by gambling ads. What are the odds on the home team winning? What is the multi paying on Tom Trbojevic to score a try and Manly to win by 12-plus? How much can you win if Tom Hawkins kicks five goals? There is nothing wrong with people placing bets on these things if they want to—I've been known to have a bet myself—but families shouldn't have to wade through a barrage of gambling ads just to watch a game. Kids should be thinking about why they love their favourite player, not what odds he is to be the top pointscorer. The deluge of gambling advertising in live sport is damaging our culture. Simply put, it's wrong. It is not okay. I am over it, and Australian families are over it. As Leader of the Opposition announced in his budget reply speech, a coalition government would ban gambling advertising in live sport from one hour before the start of the game until one hour after. No ifs, no buts, no gambling ads during the lead-up to the game, during the game or after the game. This would mean that families could once again watch live sport without having to worry about gambling. But what is the government doing about this crucial issue? The short answer is: nothing. This issue goes right back to Labor's last time in office, because it was a High Court case involving Betfair in 2008 which unleashed a tsunami of gambling advertising. This case held that states couldn't stop a gambling company that was lawfully registered in one state from operating in another. The torrent of advertising started then, but Labor did nothing between 2008 and 2013. In 2017, our government took substantial action to reduce gambling advertising in live sport. We now believe that we need to move to a complete ban. Unlike Labor, which has not acted once on this issue, we have now acted twice to cut gambling advertising in live sport. The Minister for Communications likes to say that she can't act because she is waiting for a parliamentary inquiry to publish a report, but what is so complicated about this issue? It's very simple. Should families be subjected to gambling advertising during live sport or not? We say they should not be. The Minister for Communications doesn't seem to know. But she should embrace this policy. It doesn't matter whose idea it is; what matters is that this gets done. By adopting the coalition's policy, the government would be taking an important step forward. The government should take action and stop gambling advertising before, during and after live sport. It is the right thing to do for Australian families. Aged Care, Mental Health 77 19:55 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean A few weeks ago I had the opportunity to host both the Treasurer and the Minister for Aged Care at Goodwin seniors village in Farrer, or 'Farrerdise' as I prefer to call it. Our visit included meeting residents and getting to know some of the hardworking, experienced staff. The residents made it clear: it is the staff who can make or break an aged-care facility, and they were incredibly grateful for the staff they see and interact with on a daily basis and who care for them, in some cases for many years. During this visit it was announced that the federal government would provide $11.3 billion over four years to fund the Fair Work Commission's interim decision for a 15 per cent increase to minimum wages for many aged-care workers. This will support over 5,000 award based aged-care workers in the Australian Capital Territory, who will now earn between $130 and $340 more per week. Registered nurses, enrolled nurses, assistants in nursing, personal-care workers, head chefs and cooks, recreational activities officers and home-care workers will see an historic increase to their award wages. To give you an example of just how life-changing this announcement will be, if you're an assistant in nursing on a level 3 award wage in aged care you will be paid an additional $7,000 per year. This is a substantial increase, but one that is well overdue for those who look after some of our society's most vulnerable members. It's an outcome that will not only help retain staff but also attract potential employees to the aged-care sector. This funding will fix some of the structural staffing issues the aged-care sector has experienced, and hopefully it will revive collective bargaining across the sector. There is still much to do, with other workers awaiting further Fair Work decisions, but I am proud to be part of a government that is reforming the aged-care sector after nearly a decade of neglect. I commend the work of the care sector workforce and their unions for fighting for a fairer future, and I'm proud to work with them closely. Young women in the Australian Capital Territory have the poorest mental health of any group in Australia. They feel overwhelmed, stressed, anxious and uncertain about their future. Two-thirds feel their mental health is a barrier to achieving their study or work goals. In the middle of last year an organisation called Fearless Women started supporting young women who were unable to meet the challenges of everyday life, wanting them to thrive, not just survive, and to be healthy women who are socially and productively engaged. This group provides a 50-minute foundation course delivered by Fearless Women educators in schools across the Canberra region. It is, appropriately, called Fearless Future. The course focuses on the importance of wellbeing, self-empowerment and self-values, with girls and young women in years 5 to 10 as the target group. Already 2,000 girls and young women this year have heard that they are not alone, that it is okay to not be okay all the time, and where they can go for help. Currently, 45 participants aged 10 to 25 are involved in the organisation's one-on-one mentoring program. More than half of the girls and young women that Fearless Women assist have experienced some form of domestic and family violence. This is a program that is already delivering results. Primary carers in the one-on-one mentoring program have seen positive changes to participants' confidence and self-esteem. Participants in the program are actively trialling healthy behaviours. They are showing a willingness to seek help and are having a positive outlook on life. They can see who and what they can be. Additionally, the volunteer female mentors are reporting an improved sense of purpose, wellbeing and connection to community. Fearless Women relies on the goodwill of its volunteers, as well as on community donations. Last week, as part of National Volunteer Week, I took the opportunity to meet some of the organisation's dedicated volunteers and mentors at a thankyou afternoon tea at the National Museum of Australia. Poor mental health among young women impacts their capacity to study, engage and grow. Their equal opportunity is jeopardised, as is their ability to lead life fearlessly. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 The debate has now ended in accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier today. The House transcript was published up to 20:00. The remainder of the transcript will be published progressively as it is completed. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Ananda-Rajah) took the chair at 16:01.

Tuesday, 23 May 2023

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Ananda-Rajah) took the chair at 16:01.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 79 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Huntington's Disease 79 16:01 Mr GEE 261393 Calare Earlier this month I had the honour of attending the Mother's Day High Tea 4 HD, for Huntington's disease support and awareness, organised by HD Awareness Orange and Central West. This event brought together people from Blayney, Dubbo, Wellington, Molong, Forbes, Bathurst, Parkes, Orange and Cowra to discuss the impact of Huntington's and raise funds for and awareness of this devastating disease. Not much is known about Huntington's in the wider community, but, with May being Huntington's Disease Awareness Month, the team at HD Awareness Orange and Central West have set out to change that. Huntington's disease is an inherited condition that affects the nervous system. Although HD can occur at any age, symptoms often do not appear until middle age, and they worsen over time. Unfortunately, Huntington's can result in a gradual decline of cognitive, physical and emotional function. While there are treatments that can alleviate symptoms, there is no cure. Life expectancy for those with HD is generally around 10 to 30 years following the onset of visible symptoms, and the typical onset of symptoms is between the ages of 30 and 50. For over 75 per cent of people with HD in Australia, the only option is residential aged care, even though most will be entering such care while considerably younger than the threshold age of 65. HD is devastating for patients and for their families and loved ones. The lack of awareness and support adds to the trauma and isolation. Approximately 2,000 Australians are currently living with Huntington's, and, as it is a hereditary condition, approximately 9,000 people are at risk of developing the disease in their lifetime. Rachael Brooking and her small team at HD Awareness Orange and Central West have done an outstanding job in raising awareness of and vital funding for HD in our region. Members of the team include Natalia Rossiter, Gabriel Rae, Debbie Nicholls, Elizabeth Richard, Kerrie Nicholls, Margaret Schwebel, Rhonda Jefferson, Barbara Chapman and Lauren Watson. Funds raised by HD Awareness Orange and Central West stay in the central west and are used entirely for the benefit of those in our area who are impacted by Huntington's. The current fundraising target is $3,000, for a bus information campaign to raise the profile of regional families impacted by Huntington's. The next fundraising event is this Saturday, with a 'back to the eighties' dance party at Orange City Bowling Club. I'm sure there'll be some Duran Duran and Bucks Fizz happening there, so get on down to the bowlo and support it, everyone in our area. A government member interjecting— Mr GEE 261393 The minister just said he'd be there! This Huntington's Disease Awareness Month, I want to acknowledge families across Australia living with and impacted by HD, particularly those living in my electorate, who are supported by the wonderful team at HD Awareness Orange and Central West. We appreciate everything Rachael and the HD Awareness volunteers do for our community. Pun, Dr Anthony, OAM 79 16:04 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton I rise to pay tribute to my constituent Tony Pun, who sadly passed away aged 77. Tony was not only a highly respected community figure in Barton, he was the shining symbol of Australia's successful multicultural community and a loving family man. His passing is being felt deeply by all who knew him. He will be remembered as a remarkable man with a big heart and compassionate nature. Tony was born in Malaysia and first graced Australia's shores more than 60 years ago. During his early years, he studied to obtain a PhD and became a professor in molecular biology at the University of New South Wales. He also the rose through the ranks to become chief haematologist and chief research scientist at St Vincent's Hospital. As a legacy to his successful career, Tony has 31 medical publications in his name. These papers covered fields including blood transfusion, haematology survey, clinical laboratory computing and bone marrow transplantation. Tony's passion for writing expanded beyond the medical profession. He also authored more than 400 articles on Australia's public policy and geopolitics for national and international publications. As a leader of the Sydney Chinese community, Tony developed a reputation as an influential social justice advocate. He was the founding president of the Chinese Community Council, Chair of the Ethnic Communities Council and a member of the Migration Review Tribunal. He was a prolific networker and really good fun. He worked with all shades of parliament and government, from Gough Whitlam to Bob Hawke, from Bob Hawke through to John Howard and Tony Abbott. One of the highlights of Tony's advocacy was his lobbying efforts calling on the Hawke government to allow Chinese students to stay in Australia following the Tiananmen Square massacre. Bob Hawke followed through on this course of action, intervening to offer asylum to all Chinese people who were in Australia at the time. I extend my sympathies to Tony's family—his wife, Juliana; sons Andrew and Leon; daughter-in-law Jenny; and grandchildren Jade, James, Joshua and Joel. We are all here for you. Capricornia Electorate: Fitzroy Community Hospice 80 16:07 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia In 2021, a small group of enthusiastic Rockhampton locals came to me with a vision for providing the first hospice in regional Queensland. Their vision through lived experiences of caring for a loved one with a terminal illness was to create a fully holistic palliative care service in Rockhampton. The service will not only provide those dying with a sense of dignity and compassion but will also ensure their families and friends are supported from a number of services after their death. From the inspiration of what the central Queensland community needed, Fitzroy Community Hospice was born. Those living in regional and rural Australia know all too well how limited the services are where they live. Many know the anguish they go through in making the difficult decision to move their loved ones into a hospital setting for their final days. Of the nine hospices in Queensland, there is not one facility north of Hervey Bay. On average, 160,000 Australians pass each year and many do not have an end-of-life care plan which fully reflects their physical, spiritual and emotional needs. Hospice care costs 40 per cent less than care provided in a public hospital setting. It will also ease the pressure on emergency departments and wards face to provide the care those need in their final weeks and days. From my own experience of losing a loved one, I understand all too well the importance of how great the need is for a comprehensive community based palliative care service. Recognising the benefit for the central Queensland community as well as pressure needing to be eased on the health system, it brought me to lobby the coalition government for its support of this great cause. It was my absolute pleasure to announce in August 2021 that I had secured $8 million for the Fitzroy Community Hospice. Two years later, the Fitzroy Community Hospice vision is coming to life at the site of the decommissioned convent in Rockhampton. Demolition, excavation and underground services are complete, with work underway on footings, retaining walls and renovation of retained buildings. The building of the centre is expected to be completed by 2024. The Fitzroy Community Hospice will consist of a purpose-built, 12-bed hospice centre with a peaceful and homelike setting. Patients, families and carers will also have access to social, cultural and emotional support services, along with pastoral care. Care and support services will be provided at no cost to the community and will be available for those with a life-limiting illness, not just cancer. The entire Central Queensland community has rallied around this project—many have raised funds, donated and volunteered their expertise on the board to get the hospice off the ground and operational. However, without the dedication and passion of board members Steve and Debbie Richards, and Dr Vicki Richmond, who spearheaded the project, Central Queensland would be years away from receiving a service as critical as this. On behalf of all Central Queenslanders, we thank you for your tireless effort in providing the community with such an important piece of infrastructure. Hindmarsh Electorate: Volunteer Awards 80 16:10 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh Last week I'm sure all members of this parliament took part in some celebration or another for National Volunteer Week, which is a great opportunity for us to provide our thanks as a community for the love, energy and time that literally millions of Australians adults give every week to myriad organisations that keep our society running and that we're lucky to have here in this country. We have one of the highest rates of volunteering in the developed world—about one in three Australian adults typically give some time in a volunteer capacity to sporting organisations, service support organisations, local history clubs, schools and so many other different organisations. We know that COVID has had a substantial impact on volunteering rates. From a high of around 36 per cent of the adult population volunteering pre-COVID, we're now down to below 30 per cent. The data we do have shows that there has been only a very slow, partial recovery. That is impacting on all the organisations that give their time, love and energy to looking after our society and, often, the most vulnerable, so it's something we in this place have to pay attention. Every year that I've had the fortune to be member for Port Adelaide and then member for Hindmarsh, I've held award ceremonies during National Volunteer Week, and I had the great pleasure of doing that again last Friday. We asked for nominations from local organisations in our electorate, and we've always receive dozens of nominations. It's such a terrific opportunity to see both the diversity of clubs and organisations doing good work in our community and also the diversity of volunteers. Of the 40 awards we gave, six were for local legends, and that in and of itself really illustrated the spread of volunteers in the electorate of Hindmarsh. We had Dennis Brien, who has been involved in the West Torrens District Cricket Club in one capacity or another for 69 years—playing, coaching, working as an official, fundraising, and mentoring younger players and officials—and he was justly rewarded and recognised as a local legend. At the other end of the age spectrum is a terrific young woman, Shanna McGrath. Shana was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at six. She signed up to the JDRF advocacy program, with which we in this place would all be familiar, at the ripe age of 10, and has worked assiduously since that time—a decade and a half—providing advocacy and mentoring to younger advocates to improvement the lot of people with type 1 diabetes. I met her first in 2011 when she was a teenager. I nominated her to be an emcee for the Kids in the House event that we used to have in this building, and she emceed terrifically. She has provided terrific leadership to that organisation since, and was justly rewarded recognised as a local legend. Calvary Hospital 81 16:13 Mr JOYCE e5d New England We spend about half our year here in Canberra and the other half back in the electorate, so we have a strong interest in what happens in Canberra. One thing that has been very disturbing recently is the compulsory acquisition of Calvary Hospital. This is a disgrace. In 1979 Calvary Hospital was given a 120-year lease. Now, in 2023, Minister Rachel Stephen-Smith has passed legislation for the compulsory acquisition of this Catholic hospital. We've heard the Prime Minister of Australia say over and over again that there are three things that are very important in his life—one was the South Sydney Rabbitohs, another was the Australian Labor Party, and the other was his Catholic upbringing. So it's incumbent upon him, as upon all of us, that in this territory the Prime Minister makes clear his views on the support of this Catholic institution, the Calvary hospital. It's also ridiculous that we're acquiring a hospital that is not going to help the health system in the ACT; it's going to hurt it. The Calvary hospital is a vital part of the health system of the ACT. We know, or presume, that some of the issues that sit behind this are some of the ethical beliefs that Catholicism holds. The choice is people's—if they don't want to go to Calvary hospital, they don't have to. They can go to another hospital. But to impose the beliefs of the state on a private institution, Calvary hospital, is to say you're at complete odds with your belief in religious discrimination. That is something that the Labor Party—I refer to the statements of the shadow Attorney-General at that time, Mark Dreyfus, and the Leader of the Opposition at that point in time on moving ahead with this religious discrimination issue and protecting people's right to their faith. We can't protect their right to their faith if we have a territorian government with Minister Rachel Stephen-Smith, supported by the chief minister, charging into a religious institution and basically taking it over. That is at complete odds with our belief in religious freedoms. There are now 25,000 signatures and that number is growing. The other day I was speaking to former chief minister Gary Humphries. He said that there are very few things that wake people up and get them anxious and angry, but this has done it. This has done it. I want to commend Father Tony Percy, who's been working so hard. I believe that it's also incumbent upon any person who comes down to Canberra, who works in our nation's capital—the bush capital, this great city—to contact the ACT government, quietly or publicly, and say, 'For goodness sake, stop this.' Budget 81 16:16 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin The Albanese government's second budget was crafted with the people of Logan and the southern suburbs of Brisbane front of mind. It's a budget for places like Browns Plains, Hillcrest and Algester; and for the families, local small businesses and pensioners of Woodridge, Calamvale and Springwood. It's a budget that recognises and addresses the near-term challenges which are presented by cost-of-living pressures while investing in the long-term drivers of jobs and opportunities in communities like mine. We know that local people are under the pump, which is why we came up with a really carefully calibrated package to offer responsible, targeted relief. In our local community more than 100,000 people are set to benefit from our decision to triple the bulk-billing incentive and make it cheaper and easier to see a GP. Around 40,000 people will benefit from our cheaper medicines policy. Almost 5,000 people will be $40 better off a fortnight due to the uplift we've made to the base rate of income support for payments like JobSeeker, Austudy and youth allowance. Nearly 5,000 households will get a boost in support to pay the rent thanks to the biggest increase to Commonwealth rent assistance in 30 years, and many more than that will receive energy rebates of up to $500 for households and $650 for small businesses as part of the jointly funded program between the federal and state governments. The budget offers meaningful support to those doing it tough in Logan, in the southern suburbs of Brisbane and in other communities right across our country. It also makes vital