2023-05-25 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Thursday, 25 May 2023

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

BILLS 1 BILLS Creative Australia Bill 2023 1

Creative Australia Bill 2023

First Reading 1 Second Reading 1 09:01 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Creative Australia Bill 2023 delivers the major reform which constitutes the centrepiece of Revive. It establishes Creative Australia as a new organisation. It's part of Revive, our cultural policy, which this government has proudly adopted because what we so broadly call the arts, when you zero in on its essence, is a part of the heartbeat of the nation—the stories we tell ourselves, the pictures we paint, the songs we sing, the music we play, the sculpture, the ceramics, and all the rest of this wonderful spectrum of expression. In the end, it's a pipeline into our hearts, one that lets us see and celebrate and reflect on who we truly are and can be and one that lets the rest of the world see Australia and its inner self. Our duty here is not just to admit but to sing out and call out loud, like so many other forces, the beating heart of the industry itself, an industry that generates jobs and money and industry that strengthens the very bones of communities. That's always been the truth of it; that artwork is just that—it's work. It's not a hobby; it's not just a higher calling or a flash of inspiration, as essential as that is; it's work. It's work that happens to make us wealthier in ways that extend far beyond the economic; it's the sort of wealth that enriches. But if you want to look at it through an economic prism, everyone who works in the arts in this country is part of a $17 billion industry. This legislation is the next step we take in treating the arts with respect and the care they deserve. C ultural policy context Australia's first cultural policy came from Paul Keating with arts minister Michael Lee in the form of Creative Nation. In 2013, Julia Gillard and arts minister Simon Crean gave us Creative Australia. Now 10 years on, the Albanese Labor government has delivered a cultural policy for the next five years: Revive—a place for every story; a story for every place. The bill introduced today lays the foundation for the ambitious agenda set out in Revive, by establishing essential governance structures within Creative Australia to enable it to deliver to the sector. Context The Creative Australia Bill 2023 is the second bill to implement the government's National Cultural Policy. It delivers on the government's commitment to expand and modernise the Australia Council for the Arts and to establish Creative Australia. The bill will establish two of the four new bodies announced in Revive; Music Australia and Creative Workplaces, and the government will be bringing forward further legislation to establish the First Nations body next year and Writers Australia the following year. The creation of the Australia Council in 1975 was a pivotal moment for Australia's arts and culture sector. It embodied the Whitlam government's unwavering belief in the value of the arts, and its ongoing commitment to delivering decisions on arts investment at arm's length from government. Under the old model, many people saw the Australia Council for government funded art and Creative Partnerships Australia for arts philanthropy, and no-one focused on the commercial sector. But it's the same workforce. It's the same artists. And it's the same audience. Now it will all live in the same organisation. Creative Australia The formation of Creative Australia through this bill transforms Australia's principal arts funding body into a modern entity that is able to harness the current opportunities available to the arts and entertainment sector while bringing together public, philanthropic and commercial support for the arts. This is a strategic shift that will greater leverage opportunities in the arts. Creative Australia will provide more support to our valued arts and culture sector through restoring the Brandis cuts and increasing funding and services for artists, arts workers and businesses. Australia Council Board This bill establishes the governing and accountable board for Creative Australia which will still be called the Australia Council Board—retaining its name and connection to the creation of the Australia Council by the Whitlam government. It will continue to be the accountable authority with full oversight of Creative Australia and will give directions to the Music Australia and Creative Workplaces Councils. The board will be refreshed with increased membership of up to 14 members. This increase reflects the expanded functions of Creative Australia and will ensure that the appropriate skills and expertise are represented across its broad remit. The new Australia Council Board established under this legislation will be critical in providing leadership and direction as Creative Australia delivers on the first stages of the measures set out in Revive—Music Australia and Creative Workplaces—as well as those measures that are still to be rolled out, including the First Nations body, the works of scale fund and Writers Australia. Music Australia By introducing this legislation and expanding Creative Australia's functions and services, the government is responding directly to calls for change from the sector. During consultation for the national cultural policy, submissions from the contemporary music industry called for a body to be established that would develop a framework for long-term investment and strategic focus. The bill establishes Music Australia within Creative Australia, which will empower the Australian contemporary music industry to rebuild and to realise its local and global potential. With over $69 million in funding over four years from 2023-24, Music Australia will allow for greater strategic delivery, leadership and support for Australia's contemporary music industry. To oversee the programs and services delivered under Music Australia, the bill establishes a Music Australia Council to provide strategic advice and guidance to the Australia Council Board and to the initiatives for contemporary music to be delivered by Music Australia. The bill will ensure that the chief executive officer of Creative Australia appoints a director responsible for the work of Music Australia. This role will be crucial in ensuring that the investments to be delivered as part of Music Australia are achieved. Music Australia will oversee a number of commitments in Revive, including: to grow the market for contemporary Australian music; to increase development of original music through investment in artistic creation; to deliver songwriting and recording initiatives in schools; to develop new strategic partnerships within and beyond the music sector, including to undertake research and data collection around key issues, including festivals and venues; to provide ongoing support for Sounds Australia, Australia's export music market development initiative; to support industry professionals to learn business and management skills; to provide central coordination around access to live music venues for bands and artists; to develop new co-investment agreements with states, territories and industry to develop national sector-wide priorities; and to create community music hubs in high-density living areas. Creative Workplaces Creative Australia recognises that artists and creatives throughout our great landscape, from metropolitan cities to the red desert, are workers. In exchange for what they give us, they should have safe workplaces and be remunerated fairly. That is why this bill sets up Creative Workplaces within Creative Australia to provide advice and support to the sector. Creative Workplaces will provide a central and safe point of call for people working in the arts and entertainment sector to seek confidential advice. It will provide advice on the appropriate channels to help resolve situations, including referrals to Safe Work Australia, the Fair Work Commission and the Australian Human Rights Commission. Creative Workplaces will deliver safer places of work and will raise and set safety standards across all art forms. Organisations seeking federal government funding will need to adhere to these standards. To oversee the important work of Creative Workplaces, this bill establishes a Creative Workplaces Council. The council will be responsible for providing advice and guidance to the Australia Council board on the programs and services to be delivered by Creative Workplaces. Funding delivered by the council will also include $1 million annually to Support Act to make sure that this crucial service of specialised counselling and mental health support services to the music sector will continue. The bill will ensure the Chief Executive Officer of Creative Australia appoints a director of Creative Workplaces to oversee this critical and important work. Conclusion In Australia, we have not always valued the connection between the artist and their audience enough. But as we all experienced during the lockdown periods of the pandemic, we know how much we miss it when it's not there. How many of us longed to see a performance, go to a cinema, visit a gallery or be in the mosh again? A robust creative sector involves a rich ecosystem of cultural organisations and supporting artists, arts workers and businesses. Creative Australia will be able to advocate for the sector, provide crucial services for arts workers, increase philanthropic and private giving for the arts and increase commercial avenues. This new legislation and the government's increased funding acknowledges the importance of creativity and how it spans communities, industries and borders. Australia's cultural output will grow because of this targeted investment in the arts and the establishment of these councils which will guide the strategic delivery of funding to the sector. The next important step will be the First Nations led body within Creative Australia. This is a critical measure which requires extensive consultation with First Nations artists and arts workers, First Nations arts organisations, First Nation leaders and First Nations communities on what this should look like. The ultimate success of Revive won't rest with the government. When you see someone who has mastered their craft expressing their culture, it reaches you. Great artists take you on a journey. A musician can do it from the first bar, an actor from their first lines, an author from the opening page, a painter from that first glimpse. This is who we are entrusting with the success of Revive. A creative Australia is an innovative and inclusive nation where creative workers, communities and businesses thrive. In government, we play a role in fostering the creative forces of our nation and strengthening our identity through the generous voices of our creative workers. As audiences and makers of art, music, theatre and culture, it is our responsibility to cultivate and nurture the stories yet to be shared—the opportunity for Australians to deliver their own masterpieces, their own written story, their own album, that will be revered and cherished. Our creative nation is finally being given the chance to flourish. Creative workers—workers like any other, who have bills to pay and families to feed—have the opportunity to be part of a sustainable and secure profession. What these Australians do with the cultural policy will determine the look, feel and soundtrack to life in our nation. This legislation is the foundation for artists and arts workers, enabling them to create our next national treasures, supported in this way by government. Through this new bill and the establishment of Creative Australia, Australia's arts and cultural sector will take centre stage right across the globe. Debate adjourned. Creative Australia (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 3

Creative Australia (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023

First Reading 3 Second Reading 3 09:15 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This one is more technical. The Creative Australia (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 makes consequential amendments and provides transitional arrangements to Commonwealth laws to support the proposed establishment of Creative Australia. This is in line with this government's National Cultural Policy—Revive. The key element of the bill is to provide for the repeal of the Australia Council Act 2013, and to facilitate the continued operations of the entity during its transition from the Australia Council to Creative Australia in accordance with the proposed new enabling legislation, the Creative Australia Bill 2023; I did in fact move the bill we're now repealing. This will ensure business continuity and prevent disruption of funding or services to artists, arts workers and organisations. To avoid any doubt, the bill clarifies that staff currently employed at the Australia Council will continue as employees of Creative Australia on their existing employment terms and conditions. Similarly, consultants currently engaged by the Australia Council will continue to be engaged by Creative Australia on the same terms and conditions. Mr Adrian Collette will continue in the role of chief executive officer under Creative Australia, further ensuring the smooth transition. The new Australia Council board established under the Creative Australia Bill 2023 will be critical in providing leadership and direction as Creative Australia delivers on the first stages of measures under Revive. Therefore, the board will be refreshed with increased membership to reflect the expanded functions of Creative Australia and to make sure that the appropriate skills and expertise are represented across the broad remit of the entity. This bill provides the mechanism for that refresh, with all existing board members, other than the chief executive officer, ceasing to hold office after the repeal of the Australia Council Act 2013. Committees established under the Australia Council Act 2013 will also cease at the transition time. To ensure there is no delay in the appointment of the new board, this bill dispenses with the requirement for the minister to consult the chair in making initial appointments to the board at the transition time. Similarly, the minister will not be required to consult the chair of the Music Australia Council or the chair of the Creative Workplaces Council on its initial appointments. Safeguards have been included to avoid any doubt and prevent any disruption in Creative Australia receiving its allocation of government funds under the relevant appropriation acts. This bill also specifies transitional reporting requirements to ensure Creative Australia continues to remain accountable for its expenditure and operations. Together with the Creative Australia Bill 2023, this bill will deliver much needed support to Australia's creative sector. It demonstrates this government's commitment to the arts and delivers on the National Cultural Policy. This bill ensures a seamless transition in operational and governance arrangements to Creative Australia—a restored and modernised Australia Council and the centrepiece of Revive. I simply, as a matter of process, advise the House that, while those requirements for consultation are not required for the initial board, as is normally the case, that consultation with the existing chairs is happening in any event. Debate adjourned. Excise Tariff Amendment (Product Stewardship for Oil) Bill 2023 4

Excise Tariff Amendment (Product Stewardship for Oil) Bill 2023

First Reading 4 Second Reading 4 09:19 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill is one of two bills to bring the Product Stewardship for Oil Scheme out of deficit and return it to fiscal neutrality as was always intended. This bill would amend the Excise Tariff Act 1921 to increase the rate of excise duty payable on the import of relevant products from 8.5c cents per litre or kilogram to 14.2c per litre or kilogram. This is an important scheme which ensures our waste oil is recycled into new products, such as base oil that can be used to make car engine oil. Over its operational life waste oil can pick up hazardous by-products including lead, cadmium, chromium and arsenic. Waste oil can damage our environment and health if it's not properly managed. Used oil, burnt at low temperatures, releases hazardous particles that can get into people's lungs and harm their health. Under the Product Stewardship for Oil Scheme, 5.5 billion litres of recycled oil have been produced from waste oil. This is enough to fill Parliament House more than seven times over. It is a levy-benefit scheme where levies are paid on the importation or production of oils and their synthetic substitutes. Levies fund benefits paid to oil re-refiners ensuring the financial responsibility to manage waste oil is borne by those who benefit from its use. By encouraging the recycling of waste oil we see the circular economy in action. Waste engine oil is collected and recycled, meaning it has a second life serving as engine oil again. Since 2016 the scheme has fallen into deficit, levy collections have not been sufficient to cover the cost of benefit payments. This has meant that taxpayers have been covering the difference. In 2020, the need to raise the levy to address the deficit was highlighted in an independent review of the scheme. The passage of this bill will see this long-running deficit remedied. No longer will taxpayers pay for the scheme's shortfall. This is not only fair but will also have only a very small impact on oil users, with the cost of an oil change for a passenger car increasing in price by approximately 28.5c for the average car. Debate adjourned. Customs Tariff Amendment (Product Stewardship for Oil) Bill 2023 5

Customs Tariff Amendment (Product Stewardship for Oil) Bill 2023

First Reading 5 Second Reading 5 09:22 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This is one of two bills to bring the Product Stewardship for Oil Scheme out of deficit and return it to fiscal neutrality as intended. This bill would amend the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to increase the rate of customs duty payable on the import of relevant products from 8.5c per litre or kilogram to 14.2c per litre or kilogram. This is, as I've just said, a very important scheme that ensures our waste oil is recycled into new products, such as base oil that can be used to make car engine oil. Over its operational life waste oil picks up hazardous by-products including lead, cadmium, chromium and arsenic. Waste oil can damage our environment and health if it's not properly managed. Under the Product Stewardship for Oil Scheme, 5.5 billion litres of recycled oil have been produced from waste oil. This is a levy-benefit scheme where levies are paid on the importation or production of oils and their synthetic substitutes. The levies fund benefits are paid to oil re-refiners to ensure the financial responsibility to manage waste oil is borne by those who benefit from its use. Since 2016 the scheme has fallen into deficit, levy collections have not been sufficient to cover the cost of benefit payments. This has meant that taxpayers have covered the difference. An independent review highlighted this in 2020. The passage of these two bills will remedy that long-running deficit. It's not only fair but will have only a very small impact on oil users. Debate adjourned. Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Safety Net) Bill 2023 5

Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Safety Net) Bill 2023

First Reading 5 Second Reading 5 09:25 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The government has taken the cost-of-living challenges faced by Australians seriously in this budget. Through our $14.6 billion cost-of-living plan, the government is providing broad based support, to help millions of Australians in different settings and circumstances. Historic investments in Medicare, cheaper medicines, and help with power bills. But we know that cost-of-living pressures have a disproportionate impact on those on the lowest incomes, and that is why the government is providing targeted support to strengthen Australia's social safety net. The Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Safety Net) Bill 2023 will implement these measures—it includes amendments that will provide additional assistance to benefit around two million people. These are responsible changes, which are carefully calibrated to balance providing additional support to those on the lowest income support payments, without adding to inflation. The measures in the bill deliver on our commitment to consider the rates of payments ahead of every budget. They deliver on our commitment to provide additional assistance where we can, to those Australians doing it tough, particularly those on income support payments. This bill will increase the rate of working-age and student payments by $40 per fortnight. This includes the JobSeeker payment, youth allowance, parenting payment (partnered), Austudy, Abstudy, youth disability support pension and special benefit. This will provide additional support to 1.1 million people. While income support payments are regularly indexed to keep pace with changes in the cost of living, with this $40 increase, we are providing additional support that recognises the financial hardships and challenges faced by people on these payments. As a result, the base rate of JobSeeker will increase to $733.10 per fortnight—and that's before the regular indexation that will occur on 20 September which will also be applied. This means that since the Albanese Labor government came into power in May 2022, the base rate of JobSeeker will have increased by 14 per cent, up from $642.70. This represents over $90 more in people's pockets each fortnight to help with the cost-of-living pressures. It equates to $2,300 in additional support each year. This is a responsible increase, and it bolsters our safety net, which is there for all Australians if they need support. In addition, the bill includes amendments that expand eligibility for the higher single rate of JobSeeker to those aged 55 and over, who have been on payment for nine continuous months or more. This currently applies to people over the age of 60. Over the past decade, the proportion of mature-aged recipients on JobSeeker has significantly increased. Older Australians find it harder to get back into work, often due to age discrimination or poorer health. The evidence shows that older Australians are more likely to be long-term JobSeeker payment recipients, with 81 per cent of people aged 55 and over on the payment for more than a year. Over half of this cohort will spend more than five years on payment, compared to less than one-third of the general JobSeeker payment population. We also know that women over 55 are at higher risk of homelessness in Australia. The government remains committed to tackling age based discrimination in workplaces, but this change recognises that there's still work to be done and older Australians do need more support. As result of this change, 52,000 older Australian aged 55 to 59 years—55 per cent of whom are women—will benefit from an increase of at least $92.10 per fortnight. Of course, the government's priority is always to support people into work—with the dignity of work and the economic security it brings. But even with the low unemployment rate, over 75 per cent of people on the JobSeeker payment do not report any earnings. This is often due to complex barriers to employment, such as discrimination, caring responsibilities or a partial capacity to work due to a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment. The government's Employment white paper will look across employment policies at what levers we can use to increase participation and support people into work. But this bill will increase working-age and student payments, because it focuses on easing financial pressures for Australians who rely on the safety net and who are doing it tough. The bill also support single parents, who are overwhelmingly women, to balance their caring responsibilities and paid work. This balancing act of caring and paid-work responsibilities doesn't end when a child turns eight. The government is investing $1.9 billion to extend eligibility to parenting payment single to single principal carers with a youngest child under 14 years of age. Currently when a recipient's youngest child turns eight they are moved to a lower rate of JobSeeker payment. As the Prime Minister has said, single parents carry the world on their back. He has also said that this would make a big and immediate difference for tens of thousands of mums, dads and children right across Australia. This means around 57,000 eligible single principal carers on JobSeeker payment whose youngest child is under 14 years will be transferred to the higher parenting payment single rate of $922.10. This is an extra $176.90 per fortnight in their basic payment to help with the costs of raising children. These recipients will also benefit from additional supplementary payments and a more generous parenting payment single income test arrangements. Single principal carers face many barriers to employment and financial security due to the costs associated with caring for young dependent children on their own. The new age limit of 14 for the youngest child will deliver more support until children have settled into high school and require less direct supervision from their parents. This measure ensures that from 20 September 2023, parenting payment single recipients remain on payment until their youngest child turns 14. Recipients will continue to receive the same payment rate and retain the same supplementary payments and mutual obligation they currently have. This measure will benefit many women and First Nations recipients. We know that 95.5 per cent of the parenting payment single population are women and around 19 per cent are First Nation recipients. This measure helps single parents to balance caring responsibilities along with looking for work, and supports those parents to do the most important job—and that is raising their children. The government understands access to secure and affordable housing has significant social, economic and personal benefits. We recognise that many people are struggling with high rental costs, and renters on income support are at particular risk of rental stress and housing insecurity. That is why, as part of this bill, the government is increasing Commonwealth rent assistance maximum rates by 15 per cent, in addition to the usual indexation of payments, effective from 20 September 2023. This is the largest increase to Commonwealth rent assistance maximum rates in more than 30 years, equating to around $700 million a year extra, on top of the roughly $5 billion the government spends on rent assistance each year. Around 1.1 million households who are paying rent high enough to receive maximum rent assistance will be better off by up to $31 per fortnight, depending on their household type. This includes recipients of JobSeeker payment and other working payments, student payments, people on the age pension, disability support pension, family tax benefit and veteran payments. Since the Albanese government came into power in May 2022, the maximum amount of rent assistance for a single person on JobSeeker who is living on their own will have increased by 24 per cent. This is $35 more in their pocket each fortnight to help them pay rent. Commonwealth rent assistance is the government's most direct lever to quickly provide assistance to those payment recipients who are renting. Our budget measure will help address the pressure associated with housing costs for a significant number of vulnerable households. The income support measures reflected in this bill will increase support to around two million Australians who are doing it tough. As a result of this bill: A 20 year old student on youth allowance who is receiving the maximum rate of CRA while renting with flatmates, can receive more than an additional $55 per fortnight. A single JobSeeker payment recipient who is living alone and receiving the maximum rate of CRA, can receive more than an additional $63 per fortnight. A single JobSeeker payment recipient who is aged 56 and has been unemployed for 10 months, living alone, and receives the maximum rate of CRA, can receive more than an additional $115 per fortnight. A single parent currently on JobSeeker payment who has a youngest child under 14 years and is receiving the maximum rate of CRA, can receive more than an additional $204 per fortnight. This is meaningful, responsible, targeted cost-of-living relief to those who need it most. This bill provides additional help to those who face significant barriers to work, even in an economy where the unemployment rate is very low. It includes compassionate and evidence based measures that strengthen Australia's safety net, providing the platform for single parents, people on income support and their families to get ahead and create a better future. The Albanese Labor government believes in a strong social security system. We will not demonise people for needing support. Australia's social safety net should be there for people when they need it. We will always do what we can to support people who are doing it tough and need assistance. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Trade Support Loans Amendment Bill 2023 7