investments in our local economy and in our local people, including a major upgrade of Loganlea Road to deliver a safer, less congested and more reliable commute to work or school; 12 urgent care spaces and 31 specialist rooms as part of the Logan Urgent and Specialist Care Centre; a new skills laboratory at Loganlea TAFE to train our people for the jobs of the future; funding for a new arena in our community as part of the 2032 Olympics infrastructure deal; and, as part of the $200 million that we have dedicated to addressing entrenched disadvantage, extending the Stronger Places, Stronger People program, which includes our community as a key feature. These are all incredibly important initiatives that will help broaden and deepen opportunity, support the development and expansion of local business, and get more people the care that they need, where they need it and when they need it. These are all the ways that the budget that I was proud to hand down two weeks ago today builds stronger foundations for our local community and stronger foundations for the better future that we're trying to build together. Petrie Electorate: Infrastructure 82 16:19 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie It's a sad day for me as the federal member for Petrie to stand in this House and again talk about the Linkfield Road overpass at Bald Hills and Carseldine. The reality is that the state Labor government are absolutely pathetic when it comes to building infrastructure in Queensland. We've recently seen the Palaszczuk government change ministers and get rid of the health minister. What we need is not just a new health minister; we need an entire new state government. Thirteen times I've stood here and spoken about infrastructure on the north side of Brisbane—in particular Linkfield Road. All my speeches are here. Thirteen times I've spoken in this place on Linkfield Road alone, and still it hasn't started. When you get on to the Department of Transport and Main Roads now, they're talking about more community consultation. We don't need community consultation. The thing just needs to be built. The Paluszczuk government and their hopeless minister, Mark Bailey, need to get this thing going. Here are some of the statements I've made in the last six years. On 13 September 2017, I said, 'People in my electorate want the Linkfield Road overpass delivered.' In February 2018 I said, 'This road is in need of an urgent upgrade.' In March 2018 I said, 'I've been fighting for this for at least five years now.' In May 2018 I said, 'We need Linkfield Road upgraded urgently.' On 20 September 2018, I said, 'It's a bit of a death trap and a bottleneck, and every morning and every afternoon the traffic piles up on the Linkfield Road overpass. In November 2018 I said in this place, 'The Linkfield Road overpass remains a typical example of the Queensland Palaszczuk government's total lack of vision, planning and future-proofing.' We have one of the fastest-growing areas in Australia in South-East Queensland. We've got the Olympics not far away, as the member for Wright would know, and this hopeless government can't build infrastructure. I've written to the minister three times. We also had a truck hit the Linkfield Road overpass and put a massive hole in it during COVID. I said to the minister, 'Just get this thing built.' Still there was no action. Repair jobs, patch jobs—for three months Queensland police were on that bridge, making sure heavy trucks didn't come over it. The reality is that this state Labor government needs to get its act together. To add insult to injury, today's Courier Mail, talking about the Albanese Labor government, says, 'No cash for major Labor road promise until after next election'. The reality is that this Labor government is conning people in South-East Queensland. You cannot trust Labor to build infrastructure. The current Labor government is putting at risk the Griffin on- and off-ramps, the Beams Road overpass and the upgrading of the Gateway Motorway as well as Linkfield Road. I will keep fighting. Public Education Day 82 16:22 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland This Thursday is Public Education Day. It's a day to celebrate our incredible public school teachers, principals and education support staff right across the country. I'm a product of public education and proud of it. Our education system is the most powerful cause for good in this country and our public education system is at the core of that. Public education brings together children from all different backgrounds, faiths, cultures and parents, with different jobs, and different incomes and different lives. That's important because it makes our public schools a microcosm of our community. It helps to teach us a little bit about each other. It's a big part of what makes public education so special and so important. We've got a good education system in Australia, but it can be a lot better and a lot fairer. There's a lot we have to do to fix the teacher shortage crisis, a lot more we have to do to fund our public schools fairly and so much more to help the children who need help the most. The truth is that, if you're a child today from a poor background or from the bush or if you're an Indigenous Australian, you're three times more likely to fall behind in school. Fifteen years ago, the gap in reading skills between children who are eight years old from poor families and children who are eight years from wealthy families was about a year of learning. Now it's two. A lot of those children never catch up. In fact, the reverse happens, and the gap gets bigger and bigger with every year at school. The end result of that is that a lot of those children drop out, never finishing school. In fact, the percentage of children from poor families finishing high school is now dropping. Many of those children go to public schools. This is what we've got to fix. The funding is part of that, but so is what that funding does—what we spend it on, what we invest it in—and that's what the next national schools reform agreement will be all about. I don't want us to be a country where your chances in life depend on who your parents are or how wealthy they are or where you live or the colour of your skin, but the truth is that today we are, and the work that we as education ministers do across the country in the next 12 months is a chance to do something about that. It is a chance to close that funding gap and close that education gap, a chance to build a better education system, and a fairer one—one that doesn't hold anyone back and doesn't leave anyone behind. After all, that's what public education is all about. Reeve, Mr Cliff 83 16:25 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest Congratulations, Cliff Reeve, who is celebrating his 30th anniversary as a radio announcer with Southern Cross Austereo's Triple M in the South West of WA. Thirty years with Triple M is an extraordinary achievement. He's been in the industry for 47 years, on air in regional WA and interstate. At Triple M his programs have aired at various time slots, so he has experience with early starts and late nights. But right now locals know that 'The Drive Home With Cliff' is the only way to get home. As part of his show, Cliff has a segment called 'Everything Southwest Local Legend'. Well, Cliff, I think it's time that I interviewed you as a local legend. I'd be happy to do it, because there's no doubt that there is only one Cliff Reeve. He's larger than life—a real Aussie character—who's added so much to the South West over his 30 years with Triple M. He's got an unmistakable but unique voice and a personality to match. Over his years on air, he's entertained us with his choice of some of the very best music ever produced in the world, and he makes sure that we still get to hear some of this timeless music that we love. He also entertains us with his opinions—sometimes very strong opinions. But he has often motivated, encouraged and challenged his listeners to get involved in issues at all levels. He's also a great supporter of local and regional projects, and it's obvious every day that Cliff loves our South West. Equally, he's put an extraordinary amount of time into lining up amazing guests for his South West listeners—people like Gene Simmons from Kiss, one of Cliff's favourites; Kirk Douglas; Charlton Heston and William Shatner; and what was, I think, for Cliff, a very sensitive and challenging interview that he did with Walter Mikac, who lost his wife and two daughters in the Port Arthur massacre in 1996. In his spare time we see Cliff's artistic talent through his WallsOfFame original digital artworks. For Cliff Reed, there's 30 years of dedicating his time and his commitment not only to Triple M but to all of us who've listened to him for so long and depend on him to bring us some of the best music and to bring us the liveliness that has gone with Cliff Reeve for all of those 30 years. What an amazing achievement 30 years with Triple M is. I know that he's had wonderful support from Lynnee, his wife. Together, they're a really special couple in our South West. Cliff, 30 years is a long time. I'm very happy to do an interview with you being the local legend, because I think you are. I think you've brought so much to our South West, and I thank you. And I thank Triple M for making sure you've had that opportunity. Newcastle Electorate: Arts and Culture 83 16:28 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle We are very lucky in Newcastle to have such a strong, vibrant and extremely talented arts community. Not only are we home to the world-class Newcastle Art Gallery, which boasts some of the finest public art works in regional Australia; Newcastle has also been home to and produced some of Australia's greatest artists, including Jon Molvig, William Dobell and John Olsen. The much-loved Margaret Olley also lived and painted in Newcastle, and we remain a strong breeding ground for contemporary and emerging artists and creators because we have some extraordinary and exceptional arts organisations, which I want to celebrate today. First is the amazing Young People's Theatre, or YPT as it's affectionately known in Newcastle, which just yesterday celebrated the 50 years since they purchased their theatre building in Hamilton in my electorate. This remarkable milestone coincides with their 75th anniversary, which they will officially celebrate in August. Over their 75 years in operation, YPT has provided countless opportunities for thousands of young creatives in 194 productions. I wish the YPT a very happy birthday, and I wish you the very best for your celebrations. I also want to pay tribute to Newcastle Art Space and their nurturing of the Hunter Emerging Art Prize, now in its 20th year. I'll give a very big shout out to the winner of the 2023 prize, Aidan Gageler, and all of the incredible finalists. Newcastle Art Space was established as Newcastle Community Arts Centre 40 years ago this year. They have been integral in fostering and supporting local creatives. Last week I had the pleasure of hosting Labor's Special Envoy for the Arts, the Member for Macquarie, in Newcastle. We had a very special tour of The Lock-Up, which is an award-winning, unique contemporary art space housed in Newcastle's original police station built in the 1800s. It features a nationally renowned artists-in-residence program. We then held a roundtable with the Newcastle arts community to talk about Revive, Australia's cultural policy for the next five years. It's called Revive for a reason. The arts community has been doing it tough, and, after 10 years of neglect by the former Liberal government, it's time we backed in our artists and creatives. I want to tell our artists and creatives, not just in Newcastle but everywhere: you now have a federal government that actually cares about the arts and will put the arts and culture front and centre in our decision-making. I want to say a very big thank you to the Newcastle Art Gallery, University of Newcastle art gallery, Watt Space Gallery, CONDA, Catapult Dance, Big Apachee, Newcastle Art Space, Hunter Creative Alliance, Newcastle Writers Festival, YPT, Awabakal land council, Newcastle Theatre Company and Tantrum Youth Arts for their fabulous attendance. Thank you. The 290544 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 84 BILLS Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023 84

Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023

Second Reading 84 16:32 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I didn't want to miss the opportunity to make a contribution on this bill. I know this is a challenging bill for the Liberal and National parties. An opposition member interjecting— Mr HILL 86256 No, it's true. I was supposed to speak on it when it was last listed, last time. I think I'm the last government speaker, but I didn't want to miss this chance, because infrastructure policy has been a long-standing interest of mine, having been a senior public servant in the department of infrastructure in Victoria, working for both sides of politics. But it is a challenging bill for the Liberal and National parties. I might issue some trigger warnings at the start, some phrases I'm going to use which may upset them: 'independent review of Infrastructure Australia', 'Infrastructure Australia will be restored to an independent advisory function', or, put more plainly, 'Infrastructure will no longer be a slush fund for the Liberal and National parties to rort', or, 'we can't appoint our own National Party mates to Infrastructure Australia anymore when this bill goes through.' Infrastructure Australia was a terrific initiative of the now Prime Minister when he was infrastructure minister under Prime Minister Rudd. It was set up to provide expert advice to the Australian government on infrastructure investment. It was a great initiative to ensure that scarce taxpayer dollars are directed transparently to the projects of greatest national impact with independent assessments of things getting into the pipeline and of the benefits of the costs, and to provide that advice to the Australian government and the states and territories. They should be projects of genuine national significance, but, since then, in the wasted decade when those opposite were in government, in the ATM government—the Abbott, Turnbull, Morrison government—throwing the cash around like the ATM— Mr HILL 86256 Thank you, member for Fisher. I'm glad you appreciate that one. But since then, in that wasted decade, Infrastructure Australia has lost its way. They were sidelined, they were stretched too far, they lacked focus, they became a plaything for the National Party because apparently when the coalition, the Liberals and Nationals, are in government there is a God-given birthright to give the infrastructure portfolio to the National Party to treat as one giant piggy bank—a slush fund—to throw money around at whatever project comes up in a National Party seat, regardless of the cost benefit. A government member: Shame. Mr HILL 86256 It is a shame. It is a matter to be ashamed of. Billions of dollars of taxpayer funds were—I'm not allowed to say 'puked up against a wall'—wasted on projects that just did not stack up. They were not the highest priority. This bill amends Infrastructure Australia's legislation to ensure that it advises the government and actually assesses projects of national significance. The changes respond to an independent review by Nicole Lockwood and Mike Mrdak, AO, former secretary of the department. They'll provide greater alignment between Infrastructure Australia's work program and advice to government, which needs to make informed investment decisions, not just make stuff up and announce stuff by press release. I haven't had time to go back over and reassemble the figures. It would have been nice, wouldn't it? I sat through question time after question time as the previous government—then Prime Minister Morrison, then Treasurer Frydenberg and the whole sad lot of them—kept announcing things. But then we'd get to the end of the financial year and they wouldn't actually build what they announced. The whole point of infrastructure, apparently, was to issue press releases and say what you were going to do but never actually do it. Under this government, Infrastructure Australia's focus will continue to be on transport, water, energy and communications infrastructure to connect cities and regions and grow the economy, supporting the conditions for economic growth. There is a new slimmed down, modern governance model which provides for Infrastructure Australia to have three expert commissioners with the eminence, authority and standing to restore its position as a national leader in infrastructure. Another trigger warning: the commissioners will be appointed through a merit based process. They won't be mates of Barnaby Joyce, as the previous board was stacked with. It will be a merit based process, an independent recruitment process where the people appointed measure up against the job description. Membership of the National Party is not one of the qualifications to get the job. I also just want to respond to some of the comments made in the debate by those opposite that were utterly hysterical nonsense about a review which is now underway, an independent review of the Infrastructure Australia pipeline to support the refocusing of this critical national organisation. The minister's commissioned that review. It'll happens over the next couple of months. Infrastructure Australia should be focused on genuinely nationally significant projects, not every little idea that every local council has, every state and territory government has or every National Party MP has—the conga line of rorters bringing their ideas into the minister's office that was their government. Under the Liberals and Nationals, the 150 priority projects grew to more than 800 projects. The list grew by nearly 500 supposedly priority national projects. Five hundred of them were under $50 million. They are not nationally transformative. They're not going to connect our ports to the rail network and grow the productivity of the country. Eighty-one per cent of them were in Liberal and National Party seats. That was just a coincidence, of course! Apparently congestion doesn't happen in Labor seats. It doesn't happen in the cities. They stacked the pipeline, using taxpayer money, with their mates appointed to the board to create this fake pipeline of fake projects that they knew were never going to get built. The whole point of listing them as a priority was to try and fool communities and voters into thinking that somehow putting out a press release saying that you'd developed a new priority project meant anything. It didn't mean anything. It was hundreds of billions of dollars for projects that were never going to get built. But worse than that is that it was not just repainting bus lanes, as it was for some of them. Apparently repainting bus lanes was a national infrastructure priority. But it's worse than just the fooling and misleading and the corruption of public administration in the process. It actually generated tens of millions of dollars of actual waste. That's because they created this industry of highly paid consultants, firms and lobbyists, wasting millions of dollars of ratepayers' money from councils and tens of millions of dollars of state government money with the states and territories paying these consultants, lobbyists, designers, advocates and economists to create these business cases. Apparently the whole game was to somehow get on the Infrastructure Australia priority list of now 800 projects. Eight hundred projects cannot possibly be a Commonwealth listed priority. You can't say, for a country of our size, that you've got 800 national priority infrastructure projects. In their quiet moments, they know perfectly well that what we're saying is right, and most of them—not all of them; a few of them are extra dodgy—know that what they did was wrong and that it's not good public administration. So, we're going to stop that game to get on the list. I'm going to spare the member for Fisher and give someone else a go. I'm not going to go through the rorts of the Urban Congestion Fund, the sports rorts, the regional growth rorts and all the other funds rorted of billions of dollars. I'll just finish with this. On the Urban Congestion Fund—a $4.8 billion slush fund set up by former Prime Minister Morrison, with no guidelines, no transparent process, and literally no-one in the world being asked to apply for this—the bureaucrats still cannot explain why these projects were picked. They were picked by the government. They were picked in the secrecy, the sanctity of the cabinet room. They included—my personal favourite—the set of traffic lights outside Josh Frydenberg's electorate office, in a two-lane road bordered by two narrow suburban side streets. That was a national infrastructure priority under the former government. Then there were the car park rorts throughout the former Treasurer's electorate. Well, that didn't end very well, did it? I think people saw through that. But my very favourite thing out of the Urban Congestion Fund, if we're talking about Infrastructure Australia, was that, of all those billions of dollars of funds, none of them were referred to Infrastructure Australia for assessment—it was just a slush fund to try to get through an election—except two. Two projects were referred to Infrastructure Australia. Two of them were road projects in the electorate of Aston. And guess what Infrastructure Australia said? They said: 'These do not stack up. These are not national infrastructure priorities.' So, what did they do? They fake-funded them anyway. When I say 'fake-funded', I mean that they committed about one-sixth. They announced about one-sixth of the money that was going to be needed to build the project and put it out in press releases just before the election. They trumpeted it in the by-election. But this time nobody fell for the con trick, because I think Australians woke up to this mob. It was a fake government led by a fake prime minister. Everything was about the announcement, never about the delivery. This fake pipeline of 800 national priority infrastructure projects illustrates the point. We are getting on with cleaning up their mess. 16:42 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin I rise in support of the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023, with some qualifications. It's essential that we have strategic long-term and evidence based decisions about infrastructure investment, because a well designed and resourced national infrastructure network can encourage economic and job growth, improve access to health and social services, and encourage connections within and between communities. On the flip side, a poorly designed or inappropriately resourced national infrastructure network leaves communities isolated, restricts business growth and leaves us vulnerable to natural disasters or economic shocks. And infrastructure planning doesn't happen organically. It requires long-term vision and rational interconnected decisions. Given the importance of good infrastructure planning, it makes sense to have an independent advisory body to apply more-rigorous oversight in decision-making and take the politics out of major infrastructure projects. This was recognised in 2008 by the Labor government when it established Infrastructure Australia, and in 2013 the coalition government added to the model, recognising the need for a more transparent, accountable and effective adviser on infrastructure projects and policies. So, there's bipartisan acknowledgement that Infrastructure Australia has the potential to be an important independent adviser to governments. That's why I'm rising to lend my support to the improvement of Infrastructure Australia, particularly as we approach a period of challenging economic times. The broad intent of the proposed changes is to better enable Infrastructure Australia to deliver on its mandate to provide quality, independent, cross-sectoral advice to the Australian government on nationally significant infrastructure that supports the economy, builds the nation, and addresses the challenges and opportunities of the future. Over the last 10 years we've seen the power of Infrastructure Australia to provide advice, according to its mandate, diminish. This is in part owing to political board appointments and in part owing to a history of the organisation being undervalued, and poorly tasked and directed by government. There has also been criticism about funding for nationally significant projects being committed before a business case was published or assessed by Infrastructure Australia. This is ludicrous and goes to some of the worst criticisms of government decision-making. Large investment decisions spending taxpayer money must be driven by sound reasoning and appropriate cost-benefit analysis, not by the need for announceables. So I welcomed the government announcement last year that they would be conducting an independent review of Infrastructure Australia which was open for public submission. The review was well timed, as Australia is facing some huge challenges on the infrastructure front. More than 60 per cent of Australia's population live in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth, and the pace of growth and change in our cities have put many legacy networks under strain. 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. Almost a third of Australians live in our smaller cities and regional centres, and one in 10 of us live in small towns with populations of fewer than 10,000. Right now, we have a new raft of challenges when it comes to infrastructure development, including: supply chain challenges, the rising cost of materials and a significant shortfall between available labour and demand; decarbonising of the transport infrastructure sector and understanding how this changes our infrastructure needs and how we should be constructing infrastructure; and population growth and geographical population shifts. We already have a pretty poor track record of delivery of large-scale national infrastructure projects. The Grattan Institute reported between 2001 and 2016, Australian governments experienced cost overruns of $28 billion on transport infrastructure alone. The Forest Highway, south of my electorate, and the Hunter Expressway are great examples, with the two projects coming in at five times the cost initially quoted. The Grattan study showed projects that are most likely to have significant cost overruns are those they refer to as premature announcements—things like political announcements pre-election—with 74 per cent of the value of cost overruns occurring in this context, despite them making up only 32 per cent of projects. Once politicians have announced a project, they and the public treat that announcement as a commitment, and two-thirds of those projects get built. While I'm all for keeping promises, I'm also very much in favour of promises being made only when the work has been done to determine whether the project makes sense and how much it will actually cost. We need to ensure that Infrastructure Australia is contributing to better and better-informed decisions. I want to acknowledge the importance of regular independent reviews of government and statutory bodies. To encourage public faith in the government process, we need to ensure our institutions are interrogated by experts and that their views are published and/or available to the public. Particularly in this case, where environmental and economic challenges have evolved, it's so important to ensure our institutions remain fit for purpose and don't become either a money-wasting burden or ignored lip-service. This independent review had 59 submissions, and the key issue the review acknowledged was getting the balance right between the independence of expert investment advice to the government and the influence of that advice in government decision-making processes. The review found a clear mandate was required to strengthen Infrastructure Australia's role in the Commonwealth infrastructure ecosystem. This bill goes some of the way towards doing this. I, along with major interest groups, am pleased that an objects clause will now be included in the Infrastructure Australia Act, that the infrastructure priority list will be refined, and that Infrastructure Australia may consider any reports prepared by state, territory and local governments. This will go some way to clarifying the role and scope of the Infrastructure Australia. I am also pleased to see that the new bill requires Infrastructure Australia to consider the environmental and carbon emissions impact of the projects and take into account Australia's emissions reduction target. As we start the huge task of decarbonising our economy, we need to ensure that we are farsighted with our decisions in terms of both what infrastructure we build to contribute to Australia paying a key role in green energy exports and how we build that infrastructure to contribute to meeting our own target. These amendments are a welcome addition to those passed in the Climate Change (Consequential Amendments)Act, which said that Infrastructure Australia must consider Australia's greenhouse gas emissions target when auditing projects and advising government. On governance, this bill slashes the current 12-member board to a three-member commission. While on the face of it this seems like it would streamline the process and could create a more independent advisory model, I have a few concerns. Given the vital role of Infrastructure Australia and the need for a long-term vision, it will be imperative that decisions made by the commission are not influenced by short-term partisan concerns. I will be supporting a number of crossbench amendments that would strengthen the integrity of the Infrastructure Australia board, including amendments put by the members for Mackellar, Fowler and North Sydney on transparency in appointments and disclosure of interests. My second concern is that the bill does not implement the review's advice that the commission should be supported by an advisory board. While I note that the minister has referred to the establishment of an advisory board by administrative instrument, I would like to see the requirements for this board established in legislation so that there are scrutinised requirements for the membership of the board. Again, I will be supporting the member for Fowler's amendment to include an advisory board or council in the bill. My final concern is a broad and significant one. Many submissions to the review drew attention to the fact that the advice of Infrastructure Australia was often ignored. This included government announcing or committing to projects prior to receiving advice or an assessment from Infrastructure Australia, particularly around election time. Australia lost a lot of faith in government in the last term of government when they saw projects coming out that did not appear to be built on a decent business case. There is no point having a body like Infrastructure Australia doing the long-term planning if that advice is not heeded. The member for Wentworth's proposed amendment requiring a cost-benefit analysis for any project over $100 million will assist, but there is still no requirement that advice be listened to. This may be a matter for good practice rather than legislation, but only time will tell whether Infrastructure Australia will become embedded in the decision-making process of the federal government. It will be up to members like me to hold government accountable to the intent evidenced by these changes to Infrastructure Australia to strengthen the credibility and force of its recommendations. The government's commitment to taking the advice of Infrastructure Australia seriously would be strengthened by accepting the member for North Sydney's proposed amendment relating to the regular tabling of Infrastructure Australia's reports, which was a key recommendation of the report. Any decisions taken by the government in contravention of the advice of Infrastructure Australia should be accompanied by a fulsome explanation to the Australian people. In conclusion, I will be supporting the bill because I believe that, if it is used as intended, it will contribute to greater transparency and accountability in government decision-making. Depoliticising major infrastructure investment is consistent with better long-term, evidence based planning. I will be using my position on the crossbench to continue to monitor the implementation of this bill to ensure that its intentions are met. 16:53 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I rise to speak on this Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023 with grave concern for the future of vital infrastructure projects in my electorate of Fisher. Let me read a quote: This is a government that doesn't have a plan for long-term infrastructure investment, that hasn't produced a pipeline of projects, that has gutted Infrastructure Australia and, therefore, will damage Australia's future economic growth and prosperity. Do you know who said that? It was the current Prime Minister of Australia. He said it on 21 May 2018, just five years ago, when he was the opposition leader. Actually, at that stage he was probably the shadow infrastructure minister. The Prime Minister has prided himself as being a prime minister of infrastructure. He was pumping up his chest and fluffing up his feathers today in question time, talking about how when he was the infrastructure minister this, when he was the infrastructure minister that. The reality is that, when we were in government over the last nine years, we had put in place a program of $120 billion worth of infrastructure for this country. Now, I'm all for infrastructure around this country, but what I want to do is spend the next 15 minutes talking in particular about some of the major infrastructure projects on the Sunshine Coast and how those infrastructure projects are now at risk. Since 2016, when Ted O'Brien and I were elected to this place, we have made it our driving passion to make sure we got as much money as we possibly could for infrastructure, both road and rail, to benefit the Sunshine Coast. Up until when Labor won the election last year, we had been successful in gaining infrastructure funds for the Sunshine Coast to the tune of around $5.3 billion. We heard story after story after story—and I have lived on the coast 30 years and seen just how much the Sunshine Coast was abandoned by previous governments in relation to infrastructure. We saw infrastructure moneys going to Brisbane, the Gold Coast and, of course, Melbourne and Sydney, but very rarely did we see federal funds going to the Sunshine Coast. This has got to be seen in light of the fact that the Sunshine Coast is now the ninth-largest city in this country and one of the fastest-growing regions in the country. We are tipped to have around 500,000 people living on the Sunshine Coast by 2041. We're going to be hosting numerous disciplines on the 2032 Olympic Games. So it's incredibly important that we are able to move people around not just within the Sunshine Coast but from Brisbane to the Sunshine Coast and from the Sunshine Coast to Brisbane. So Ted O'Brien and I set about annoying the absolute hell out of Darren Chester, the then infrastructure minister, the member for Gippsland. In fact, Darren Chester had a pet name for me: he used to call me 'Canberra's Biggest Pain in the'—I can't say what comes next! But it's a moniker I take with great pride because I wanted to be a pain, let's say, in his neck, because that's what my job was to do. My job was to be a pain in his neck to get funding for my region. We got funding for the duplication of the North Coast railway line. That was a project that the federal government didn't need to put a cent—not one cent—towards, but we knew that, if it were left to the state government of Queensland, it would never have been done. The state government of Queensland has this pathological dislike for investing money on the Sunshine Coast. We went to the Labor state government—this is going back to about 2017-2018—and we said, 'We will fund half of this project.' I think it was a $720 million project, and we offered half the cost even though we didn't need to put a cent towards it. And what was Mark Bailey and Annastacia Palaszczuk's response? Despite us not having to put a cent towards it, they said: 'We're not content with 50 per cent. We want you to pay more than 50 per cent.' Ultimately, that project has now started, but, because we couldn't agree on the level of funding from the Labor state government, they shrank the scope of the works. The duplication of the railway line was supposed to go from Beerburrum—it's the member for Gippsland himself! I was just talking about you! It was supposed to go from Beerburrum to Landsborough, but the Queensland state government's version of doing a deal with the federal government was basically just to shrink the scope of works. They brought the duplication back to Beerwah. That was their concept of meeting us halfway, which is extremely disappointing, of course, if you live on the railway line north of Beerwah. Another project that is near and dear to my heart, and one that Ted O'Brien and I secured just last year, at the beginning of 2022, was half the cost of building the North Coast railway line into Maroochydore: $1.6 billion. From Beerwah, running a spur line into Caloundra, up to Kawana and into Maroochydore is very, very important. Back when the railway line was built, 100 years ago, everybody lived in the hinterland; no-one lived on the coast. Now the coast represents 85-plus per cent of the population base of the Sunshine Coast. Yet, we don't have a train line. We don't have a railway line. So Ted—the member for Fairfax—and I set about getting funding, and we secured $1.6 billion. I was really pleased to see that in the last budget, in October last year, the new Labor infrastructure minister—nothing like our old infrastructure minister, I hasten to add—kept that $1.6 billion in the budget, waiting for Queensland Labor to match it. But what do we hear from Queensland Labor? Crickets. Nothing. What do we hear from Mark Bailey? Nothing. What do we hear from Jason Hunt? Nothing. What do we hear from Rob Skelton? Nothing. We came to Queensland Labor with $1.6 billion—half the cost to build this project. What did we have to put towards this project? Zip. Nothing. Nada. But we came to them and said: 'We'll give you $1.6 billion. All you have to do is match it.' We are still waiting. We are still waiting for Queensland Labor. They told us last year that they would do a review and that review would be handed down at the end of 2023. Now they're saying 2024. Do you know what? Do you know what's happening in 2032? It's a little thing called the Olympic and Paralympic games. We're lucky enough to host a number of disciplines on the Sunshine Coast. How the Premier of Queensland thinks they're going to get people—hundreds of thousands of spectators—from Brisbane to the Sunshine Coast and back without rail is beyond me. It's absolutely beyond me. Just last week Annastacia Palaszczuk did a shuffling of the deck chairs on the Titanic when she reshuffled her cabinet. What she should have done was shuffled Mark Bailey out of his position back to the backbench and put someone in the job that is actually prepared to do the work. This is an incredibly important project for the Sunshine Coast. The old minister for infrastructure—'old' being the operative word—who's sitting behind me, used to call me Canberra's biggest pain in the beep! I will be—and am—George Street in Brisbane's biggest pain in the beep until we get funding from the Queensland state government to match what we did. Another really important project for infrastructure on the Sunshine Coast—get this, Member for Gippsland! The member for Gippsland was, I think, the infrastructure minister at the time, in 2019, when we announced another project that we would half fund for the Queensland department of transport. Now, did we have to put any money towards this project? No, not a cent. But we came up and offered another $160 million—once again, because the Queensland state government is so incompetent and so inept that we had to do the heavy lifting for them when we were in government. This was in relation to the Mooloolah River Interchange. We offered $160 million to build this $320 million stage 1 of the rejuvenation, the renovation of the Mooloolah River Interchange. Get this—you won't believe this— An honourable member interjecting— Mr WALLACE 265967 You'll believe anything. Well, get this. Fast-forward a couple of years, and Australia is now in the grips of its worst housing and homelessness crisis. The state government has signed up to stage 1. We've signed up to stage 1. The federal government has put in $160 million. The state government has put in $160 million. And now the federal government is saying: 'Whoa! Hang on a minute. We're not so sure we want to go ahead with this project.' But guess what: 130 homes have been resumed; around 400 Sunshine Coast locals have been evicted from their homes to make way for this interchange. And now, only days before these 130 homes are due to be demolished, the federal government says: 'Hold the phone. Wait a minute. We're now going to do a three-month review on all these projects.' So, at a time when around 400 Sunshine Coast locals have been evicted from their homes, at a time when it is virtually impossible for them to find another home on the Sunshine Coast, they have been evicted, and now this project may not even go ahead—vital infrastructure, which, as with the rail project to Maroochydore, is now at risk because this government wants to do a review. And we all know what that means. When the Labor government talks about doing a review into infrastructure, what are they really talking about? Mr Chester IPZ It's a fancy word for cuts. Mr WALLACE 265967 It's a fancy word for cuts. You get a prize, Member for Gippsland. It's a fancy word for cuts. That's why he was the infrastructure minister—because he's smart. It's a fancy word for cuts. So, the Prime Minister is up there, pumping up his chest, fluttering up his feathers and saying, 'I'm going to be the Prime Minister for infrastructure,' when the infrastructure minister has called this 90-day review. Going back to the Mooloolah River Interchange, just for a moment: around 400 Sunshine Coast locals have been evicted, at a time when the federal government have announced this $10 billion Ponzi scheme called the National Housing Fund, the idea being that they borrow $10 billion, invest that $10 billion and hope like hell that the investment they receive is going to be more than the money they're paying out for the interest. And the balance—what's left over—they'll give to the state and territory governments, in the hope that they might actually get something out of it. This is a Ponzi scheme. It could very well result in not one additional home—$10 billion being borrowed by this federal government, when they've just effectively evicted 400 Sunshine Coast locals out onto the streets. Shame on this Labor government. I will continue to hold you to account until you back these projects in. 17:09 Ms LE 295676 Fowler Infrastructure is one of the critical pillars of our society. It's great to hear that the member for Fisher and the previous government have invested infrastructure funding into regions such as the Sunshine Coast. We are still waiting for the $150 million promised for Fairfield Hospital at the last state election, so we really need that infrastructure funding investment. It is a key reason why election after election we hear politicians make promises to build this infrastructure and that infrastructure to entice voters, especially in marginal seats. Many of us know that infrastructure and pork-barrelling are a dynamic duo, with politicians winning and losing seats over car parks, roundabouts, railways and highways. But I am sure I speak on behalf of many members of this House when I say that infrastructure funding or any funding should not just go to communities in marginal seats. I thank the minister's office for discussing this review with me in detail and I wholeheartedly agree that a revamp of Infrastructure Australia is needed. I hope that this legislation will not only amend Infrastructure Australia processes but also provide accurate impartial insights into the infrastructure projects that are needed the most. For my community and Fowler, infrastructure funding is desperately needed for our multicultural, migrant and refugee communities. We have settled hundreds of thousands of people over the decades, yet successive governments have failed to invest in major infrastructure projects. It is as if our refugee communities are simply an afterthought. When tens of thousands of Syrian refugees were settled in Fowler in 2012, escaping the atrocities of war, Fairfield and Liverpool city councils welcomed them with open arms. That is what we do. It is great that the Australian government contributes to addressing the world's humanitarian needs but it is not just about bringing people here. It is about having infrastructure and plans in place to ensure we can support and enable people to thrive later on. With a lack of investment into our public infrastructure such as our Fairfield Hospital, our trains, our local schools, our really congested roads, our local community were forced to bear the social and economic costs of a huge influx of people who were in desperate need of a roof over their heads, jobs to match their skills, schools to send their traumatised school children to, and services to assist them to integrate successfully into this new foreign land called Australia. Yet to this day we somehow still miss out on so many critical funding rounds of both state and federal governments. I remember growing up