Trade Support Loans Amendment Bill 2023

First Reading 7 Second Reading 8 09:37 Mr O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Today I am introducing the Trade Support Loans Amendment Bill 2023. This bill amends the Trade Support Loans Act 2014 to expand access to income contingent loans to more Australian apprentices and trainees working in high-priority occupations of skills need, as determined with regard to advice from Jobs and Skills Australia. For the first time, this will include non-trade occupations. The bill also proposes administrative changes to make the program fairer and more effective. Trade support loans are interest-free, income contingent government loans that currently support apprentices in priority trade occupations with cost of living while they are completing their training. As an incentive to encourage completion of training, apprentices who complete their apprenticeship, are eligible for a 20 per cent discount on their trade support loan. Since introduction in July 2014, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) estimates that trade support loans have helped over 167,000 apprentices, who may otherwise have struggled to complete their apprenticeship. Data on completion rates provided by DEWR shows that recipients of trade support loans are more likely to complete their apprenticeship. Since the program's introduction in 2014, completion rates for apprentices who have taken out trade support loans have been around 10 percentage points higher than completion rates for all trade apprentices. Australia is currently facing the most significant skills shortages in decades, and the measures in this bill are a practical way that we can extend the benefits of a trade support loan to more apprentices and trainees. It will support them to continue—and to complete—their qualifications, so that they can gain secure work in areas of greatest need for the economy. This bill will expand eligibility for trade support loans to apprentices and trainees working in critical occupations specified on a new priority list. The bill provides the flexibility for the list to include occupations in early childhood education, aged care, and disability care. This means occupations such as enrolled nursing, personal care assistants, therapists, dental technicians and many more would have access to financial support to continue their training, and an incentive to complete. Beyond the care sector, other examples of occupations that could be eligible include veterinary nurses, aircraft maintenance engineers, civil engineering technicians, gardeners, youth workers, swimming coaches, chefs and many, many others. The bill will achieve this by replacing the existing Trade Support Loan Priority List, with a new Australian Apprenticeships Priority List, which will be more relevant and responsive to the needs of the economy. The outgoing Trade Support Priority List restricts access to the loan program to apprenticeships leading to qualifications in a limited group of trade occupations. The list of eligible occupations has not been updated since the scheme was implemented. It is out of date and no longer aligns with the range of Australia's current and future skill needs. The new Australian Apprenticeships Priority List will be responsive to new and emerging skills shortages, and will significantly expand the list of occupations that have access to the program. Importantly, the bill will extend eligibility to non-trade occupations for the first time—critically including those in the care sector. To reflect the new scope of eligibility, this bill renames the Trade Support Loans Program to the Australian Apprenticeship Support Loans. By extending eligibility, the bill will assist many women, as women predominantly take up non-trade apprenticeships and traineeships. According to the latest data from the National Centre for Vocational Education Research in September 2022, 76.8 per cent of women in apprenticeships and traineeships—that is, 95,335 women—are in non-trade occupations. In determining the occupations on the new Australian Apprenticeships Priority List, the bill requires me (as minister) to consider the advice of Jobs and Skills Australia. Jobs and Skills Australia will leverage its strong team of specialists including labour market economists, data scientists, analysts and researchers to provide independent, expert advice to help determine the new priority list. Unlike the current list, the new Australian Apprenticeships Priority List will be updated at least annually. As a result, the list will be responsive to the current, emerging and future skills and training needs in the workforce. The bill will also provide greater flexibility and fairness in the administration of the loan program. It provides discretion to the secretary of the department to accept late applications for loans, if appropriate in the circumstances. This could include where an administrative error or exceptional circumstances have disrupted an eligible apprentice's loan application. This ensures that immediate financial support is not unnecessarily or unfairly denied. The Albanese government is working with our partners to rebuild and modernise our vocational education sector. In partnership with states and territories, we're delivering 180,000 fee-free TAFE and vocational education places in 2023, with a further 300,000 places to become fee-free from 2024. The Albanese government is working to remove the barriers Australians face in their accessing life-changing education and training and ensuring that Australians from all backgrounds and cultures are supported to achieve their full potential. This bill, and the new Australian Apprenticeship Support Loans program will join those reforms to help Australia and Australians to meet our current and future skills needs. I commend this bill to the chamber. Debate adjourned. Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Amendment Bill 2023 9

Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Amendment Bill 2023

First Reading 9 Second Reading 9 09:44 Mr O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Today I am introducing the Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Amendment Bill 2023. The bill makes consequential amendments to the Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Act 2015 which arise from the enactment of the Trade Support Loans Amendment Act 2023. The amendments update references in theStudent Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Act 2015 to 'Trade Support Loans Act 2014' with 'Australian Apprenticeship Support Loans Act 2014', to align with the rebranding of Trade Support Loans to Australian Apprenticeship Support Loans. This rebranding reflects changes to the Trade Support Loans Scheme, which expand eligibility for access to the loans so that they will no longer be limited to trade occupations. Instead, there will be ongoing flexibility for the program to provide support loans for apprentices in priority non-trade occupations such as aged care, child care and disability care. I commend this bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2023 9

Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2023

First Reading 9 Second Reading 9 09:46 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt I move: That this bill be now read a second time. One thing that all members of this House will agree on, no matter our differences, is the obligation of this country to those who have served this nation, or continue to serve this nation, in the uniform of our armed forces. It is my privilege and duty as Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Defence Personnel to continue to uphold this obligation. Support for veterans and their families is a serious responsibility: that those who have served and sacrificed for our nation should be supported following their service. This nation, and this parliament have a solemn responsibility to those who served. The legislation introduced today, the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2023will enhance the support and services available to veterans and their families. The Australian government recognises the unique challenges faced by defence personnel, veterans and their families. Supporting them is one of our key priorities, and that's why the recent budget had such a significant focus on rebuilding the Department of Veterans' Affairs, in order to ensure the foundations are laid to improve access to services and supports for veterans and families. This bill enhances support to ADF firefighters who served prior to 2004. This bill also extends the treatment of certain income from specified employment programs as 'exempt income' for income support means testing, and it extends the availability of rent assistance for veterans and their partners who are overseas but are unable to return to Australia due to exceptional circumstances. Additionally, this bill expands eligibility for access to services under the Defence, Veterans' and Families' Acute Support Package, available for families of veterans in crisis. In December 2022, this government passed theFair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022. Among the many beneficial measures introduced by this act was additional support for injured or ill federally employed civilian firefighters. Australian Defence Force firefighters are subject to the same, or additional, threats and exposures as their civilian counterparts. As a consequence, schedule 1 of this bill amends the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act to align with the relevant provisions for firefighters to those of their civilian counterparts as now contained in the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. This amendment will reduce the qualifying period of employment as an ADF firefighter required to be presumptively taken to have made a significant contribution to oesophageal cancers from 25 years to 15 years. It will also change the wording of the act to no longer require that firefighting form a 'substantial' part of a person's duties, rather, that it only be 'not insubstantial' part of their duties for the deeming provisions to be applicable. These changes will provide a simpler basis for acceptance of those conditions for ADF firefighters than the current provisions. It will also, separately, through Regulations under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988 (DRCA), introduce eight additional prescribed cancer conditions to be covered under these arrangements, after a 15-year period conditions like; malignant mesothelioma and primary site lung cancer, and after a 10-year period; primary site cervical cancer, primary site ovarian cancer and primary site pancreatic cancer. When an individual or family member encounters illness, the last thing they want to be doing is jumping through bureaucratic hoops. This legislative change seeks to take some of the stress out of the equation, streamlining the access services and supports a veteran or family member would be entitled to. Now, we know that one of the best supports for a veteran transitioning from service is getting them into fulfilling work, something with a sense of purpose. There's no doubt that following their service in the Australian Defence Force, veterans can go on to make a massive impact on the success of businesses in civilian life. For many veterans, and indeed businesses, it's not always clear what skills from service apply to the civilian workplace, and veteran employment programs help bridge that gap. Schedule 2 of this bill aligns provisions under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 with existing provisions under the Social Security Act 1991 to allow amounts received from employment programs to not be considered as income for income support means testing purposes. This will allow amounts received by veterans and their partners from specified employment programs under the Social Security Act to be considered as exempt from the income test under the Veterans' Entitlements Act. Schedule 3 of this bill aligns provisions under the Veterans' Entitlements Act with existing provisions under the social security legislation, which will allow payment of rent assistance beyond 26 weeks for veterans and their partners when temporarily overseas and unable to return to Australia due to unforeseen circumstances, such as what occurred recently due to COVID-19. These changes will remove the current existing discrepancy that may impact on veterans and their families receiving income support and rent assistance compared to the entitlements their civilian counterparts are now currently able to receive. Finally, Schedule 4 of this bill delivers on our 2023-24 budget measure to expand eligibility for the Defence, Veterans' and Families' Acute Support Package. We know that families look different all over the country. For many kids, grandparents are their primary carers, so we're expanding this package to make sure that grandcarer veteran families are also supported if experiencing crisis. The Acute Support Package, which commenced in October 2022, is available to working age veteran families, widowed partners and their children. The package is designed to support working age families who are experiencing new and challenging life circumstances that mean the family unit needs support to get back on track. Services available include a range of wellbeing and skills based support services for families in crisis, such as child care, counselling for adults and children, household assistance, transport, and wellbeing, academic and extracurricular support for children. The changes will extend eligibility for these services to a small but vulnerable group: children of veterans who are under the full-time care of their grandparent carers—grandcarers. This recognises that some grandparent carers may also require assistance when providing full-time care to their grandchildren who are the children of veterans. This will enable support and continuity of support in line with the intent of the Acute Support Package to support families in crisis. The Albanese Labor government is committed to supporting veterans and their families. We're committed to establishing the strongest foundations of support for our service personnel, veterans and their families; a strong foundation for a better future. I commend this bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Subsidy) Bill 2023 11

Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Subsidy) Bill 2023

First Reading 11 Second Reading 11 09:54 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Subsidy) Bill 2023 amends the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 to align it with existing practice in relation to the child care subsidy. Recently, errors were identified in the existing legislation concerning the way some overpayments of child care subsidy are recovered by the Commonwealth. These errors date back to when the CCS was introduced by the former government in 2018. The consequences of those errors, which I believe were unintended by the former government, are that in certain circumstances the Commonwealth's processes for recovery of overpaid subsidy have not been supported by the legislation. This bill rectifies those errors and aligns the legislation to longstanding policy and practice. It confirms who is responsible for the repayment of overpaid amounts of CCS and provides further clarity for providers and families. The government has worked swiftly to bring the bill to the parliament after the Minister for Education and I were advised of the issue earlier this month, and it is important that the measures be enacted promptly to allow for the proper recovery of overpayments in the future. The department has consulted with the Early Childhood Education and Care Reference Group on the amendments and will shortly establish a process for the repayment of any amounts which have been recovered in a manner inconsistent with the current legislation. The process will be supported by a legislative instrument and minister's rules which will be issued shortly. The department will continue to work with early childhood education and care providers and any affected families to explain the process and answer any questions. The measures in this bill are important for the integrity of the child care subsidy system and ensuring that recovery of overpayments is made appropriately. I commend the bill to the House Debate adjourned. TARIFF PROPOSALS 12 TARIFF PROPOSALS Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2023 12 09:57 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I move: Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2023. The customs tariff proposal that I have just tabled amends the description of goods eligible for the customs duty concession provided by item 9 of schedule 4 to the Customs Tariff Act 1995. This concession provides a free rate of customs duty for prescribed groups of international organisations. These international organisations must be established by an agreement between the government of Australia and the government of another country or countries. The European Space Agency, ESA, has relied upon this concession since the early 1980s. Australia and the ESA have had a longstanding partnership. Since 1979, agreements have been in place to enable ESA ground stations in Australia to track and communicate with space missions. Ground stations, including that located in the northern part of Perth in Western Australia, host antennas for tracking and deep space communications as well as supporting facilities. The ground station is locally operated by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Australia's national science agency. Construction is underway for the expansion of this facility, for an overall cost of $84 million. The expansion includes a new 35-metre-diameter deep space antenna. This new antenna will communicate with important scientific space missions around the world, which will help scientists answer important questions such as whether life could have emerged elsewhere in the solar system. Australian contractors will secure approximately $32 million as part of the project works, which will contribute greatly to the local economy and grow Australia's civil space industry. The Australian government has contributed $4 million towards this project. The ESA is also building a Biomass calibration transponder at the facility to support the upcoming Biomass mission, expected to launch in 2024. This mission aims to provide critical information about forests globally and improve our understanding of the role forests play in the carbon cycle. The agreements underpinning the partnership between Australia and the ESA provide that goods for use in agreed activities be imported free from customs duty. In preparation for the expansion of the facility, the ESA sought advice from the Australian Border Force on the process for using the concession to import their goods. It was determined that, even though the ESA has relied upon the concession for international organisations for 40 years, they were not eligible for the concession, as they are not an international organisation formed by an agreement between the government of Australia and the government of another country. The amendments to item 9 will allow the ESA to access this customs duty concession, and they will apply it retrospectively to 1 December 2022, enabling refund applications to be lodged, and will ensure that the Australian government is meeting the obligations under the agreement it holds with the ESA. The amendments do not impact the requirement of any other international organisation that any agreements be established between the government of Australia and the government of another country or countries to be eligible for a free rate of customs duty. Debate adjourned. BILLS 12 BILLS Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Protecting Worker Entitlements) Bill 2023 12

Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Protecting Worker Entitlements) Bill 2023

Report from Federation Chamber 12 10:06 The SPEAKER 53517 The first unresolved question is that opposition amendments (1), (5), (6), and (9) to (11) be disagreed to.    

The House divided. [10:06]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

79 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 61 NOES Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gee, A. R. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Landry, M. L. Le, D. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. Morrison, S. J. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Tink, K. J. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Wilkie, A. D. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 10:15 The SPEAKER 53517 The second unresolved question is that opposition amendment (2) be disagreed to. The question is that the amendment be disagreed to.    

The House divided. [10:20]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 81 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Daniel, Z. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 59 NOES Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gee, A. R. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Landry, M. L. Le, D. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. Morrison, S. J. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Tink, K. J. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 10:26 The SPEAKER 53517 The third unresolved question is that opposition amendment (3) be disagreed to.    

The House divided. [10:26]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

78 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 62 NOES Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gee, A. R. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Landry, M. L. Le, D. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. Morrison, S. J. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Tink, K. J. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 10:31 The SPEAKER 53517 The fourth unresolved question is that opposition amendment (4) be disagreed to. The question is that the amendment be disagreed to.    

The House divided. [10:31]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 82 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Daniel, Z. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Ryan, M. M. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 58 NOES Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gee, A. R. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Landry, M. L. Le, D. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. Morrison, S. J. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Tink, K. J. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

10:32 The SPEAKER 53517 The fifth unresolved question is that opposition amendment (7) be disagreed to. The question is that the amendment be disagreed to.    

The House divided. [10:36]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 84 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Daniel, Z. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Gee, A. R. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sharkie, R. C. C. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 56 NOES Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Landry, M. L. Le, D. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. Morrison, S. J. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Spender, A. M. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Tink, K. J. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 10:37 The SPEAKER 53517 The final and sixth unresolved question is that opposition amendment (8) be disagreed to. The question is that the amendment be disagreed to.    

The House divided. [10:42]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

79 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Doyle, M. J. J. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Haines, H. M. Hill, J. C. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Ryan, M. M. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 61 NOES Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Chaney, K. E. Chester, D. J. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gee, A. R. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Landry, M. L. Le, D. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. Morrison, S. J. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Tink, K. J. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Wilkie, A. D. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill agreed to.

 Third Reading 19 10:43 Mr BURKE DYW Watson by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 19

Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023

Second Reading 19 10:44 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I rise to contribute to the debate on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. 'We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future.' That's the closing line of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. On Friday, it will be six years since that patient, gracious, generous and optimistic invitation was extended to the people of Australia; a hand outstretched, a powerful show of faith in the innate decency and fairness of all Australians. Through this legislation and this referendum, our government is giving the people of Australia the opportunity to take up that invitation, to grasp that hand. If not now, when? Already this gracious call has been answered by faith groups and community organisations, by local sporting clubs and our national sporting codes—enriched for decades by the skill and genius of Indigenous superstars—by universities, by the business sector and the trade union movement, by every single premier and chief minister across the political spectrum, and by everyday Australians in their thousands knocking on doors and making phone calls, explaining how a 'yes' vote will give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people greater opportunities and make us a better, more united and more reconciled nation. Later this year all Australians will be asked one question: 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? Voting 'yes' will add the following words to our Constitution, as proposed in this legislation: Chapter IX—Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples 129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia: (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. This differs, and is the only time there has been a change made, from the draft wording that I put forward at the Garma Festival in July last year. At that time, when I put it forward, I said it was a draft and we were open to debate, and I encouraged members to come forward—and, indeed, the public to come forward as well. Since then, this draft in this legislation improves on the Garma words and shows the fact that we were trying as much as possible to embrace as many people as possible going forward with this wording, and we took that on board. The difference between the Garma words and these words in this legislation is the following. The Garma words had 'in recognition' but they said 'of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders' rather than 'Islander peoples'. That's the difference there. Clause (i) remains exactly the same. In clause (ii) we, together with the referendum working group, agreed to changes to make even clearer in clauses (ii) and (iii) the primacy of the parliament. It adds 'the' before 'Parliament' to make it clear it's this parliament, and 'of the Commonwealth' is added in clause (ii) to make it clear that this is what we are talking about. There are two critical changes in clause (iii). The first is to change the words that were there, that said, 'The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.' That was the Garma wording. There were two critical matters changed in the wording that is before this parliament. The first is to add the word 'matters' so it reads 'with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice'. What that very much does, legally, is broaden it and make very clear the primacy of the parliament. And the second is the key word 'including' in 'including its composition, functions, powers and procedures'. Again, it's making it very clear; it's making the legal definition even tighter. This form of words is legally sound. These should be the words that go forward. Indeed, to quote the advice of the Solicitor-General, advice that I note was called for by those opposite. They now have it; the Australian people have it. In the words of the Solicitor-General: … section 129 is not just compatible with the system of representative and responsible government prescribed by the constitution, but an enhancement of that system. Powerful words by the Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, backed up by people such as former Chief Justice French, former Justice Hayne, the leading legal academic on constitutional matters Professor Twomey and so many others. Some have suggested that we alter or remove the second clause, specifically the reference to executive government. I certainly respect the member for Berowra and his motives—we share a passion for advancing reconciliation with First Peoples and he has my utmost respect—but the argument put forward is not a legal or constitutional one. They are not saying that the Voice shouldn't talk to the executive government; they're just saying that it shouldn't be included in that part in the Constitution—in recognition as well, of course, that the executive government under our system, as opposed to systems such as the United States, derives its power from this parliament. They want to alter the proposal in the hope of gaining more support. To that I say two things: firstly, the changes that were made to the Garma draft and agreed to by the Referendum Working Group are aimed precisely at reinforcing the primacy of the parliament; and, secondly, in spite of that, the Liberal Party frontbench had already locked themselves into saying no before the committee process that they called for and they said was important had even commenced its work. And the National Party decided to say no before the draft question had even been finalised. From the outset, instead of seeking ways to agree they have looked for excuses to disagree. This is in spite of the fact that in 2019 both political parties went to that election saying that there would be a Voice, that it would be advanced. The same thing occurred, going back to then Prime Minister Howard, when we spoke about the need for constitutional recognition all those years ago. Instead of taking the chance to unify, there are some who have sought only to divide. Now clearly there is no form of words that will satisfy some of the leaders of the 'no' campaign. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition gave a speech in this chamber that is simply unworthy of the alternative Prime Minister of this nation. And therefore we will not undermine the hard work and the goodwill from so many people across such a breadth of the political spectrum, including the former Minister for Indigenous Affairs who I pay tribute to today, Minister Ken Wyatt, who worked so hard to bring us to this moment and who was included as a part of, of course, the Referendum Working Group that came to this united position. Alongside the proposed question and amendments, the Referendum Working Group also published a very clear set of design principles, and I want to go through them today, because what they did was explain what constitutional recognition through a Voice is and how it will work. One: the Voice will give independent advice to the Parliament and Government. It will be able to make representations to the parliament and executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It can do that proactively as well as responding to requests from the parliament or the government, and the parliament could seek its input early in the development of laws and policies. Two: it will be chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people based on the wishes of local communities, not appointed by the executive government or the parliament but chosen by locals, serving a fixed term to ensure regular accountability. Three: the Voice will be representative of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, gender balanced and include youth. Members would be chosen from each of the states, territories and the Torres Strait Islands, with specific remote representatives as well as representation for the mainland Torres Strait Islander population. All of that work, of course occurred under the former government with the report it commissioned, led by Marcia Langton and Tom Calma—under the former coalition government. Four: it will be empowering, community-led, inclusive, respectful and culturally informed. The Voice will consult with grassroots communities and with regional bodies to ensure the representations it makes are informed by their views and experience. Five: it will be accountable and transparent, subject to standard governance and reporting requirements. Six: it will work alongside existing organisations and traditional structures, respecting their work and their contribution. Seven: it will not have a program delivery function. And eight: it will not have a veto power over decisions by this parliament or by the government. These design principles are the product of years of hard work, including by members of the Referendum Working Group. They also represent years of consultation and dialogue among communities—the more than a thousand meetings that took place in the lead-up to the First Nations National Constitutional Convention that was held at Uluru in 2017, and thousands of conversations on country, in cities and in regional towns—and, just as importantly, lifetimes of experience in what works and what doesn't—decades of providing expert advice, authoring reports, leading royal commissions and building organisations, only for those recommendations to be ignored by governments who believed they knew best. The choice we have now as politicians and as citizens is: Are we going to repeat those same mistakes? Should we just keep doing what we've been doing for such a long period of time and expect a different outcome? Are we going to accept another 100 years of expensive, well-intentioned failure by governments of all persuasions across the board? We have failed. That is why we have a Closing the gap report every year and why, tragically, in so many areas we have not closed the gap. Are we going to sentence another generation to lives of lesser opportunity—as Uluru says, to the torment of powerlessness? Or are we going to learn from the success of programs that empower Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people: justice reinvestment in regional New South Wales—including by the former Perrottet government, that I pay tribute to for their support for this process—reducing the crime rate, reducing the reoffending rate and improving educational outcomes; Indigenous rangers, proudly working to preserve our beautiful national parks; and community health organisations, consistently delivering better services and getting better outcomes. The success stories are there to see, but consulting, listening and cooperating shouldn't be a matter of luck or a question of who is in government. It should be available because consultation and listening is always the best option. It is disappointing but not surprising that the loudest campaigners for a 'no' vote have already been reduced to relying upon things that are plainly untrue. It's also very telling. In his desperation, the Leader of the Opposition is now seeking to amplify this misinformation and all of its catastrophising and contradictions: those exhausted cliches of Orwell and identity politics, and the ongoing conceit that there is apparently no inequality in Australia now, no legacy of discrimination, no disadvantage to address and no gap to close. That logic suggests, of course, that there is no need for a minister for Indigenous affairs—job done! This is the same Leader of the Opposition who says that he boycotted the national apology because he thought it was just symbolism and wouldn't make a practical difference. Now he's leading a campaign against constitutional recognition through a voice, saying that he only wants symbolism, not something that will make a practical difference. Let's be clear about this: there is, of course, a powerful, uplifting symbolism in recognising the First Peoples of Australia in our Constitution. The fact that we share this island continent with the world's oldest continuous culture is a source of pride for all of us. The fact that our national story stretches back 65,000 years is something our nation's birth certificate should recognise and celebrate. All of this alone is a reason to vote yes. But this alone won't create jobs and communities, or get children through school, or tackle disease and disadvantage. That's why Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in every part of our country have repeatedly said that they don't just want to be celebrated; they want to be heard. Because the constitutional recognition Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are seeking themselves is the opportunity to improve their lives, to quote the words of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, so 'our children will flourish'. So when 'no' campaigners make these wild claims about what the Voice will concern itself with, I simply say to them, and indeed to all Australians following this debate: for just a moment put yourself in the shoes of the people calling for this change. For most non-Indigenous Australians, this will make no difference to their lives, but it is an opportunity to make a difference for Indigenous Australians. Imagine that you stand on the other side of the gap. Imagine your brothers and sisters are likely to die a decade younger than the general population. Imagine your daughter is more at risk during childbirth and your grandchild more at risk of infant mortality. Imagine your son's statistically more likely to go to jail than to go to university in 2023. Imagine that people in your community are twice as likely to commit suicide as anywhere else. Imagine the rate of disease and disadvantage among your friends and neighbours is far higher than elsewhere. Imagine all of this. Then imagine that, after generations of being sidelined and ignored, you are finally given an opportunity to change it, to be heard. You are finally given a meaningful say in the programs and policies that you know can work, that you know will make a difference. Do you think you would spend a single second thinking about public holidays or parking tickets or any of the other nonsense that the 'no' campaign goes on about? This referendum is about two things and two things only: recognition and listening—recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in our Constitution and listening to them so that we get better outcomes. It is the means to the end. The end is about closing the gap. In conclusion, Australians will cast their vote in this referendum 60 years after the Yirrkala bark petitions were tabled in the old parliament; 56 years after the 1967 referendum; 48 years after the sand poured through Vincent Lingiari's hands; 32 years after the Barunga Statement, painted and planned by Yunupingu, was hung on the wall of this parliament; 31 years after the High Court upheld Eddie Mabo's call for justice and overturned the discriminatory fiction of terra nullius; 15 years after we said sorry to the stolen generations. All of those were opposed at the time. All of those we were told would lead to bad outcomes. All of those are celebrated now. We hold them up as milestones of national progress. We see them as testament to the instinctive generosity and optimism and character of the Australian people. A 'yes' vote at this referendum is a chance for all of us to take the next step on the journey of reconciliation, to be counted and to be heard on the right side of history—more than that, to be part of a better and more reconciled future and nation. If not now, when? In this chamber, we are each of us one vote among 151. In this referendum, we will be one vote among 18 million, because this historic opportunity belongs to the people. This is a chance for Australians from all faiths and backgrounds and from all walks of life to celebrate the best of our nation, to show the best of ourselves, to vote yes for constitutional recognition, to vote yes for the form in which it has been asked for—through a voice—to say yes to the invitation to walk together to a better future with humility and hope and optimism. I commend this bill to the House. 11:07 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark I begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of this country, and I pay respect to the elders past, present and emerging. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples, who are the traditional owners of the land on which we meet today, as well as the palawa and muwinina peoples, who are the traditional owners of the land in which the federal division of Clark lies. Regarding the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023, I begin by noting that in May 2017 more than 250 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander delegates gathered at the First Nations National Constitutional Convention, with the overwhelming majority supporting the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which called for—with absolute clarity—voice, treaty and truth. To that end, this bill is the essential enabler for creating the first of those pillars, that of a constitutionally enshrined Indigenous voice to parliament. It is this bill that will allow Australians later this year to have the opportunity to vote in a referendum to decide whether or not to alter our Constitution so as to give First Nations people a say in the thinking, policies and laws which affect them. That is obviously important, enormously important, and that is why I will unflinchingly support the bill and will ultimately, proudly and with a smile on my face, vote yes on a referendum. It is impossible to overstate just how inherently important First Nations peoples are. For at least 65,000 years they have lived on this land, nurtured families, taken care of country and developed a rich and deep culture. They are of global significance. But when the British occupied Australia in 1788, everything changed. Land was stolen. First Nations people were murdered. Children taken away from their family and community. Since then, all First Nations people have been subjected to a paternalistic system that has endured for 235 years. Yes, countless non-Indigenous Australians laboured tirelessly to do the right thing by First Nations people. But many didn't. Systemically, the whole approach consistently and horridly failed Indigenous communities. That helps to explain why an Indigenous voice to parliament is so very important. History shows this clearly, that what we have been doing up until now simply isn't working. When you drill down into all the problems and deficiencies and the enduring and chronic disadvantage that First Nations people face in this country, we see that so much of it comes from the paternalism of decision-makers like us—in other words, the mindset of old white men thinking, 'We know what you need,' or 'We know what is good for you.' All of that is so terribly wrong. Business as usual is not an option any longer. All the indicators show clearly that what we've been doing up until now, regarding First Nations people, simply doesn't work. It has failed dreadfully. When we come into the parliament, year after year, to listen to the Closing the Gap speech, we hear of the continued injustices faced by First Nations people and that the policies implemented by successive governments over a number of years just aren't working. Remember, as noted by the Attorney-General in his introductory speech for this bill, 11 of the 15 Closing the Gap targets are not on track and, shamefully, some are actually going backwards. First Nations people continue to have lower life expectancies, lower educational outcomes and higher suicide rates than non-Indigenous Australians. They continue to be, overwhelmingly, over-represented within the criminal justice system, in particular. Indeed, despite making up only three per cent of the population, First Nations adults make up 32 per cent of the prison population. Moreover, First Nations children are jailed at 20 times the rate of non-Indigenous children. All of that is, quite frankly, unconscionable. This is not the fault of First Nations people. No, the responsibility falls entirely to a paternalistic system, to old white men who, for more than two centuries, have completely misjudged and mismanaged the relevant policies and their implementation. Governments know this. They've known it for a long time. but it's not as though we haven't had the answers at our fingertips for years. More than 30 years ago, the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody did a thorough examination of the issues and handed down hundreds of recommendations to start winding back the shocking prevalence of Aboriginal deaths in custody. But, to this day, none of the significant recommendations have been implemented, and 527 more Aboriginal deaths in custody have, tragically, occurred. Moreover, the rate of deaths has actually increased. That is a systematic failure of the parliament and a perfect example of why the Voice to parliament is so critical. Through the Voice, First Nations people will finally get a mechanism to challenge the government and hold it to account by being empowered to raise their concerns. For instance, through the Voice, First Nations people will be able to advise government about what is really needed to keep First Nations people out of prison. It will be able to provide advice and recommendations on why effective justice reinvestment is crucial to keeping people out of the justice system, to improving their lives and keeping them out of prison. And this is important. This is the sort of reason we all should support the 'yes' vote. We need to listen to what First Nations people believe is needed and to act on their recommendations, if we are to have the best chance of turning around the terrible injustices being meted out to First Nations people to this day. Moreover, the wisdom of First Nations people—in particular, their connection to this land—is invaluable and something that should be treasured, but, regrettably, this has not been the case, not just in terms of what is needed for First Nations people today but also in the recognition and preservation of what is the oldest ongoing culture on the planet. Few could forget the moment on 24 May 2020—three years ago to the day, yesterday—when the mining giant Rio Tinto destroyed Juukan Gorge in Western Australia. Remember: in the blink of an eye, 46,000 years of First Nations culture and history were blown up. And for what? For a mining company to pocket $104 million from the iron ore below Aboriginal land, which is a scandal that, morally, at least, should have seen managers locked up and the key thrown away. But, of course, it was all perfectly legal under Western Australia's outdated and inadequate Aboriginal heritage legislation. Mind you, lax federal and state laws have permitted the destruction of First Nations' cultural heritage for centuries, and it's way beyond time we did something about it so as to make sure their wonderful culture can be preserved for future generations. And preserved it must be—not least because Australia is a much better place because of our remarkable history in full. So we need to not only preserve that but also draw from the culture and knowledge that First Nations people have developed over 65,000 years or more, if we are to move forward as a country. I trust that my contribution today—backing in, as it does, the many fine speeches delivered by at least some of my parliamentary colleagues—paints a clear picture of why we desperately need a constitutionally-enshrined voice to parliament. But we must not forget, here, that the Voice is but one pillar of the Uluru Statement from the Heart and that, to achieve real, meaningful reform, we must continue to listen to First Nations people, including by establishing a Makarrata commission and legislating a treaty. That is what First Nations people want, and we cannot fall back into the trap of thinking that we old white men know better, because we don't. If I could make one final point, it's to remind the community that, at the referendum, every eligible voter will have exactly the same power to effect change. Yes, the parliament is preoccupied with this bill, and, yes, some members of the community likely think that we're in here actually deciding whether or not to create a voice to parliament. But of course we're not. No, what we're doing instead is merely deciding a bill that will facilitate the referendum. So I support this bill, just as I support a constitutionally-enshrined voice to parliament, and I look forward to voting 'yes' in the referendum later this year. To that end, I urge all Australians to do the same, because it's way beyond time for us to listen to First Nations people and it's way beyond time for them to have an effective say in the thinking, policies and laws that affect them. 11:18 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean I'd like to begin by acknowledging that this debate is occurring on the lands of the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples—First Peoples that have had a connection with this land from a time well before this parliament was conceived or the Constitution was drafted. I extend my respects to their elders past and present and I acknowledge any First Peoples with us here today. I'm privileged to represent the seat of Bean, an electorate with boundaries that begin within 10 kilometres of Parliament House but an electorate whose history extends back thousands of years. It includes many important sites for our First Peoples, including the Yankee Hat rock paintings in Namadgi National Park, and Birrigai Rock Shelter, which is the oldest known place within the ACT where First Peoples lived. The electorate of Bean is home to more than 3,700 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. They include Professor Tom Calma, the co-author of the Indigenous Voice co-design process. Professor Calma is also the 2023 Senior Australian of the Year and Chancellor of the University of Canberra. His contribution to our nation's story has been monumental. Professor Calma has made it clear: the purpose of the Voice is not to be vindictive; it's about understanding who we are as a nation. His research with Dr Marcia Langton received a consistently clear message from First Peoples: where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have a say in the matters that affect their communities, they get better outcomes. I also reflect on some of the words that local Ngunnawal elder Aunty Violet Sheridan has shared on the topic of the Voice. Aunty Violet has often reminded us that we, as a nation, need to take a look at ourselves and make change for the future. As we gather to celebrate the next chapter in the success story of our great and diverse society, let us all recognise the unique privilege we have to share this continent with the world's oldest continuous culture. It's a reminder that we will always share this land. In Aunty Violet's view, a voice to the Australian parliament and government would complement and amplify existing structures and would not replace the role for these structures to continue to work with government within their mandates. For 122 years our nation's founding document has failed to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and their thousands of years of continuous connection to this vast land. At its core, constitutional recognition through a voice is about two things: recognition and consultation. It's recognition of the 65,000 years of shared history and continuous connection to this land by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; and consultation through voice, because listening to communities leads to better policies and better outcomes. This idea, the Voice to Parliament, came from the Uluru Statement from the Heart, a petition which was produced by the 2017 First Nations National Constitutional Convention, a meeting of 250 delegates from across Australia informed by more than 1,000 consultations. This built on existing decades of work. These are simple and practical yet powerful propositions, and an invitation that seeks reconciliation. They are translated easily into this bill. Every day this parliament commences sitting with an acknowledgement of country, a recognition of First Peoples and their connection to this country. And it commences with the Lord's prayer, a prayer that is essentially about forgiveness and reconciliation. History, identity, connection, forgiveness. They are both, in their different ways, wisdom texts. Every year we commence the parliamentary year with an ecumenical service. At this year's ecumenical service at St Paul's, the Reverend Doctor Sarah Bachelard talked about the opportunities before us with the referendum. Our nation has received the great gift of the Statement from the Heart from the First Peoples of this land. This is a wisdom text born of heartbreak and long and continuing suffering, yet marked by an extraordinary generosity of spirit, and open to the possibility that the wounds of our history might be reconciled for the good of all. The Statement from the Heart can only truly be heard and enacted when those to whom it's addressed make contact with, and listen from, their own heart. This is its gift and challenge to us all. The call for a First Nations voice to be enshrined in the Constitution is not just another policy proposal to be debated at the level of strategy and argument. As well as a condition of lasting justice for Australia's First Peoples, it's an invitation for our nation as a whole to grow in wisdom's way. At a time when petty factionalism is tearing at the fabric of national and international communities and the crises of our age escalate, the necessity for wisdom in government and among the peoples of the world is urgent. May this parliament and this nation, all of us, grow in wisdom that we may share with justice the resources of the earth and work together in trust. This is the generational opportunity we have before us to grow in wisdom that we may share with justice the resources of the earth and work together in trust. There are some who see this opportunity for national healing as an opportunity to obfuscate, divide and sow discord. They will be judged for their words. We shouldn't be distracted from our journey. I look forward to working with the community in Bean to have a successful 'yes' vote. 11:24 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest The bill before the House, the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023, is a machinery-of-government bill to enable the referendum on the government's proposed changes to the Constitution to be held. As someone raised in the tiny rural and regional town of Brunswick Junction in the South West of Western Australia, I've grown up with Indigenous people at primary and high school and into my adult life, including the great group of footballers who have played and do play for my local Harvey Bulls Football Club. Mostly, my Indigenous friends are the wonderful Noongar people of our South West. I really value those relationships and the cohesive way people in the South West respect and support each other in their communities. I do not want this to change. I want those relationships to continue to grow even stronger. I certainly don't want to see this referendum and the poor process the government has used become a temporarily or permanently divisive problem in our communities. I certainly don't want it to affect the friendships and relationships that I value in my own life. That's what's bothering me most about how the government has managed this process: the fact that the lack of detail provided by the government has caused, is causing and will continue to cause division, which certainly puts our relationships at risk. As an assistant minister in the coalition government, I had responsibilities that took me to Tennant Creek and Ali Curung in the Northern Territory, where I listened to local people and heard and saw firsthand what was going on in their communities. Amongst many others, I met with the women's refuge; the local group providing the night patrols, looking after young people and taking them home; and the wonderful women elders who were patrolling their local service station every night. I've listened to and shared the concerns of my colleagues Senator Kerrynne Liddle and Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, who've both had some life experiences, including in regional and remote communities, that I have not had and who do not believe the government's proposed