in Bossley Park. Back then our migrant communities were forgotten and demonised, and it seemed for a long time that nothing would change. We had one car park in the Cabramatta CBD and a pink toilet, which people had to pay 50c to use. I think we were the only suburb in all of Australia where we had to pay to use the public toilets. This is what sparked my political journey—campaigning for better local car park for our often quiet but hardworking community. We were not asking for much at all. I am proud to say that my advocacy led to Dutton Plaza Car Park being renovated and redeveloped into a multi-storey car park with a shopping precinct. I also have to thank my Fairfield Council mayor and councillors for fighting with me to give our families and residents better local infrastructure facilities. My community had few expectations for infrastructure and we took what we got. But in the last few decades, our children have grown up through the trials and tribulations of growing up 'out west' and have transformed Western Sydney into a rapidly growing and thriving economy. Many of our young people in Fowler have realised that they have the right to speak up and to not accept to be treated as second-class citizens. They have earned the right to ask for what they deserve. They too have paid taxes. They know they can expect to have more than just a car park and a toilet. This brings me to Western Sydney Airport, one of the most significant pieces of infrastructure to be developed in our growing region and is part of Liverpool council. There are opportunities in this significant development for my communities both in Fairfield and Liverpool council LGAs. Not only would there be jobs in the construction and manufacturing of facilities but airport operations, retail as well as adjacent activities, one of which includes the construction and servicing of a business park, bringing more liveliness to the Western Sydney region. While unemployment has remained low for the rest of Australia, Fowler's unemployment rate has been steadily around 10 per cent for many years. So it is fantastic that this airport is expected to support over 28,000 direct and indirect jobs by 2031. But it is critical that we have a proper public transport link that will connect the airport to the Fairfield, Liverpool and Parramatta CBDs. My electorate of Fowler will essentially become the midway point between Western Sydney Airport and the Sydney CBD; therefore, it only makes sense that a metro link connecting the airport with Parramatta, Liverpool and the Sydney CBD would go through my electorate, making it easier for workers to travel to and from the airport, as well as to the city. With nearly 45 per cent of my electorate using predominantly petrol cars to get to work, you can imagine both the congestion on our roads and the carbon footprint. If we are to transition to a greener future, a fast and efficient transport link for commuters to get cars off the roads would be required. So I was elated to hear that the east-west metro line made it onto the Infrastructure Australia Infrastructure Priority List. This will benefit the people of Fowler and beyond. But then, during the election campaign, Labor announced it would scrap the line for buses in favour of another line from Leppington to Macarthur. Now, I'm not saying that we should not have it, if that's what they want to build, but the East West Rail Link is also vital. My community and I were devastated by this news. To add insult to injury, the New South Wales Liberal government, at the time, gave us breadcrumbs in their WestInvest program. They couldn't even provide the $25 million for the health and wellness centre for the Cabramatta area. So, as we watch other electorates get hundreds of millions of dollars in funding, you can just imagine how our community felt. We weren't asking for a football stadium. We weren't asking for a superhighway. Why is it that my community gets treated like we're asking for the world, when we're simply asking for facilities that not only benefit my electorate but the entire Sydney CBD? In my meeting with the infrastructure minister, she said that the priority list for Infrastructure Australia was essentially meaningless and that there was no funding behind the hundreds of projects on it. I was gobsmacked. I understand there are currently 166 projects on the priority list, which is far bigger than a priority list should be. The Grattan Institute reported that during the 2019 federal campaign only one of the coalition's 71 transport promises valued at $100 million or more had a business case approved by Infrastructure Australia. For Labor, it was two out of the 61 projects. What is the point of a priority list then, if, firstly, the priority list has hundreds of projects in waiting and, secondly, governments don't even fund projects that are on the priority list? I'm sure this is not the vision our Prime Minister had for the body when, as the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government at the time, he set up Infrastructure Australia in 2009. Therefore, I fully support the current minister's goal of bringing integrity back to Infrastructure Australia. The government needs to consider further accountability and transparency to safeguard it for future generations, not just for this government but beyond. But I fear that history will repeat itself. The new government will not make all of the recommended changes in the legislation provided in the independent review conducted by the head of Infrastructure Western Australia, Nicole Lockwood, and former infrastructure department head, Mike Mrdak. For example, one of the recommendations is that Infrastructure Australia provide two annual reports to inform the government's budgetary processes on current projects, project outcomes and updates. However, the government has rejected this, with concerns that it could breach cabinet-in-confidence. I don't understand how just having visibility of spending on an infrastructure project and where it is at may be breaching cabinet-in-confidence. I asked the question: what could possibly be so secretive about such infrastructure updates that are ultimately for the public benefit? Surely two people with high-ranking roles within infrastructure departments would also have some knowledge of how cabinet processes work and wouldn't have recommended it if it weren't viable. Furthermore, I understand that ministerial discretion is required in some cases, but I have concerns with the amount of discretion given in the appointment of the commissioners, as well as the advisory council. The public has the right to know who is making nationally significant infrastructure network decisions in the first place, so I urge the government to consider whether future commissioners should disclose any conflicts of interest or ties to any major political parties. While this does not stop people with vested interests from being on the commission or advisory council, it gives the public the opportunity to know who is making certain infrastructure decisions and why. Accountability and transparency mean we will have more informed voters who can see the pork-barrelling for what it is and are willing to speak out against bad funding decisions. This one-year-old government has been outspoken about previous governments' pork-barrelling approach to funding on infrastructure projects. Therefore, I encourage this new government, wanting to set a different integrity bar when it comes to spending taxpayers' money to build up our people and our country, to ensure that infrastructure spending will not leave the people and the community of Fowler behind. We all pay taxes. We all need roads. We all need public transport. But we must focus on the priority areas that are in dire need first. I want to see a system that prioritises infrastructure where it's needed most, not where the swing voters are. After all, how are we supposed to call ourselves an egalitarian society if we cannot equitably distribute basic needs to function as a society? 17:20 Mr PIKE 300120 Bowman I rise to speak on the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023. As the title suggests, the bill aims to amend the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008 following an independent review of Infrastructure Australia, commissioned by the current minister and released in December last year. Consistent with the independent review, the bill provides a new object for the act, namely for Infrastructure Australia to be the government's independent advisor on nationally significant infrastructure investment planning and project prioritisation. The bill amends the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008 to repeal many current functions of Infrastructure Australia, and creates a series of alternative new functions, including: to conduct audits or assessments of nationally significant infrastructure; to determine adequacy and need; to conduct or endorse evaluations of infrastructure projects; to develop targeted infrastructure lists and plans; and to provide advice on nationally significant infrastructure matters. The bill, though quite controversially, replaces the current 12-member Infrastructure Australia board with three commissioners appointed by the minister, comprising a chief commissioner and two other commissioners. The governance structure proposed by the government in this bill represents a distortion of one of three governance recommendations suggested by the independent review, including preserving the status quo with a corporate board rather than commissioners. There can be no doubt that the new governance model concocted by this government will make Infrastructure Australia far less independent. It seems strange this decision is coming from this government, as I think Infrastructure Australia and its independence is one of the key achievements that the Prime Minister can actually lay claim to during his time as infrastructure minister. By coming up with this new governance structure, largely off their own bat and without corresponding recommendation from the independent review despite the name of the bill, the government will be recasting IA as an entity that does the government's bidding. Consider the implication of these changes on the independence of Infrastructure Australia: all three commissioners will be directly appointed by the minister and answerable to the minister; the commissioners must have regard to government policy; and the commissioners must evaluate all proposals submitted by the government without exception. Beyond the scope of this bill, the government requires the commissioners to form an advisory council of senior officials from PM&C, the Department of Treasury, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communication and the Arts, and not one private sector seat at the table. As the advisory council is referenced nowhere in the bill, its composition, guidelines and functions are all off the radar as far as this parliament is concerned. Add to that the complete loss of independence and the consequential loss of critical industry expertise, stripped from the board, no requirement that commissioners with expertise and experience be appointed, and what could possibly go wrong? Taken together, these are very significant changes that effectively repurpose and restructure Infrastructure Australia as an almost entirely new entity in all but name. It should be noted the 2021 ALP national platform did vaguely reference the possibility of some realignment of Infrastructure Australia under Labor, in declaring that Infrastructure Australia would be charged with identifying the long-term strategic pipeline approach to be the centre of a Labor government's investment and decision-making process. In fairness, Labor did flag a review of Infrastructure Australia as a pre-election commitment. Unfortunately, that's where the fairness largely ends, because Labor did not at any time flag the wholesale redefinition or dumbing down of Infrastructure Australia by changing its governance structure, revoking its principal purpose and replacing its many functions. There was no pre-election commitment from Labor to transform Infrastructure Australia into something else with the same name. There was never any suggestion that a reformed Infrastructure Australia would be much closer to government, less independent and less authoritative. And it should not be imagined or conceived that it was. In essence, these changes will bring Infrastructure Australia back into the political fray. Given that Infrastructure Australia was established in 2008 by the Rudd government and, more significantly, that it's design, form and function were the responsibility of the then Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government—our current Prime Minister— An honourable member interjecting— Mr PIKE 300120 That's right. We recall that well—I'm sure many in this chamber will find it curious that the creator now considers his creation so deeply flawed that it requires this significant change. But, although the Prime Minister was the minister responsible for the establishment of Infrastructure Australia, those of you with a long memory might recall that the instinct to override and politicise IA was there right from the very beginning. IA was sidelined from real decision-making and forced to play catch-up and chase its tail to justify projects that the previous Labor government had already announced without consulting its supposed expert advisory body. Labor's road and rail funding projects, its big spending response to the global financial crisis and its infrastructure election commitments were all announced without being fully assessed by IA. Headline projects such as Darwin Port, Sydney's West Metro, and the Adelaide's O-Bahn—you'll appreciate that one, Deputy Speaker Stevens—had to be scrapped when eventual assessments recognised that these projects weren't value for money. However, millions were wasted in pursuing these projects prior to IA assessment. Members may also recall that the now Prime Minister didn't submit the NBN to Infrastructure Australia scrutiny, so perhaps the seeds of doubt about whether an independent statutory body providing advice on infrastructure priorities was a good thing for government were there in Labor's minds from the very start. The coalition has no issue whatsoever with an independent review of Infrastructure Australia to improve its processes, provided that the independence and the diverse governance structures of Infrastructure Australia are respected. Unfortunately, this bill doesn't quite do that. The coalition acknowledges and sees some merit in each of the 16 recommendations made by the independent review. The Albanese government, however, is not so inclined. They have cherry-picked which recommendations they want to follow. The government has failed to support eight of the 16 key recommendations of the independent review that they themselves promised, commissioned and announced. That's barely a 50 per cent pass mark. There are no prizes for guessing which of these recommendations ended on the cutting room floor. Of course they're the ones regarding governance, collaboration, transparency and expanding Infrastructure Australia's mandate specifically to include nationally significant economic and social infrastructure. The coalition is concerned that several provisions in this bill suggest that the Albanese government aims to limit the remit of Infrastructure Australia so that the organisation loses all effective independence and operational authority and is instead reduced to a narrow pipeline for pet projects routinely fed into it, almost exclusively by Labor state and territory governments. Labor's national platform that they took to the last election proudly states that Australia cannot afford to let infrastructure be decided by politics and vested interests. I couldn't agree more. Public investment in meaningful, high-value, nation-building infrastructure should not be determined by politics or vested interests, but this bill, quite deliberately, does the reverse. When you read the text of the bill and the explanatory memorandum, it doesn't take long for the penny to drop, and to realise that this bill has one primary aim—not to reform, restore or refine functions of Infrastructure Australia to make it more effective and fit for purpose but rather to disempower and shackle Infrastructure Australia. This bill will severely and fundamentally restrict the independence of Infrastructure Australia in both its governance and its function. The bill will effectively make Infrastructure Australia little more than a lapdog of vested interest politics and pet projects of the Albanese government and the Labor Party in every state or territory across mainland Australia. The true aim of this bill is to bring what was, and still should be, an independent and authoritative corporate Commonwealth entity into alignment with the government's wishes. Infrastructure Australia is an important body. It is important that the parliament provides the organisation with a clear mandate for its future operations. In this regard, the opposition does not seek to frustrate passage of the government's legislation; however, there are real concerns that this bill will result in an Infrastructure Australia that's far less independent and less authoritative. The opposition proposes to support the passage of the legislation with amendments, and I commend those amendments to the House. 17:30 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara I am very pleased to speak about the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023. This bill goes to the fact that we have not taken away any funding but we are going through, with a fine-tooth comb, the infrastructure pipeline that those opposite left us. Why do we need to? Why is it important that the incoming Labor government— Opposition members interjecting— Mr BURNS 278522 I can hear some chirping from the opposition over there, and maybe they will enjoy this contribution! Why would we need to do a 90-day review of their infrastructure programs? Maybe I can take you on a journey through my electorate of Macnamara. In my electorate of Macnamara in St Kilda East we have a magnificent high street called Carlisle Street. It's right in Balaclava. The Sandringham line runs through Balaclava station. The previous government had a commitment of $15 million for a commuter car park behind Balaclava station. With ministers like the member for New England in charge, you really would have thought that they would have dotted the i's and crossed the t's on the $15 million that they had allocated to the Balaclava station from the Commuter Car Park Program, their signature infrastructure program. All was going fantastically until one small snag came up. There was one small snag on the $15 million that these people opposite allocated to a commuter car park in my electorate. They hadn't actually told the state government. They hadn't told the local council. Had they bothered to pick up the phone to the two organisations that have stewardship over the piece of land that they allocated money to, they may have realised that actually the exact piece of land that those geniuses opposite allocated $15 million of taxpayer funds to had already been allocated to a social housing project. They allocated $15 million to build a car park without even picking up the phone to the other layers of government to work it out—'Hey, guys. It's the federal government here. It's Scott and Barnaby, the member for Cook and the member for New England. We want to build a commuter car park. Are you, by chance, happy with that?' Had they bothered to even do that, they would have found out that the land behind the Balaclava station was already designated for social housing. I was very pleased to go with the Minister for Housing to open the 49 apartments at the place where the previous government had allocated $15 million. The housing is going to a range of people, including a few people with a disability and some single parents. It's a fantastic community project. Those houses are a wonderful new addition to the Balaclava community. I was very pleased to be there on that day. Another reason why we had to go through their projects that we inherited with a fine-tooth comb is the regional infrastructure grants program. The member for Barker is in the chamber now. He considers himself a good representative of regional Australia. An honourable member interjecting— Mr BURNS 278522 Yes, sure. The member for Barker's constituents in regional Australia are proud regional Australians. I do question, though, how many residents in the member for Barker's regional electorate have been for a swim in the North Sydney Pool underneath the Opera House. There was $10 million used from the Regional Infrastructure Fund for a pool underneath the Sydney Opera House. If ever there was a landmark that screamed 'regional Australia', it's the Opera House! Opposition members interjecting— Mr BURNS 278522 I'm hearing some interjections from the member for Barker. Maybe they're just upset that they didn't get $10 million to build a pool in the member for Barker's electorate. But it is just another example of why we had to introduce this bill and go through with a fine-tooth comb all of the ridiculous decisions that they had put in place. There's another one worth mentioning. Those opposite like to talk about economic management. They like to talk about how they get value for money for taxpayer dollars. If you've got a piece of land that's worth $3 million and you spend $30 million, and you call that value for money— Opposition members interjecting— Mr BURNS 278522 I'm hearing a lot of interjections. Maybe those fiery interjections should have been voiced in the party room when their colleagues were purchasing pieces of land worth $3 million for $30 million. It almost made the Auditor-General's head explode, going, 'What on earth are you people doing? Why are you spending $30 million on a piece of land worth $3 million?' They treated taxpayer dollars with absolute disdain, and everything became 'How can we try and manipulate things on behalf of the Liberal Party?' That's not how we're going to do things. That's not how we're going to build infrastructure. That's not how we're going to govern for Australians. We are here to ensure that Australians are getting taxpayer value for money. We're going to ensure that we invest in the sorts of projects that will benefit communities, states and our country, and we are going to ensure that the infrastructure investments that we make are in the national interest as well. There's a final one I'll mention that goes to the absolutely incompetent way the opposition managed infrastructure projects. Now, some infrastructure ministers in the previous government were not as bad as others. Some infrastructure ministers are more equal than other infrastructure ministers! And, dare I say, that's something the member for Gippsland and I agree on. There are some infrastructure ministers that are better than others. But, in the great state of Victoria, in the electorates of Aston and La Trobe, you've got the Wellington Road, which is a road I've driven on many, many times. The Wellington Road duplication project is an important project and one that the previous government allocated $10 million to. If you didn't know anything about the project, you'd think, 'That's fine; they've put a bit of money on the table for that project,' except that, in the classic way in which the previous government managed these things, that project cannot get done for—the estimates are—less than around $640 million. They come in here and they pretend to have invested in infrastructure, but, with the projects they actually committed to, they were either trying to build car parks in certain electorates, and infrastructure on pieces of land when they hadn't even spoken to other layers of government. They're building regional infrastructure in the middle of Sydney—the Darling Harbour regional infrastructure project! For goodness sake! That was one of the most absurd uses of taxpayer funds—$10 million for a pool in the middle of North Sydney. They purchased for $30 million a piece of land that was worth $3 million. Then they pretended that they were committed to infrastructure projects like the ones in our great state of Victoria, but they didn't actually put the money where their mouth was. It was a constant stream of incompetence and a constant stream of using taxpayer dollars on behalf of the Liberal Party, and Australians saw through it. Australians saw through it. That's why in the great electorate of Aston we now have the finest member for Aston that we've had in over 30 years. After 30 years, the people of Aston have finally got a decent representative. We're going to work through this list of infrastructure projects right around our state, clean up the opposition's mess and build a better future on behalf of all Australians. 