changes to the Constitution will improve the lives and outcomes of Indigenous people living in regional and remote parts of Australia. As one of the senators said to me, accountability actually does. As people know, the coalition supports constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Australians. We endorsed and supported the local and regional voices recommended by the Calma-Langton report. But we do not support the government's proposed changes to the Constitution as drafted in the new chapter 9, section 129. We believe that it's the equality of citizenship that is the strength of our democracy. This equality of citizenship has seen people come from all around the world to share this right and to become Australian citizens. It is a precious right indeed. However, I do support this bill passing through the House so that the Australian people can have their say. I want to make it very clear: it is not the members of parliament or senators in this place who will decide the outcome of this referendum; it will be entirely the responsibility and the decision of the Australian people. So every Australian citizen will have their opportunity to have their say, to vote for or against the Labor government's proposed changes to the Australian Constitution, and I'm hoping that every Australian will take their vote seriously. If you've never read the Constitution, please do so. You will find that the strength of our foundation document lies in it being uniquely Australian, very practical, very pragmatic, very matter-of-fact and very effective. It is the very simplicity of it that is its enduring strength. It's the set of rules by which Australia is governed. It has special status because it overrides any other laws and can't be changed by the parliament of the day. While the Constitution enables parliament to create or change laws, the Constitution itself can only be changed through a vote by the people, a referendum. It also sets out the role of the High Court, and one of the High Court's principal functions is to decide disputes about the meaning of the Constitution. So, in the case of the government's proposed changes to the Constitution, it will be the High Court that will have the final say on any disputes arising from the proposed new wording in the Constitution. There will be one question on the ballot paper at the referendum, but it's what will sit behind the question that people will not see on their ballot paper: the wording of the actual chapter that will be written into the Constitution. It is the constitutional and legal risk raised by the wording in the bill which we do not support—the amendment which states that the Voice may make representations to the parliament and the executive government. That is the section in the government's drafting that has caused the most concern and debate by experienced High Court judges, constitutional lawyers, and, more broadly, in the community. I encourage people to read the proposed new chapter but also understand what the new chapter will mean and how it will work in practical terms. This is the core problem for so many Australians. Because the government has not and is not releasing any of the detail, the government hasn't been open and transparent with the Australian people through the duration of the debate around the Voice. People do want to know, and, in fact, they have a right and a responsibility to know exactly what effect the changes will have before they cast their vote. What will the changes do? How will they actually work? What powers and functions will the Voice have? What are the risks? These are very genuine questions. How will the 24 people on the Voice represent the diverse rural, regional and remote communities? How will the voices of the Noongar people in my electorate and elsewhere in Western Australia be heard and reflected by the Voice? And how will the changes improve the lives of Indigenous people living in regional and remote communities? But it's only after the referendum that the final details will be worked out. There hasn't been a constitutional convention to work through all of the concerns and issues or clarify the processes and outcomes and to work through in a multipartisan process the concerns of the constitutional lawyers that we've heard and seen so much about. As the Liberal members noted in their joint select committee dissenting report as part of that short inquiry, the government is seeking constitutional change: … without detail, without process, and without a proper understanding of the risks. This is of serious concern, particularly given that any changes to the Constitution are permanent. If this proposed change to the Constitution is supported by the Australian people, it would mean a permanent change to the Constitution, and any matters from that will be adjudicated by the High Court. Irrespective of your points of view, please have respectful discussions and debates. At the end of the day, each one of you will get the opportunity to have your say when you vote at the referendum. It will be your choice. The final outcome will be decided by you, the Australian people, as it has been in every referendum, which is why changes to the Constitution should not be done without genuine processes and serious consideration. There will be a number of reasons that will guide people's decisions at the ballot box. For some, their decision may be based on their strong belief in the equality of citizenship that underpins our democracy that defines their vote. For others, it may be decided on whether they believe the wording proposed by the government in this bill actually contains unacceptable constitutional and legal risk. For others, their vote may be decided on whether they believe a 24-person group that is a Canberra based group and a bureaucracy will actually deliver better outcomes for Indigenous Australians who live in regional and remote communities. They may have other reasons entirely. However, changes to our Constitution need to be taken very seriously. The joint select committee report was very clear that the government's proposal contains a significant constitutional risk that could affect our system of government. And, if this proposal is accepted by the Australian people at the referendum, as I said, it will be the High Court that ultimately decides. It is the High Court that has precedence over the parliament in interpreting and ruling on the Constitution. The foreword of our Constitution says: One of the High Court's principal functions is to decide disputes about the meaning of the Constitution. We know that very eminent lawyers and former judges cannot agree on what the risk is. That indicates that there actually is a risk. I know that former High Court Chief Justice French said a duty to consult would 'make government unworkable'—that was his view. Former High Court Justice Hayne said it would disrupt the ordinary and efficient working of government to such an extent that it would 'bring government to a halt'—that was his view. Former High Court justices Callinan and Gyles said no one could reliably predict how the High Court would interpret the clause. The joint select committee report also said that the government's proposal does contain significant constitutional risk which could affect our system of government. But, having grown up with Indigenous people, as I said when I started my comments, what I don't want to see is division, either temporary or permanent. I am personally very concerned by the divisive nature of the debate around the Voice, which is why I'm asking people to have a very respectful debate on this issue. The opposition has engaged in a respectful manner throughout this. We support, as I said, constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the first Australians. We endorsed and supported the local and regional voices recommended by Professors Calma and Langton when in government. I am concerned about the process that the government has used throughout the duration of the debate around the Voice. 11:36 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce The Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 bill is indeed historic. Later this year every Australian will have the right—not just the right, actually; the responsibility and the obligation to cast their vote in the referendum to recognise Indigenous heritage in our country and give it a voice in the Constitution. That's a big thing. That's our modern nation's birth certificate, our foundational law which constrains and empowers our parliament, the courts and our system of government. We've been talking about this a lot in my community in the electorate of Bruce in south-east Melbourne. Voting yes will affirm and weave together the three great strands of our national story. Firstly, modern multicultural Australia. The Greater Dandenong and Casey councils are the most multicultural parts of Australia. Ms Fernando 299964 Hear, hear! Mr HILL 86256 The member for Holt, in front of me, hails from this turf; my neighbour. There are people there from more than 150 different countries, speaking well over 200 languages, with more than 100 different faith groups every day. It's a modern miracle. There are few places like it on earth. If you doorknock a street, you can go to 20 houses and find people from 20 different corners of the globe living peacefully and harmoniously side by side. It is sad and pathetic that the great hope of the Liberal and National parties and the 'no' campaign is to spread lies, misinformation and disinformation in multicultural communities. They've said it publicly. That's part of their plan. What I pick up at citizenship ceremonies, events, temples, churches and mosques is respect and support for the 'yes' campaign. Secondly, the other great part of our national story, is where we are, our Westminster democracy, from British and European settlement, our very system of government. Those core parts of our national character: equality, decency, a fair go for others. Thirdly, our Indigenous heritage. The world's oldest continuous culture, with 60,000 years of human history and connection to this land. These can't just be words that we say. They have to mean something. We should be proud as a nation. We should read our country's birth certificate in the Constitution and see this recognised; see it given voice. The Aboriginal people of our lands have asked for this change to the Constitution to recognise their heritage, their culture and the fact that there were people here first before all of us, and to give a voice to parliament and government on issues that affect them. That's important because that exposes the first big lie of those opposing this step, that its 'Labor's referendum', 'Albo's plan or 'the Prime Minister's referendum'. That language is a nasty, cynical political tactic. This flowed from the Uluru Statement from the Heart, from years of constitutional conventions right across the country. That request was made to the Australian people six years ago now, and it is time for every Australian citizen to have their say and to vote for whether we choose to accept this invitation to meet that request from Indigenous Australians and vote yes. This change is both symbolic and practical. Symbolism matters. It's symbolic because it will end more than 120 years of exclusion of First Nations people from our Constitution. This also matters, I believe, for the moral fabric of our country. It's not about feeling guilty or ashamed of our history. I'm proud of our country. But Australians are decent and fair-minded people. We can recognise our history and reconcile our past. Symbolism matters as well for the dignity of Indigenous people. It does impact wellbeing. It does impact mental health. It does impact practical outcomes. It also matters for how others in the world see us—our neighbours in South-East Asia, the Pacific island states—where every bit of research and professional foreign policy advice says how our Indigenous people in this country are treated, how they are recognised, how they are respected, and directly impacts our nation's prospects, our standing in our region, our influence. This change, though, is more than symbolism. It's about making a practical difference for Indigenous Australians. For far too long, governments have been telling Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people what's good for them rather than listening to what they actually need. If you listen to people, you get the results. This referendum is not about guilt or shame. We can't change our history, but we can change our future. It's a fact that Indigenous people in our country have never had a fair go. In order to improve their lives, they need a voice, a guaranteed voice. Frankly, if none of that persuades people, who really loses from this? We tried everything else for over 100 years. 'We're going to do more of the same.' That's the answer of those opposite. It is incredibly disappointing—not surprising, given their leader, but unfortunate—that the opposition have decided to turn what should be a unifying moment for our country, accepting this invitation from Indigenous people, into a partisan political debate by campaigning for 'no'. It's the truth. It's made it hard. There's never been a referendum in our country that has succeeded without the support of the Prime Minister and the opposition leader. Of the 44 put, through our history, only eight have succeeded, and never one where the opposition leader hasn't supported it. History is against us, but we have to make history. I believe in the decency of the Australian people, that they will do that. I'm optimistic. The case for 'yes' is overwhelming and the 'no' case is based on lies, misinformation and disinformation. We heard it from speakers before: 'Well, there is no detail.' The detail is all there. It's been there for years. They resort to making stuff up, and just because they say it in a reasonable voice doesn't make it true. I'm going to finish with myth busters, to rebut some of the myths. The Voice to Parliament will not be a third chamber of parliament. It will not have the power to veto legislation or government policy. Its function is solely an advisory body, to provide advice to government on matters pertaining to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The government doesn't have to accept the advice, nor does it have to do anything the Voice advises it to do. The Voice to Parliament will not be a Canberra voice. It will not be another bureaucracy. The Voice will have representatives from all states and territories as well as remote representatives and Torres Strait Islanders. Representatives on the Voice won't be appointed by the government; they'll be elected by Indigenous people for fixed terms. The Voice to Parliament will not cause a deluge of litigation, nor will it clog up the courts, nor will it set interest rates or determine foreign policy or direct the defence forces or any of the other stupid things we've heard over recent months. The sun will come up. The Voice doesn't give First Nations people special rights compared to the rest of the population. The Voice is about recognition and consultation. Nothing more. Nothing less. The Voice won't divide our nation; it will unite us as we take a crucial step towards reconciliation. It will send a powerful signal to every Australian from every Australian. It will show that the Australian people want their governments to listen to them and work with First Nations people to finally close the gap. In 1993 Paul Keating spoke of the fundamental test: our ability to say to ourselves as a people and to the rest of the world that Australia is a first-rate social democracy, the land of the fair go and the better chance. I have every faith in the Australian people that they will take this opportunity, take it seriously, and make the decision to vote yes to this historic change. 