17:39 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I really do feel for the member for Macnamara. I think he's woken at night in a fright. The Greens are hunting him at home. He gets on his feet in the Federation Chamber, and who comes in but the member for Ryan! Goodness! I really do feel for the member for Macnamara; it must be tough. Sometimes politics can be a bit of a mystery bet. Effectively, you don't know what you're going to get. Increasingly that's the case with those opposite, but I never thought the election of a Labor government led by Anthony Albanese would be as weak on infrastructure as they are presenting themselves to be. This Prime Minister was a minister in a former government who was passionate about infrastructure. He wanted to be known as the Prime Minister for infrastructure—an infrastructure prime minister—and, to be honest, right now he's the Prime Minister for no infrastructure. The reality is that there is a litany of things I can talk about in relation to reviews and other things—we will get there—but I just cannot believe we are now 12 months into this government and we are literally now starting a process of a root-and-branch review of the $120 billion worth of infrastructure that was bequeathed to those opposite. Before the member for Macnamara says we can't build that road for that, it's important that we understand that these build projects are always in partnerships with the states. In terms of metropolitan projects, there is an obligation that states meet 50 per cent of the costs of those projects. In terms of regional projects, there is an important 80-20 split. But I'll come to the root-and-branch review a bit later because there were revelations last night at estimates which have sent shock waves from this building all the way back to local governments, who are, of course, responsible for maintaining a whopping 600,000 kilometres of the national road network. For the benefit of those who might not be across this detail, our nation has about 800,000 kilometres in its road network; 600,000 kilometres or so are managed by our friends in the local government sector. They woke up to news from events overnight in this place which, quite frankly, have shocked them, resulting in extreme anxiety and real cause for concern. But, in writing to speak to the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023, I wanted to make a few observations. I suppose, at least in relation to this review, that it commenced during the first 12 months of the term for those opposite, not effectively at the anniversary in relation to the one more recently announced. Unfortunately, what we've heard from members who have provided contributions before mine is that this has done nothing to strengthen Infrastructure Australia. It's weakened it. It's brought it out of its position of independence and effectively brought it to heel at the foot of this Labor government. Infrastructure Australia, of course, was the creation of the now Prime Minister when he was the minister in the Rudd government, and I held real hopes for this review. It's important and it should be noted we're not going to stand in the way of these changes, but we do want to note some of the failings. It's important that Australians have confidence that their government is investing in infrastructure and ensuring that it is achieving value-for-money results in relation to those infrastructure investments, and so Infrastructure Australia is tasked with that obligation. There was, of course, a review undertaken. There were 16 recommendations, and you would expect that those opposite, having commissioned the review, having appointed specifically those undertaking the review, would adopt all 16 recommendations. You'd expect that, but it's not all well at home in Laborland, because only eight of the 16 recommendations are going to be adopted. Interestingly, those recommendations that go to a greater level of transparency, it probably doesn't surprise many in this place, particularly on this side of the chamber, have been left on the cutting room floor. We are now moving away from an independent body of 12 board members, which effectively is the status quo—some of whom are elected, three currently elected by state agencies—to a model where we would have three commissioners. When we talk about independence, these commissioners will be appointed by the minister, accountable to the minister and very much do the minister's bidding. I should say there is no requirement for any of them to live, reside or have interests in regional Australia, which is a telling omission in my respectful submission. Infrastructure Australia is of course responsible for undertaking business case analyses on behalf of the government, or at least those opposite would have us believe that. I am looking forward to seeing the major projects those opposite have been championing for some time are subject to business case analysis by Infrastructure Australia. But more broadly, what we are seeing in the country right now in and around infrastructure investment and decision-making, aside from there being a massive pause being struck as this review of the infrastructure pipeline is being undertaken, which took the minister 12 months to decide to undertake, is a three-month process. We are told that the nature of that review is currently being designed. It is like an aeroplane—it is being flown and built out at the same time. But what we do know is that after that best-case scenario 90-day period there will then need to be consideration by the minister of the recommendations of that review. Then those recommendations will need to go to cabinet and then, after that, those discussions will need to be included in discussions with the partners—namely, the states. We are looking at process those opposite say will take 90 days, but I am confident will bleed well into, if not the end of this year, early next year. But while we are talking about what shock waves came out of budget estimates last night, let's have a think about what we know today. The minister opposite has said that every project that is not under construction or that was committed to by those opposite in the lead up the 2022 election is under review. So to the extent we understood that position before this time last night, it was projects under review. But in response to a very direct question, departmental officials told budget estimates last night it is not just projects under review but it is also programs. I appreciate, both programs and projects start with 'p'. There is some lovely alliteration but there is a significant difference. It is one thing to say that projects are under review, but programs introduces a whole new level of uncertainty for the sector, for local government and of course for those people that rely on road investment to manage and maintain their businesses. So what programs are we talking about then? Aside from the many projects we have spoken about in this place before, let's talk about the programs. The Bridges Renewal Program is now under review. This is a program that was established in 2015-16 and is addressing much-needed bridge repair work right across the country. In my electorate, the Barossa Council has enjoyed grants from this program. Members have seen these grants all across regional electorates. The Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program is a program the Transport Workers Union of Australia absolutely loves. Obviously councils are supportive of it. They make many applications. We've had seven or so rounds of this program. It's been around since 2010. So: Bridges Renewal Program, 2015; and Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program, 2010. This is about making sure our network is fit for purpose. Combinations are getting longer and combinations are getting heavier, and we need to make sure our infrastructure can meet the challenges. We need the efficient movement of freight around this country, from paddock to port or from paddock to plate. Subjecting these programs to review has done nothing but throw uncertainty out into the marketplace. I have spoken about programs that have been with us for a while—Bridges Renewal, 2015; and Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity, 2010. But one program that I thought is widely and universally celebrated in this country is the rolling program that this Roads to Recovery. This was a program that was implemented by the Howard government in 2001. It's subject to review. I've spent some time serving my community in local government, and I can tell you local government officials regard Roads to Recovery funding as about as certain as the hills in Switzerland. Well, not now, not as a result of what we heard last night in budget estimates and not because of the minister who sits opposite. It is subject to review, and we know what a review means in the context of this place and in terms of government more generally. These are hundreds of millions of dollars. The Australian Local Government Association, before the most recent budget, had a budget submission, and they didn't ask for Roads to Recovery to be reviewed; they asked for annual funding for Roads for Recovery to go from $500 million to $800 million. Instead, what they've got is no increase and the uncertainty that comes with a review. I don't think when delegates from local governments arrive in a couple of weeks from all across Australia to meet in Canberra that they'll be happy with that response. They will be talking about local roads and community infrastructure and those other programs that have been cut as well, but I reckon deep down they're most concerned about what is happening potentially to Roads to Recovery. Roads to Recovery is a longstanding program—2001, with respect, Deputy Speaker. But there is a program which I think is much more important and has been with us for longer. In fact, it's a program that has been fixing dangerous sections of roads continuously since 1996. There wouldn't be one person in this place that begrudges the $110 million a year provided to the federal government's Black Spot Program. Let's be clear: this is funding that is provided to intersections and to road sections that have taken lives. Invariably, this funding is insufficient to meet even the reactive projects let alone get to the proactive projects, and I said there wouldn't be a person in this place who begrudges that funding. Then why, why, would it be subject to a review? Surely those opposite could have seen within their purview to say, 'We're undertaking a root and branch review of the $120 billion of infrastructure in the pipeline, but there are certain programs that are off limits: Roads to Recovery, one; Black Spot, two.' At the absolute minimum, I know how passionate members in this place are about road safety in particular, and this is at a time when the national road toll is, quite frankly, at an unacceptably high level. We have exceeded last year's levels. We are on track to set a new record that nobody in this place wants, and, at that very same time, the minister instructs her department to undertake a review not just of every program that is under construction right now or committed to by those opposite at the 2022 election but also every single program, including the much loved Roads to Recovery Program and the critically important Black Spot Program. 17:55 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to speak on the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023, which encompasses some very concerning reforms to Infrastructure Australia. Long-term infrastructure planning for our nation is a topic that we could have a lot more bipartisanship around. Some decisions that government make are very instantaneous. Other ones are in the medium term. Ones like infrastructure and defence investments are both in the category of decisions that involve billions of dollars and decades of planning and future value for our economy. Infrastructure is about investing in increasing the productive capacity of our economy and other important things, such as those the member for Barker was just touching on regarding road safety, community benefit, community use et cetera. Infrastructure Australia was conceived and implemented by the now Prime Minister, who at the time was the infrastructure minister in the Rudd government. I have some memory of the justification for establishing Infrastructure Australia, and I've come to appreciate the value of having a body that, at least in principle, is about undertaking long-range planning and evaluation of infrastructure investments from the Commonwealth. We know that almost all infrastructure is delivered in partnership, where the delivery agency is the state or territory government and the Commonwealth government is a funding partner. But the Commonwealth is not only a funder; it can also look at opportunities and infrastructure investments from a nation-building point of view and with the perspective of a national government. This isn't always completely front of mind for state governments when they're thinking about how they want to invest in infrastructure opportunities for their states and secure commensurate federal funding. The IA process when established was one that I watched closely from a South Australian point of view. The member for Bowman gave some good examples of where, regrettably, if the IA process and framework had been more robust my home state of South Australia would have received much greater value from Commonwealth infrastructure expenditure opportunities. Some projects that we were promised funding for were later discontinued, like the first iteration of the O-Bahn extension, when there was a particularly peculiar set of events around stimulus funding during the GFC. That was a good example, and there are many others, of the need for good-quality long-range infrastructure planning. We should have a forward program of infrastructure investments that are not entirely politicised and are not about short-term electoral gain but are indeed about good outcomes for communities and economic productivity. A good, functioning Infrastructure Australia body with all its constituent elements would be a great thing. That's why it is extremely concerning that in this bill we're seeing changes that take away a lot of the important governance and the sort of independence that you want from a body that is ultimately producing recommendations to government. I have my own additional concerns for my home state of South Australia, particularly in the infrastructure space, as the member for Barker was touching on, such as the situation we're in with the 90-day review of a $120 billion pipeline of infrastructure investments. The mind absolutely boggles that $120 billion of what we thought was security and certainty is now up for grabs, up for scrapping, up for who knows what over this 90-day period of time in which some kind of process is being undertaken. I don't know how you look at $120 billion worth of projects seriously and properly in 90 days unless there's a political agenda involved, unless there's a hit list and unless, perhaps, the 90-day review is there to be a shield for certain decisions that may already have been taken and are seeking some kind of veil of justification. We will obviously find out in 90 days what the secret agenda has been around this. The government has been in power for more than 12 months. I would probably have understood some kind of review in the first few weeks of coming into government, particularly if there was an election commitment to do a complete review of that $120 billion. There could be some understanding of that. But to wait for 12 months and then put all these projects on hold—$120 billion worth—is extremely concerning. In my home state of South Australia that is also potentially going to lead to a very significant infrastructure, jobs and investment valley of death because, if the Commonwealth is hitting the pause button on future infrastructure projects in South Australia, as they are nationally, that is only going to see a whole range of projects that could have been commencing sooner if they are not scrapped or put on the chopping block under this 90-day review be delayed. There are budgetary benefits for particularly state governments in reprofiling—that is the famous terminology—infrastructure expenditure. So maybe there's a fiscal benefit to covering up certain deficits in state governments, and maybe that could be the case in my state of South Australia, by delaying these infrastructure projects. But the valley of death is very significant from an economic point of view because, in my state, at least hundreds and possibly thousands of jobs could also be reprofiled out in years and years time and hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars of investment being reprofiled from the economy next year or the year after for years and years into the future. This is exactly not the time we need that kind of investment coming out of the South Australia economy. We have the highest unemployment rate in the nation. We have the highest inflation rate in the nation. Our infrastructure projects in the South Australian economy are very significant. They are very significant, and reprofiling them or hitting pause on them and having a whole range of things being delayed by what could be months or years is going to have a very significant impact on the South Australian economy, not this year because decisions that we took in government are still being invested in. It's the projects that won't start at the time they were meant to or could be scrapped altogether. That's an extremely concerning prospect and outlook in South Australia. We had one government policy announcement of significance in the campaign in metropolitan Adelaide, which was the Marion Road tram overpass in the electorate of Boothby. That's the only thing we know for certain in metropolitan Adelaide. In my electorate of Sturt, there are two projects left from the Urban Congestion Fund that are still to be completed. They are the two major intersections that the previous government announced and delivered on. Then there's nothing of any great significance happening in my electorate into the future. Things that are being invested in in Adelaide benefit more broadly than Adelaide, particularly from a congestion point of view. My constituents can benefit from projects that aren't necessarily in my electorate. But the one major Adelaide metropolitan project is the completion of the North-South Corridor. We've only seen delays and now a great deal of uncertainty around that megaproject. It would be an enormous project, the largest transport infrastructure project that's ever been undertaken in South Australia. It's one that I understood to have had longstanding bipartisan support, particularly because the previous Labor state government and the Rudd-Gillard government had been a part of elements of that North-South Corridor project, like the Howard government had, like the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments had and like the Marshall state government had. So we had bipartisanship around the North-South Corridor. Now we don't know what the future will be for that. Not only do we not know what the future will be for that; there is nothing else being proposed either. So we hold these concerns. We have to wait for the 90-day process to be completed. We will find out, like all other Australians, what the agenda is around this 90-day review of $120 billion investment in productive infrastructure of this nation. With those comments, we have an excellent amendment to this second reading, which we will support. We obviously have very serious concerns about what this bill effectively does, which is remove so much important transparency and important governance principles and take away what we should all want when it comes infrastructure that is vitally important, which is a proper long-term plan that is independent and about value for taxpayers' dollars. 18:04 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I thank the many members who've contributed to this bill for their contributions. I also want to thank members for really putting quite a lot of thought into those contributions, and I know there are a number of amendments that people wish to move in addition to the second reading amendment. From the speeches we've heard, people are very passionate about their own electorates, very passionate about what's happening in terms of infrastructure in their own electorates and also very passionate about the programs that we all know are important for funding infrastructure. Of course, the reason the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023 is before the parliament is that it is a response to the independent review that I asked to be undertaken into Infrastructure Australia, conducted by Nicole Lockwood and Mike Mrdak AO. The bill delivers on our commitment to restore Infrastructure Australia as the Commonwealth's premier adviser on major nationally significant infrastructure when it comes to communications, when it comes to water infrastructure, and when it comes to transport infrastructure and transmission infrastructure. The bill makes important changes to the act to provide the framework for implementing the government's response to the review's recommendations. The changes proposed by this bill are very much part of the government's response to those recommendations of the review, and the bill's amendments will provide for a better alignment between Infrastructure Australia's work program and the advice that government needs in order to make informed decisions about where we put scarce taxpayer dollars. It will provide Infrastructure Australia with a clear mandate and enhancements to what it produces for government. Infrastructure Australia will regain its authority as an expert adviser to the Commonwealth government and will deliver a more refined and targeted infrastructure priority list, linked to government priorities, to its audit and to Australia's needs. These changes will remove unnecessary processes and build on our strong relationships with states and territories, harmonising these processes and leading to better advice and recommendations. As we know from the review, since the establishment of Infrastructure Australia all the states and territories now have similar IA bodies themselves, and the review also went to that point. Importantly, Infrastructure Australia will retain its independence, ensuring that it continues to provide impartial advice to the Australian government, particularly on infrastructure project selection and on prioritisation for investment in projects that are needed the most. The new governance model will ensure that Infrastructure Australia has the eminence, the authority and the standing to be a national leader and to coordinate amongst Infrastructure Australia bodies. The three commissioners will collectively have strong and relevant expertise and be responsible for the delivery of IA's functions. Whilst the bill implements the recommendations of the independent review of IA, requiring legislative changes, a new statement of expectations will be issued to Infrastructure Australia to implement the remaining recommendations of the review. Together these changes will re-establish Infrastructure Australia as the Commonwealth's expert adviser on infrastructure of national significance. I'd like to again thank members for their contributions. Before I go to the second reading amendment, which the government will not be supporting, I also want to say that a number of members, during their contributions, have taken the opportunity to talk about broader government decisions that we're making at the moment, and I want to clarify a couple of things. The very reason that we are undertaking a review of the infrastructure investment pipeline is twofold. One is to make sure we maintain $120 billion of a rolling 10-year program. At the moment, because of decisions of the previous government, there are just under 800 projects sitting on that infrastructure investment pipeline, and they cannot all be delivered. It is as simple as that. To do so would require billions and billions of dollars of extra investment that we simply do not have because of decisions of the previous government. So, if I am to deliver major nationally significant infrastructure investments that actually add to productivity and enhance our freight routes, I've got to make some hard decisions. When I hear members opposite complain that we haven't delivered this particular project or that such and such is a problem, I say to them: if you want me to deliver those, then I need to have the headroom to look at cost escalations. There is nothing for that at the moment in the pipeline that you left me, and there is no capacity to bring in new projects at all. That is the problem you've left me. The reason for the review is to make sure we have a sustainable pipeline and that it is deliverable. You spent a lot of time doing press releases. I've seen the Twitter accounts of members opposite. You were standing beside road signs and making a big palaver about the announcements you were making. You substantially underfunded these projects. You did not have partnerships with the states and territories about the delivery of them, and they are simply not able to be delivered. That is absolutely the problem. We tried to clean it up in October. We started that process, and they were hard decisions to make. I don't like having to make them, but we have to do this if we're actually going to have a sustainable pipeline into the future. That is what the review is about. In terms of programs that are important and were funded in the budget—Roads to Recovery, the Bridges Renewal Program, the Black Spot Program and the Heavy Vehicle Safety Initiative—all of that money is in the budget, and those programs will continue. The review is looking to see how we can sustain them in the future and whether there is a better way of delivering them. We've also got a request from local government to increase the amount of money for them, so the review will look at that. Do we need to put more money into these programs? We're not looking to cut those programs or to abolish them; we're looking to make sure they're sustainable and they deliver what they should. That is what the review is doing. Again I say to members opposite: we have been left with a legacy of your having used the infrastructure investment pipeline for electorate purposes. There are now 800 projects sitting in the infrastructure investment pipeline, many of which will simply be unable to ever be delivered, and that money is sitting inactive in that infrastructure pipeline. There are many communities that would be desperate to get hold of the money for projects that are important for their communities, but they are sitting there totally and utterly inactive in that pipeline at the moment unable to be delivered. That is the legacy that you left because you made the decision to politicise the infrastructure investment pipeline. That is what you did. Because of that, we're now in the position where we actually have to make sure we can deliver the projects that we committed to, because that's what we got elected to do. We were elected to deliver the projects that we promised that we would, and we've got to make sure that the infrastructure investment is actually deliverable, that we deal with cost escalations and that it's actually sustainable into the future. We have a number of infrastructure projects which are currently underway and which will continue to be under construction. In responding to the coalition's second reading amendment, I particularly want to say: I'm not going to be lectured to by you guys about infrastructure investment. What you did to infrastructure is actually a disgrace: the pork-barrelling decade of government with Leppington Triangle, sports rorts and the Urban Congestion Fund. Inland Rail is now estimated to cost six times more than the Nationals originally estimated. Frankly, you left us with a mess, and I'm not going to be lectured to by any of you as to how to deliver infrastructure investments with integrity and how to make sure we don't have an infrastructure pipeline full of zombie projects that never started because you thought a press release was a good idea. Despite being a federal government, the Liberals and Nationals did invest in a large number of projects that were not nationally significant, and they failed to deliver appropriate economic and social benefits. They also set up unallocated buckets of money to announce small projects such as traffic lights and culverts. Under the Liberal and National parties, the number of projects blew out from 150 to 800. Almost 500 of them are under $50 million, and only 19 per cent of those are in Labor seats. And that's not pork-barrelling? Really? Honoura ble members interjecting— Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR They may well be good projects, but apparently Labor seats don't have good projects as well! There's no better example of the coalition's failure, frankly, than the Urban Congestion Fund—full of imaginary car parks in marginal seats, projects that would require 200 or 300 per cent more investment to actually deliver, and years and years of delay before you saw a single car drive on any of them. The coalition didn't invest in nationally significant projects. They did not. They used the infrastructure investment pipeline as a massive electoral pork-barrel. That is what they did. They had form of doing that. I'll address the other amendments that will be moved to this bill in the second reading amendment. I commend the bill to the House, and we won't be supporting the second reading amendment as moved by those opposite. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Gippsland has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question before the House is that the amendment be disagreed to. Question unresolved. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T 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. CONDOLENCES 100 CONDOLENCES Olsen, Mr John Henry, AO, OBE 100 18:16 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle Today I rise to pay tribute to the late John Olsen AO, OBE. John was an iconic Australian artist, a storyteller, a poet, a larrikin who wore a beret like no other, and a very proud Novocastrian. Indeed, John Olsen is a name that will be forever synonymous with Newcastle art. He was, as the title of his last exhibition in Newcastle makes clear, our city's son. Born in Newcastle in 1928, just a stone's throw away from the Newcastle Art Gallery, John Olsen maintained a deep affection for and enduring connection to our city throughout his 95 years, frequently visiting Newcastle, loving it as his home. Although he travelled extensively, gaining national and international acclaim, he never forgot where he came from: Newcastle. I had the pleasure of seeing John at his last major exhibition at the Newcastle Art Gallery in 2016, where he personally created and curated works that reflected his affection for Newcastle and the Hunter region as a whole—our waterways, our beaches, the harbour, the lake, the river and the wetlands. The exhibition achieved the highest attendance in the gallery's history, with close to 30,000 visitors. During the exhibition, John celebrated his 89th birthday. Here he was in the middle of the gallery, surrounded by 500 of his closest friends from the community of Newcastle singing 'Happy Birthday' in unison at the tops of our voices, enjoying his fabulous King Sun & the Hunter 2016 painting-themed birthday cake. It was a sight to behold, and he was in the middle of it, revelling in all of the celebrations that birthdays have to bring. John's generosity and support of the Newcastle Art Gallery were significant, with several works of art donated to the gallery. His legacy will live on through more than 43 works of art now in the gallery's collection, including Still Life with Boy from 1954, exhibited in the artist's first exhibition at Macquarie Galleries in 1955, and two significant ceiling paintings created in 1964—Life Burst and The Sea Sun of 5 Bells. John's art defined an era in Australian landscape painting, exploring the totality of landscape and infusing it with the life force that he brought to everything in his work. As Newcastle journalist Scott Bevan observed: As a result, the art was as colourful, as ebullient, and as life affirming as the man who created it. John also made extraordinary contributions to the Australian art community, serving on gallery boards and councils, and offering advice to fellow artists and the art community more broadly. Nick Mitzevich, the director of the National Gallery of Australia and a former director of the Newcastle Art Gallery, recalled John's encouragement and advice for him as a young man starting in the world of art administration. He told Nick to be fearless, to follow his instincts and to promote art in Australia. John's advice to Nick was succinct and direct as always. He said to Nick, 'Dear boy, it is best to stand on the edge of a cliff because that is where you will get the best view.' John's legacy will be celebrated in this month's Vivid festival in Sydney with a very special tribute to his long and distinguished career on the Opera House sails. John Olsen was one of Australia's most celebrated artists. He was a towering figure in our cultural landscape with a larger-than-life personality. He enabled us to see, experience and imagine our world differently, opening our eyes to the colour and vitality of life. His work has nourished and sustained generations of Australians, and the rich legacy leaves behind will ensure John Olsen's passion, intensity and zest for life will continue to enrich us all for generations to come. Vale John Olsen. 18:22 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I would like to reflect on the passing of John Olsen AO OBE and the immense contribution he made to Australia's cultural landscape over more than 70 years. Much has been written about John during his lifetime and since his passing because he made such a significant impact on Australia's cultural world. A man of contradictions, John is known both for his larger-than-life personality, his joie de vivre, his charisma and curiosity, as well as his deep contemplation and introspection. His art too, while consistently delicate, sensual and poetic, could capture the dualities at the high-energy teaming landscapes at time and then the vast desolate open plans of deserts at others. I am very lucky to have the loan of two of his landscapes in my office, Night Bird and Earth Hold, and they are distinctively Olsen—lyrical, natural and quintessentially Australian. John's talent and lifelong quest to create are hallmarks of his life. He continued producing work right to the end. My sincere condolences to his children, Tim and Louise, and to his grandchildren, to whom John passes the genes of creativity—much valued in my electorate of Wentworth. 18:23 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie The Australian art community has lost of one of its unique elder statesman. John Olsen came of age as an artist at a crucial moment in our art history. The 1960s was a time when abstract art was rising in popularity. Many in the art world felt that art depicting landscapes, people or objects would soon become a thing of the past. With the love of landscape that he brought to his work and his energetic, irreverent visual language, Olsen proved them wrong. This was a time when Australia's visual artists were expecting of new ways of representing the Australian landscape. John Olsen made a crucial contribution to that endeavour alongside Sidney Nolan, Russell Drysdale, Lloyd Rees, Arthur Boyd and Albert Tucker. He was the last survivor of that auspicious group. So with his death, a chapter on Australia's art history has come to an end. Olsen travelled widely through the Australian landscape, seeking out its contradictions and tapping into its dynamism. He had a particular affinity for Lake Eyre, describing it as 'a special spiritual place that draws me to it, a soul place of rich emptiness and fullness'. While best known for his paintings, he was curious about the creative possibilities of other mediums, venturing into printmaking, ceramics and tapestry. The significance of his work was recognised in his own lifetime. Not all artists are as fortunate. He was awarded the Wynne Prize in 1969 and 1985, the Sulman prize in 1989 and the Archibald in 2005. He was appointed an officer of the Order of the British Empire in 1977 and an Officer of the Order of Australia in 2001, and he was awarded the Centenary Medal on 1 January 2001. As a leading figure in Australian art, he was an important bridge between generations of artists. He was generous with his time, mentorship and support for younger artists. He always encouraged them to cultivate their own unique perspective on the world and to remain authentic to it. After Olsen's passing, a young artist in my electorate of Macquarie, from Kurrajong Heights, Dan Kyle, described the inspiration that he'd provided. He said: … if you want to make a gutsy painting, you just look at John Olsen's stuff. There is so much aliveness in the work … When rock stars die, everyone's so connected to them even though they've never met them. But you feel it. The Prime Minister was apt in describing John Olsen as a 'poet of the brush', because he was so keenly interested in poetry. I've often admired the stunning mural My Salute to Five Bells at the Sydney Opera House in between performances. The mural was inspired by Kenneth Slessor's poem Five Bells, set at Bennelong Point, and it's impossible to imagine the space below the Concert Hall without that work there. John Olsen constantly surrounded himself with the creativity of others—literature, opera and visual art—often complemented, we're told, by good food and wine. His paintings are so accessible because they're just as much a representation of his subjects as they are an expression of his emotional response to them. When viewing his iconic work Sydney Sun at the National Gallery of Australia, you can literally feel the warmth of the sun on your face and the bustle of the city around you. The energy, exuberance and joy that are so recognisable in Olsen's work reflect the approach he took to life itself. When I spoke with his son, Tim, after his death, I remarked on how obvious it was, listening to the stories of family and friends, that his dad lived life to the full, enjoyed all the world could offer him and has left the world much to remember him by. He set an admirable example of the value of a life lived with creative spirit. He once said, 'Painting is a means of self-enlightenment,' and 'What joy there is in hearing yourself think, and to make that thinking into ink.' His philosophy was pretty clear, whether you're an award-winning artist or not: Seize the day and don't waste your life. Take a lot of memories with you, when the curtain closes. … this is the only life you'll have … in a free country like Australia, no matter what circumstances you're born in, ultimately life is what you make it. Olsen didn't waste a day, drawing and painting well into his 10th decade and, indeed, right until the end. While John Olsen may have left us, his perspective on the country will remain. His irrepressible joy, curiosity and love for the landscape is the basis of an artistic legacy that will long outlast him. He will be celebrated in a state memorial on Monday 29 May at the Art Gallery of New South Wales, jointly delivered by the Australian and New South Wales governments in his honour. A tribute to his career will be beamed onto the Opera House sails during Vivid Sydney, later this month. John Olsen said that be an Australian painter 'is to be an explorer'. We have seen our country in a different light because of John Olsen's exploration. BUSINESS 102 BUSINESS Rearrangement 102 18:29 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara by leave—I move: That business intervening before order of the day No.5, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 102 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Protest 102 18:30 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne Like the climate, the right to protest in Australia is under threat. It's under threat from Labor governments who are more concerned with protecting the profits of coal and gas corporations and increasingly introducing laws to put protesters in jail. In South Australia, Western Australia and New South Wales, Labor is backing new laws which imprison people who are making legitimate peaceful protests against coal and gas corporations. Labor is standing up for private property and against the public interest. Last week, brave activists stood outside the gas conference being held in Adelaide and demanded and end to fossil fuels. One woman, 69-year-old Ms Thorne, suspended herself from a bridge, blocking traffic to raise awareness of the damage gas is causing to our future. We should all be supporting her cause, but instead SA Labor rushed into parliament to introduce new antiprotest laws to give them the power to lock up anyone who obstructs a public place. At the same time, the world's scientists once again warned that we were heading into dangerous and uncharted territory, driven by mining and burning of coal, oil and gas. Mr BANDT M3C The member for Macnamara is here interjecting, defending. The 69-year-old woman, Ms Thorne, is defending each and every one of our futures. The right to protest is a fundamental right. It's not something you can just write off because the gas industry doesn't like it. Around the world people are increasingly being criminalised for fighting for a safe future. In February police in Western Australia raided the home of a climate campaigner who was opposed to Woodside's climate-wrecking profiteering, in what can only be called state-sanctioned intimidation. Under the laws in New South Wales, Violet Coco was sentenced to 15 months of prison for a protest on the Sydney Harbour Bridge. She was released after the court heard she'd been imprisoned on the false evidence of police. We need to protect the right to protest, not the coal and gas corporations. Labor needs to remember its history. It needs to remember the importance of protest in the Labor movement and the many things protest has delivered to working people. We in the Greens do not forget our roots about the history and the importance of protest, which has protected the rivers, reefs and forests across the country which were going to be subjected to dangerous destruction. We are in a housing crisis. Rents and mortgages are going through the roof, and people are waiting years and years for a public home as the waiting list grows longer. The fastest-growing group of people who are becoming homeless is children. There are nearly half a million women over the age of 45 who are at risk of not being able to find a secure place to live. It is incredibly stressful trying to find and keep secure housing, and it doesn't need to be. Housing should be a fundamental human right. In a country as wealthy as ours, everybody should have a secure home. No-one should be homeless. For people in public housing, life is even more stressful because the Victorian government is selling off public housing land to property developers. Labor has always been too close to the property developers. Before the last election in Victoria, Labor proposed making developers pay a levy, which would have gone towards social and affordable housing. Under pressure from developers, they scrapped it and kept selling off public housing to private developers. The whole housing market is stacked towards profit and against people. We need to give the power and the homes back people. Last week, two of my constituents, Brian and Marise, invited me over for a piece of cake and a chat about their experience living in public housing. Brian and Marise have lived in public housing for years. Over the course of about a year and a half, their home was flooded 10 times through no fault of their own. Each time, their furniture would be ruined, water would run into their electrics, their walls would become mouldy, their mattresses had to be replaced and their prized possessions, including Marise's own artworks, would be damaged. Understandably, this was a very stressful and disruptive time for Brian and Marise, who were moved into a motel for long periods of time each time the flooding occurred. The department offered no solutions and expected them to go on living like that forever. The folks in my office fought for Brian and Marise, and we were overjoyed when the couple finally got moved into a new property where they didn't have to live on high alert anymore. These are the people who should be the focus of our public housing policies, not the developers or the wealthy landlords. Brian and Marise could be kicked out if their public home is sold off. Labor likes to say it's tackling the housing crisis, but really it is making it worse. It's pushing up rents, pushing up mortgages and giving billions in tax concessions to property moguls who've got more than three properties. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T I remind the member for Macnamara that the Leader of the Australian Greens is entitled to be heard. Mr BANDT M3C It's time to end the handouts and ensure that everyone has a secure place to live. To achieve that, we need a rent freeze now, we need to build more affordable and public homes, and we need to do that now. Labor does not care about renters. What's worse than doing nothing? It is making the rental crisis worse. The gall of the members of this government, who brag about their supposed action on the housing crisis! Look at what they have done. They have lifted rent assistance by a measly $1.12 a day. That is $1.12 a day while rents in capital cities are growing 10 times faster than that, and there is nothing for the over 5½ million renters who don't get rent assistance. Yet they crow, skiting of the fact that they've done more, supposedly, than any government in the last 10 years, as if just being a bit better than Scott Morrison is the bar that we should be setting. That is not something to be proud of; that is a joke. Rents are going through the roof. Real wages are going backwards at the fastest rate on record. More and more people can't keep their heads above water. Yet this government likes to pat itself on the back and given itself an achievement award for giving some renters about $1 a day. Labor likes to say that no-one will be left behind, but renters are being left behind. Labor is choosing not to address the rental crisis. Labor has chosen to spend $313 billion on stage 3 tax cuts for the wealthy. Labor has chosen to spend $368 billion on nuclear submarines. And Labor has chosen to give $74 billion to property moguls with three or more properties who are determined to drive up the cost of housing. That is $74 billion to push the cost of housing up out of reach of first home buyers and push up rents so that more and more people will be unable to have the basic security which comes with having a roof over your head. Last week in the Victorian parliament, Labor joined with Moira Deeming to block an inquiry into the rental crisis. It bent over backwards to deny an opportunity to find out what's causing the rental crisis and what could be done right now about it. One renter sitting in the public gallery shouted, 'What a disgrace!' when Labor did all it could to stand in the way of parliamentary action to back renters. We need a rent freeze now. Labor has controlled the cost of electricity, calling together parliaments from across the country and recalling this parliament for an emergency sitting. Government should start doing with rents what it did with power bills. We can control the cost of rents. Labor can drive this through National Cabinet, holding every seat at the table, except for Tasmania. We've had rent controls before, and we could have rent controls again. Rent control is a reasonable response to this crisis. It is unreasonable to expect a young person to be able to afford the rent when a landlord lifts it by $200 per week. It is outrageous to expect a nurse or a midwife, being paid what they are, to then be able to afford to rent in one of our capital cities. It is not okay to expect anyone to stand in the cold with 50 or 60 other people and beg to rent an overpriced and poorly maintained rental property. The Prime Minister claims that rent controls are fairy dust, but he is wrong. Leave no-one behind. The Greens are the only party for renters. We are the only people who want to ensure that every person can afford a roof over their head. We are for the renters, and we are going to fight for the renters. We're not going to fight for the people who have scores of investment homes and keep giving them more money to push up prices and rents. We are for the people who are struggling to keep their heads above water. Labor might not care about renters, but you'd better believe that the Greens do. 18:40 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence I'm in the Federation Chamber this evening to take part in my first grievance debate. This evening I feel more inclined to speak and reflect on the year that was rather than taking note of grievances and the name of this debate in a literal sense. But knowing myself all to well, and to avoid any possibility of misleading the House, I may air a grievance or two by the end. A year and two days ago an election was held, in case there was anyone here that was unaware of that fact. This could be entirely possible if they managed to miss private members' business and 90-second statements over the past two sitting days—a difficult feat, indeed, but not completely impossible to accomplish. A year and two days ago the Australian people voted out a government, a government that spanned nine years and three prime ministers, and they did so for a new government, a Labor government, a government led by our Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, a government that handed down its second budget a fortnight ago today. No matter what one's opinion of what transpired on that fateful day, 21 May 2022, happens to be, we can all agree that it brought about a tectonic shift in the course of this nation. Any change of government is a defining moment in history, whether it be in Australia or abroad. We are a lucky country in Australia. Not everyone can claim to be in a country with a democratic system of government, one that leads to a peaceful transition of power. Before I speak a bit more about our government, I'd like to reflect on this past year and two days since I became a member of this place. I am eternally grateful to the people of Spence for putting their faith in me to represent them here in the 47th parliament. There are certainly a number of other milestones that happened not long after, such as the first sitting day of this parliament on 26 July or even when I delivered my first speech on 1 August. But, for me, it all changed on election day last year. The sheer weight of the responsibility of knowing tens of thousands of people from my local area cast their vote to put me down to stand up for them really began to sink in on election night. It happened roughly the same time as the fatigue of the several long months on the campaign trail did as well. It goes without saying how extremely proud I am of my electorate of Spence. The resilience it's shown to bounce back after the death of Holden is a remarkable achievement. I'm always the first to put the invitation out to the Albanese Labor government to visit Spence and see firsthand what makes this an incredible place to live and to ensure that Spence and the people that live in it remain at the forefront of our government's attention. Only last week I had the privilege of hosting our Prime Minister and my South Australian colleague the Minister for Health and Aged Care in Spence and then the Treasurer two days afterwards. The Prime Minister was in Spence to talk about our government's policy to ease cost-of-living pressures for thousands of people in Spence when they visit their GP. For many people out there a visit to the GP was becoming not an option even at times when it should have been a necessity. Many doctors up in Spence still bulk-bill despite the cost to their clinics because they know that, at best, some of their patients would wind up in the emergency department to the detriment of others that are then forced to wait longer in addition to stretching the resources of the doctors and nursing staff on call at the time. But that scenario was the best case, as many of their patients drop off completely, ignoring warning signs that they might require medical attention. That's the human cost of policy neglect on full display. I'm glad we can now move the dial back in the right direction. The Minister for Social Services came from one side of Adelaide to mine in Spence to talk about Labor's plan to make child care cheaper for many families not long after being elected. These are real savings. They are savings that help children reach their full potential the moment they start school. I have also been delighted to receive a visit from the Minister for Skills and Training, who talked to our local TAFE in Elizabeth, and to see many students reaping the benefit of the fee-free TAFE courses that our government has partnered with the state government to roll out. Seeing policies working on the ground is special in so many ways but is even more so in my backyard. It is one thing to talk solely about policy and the Albanese Labor government's relentless agenda to enact its election commitments within its first year in office. I also want to touch a bit on the human experience of this past year, and I realise that I do so with the risk of exposing a little bit of how the sausage—or, more aptly, the democracy sausage—is made. I must admit that at the start I was somewhat sceptical when I was told that it wasn't unusual for members to work closely and form friendships with those on the other side of the chamber. On Mondays I may verbally joust with the member for Riverina during private members' business, and I shared some of the most rewarding experiences as part of a delegation to Kenya late last year. This spirit was further reinforced by my involvement with the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and the House Standing Committee on Agriculture. All too often it is only the rough and tumble of question time that the public gets to see or finds interesting enough to captivate its attention, albeit briefly, which is a shame. Committees perform a lot of vital work in examining and refining policy and legislation. For the most part, committees are an extremely collegiate environment that is propped up by the tireless and learned members of their respected secretariats. This bipartisanship has extended to my participation in the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program, an excellent program that provides members of parliament, whether or not they have served before, with a better understanding of a variety of activities within the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. It was only in April that I and the member for Flinders spent a week submerged in HMAS Rankin, a Collins-class submarine. After my days as a seafarer, spending time on the seas is not entirely new. But to spend time below the sea was a new experience entirely, and to spend it with a fellow member of this place, along with scores of servicemen and service women, cramped in the claustrophobic confines of a submarine, was an absolute honour. I'd encourage all members to reach out to Lieutenant Colonel Andy Martin of the ADF Parliamentary Program to get involved. Having a greater appreciation of those who serve goes hand in hand with having a greater appreciation of those who have served. I am a proud co-chair of Parliamentary Friends of Veterans, along with the member for Menzies. We, along with the Speaker, share the honour of having served with the 8/7 Royal Victoria Regiment. This is a friendship group that comprises members and senators from all sides of the chamber and all backgrounds. You needn't be a veteran to champion veterans' causes, but our parliament has 19 veterans amongst its ranks. Ensuring tripartite unity and purpose amongst this wide cross-section of the parliament is important, for we in all likelihood expect to address the findings of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide—something this government takes very seriously—and I am honoured to have such a good working relationship in this space with both the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and the Assistant Minister for Veterans' Affairs, who have both visited Spence, with the minister speaking with a number of veterans and veterans groups over in Salisbury last year. Spence is home not just to RAAF Base Edinburgh but also to the largest veteran population in South Australia, which is even more reason that we have to right past wrongs and to better serve those who served. My trip on HMAS Rankin also shone a light on the need for Australia to update our fleet of submarines. Although I was underwater off the shores of Western Australia at the time, the experience brought me back to Spence and the immense value that the build of the AUKUS submarines will bring to my electorate. Our defence industry is strong up here, and I've had the pleasure of speaking to many innovative minds who have set up shop in my electorate and are using it as a staging area, not just for aiding Australia's sovereign capability but also for staging a comeback for manufacturing in the north after the closure of Holden. Not long after the election we were brought to this building and shown the ropes by senior parliamentarians, chamber staff and other building staff. It was, in a very surreal way, like going back to school. I cannot overstate the support shown to me by some of my fellow 2022 classmates, particularly the member for Tangney, the member for Holt and the member for Hawke, who were my neighbours in this building before we were all moved to more-permanent lodgings on the eve of budget week. It was a surreal feeling knowing that as members of this place each of us is only one of 151 members of the House of Representatives in this, the 47th Parliament. That would be diluted slightly with 152. The number might rise slightly, but it does not diminish the fact that we have been tasked by our constituents to act in their interests and in the interests of our nation. This is a feeling that does not cease with familiarity. It does not cease over time. And this is important: not a single day should ever be taken for granted, and I look forward to capping off this government's second year in office in the not-too-distant future. Budget 105 18:50 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay I congratulate the member for Spence on his first grievance debate speech, for sticking to his early statement that he wouldn't be entering into too many grievances and for the very collegial nature of it. But it's over now, so hold onto your hats. I've got some grievances! In his budget reply speech, opposition leader Peter Dutton asked: are you better off than you were 12 months ago when Labor came to government? No-one I've spoken to in Wide Bay has answered this question with a yes. Labor's full first-year budget has broken its election promises to deliver a better future for all Australians and fails to provide long-term solutions to the inflationary pressures we face. At the 2022 election, Labor promised cheaper mortgages and lower electricity prices. They promised that families would be better off and that no-one would be left behind. Our future under Labor is not looking very bright. There is no mention of the four-lane Tiaro bypass in the budget. The $269 million funding allocation secured from the former coalition government is now under Labor's 90-day infrastructure investment review, which could drag on for six months, with no certainty about when, or if, construction will start on the desperately needed Tiaro bypass. The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government has said that the government's $3 billion Brisbane Olympic Games commitment is exempt from the review, but our four-lane Tiaro bypass isn't. Surely the life-saving Tiaro bypass can be quarantined from Labor's cuts in the same way the Brisbane Olympics is. With around 11,000 daily motor vehicle movements, this section of the Bruce Highway through Wide Bay is one of the deadliest. We need the Tiaro bypass and we need the remaining section between Gympie and Maryborough to be made four lanes to transform this dangerous section of the Bruce Highway into the safest. It's also a disgrace that the veteran community in Wide Bay has been denied access to support and advocacy services under Labor's axing of our $70 million commitment to building veterans wellbeing centres. This includes a centre committed to in the Wide Bay region which, under the former coalition government, was likely to be funded in the Gympie area. The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide has identified that veteran hubs are an important support for our service men and women and their families, and I call on the government to honour the coalition's commitment to establish a veterans wellbeing hub in Wide Bay. The 2023-24 budget includes funding allocations for a range of commitments I secured from the former coalition government's Community Development Grants Program, including $1.5 million for a two-bedroom expansion to Katie Rose Cottage Hospice, enabling it to provide more end-of-life care; $1.8 million for the Gympie RSL for a new landmark veterans memorial at Memorial Park to honour the service and sacrifice of local veterans and defence personnel; $700,000 to improve access to the Maryborough Military and Colonial Museum; and $1.3 million to improve road safety around the Noosa Golf Club along the Cooroy Noosa Road at Tewantin. These projects will make a big difference within our communities. However, just today, we discovered that the federal and state Labor governments conspired to kill off an $18 million project to provide water security and boost agricultural production in Maryborough. The decision to cancel the grant was actually made in March, but that decision was shrouded in secrecy, and the state Labor government didn't even have the courtesy to tell Maryborough Canegrowers—a key stakeholder—that the grant had been axed. The axing of this grant leaves us wondering if the water allocation for the project will now be transferred to the very controversial Borumba pumped hydro scheme. Last October, Labor axed the former coalition government's Building Better Regions Fund and, with it, more than $10 million in applications from Wide Bay. Community groups, services and sporting clubs have been waiting for government to deliver on its promised regional development programs. Meanwhile, costs have soared. This budget finally delivered Labor's Growing Regions Program, but, with the minimum grant threshold set at $500,000 and only local government and registered charities eligible to apply, many sporting clubs and community groups will miss out. Small grants make a big difference in communities in Wide Bay, and I call on the government to rethink its approach to regional development. Labor's budget population forecast shows that net overseas migration will rise by 1.5 million over the next five years, placing even more strain on already stretched services. Our hospitals are full, our roads are congested, there is a housing shortage and a rental crisis, interest rates are going up and the cost of living is soaring, and a booming population will burden already stressed essential services. Labor has failed to detail the taxpayer costs required to fund this massive surge in population. Without the investment, every Australians' living standards will surely fall. In changing the Distribution Priority Areas classifications, Labor has made it less attractive for doctors to practice in regional and remote Australia by offering incentives for doctors to practice in outer metropolitan areas. As a result, regional communities are struggling to get doctors. Residents in small communities, such as Imbil and Pomona, where GP clinics have closed, are now forced on a long commute to access basic health care. The GP, medical and allied health workforce shortage is an ongoing issue that is getting worse under Labor's warped policies. Labor has now been in government for a year. Before the election, Labor told voters their electricity bills would be $275 cheaper each year. Now the budget shows electricity prices are increasing by 32 per cent, around $500 more for a family, compared to the 0.3 per cent under the coalition. Labor promised voters cheaper mortgages. Instead, there have been 10 interest rate rises in 12 months. Labor's promise of a 24/7 registered nurse in every aged-care home has resulted in a raft of aged-care homes being forced to close and others are struggling to stay viable. Changes to temporary skilled migration income thresholds mean nurses who were coming to work in regional areas will now not be eligible to live and work in Australia because their wage is under $70,000 a year. Australians now pay an extra $1,723 a month on a typical mortgage, and it will get worse as the three-month lag between rate increases being announced and being passed onto mortgage holders occurs. Labor is increasing a road user charge on truckies, which will be passed onto everything going by freight. Labor is also introducing a fresh food tax on farmers, forcing them to pay for the biosecurity risks of their foreign competitors enabling them to sell their produce in Australia, except groceries bills will continue to climb under Labor's warped policies. Power bills, mortgage repayments, rents, groceries and petrol have all increased and inflation on clothes and winter blankets is biting household budgets in times of great need. After promising higher wages, real incomes are being further eroded as cost of living under Labor skyrockets. There is a better way. A coalition government will take action to reduce inflation and bring the cost of living down for all Australians. We will manage a well planned migration program. We'll do what Labor won't do and seriously look at implementing modular nuclear technology. We'll restore the tax cap of 23.9 per cent of GDP that Labor axed and establish an importer container levy so Australian farmers will not have to pay for imported biosecurity measures. We'll incentivise unemployed Australians to take up work by increasing how much they can earn before JobSeeker is reduced. We'll restore the number of Medicare subsidised psychology sessions from 10 to 20. Smaller government, lower taxes and less regulation will build a brighter future for all Australians. First Nations Australians 106 19:00 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara Australia has milestones in its relationships with First Nations people that we can be very proud of. On 27 May 1967, Australians voted to change the Constitution so that, like all other Australians, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples would be counted as part of the population and the Commonwealth would be able to make laws on behalf of them. On 3 June 1992, the High Court of Australia recognised that a group of Torres Strait Islanders, led by Eddie Mabo, held ownership of Mer, Murray Island. In acknowledging the traditional rights of the Meriam people to their land, the court also heard that native title existed for all Indigenous people, paving the way for the Native Title Act and rendering as fiction the legal doctrine of terra nullius. These are two of the most momentous developments in the advancement of First Nations people in the 20th century that reflect well on our nation, on our people and on our legal system. In both cases, the voices of First Nations people were heard and change was enacted. Today, these dates mark the commencement and conclusion of National Reconciliation Week each year. Since its origins in 1993, this week has provided an opportunity for all Australians to focus on the importance of building relationships and communities that value Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' histories, cultures and futures. Reconciliation is a living concept. It is something that we must all look to foster within ourselves and in each other, in hearts, minds and actions. So often in the past, and today in the Uluru Statement from the Heart, the anniversary of which we also celebrate on Friday this week, 26 May, it is our First Nations people extending the hand of reconciliation to all of us. Yet too often, as a society, we fail to play our part in reconciliation, and it is painful to see opportunities lost to strengthen our nation through respectful relationships between the community as a whole and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. We love to celebrate the positives, but must also be frank in addressing the shortcomings of race relations in our country. Like many, I enjoy the celebrations that accompany the Indigenous rounds of the Australian Football League and the NRL and congratulate the leagues and clubs for continuing to make the contributions of First Nations people to their games a centrepiece of their annual calendars. Watching the incredible players like the Bombers' Anthony McDonald-Tipungwuti, Melbourne's Kysaiah Pickett, who absolutely tore Carlton to shreds, and of course Jesse Motlop, who is a proud member of the Navy Blues, will never get old. Recently we saw the Bulldogs' Jamarra Ugle-Hagan make a courageous stand against racism, following the example set 30 years ago by the great Nicky Winmar. In the NRL there are also champions who are leading the way, representing their communities with dignity, power and grace. Nicho Hynes is making his Origin debut next week, and of course you've got champions like Josh Addo-Carr, who returned from injury recently. He, I think, even put down a try against the Bulldogs. More and more, Indigenous rounds are not only about recognising current and former players—and this year, in the AFL, even an umpire—but are also a celebration of Indigenous culture. Moving ceremonies take place before games and sides adopt First Nations names in place of those by which they are usually known. I also want to note that both the AFL and the NRL, as well as Rugby Australia, Football Australia and Cricket Australia, have given public support for a yes vote in the referendum to create an Indigenous voice to parliament. In doing so it is clear that they are representing the views of their constituent clubs and, more importantly, the players in all four codes. In a country where sport plays such a big role in our national life, the leadership shown by the major sporting codes has set an example that others could well follow. Sadly, the last week has not solely been about celebration of Indigenous achievement. Stan Grant, a pre-eminent figure in our national conversation, explained his decision to stand down from his high-profile role at the ABC as host of Q+A, as a result of unrelenting racism waged against him both on social media and in sections of the mainstream media. This controversy has exposed to public view the nasty barrage of racism that still disfigures public life in Australia and is regularly deployed against Indigenous leaders and commentators who dare to tell us the truth about Australia's past and seek a stronger and more united future. Of course, being able to tell the truth about our past is an essential aspect of reconciliation. Makarrata, coming together after a struggle to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations, and truth-telling about our history, is one of the three pillars of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, along with voice and treaty. When Stan Grant spoke last night he, like so many other First Nations people, did so with a hand outstretched in generosity. He spoke of how those who came at him, and his people, with hate would be met with love. People who came at him with hate would be met with love. How is it that we deserve this generosity? Time and time again our First Nations people welcome us into their embrace, showing us the path towards reconciliation. As members of parliament, as leaders in our community and in the nation, we must greet this embrace with reciprocal generosity and show the way through negativity, disinformation and flat-out racism. Along with others who have had the loudest voices in our nation, including the media, we must not only set the tone of debate but raise it. We must not miss the opportunity presented to us by Stan's bold and clear statement about the personal and collective effects of racism, to lift the standard once again. From now on, we have a moment to decide how we're going to behave. I hope we do better. I'll conclude my remarks in the grievance debate tonight with some words Stan Grant uttered, which were pretty moving. They were profound. They were kind. They were generous. They were thoughtful. Stan said: I am down right now, I am, but I will get back up and you can come at me again and I'll meet you with the love of my people. My people can teach the world to love. As Martin Luther King Junior said of his struggle, 'we will wear you down with our capacity to love.' Don't mistake our love for weakness, it is our strength. We have never stopped loving and fighting for justice and truth, the hard truths to speak in our land. Barker Electorate: Mount Gambier and District Saleyards Transformation Project, Building Better Regions Fund 108 19:08 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker The Mount Gambier and District Saleyards Transformation Project is a vital project for the Limestone Coast. The formal concept design will feature soft-fall matting, holding pen reconfigurations, cattle yard roofing, sprinkler systems and rainwater harvesting. The upgrade is described as a once-in-a-generation project essential for our region's agricultural sector. In the 2020-21 financial year the saleyards grossed a whopping $157 million in sales, transacting 86,000 head of sheep and 65,000 head of cattle. It's an extremely important infrastructure investment needed for the Limestone Coast's economy. Its current infrastructure is ageing. The District Council of Grant, who own this important asset, gained bipartisan support for their planned upgrades to the facility prior to the state election last year. Both the Labor and Liberal parties pledged funding to support this vital project. Obviously, with the Labor Party being successful in winning government, they've recommitted to their pledge of $2.7 million, adding to the council's own budgeted contribution of $3 million. The council made an application to the coalition's highly successful Building Better Regions Fund round 6, a funding program that across five rounds has provided a whopping $1.38 billion to nearly 1,300 projects to ensure our regions remain great places to live and visit while helping support important regional industries create jobs. I was confident with the work that had been done by the proponents that this application would be met with success in round 6, if it was to be successful, just like the applications of previous rounds of the BBRF that saw the Mount Gambier airport upgraded. As we all know, Labor came to government federally and pulled the rug out from under the feet of applicants like the District Council of Grant, which made an application for its saleyards transformation project, a project that was relying on this federal government funding and had their funding options taken away. While the promise of a replacement fund was there, it was very much at arm's length. The project was stalled with nowhere to turn for funding—a state Labor government commitment hanging in the balance because this Labor government here in Canberra—those opposite—is deliberately delaying the rollout of regional funding opportunities. The federal and state ministers responsible were even both together in Mount Gambier recently to cut the ribbon on the largest infrastructure project the City of Mount Gambier has ever seen, a project that, by the way, neither of them had any claim in delivering. Funding commitments of $25,000 were made by state and federal coalition governments. But, I must say, I'm digressing. My point is that while the federal and state ministers were in town to cut the ribbon, they couldn't find time to meet with anyone from the community to discuss this critically important project. The District Council of Grant asked absolutely. While I would have thought that as a state government election commitment and as a project located in the state minister's own home town, she may have had it at the top of her priority list to talk to the federal minister but, alas, Minister Scriven only just met with Minister King about two weeks ago. It took Minister Scriven a full 12 months to raise the topic with her federal counterpart, a state election commitment that is clearly not much of a priority. Now that the guidelines have finally been produced for the replacement of BBRF, we learn that the full application process does not open until—wait for it—November 2023. So let's unpack that timing a bit. We expected announcements of funding in the BBRF round 6 to have been made no later than August 2022, with funding budgeted by the coalition government in the 2022-23 financial year. Instead, what we have is a new fund that won't even open for applications until this November, meaning that funding for successful projects won't roll out until the 2024-25 financial year. By my calculations, that is two years since the state government committed their funding to this project, funding that was committed to on a bipartisan basis. Now everything is going up. People in this place and, indeed, people outside of this place understand that the cost-of-living increases are biting and the cost of construction is increasing as substantially as well. The price of steel and timber materials, all of the things that are needed to build a state-of-the-art saleyards, are going up and up and up. A project that under the Building Better Regions Fund round 6 would have cost $11 million, I anticipate, will cost as much is $15 million. That is $4 million more funding that needs to be sourced. Thanks to the federal Labor governments contempt for our regions, they have delayed the funding opportunities to the point where the project is now going to have to be completely re-costed. In fact, it may no longer be viable. I hope that it remains viable but there needs to be much more money committed by both the state and federal governments to realise this outcome. The ask from the federal government will now be substantially more. And while our state Labor minister, Minister Scriven, makes no effort to even have a conversation with her colleague here in Canberra for more than 12 months, these costs have gone up. Perhaps she simply can't to get it through. That won't surprise those of us on this side of the chamber; I have had my fair share of closed doors when attempting to engage with Minister King. My request to meet with the Office of Road Safety was left to rot in the minister's in-tray for months. I wrote to the minister twice, requesting to meet the Office of Road Safety, with no reply. I finally got a meeting eight months later. I thought perhaps South Australian state Labor Minister Scriven might have better luck, but it appears my eight months was a great outcome, considering she had to wait 12 months. I understand that the member for Gippsland wrote to Minister King six times, with no reply, about infrastructure projects in his electorate. Finally, after 10 months, the minister replied to the member for Gippsland—but only after she was caught out on a local radio station. Perhaps the minister is too busy cutting ribbons or encouraging councils not to invite coalition members to the openings of infrastructure projects in their own electorates. What a shame. After all the saleyards project has been through thanks to the Labor infrastructure delays, they're actually one of the lucky ones. How do I say that? At least they do have a funding avenue. Many small community projects that applied under BBRF round 6 are now excluded from this fund because the guidelines say that the minimum amount that can be requested is $500,000 and that applicants require a 50 per cent co-contribution, meaning only million-dollar projects need apply. That's been felt hard in small local communities. I received an e-mail today from a local community group who are extremely disappointed in the program having a minimum grant amount of $500,000. This figure completely rules out any small regional projects being achieved. That's not Tony Pasin, the member for Barker, on a rant. That's a small community organisation that made application in round 6 of the fund and held hope that those opposite, in pulling the rug from organisations like the BBRF, would have a program to replace it. Unfortunately, you needed to read the fine print. The fine print was 'but only if you've got a project worth a million bucks and only if you've got a lazy $500,000 in reserve to provide as a co- contribution.' Let's get real. It's a clear example of Labor's contempt for the regions. They either misunderstand the regions or they're completely contemptuous of them. Small regional communities in my electorate don't look like regional communities on the east coast. If Minister King and Minister Scriven are successful in delivering the saleyards transformation project, it will come years after the coalition would have delivered it under round 6 of the BBRF and it will be at significantly higher cost. Australia's agricultural industry deserves more. It's an industry that's screaming down on its target of $100 billion by 2030, and right now, if the Mount Gambier saleyards transformation project is anything to go by, those opposite are doing very little to support this critical industry at a time when it needs that assistance. Macquarie Electorate: Infrastructure 109 19:18 Ms TEMPLE 181810 Macquarie MAN () (): I'm very pleased to let my community know that Endeavour Energy has received funding to deliver the first community batteries to the electorate of Macquarie. In the first round of grant funding, Endeavour will receive $1 million to install the community batteries. Now, this is not just one battery for two areas—each of them is around about half a million dollars. This is actually a really innovative approach that's going to involve several community batteries. In the lead-up to the election, we announced that for the Blaxland area we'd do a community battery. In fact, Blaxland is going to receive four individual batteries, each providing 740 kilowatt-hours of battery storage. Hobartville, where I also announced there'd be a community battery, is actually set to receive what they call a fleet of 11 individual batteries, with a total capacity of 888 kilowatt-hours. These will be batteries that sit up on poles. Part of this pilot that we're doing is looking at much more innovative ways to deliver it, rather than a giant box taking up space in a park or on some community land. What has happened is Endeavour has looked at the community, at the way the houses are laid out and at the needs of the power users and has determined this is the most effective way to provide community batteries to Hobartville and the wider Blaxland suburb. This is part of the election commitment I made—standing at East Blaxland shops with the now minister for climate change—to commit to these community batteries, and I'm just delighted that within 12 months of coming to office we are able to get to this point in delivering on that commitment. On average, one in three Australian households have rooftop solar, and that makes us a leader, but the question is: how do we do even more with solar than just having rooftop solar? We all know it needs batteries, but batteries are expensive. What this is going to do is allow my households to not have to invest in their own battery, because we will have these incredibly innovative community batteries. The real issue is that we generate a high level of energy during the day but not at night. What this allows is that instead of all that energy going back into the grid during the day, it will get stored in the batteries. It will then be able to be drawn on by households in the area that's covered. What we're doing is storing cheap electricity and allowing people to draw it down without having to pay the higher night-time rates, which is often the case. More battery storage in the grid is also going to help take pressure off the grid to avoid or defer expensive network upgrades, so there's a broader benefit to it. The community batteries will also help to support further uptake of renewable energy without compromising reliability or security of supply. This is not just a short-term thing; it's going to have longer-term benefits to the community. Of course, there are benefits for individuals. One is to lower power bills by taking advantage of solar energy that can be stored for later use. Another is reducing emissions by increasing the use of solar power. The third is reducing pressure on the grid, which means that you won't get a situation where it's at capacity. This is something I would have loved to have seen a long time ago, and I know the community feels the same way. What we've got now is something really innovative, and I'm looking forward to working with Endeavour Energy as we go through the next stage of this. Now that they have been given the green light, work will begin on formalising the battery locations, and they will be engaging with the local community about the project. We should expect to start works in coming months to plug the battery into the grid. It's a very exciting initiative. It's not the only thing that the Albanese government is doing to bring down power bills and to increase our use of renewables, but for Hobartville and the wider Blaxland area, it's a fantastic, practical start. Hawkesbury residents now have access to life-saving medical scans, thanks to a Medicare-funded MRI license for Hawkesbury hospital, It isn't new technology, but it is the first that we've had in the electorate of Macquarie—the very first—and we have been wanting one for a long time. Prior to this, patients at Hawkesbury hospital who required an MRI scan needed to be transported 30 or 40 minute to access an MRI. Having the service onsite means a much better result for patients, quicker diagnosis, decreased waiting times and improved efficiency. This MRI, was something that emergency doctors at Hawkesbury hospital spoke to me about a bit over a year ago. They just explained how vital it was and what the delays were like for their work. Fortunately, this doesn't happen without Castlereagh technology being part of it. So, while the hospital was very keen to have it, Castlereagh Imaging, who run the imaging services, stumped up the money for the actual machine. I really want to thank them and the St John of God operators of Hawkesbury hospital for doing that. What I was then able to do was back them in with the Medicare licence, because that's the bit that provides the subsidised health service for people. Without that, the costs are exponential. I'm very proud that we have been able to do something. For many people, it will be much more affordable. It is more accessible for everybody. It has transformed the way patients are being looked after within the hospital and it is also available for outpatients, for people who just get a referral and need an MRI. I want to really note the great work of Strephon Billinghurst, the CEO of Hawkesbury District Health Service, and Dr James Linklater, the chief executive officer of Castlereagh Imaging. This was a team effort, and I'm so proud to have been working on it to solve a problem for the Hawkesbury community. I had the great privilege couple of weeks ago of launching an exhibition involving Blue Mountains artists and a whole lot of others like Lucy Culliton, Reg Mombassa, Euan Macleod, Adrienne Richards, Leo Robba and Kelsie King, who took part in a collaborative effort called the Painted River Project. What they painted was swamps, which doesn't sound that sexy, does it? But they were the hanging swamps of the Blue Mountains, which we know from an ecological point of view are really key to the biodiversity of the region and have suffered, some of them very badly, in the recent fires. These swamps act as natural filters and purify the water that flows through them into our creeks and rivers and they provide habitat for a wide range of plants, animals and insects, many of which are endangered. They all took part in the Painted River Project, and the exhibition at the Western Sydney University campus in the Margaret Whitlam Galleries brought them altogether to see their works spread across the large gallery spaces there. Many people were involved in it, including people from the Blue Mountains City Council, who helped make it possible, water scientist Professor Ian Wright and digital artists Greg Hughes and Matthew Lahoud. Fabulous photographer Sally Tsoutas caught the images of the artists at work as they went out in the open air to do their painting. They really wanted to show the link between our environment and art. They are really ahead of our cultural policy, because in the Albanese government cultural policy one of the things we have highlighted is that we are going to establish artist residencies to visit World Heritage sites to produce artworks and tell stories of the place and its heritage, and here are my incredible artists way out in front doing that. It was a fantastic exhibition and I give them my huge congratulations. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 There being no further grievances, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. ADJOURNMENT 110 ADJOURNMENT