11:44 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I want to take this place to a different place, at a different time. It's a small hall in a small regional community. It's March 1977. The small hall is the Institute in Mount Gambier, and the town Mount Gambier. There were two relatively-soon-to-be new Australians sitting in the front row of a civic ceremony conducted by the then mayor of the town. Those people were my parents. They were sitting there nervously, excited about making their pledge to become Australian citizens—something they considered long and hard because it was at a time when they had to give up their rights to Italian citizenship. They made that choice and, after it, full of pride my father commented to my mother, 'I'm now as Australian as Gough Whitlam, as Don Bradman, as Albert Namatjira.' I attend citizenship ceremonies in that same hall. Not 50 years later, I'm given the great privilege, as the member for Barker, of speaking on behalf of the minister for immigration. I take the opportunity to speak to prospective Australian citizens there, waiting as my parents did—nervously, excitedly—to make two really important points. The first point I make is that ours is a welcoming nation, and I prove that by pointing to my own family history. My parents sat exactly where those prospective citizens sit, and not 40 years later—in fact, barely over 30 years later—their son has been given the great privilege of representing the people of Barker in this place—the ninth person since the Australian Federation to do so. If that's not a statement about how welcoming our nation is, I don't know what is. The second point I make is the most powerful, and that is that once they take their pledge, given that there are no classes of Australian citizenship, they are as Australian as Bob Hawke, Cathy Freeman, Albert Namatjira—the list can go on. This is important because while I'll be able to continue to say our nation is a welcoming one, I'll never be able to make that statement again should we, as a nation, decide to amend the Australian Constitution to include a chapter called 'The Voice'. The truth will be that there will be two classes of Australian citizens: there will be those Australian citizens who can trace their heritage to Australia's First Peoples and there will be others, like me, who can point only to their parents. Now that, with respect, will be a great travesty. Because, whether it's our national anthem or other tunes that people like to refer to colloquially as our national anthem, we talk about being one, but we will no longer be one, and that is the truth. I want to take this opportunity to ask the Prime Minister to pause and to consider seriously what he's about to do. We should take every opportunity in this place to bring Australians together and to unite Australians. He has an opportunity right now to pause and to reconsider this trajectory. He knew, on assuming the prime ministership, that he had choice. He could pursue the Voice to Parliament, or he could accept a different proposal. In 1967 we were talking about a referendum to end the racial divide in this country and to recognise our Indigenous Australians. I can't believe we're in a position where we're now considering doing the exact opposite. That's where we find ourselves. Right now, the Prime Minister should, for fear that this proposal fail, pause and accept the proposal that we, effectively, amend the preamble to the Constitution. If he were to do that, our nation would unify behind him and we would get a 1967-style resolution—I anticipate that the 'yes' vote in that situation would exceed 90 per cent—and we would be taking a significant step towards the continued unification of the Australian people. Personally, I've a preference for the phrase 'Indigenous heritage, British foundation and an immigrant character'. I think those words are elegant but speak to all of us. What a great way to describe the Australian journey. If the Prime Minister were to do that, he would show himself to be the statesman that Australia needs right now. The alternative is to rush headlong into this proposal, which he seems committed to, and we will end up with a divided Australia irrespective of the outcome, I suggest respectfully to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let's imagine a circumstance where there's a slim victory by the 'yes' campaign—a 52-48 result and just over the line in relation to the number of states required. That won't bring Australians together. It won't. Equally, a slim victory by the 'no' campaign will not bring Australians together. Instead, what needs to happen right now is we need to put partisan politics aside. We don't need, with respect, contributions like the one I just heard about how this is about politics. We need to say: 'You know what? We're not going to make Australians choose in a situation that ends in them sadly divided. We're going to pursue an option that will bring all Australians together, like the great leaders of this country did in 1967.' Now, it's an offer. I'd love to think that the Prime Minister will be inclined to accept it. I think we'd be a stronger, more united nation if we did it, and who knows where that would take us? By the way, I would support consideration of legislating a voice at the same time, because the concern I have is not this mechanism but where it's going to be placed. This proposal is to put the Voice in the Australian Constitution permanently. There's no opportunity to amend that. There's no opportunity to tinker with the proposal. It's uncertain. It's risky. I get all that, but the biggest concern I have is that it's permanent. It's that permanency that I have a real problem with. The reality is that when we developed the Australian Constitution over 120 years ago there were nationwide debates. They were open debates. We didn't have the internet to socialise those discussions back then, so the debates were transcribed and shared with Australians. It took a decade to come up with a world-leading document which has solidified our democracy, as I said, for 122 years. Compare that to this process. There have been meetings behind closed doors; there was, I think, a 2½-week committee process; and there was a proposal, a proposal that hasn't led to bipartisanship, because we haven't had constitutional conventions like those which we had in the lead-up to the republic debate. None of that has happened. So this process, instead of being one that's trying to bring Australians together and get Australians to vote at a very high level on an agreed position, is one where Australians are thrust into tribes. The member opposite said that the detail has been out there for years. Well, no—the Calma-Langton report certainly hasn't been around for years. But even the report itself talks of 'options'. Right now, I can't tell my electorate whether the 24 members of the Voice would be individuals elected or selected. I think that's a pretty fundamental thing. Indeed, when the original authors of the Australian Constitution sat down, I can't imagine they would've accepted this: 'Oh, look, we'll put a proposal to the Australian people; it's going to establish a parliament and a judiciary. We'll have dual chambers in our parliament. But I don't know whether we've decided yet whether the members of parliament will be elected or selected.' That's ludicrous to even think of. Those opposite say: 'Oh, look, it'll just be a voice—an advisory body.' The Prime Minister himself has said that it would take a 'brave' government to act in defiance of the Voice. The reality is: a constitutionally enshrined voice to parliament will almost inevitably be interpreted by the High Court as having an implied obligation on behalf of the parliament to listen. Even the Prime Minister himself has said that it would be a brave parliament that would act in defiance of a recommendation of the Voice. I am proud to be a member of this place where, across both houses, we have 11 members of parliament elected to serve, dutifully, their constituencies. That is a great thing, and I hope that we see more of that—just as I hope we see more Australians from Italian descent and more Australians from the other threads that make up the great tapestry of multicultural Australia. But, with respect, we are going to end up in a circumstance where our Australian government is hamstrung, if we continue down this route. Now, the Prime Minister loves to refer to this as a 'modest' change. Well, effectively, there are three operational chapters of the Australian Constitution. There's the judiciary, there's the parliament and there's the executive. And yet it's a 'modest' change, it is suggested by the Prime Minister, to include another chapter. Now, this is a full chapter in a document where every word has meaning and where there is jurisprudence from 122 years providing the interpretation of every single word in that document. This is no modest change. Be under no illusions: this is a big deal, and it is the single most significant proposed change to the Australian Constitution in 122 years. Its proposed impacts are the most significant of any proposal put to the Australian people, and I'd be much more comfortable if this had come about following a well-tried-and-true constitutional convention type process—or, better still, after we had unified the Australian people around changing the preamble to the Australian Constitution and we had implemented a voice via legislation, which is, as I've said, capable of amendment. Instead, I've got to be honest and I'm going to call it for what it is. This is a blatant political attempt to create a wedge between those opposite and those who sit on this side of the place, so that the Prime Minister can have his Redfern moment. You know what? Dividing the Australian people is not worth that. If he wants to be exalted as a statesman, he should stop this process right now and he should tell the Australian people he's going to join with his opponents to propose changing the preamble in the Australian Constitution. That will bring Australians together. 12:00 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham I acknowledge Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia and as the traditional owners of this land for over 60,000 years. I also acknowledge and pay my respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples, on whose ancestral lands we meet today. It is an honour to stand here in Australia's parliament and offer my support for the Voice to Parliament and the proposed change to our Constitution. I urge the parliament to pass the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. The time for the Voice and the constitutional amendment has well and truly come. In fact, it is long overdue. Our Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, has described the Uluru Statement from the Heart as 'a generous offer from our First Nations people'. He is absolutely correct. The Minister for Indigenous Australians, the Hon. Linda Burney, sees the proposed referendum as a unifying moment for Australia. This is based on recognition of over 65,000 years of continuous connection to land by First Nations people and listening to grassroots solutions to help close the gap and improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It is a historic opportunity which we must not ignore. Governments of all persuasions have been at best only partly successful in leading the community in reducing the inequalities facing Indigenous families and communities. These inequalities are in everyday life and in the opportunities available for current and future generations. Over the last 20 years there have been welcome improvements, including in infant mortality rates and the number of First Nations people completing year 12 or above. But today in 2023 Indigenous Australians live about nine years less than non-Indigenous Australians. And we can see vast inequalities in health status, unemployment levels and imprisonment rates across Australia. We as a community have a long way to go to close the gap. We have to do things differently if we want positive results, and I truly believe that the Voice to Parliament is a vital element of that new way. The Voice will be an independent, representative advisory body. It will speak to the parliament and to the executive government. It is not a third chamber of parliament; rather, as the Attorney-General said in his second reading speech, the Voice: … complements the existing structures of Australia's democratic system and enhances the normal functioning of government and the law. Adding to that democratic element is the assurance that regional voices are an important component of the Voice. It's about grassroots solutions being heard in Canberra. Our local Indigenous community leaders urge all Australians to support the Voice. Local Indigenous gentleman and advocate Mark Bloxsome and his wife, Lynda, who I met with recently, are concerned: There is a lot of confusion and misinformation out there about the Voice … The referendum … is about overdue constitutional recognition. The confusion and misinformation getting around is actually clouding the issue. Uncle Richard Davis is a Dharawal man who was born in Wollongong and grew up in Coomaditchie in Kemblawarra. As chairman of the Illawarra Aboriginal Corporation he is following in the footsteps of his parents, who were instrumental in founding the organisation. He says: The Voice to Parliament is the right thing to do. It's as simple as that. We have never been acknowledged formally in the constitution as the first custodians of this country, and it is time for that to occur. The Voice is something we can build on and build a better future for everyone in this country. Dr Jodi Edwards, a Yuin Dharawal custodian, has dedicated her life to connecting with and forming local communities and contributing to Aboriginal education across New South Wales. She says: We need to support the Voice to parliament. The Voice will help reshape and shape laws and policies which affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and Communities, and enable Parliament to gain direct input … about their future. Michelle Wilson is from the Coomaditchie United Aboriginal Corporation, an organisation dedicated to raising the esteem, pride and dignity of young Aboriginal people in their culture and heritage. Her hope is that the Voice will provide more practical and realistic advice to government. I wholeheartedly support the legislation and urge all Australians to vote yes in the referendum. 12:05 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore Later this year, Australians will cast their vote in a referendum to change our nation's rulebook, the Constitution. There is no doubt about it: this is one of the most significant and important decisions Australians will ever make about our system of government. Why? Because, if this referendum is carried, Australians will have voted to change the way our nation is governed in a permanent way. The nation that we know today, our representative parliamentary system of democracy and our lives will be changed dramatically, and, unfortunately, arguably not for the better. There is no doubt about it: Labor's Canberra based Voice is four things: it's risky, it's unknown, it's divisive and, on top of all that, it's permanent. The Liberal Party is opposed to the Prime Minister's Canberra-centric Voice. But, despite our opposition, it is a decision for the Australian people. Australians expect to vote on the issue later this year. As we have said, we will not stand in the way of the Australian people having their say. The Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act requires the Electoral Commissioner to distribute an official pamphlet containing arguments for and against a constitutional change. The arguments for or against a constitutional change must be authorised by a majority of parliamentarians who voted for or against it in parliament. In other words, some parliamentarians must vote no to this bill to ensure that the Liberal Party is able to provide substantive input into the official 'no' case, while supporting the bill in parliament. I am strongly opposed to the Voice proposal. As a first-generation migrant to Australia from Singapore, my birth certificate is very different to the birth certificates of most members in this parliament because it records my race as Eurasian. A search of the Singaporean government website reveals that official documents routinely record a citizen's race to achieve social policy objectives, such as to maintain racial diversity when allocating public housing or determining which subjects a student is permitted to study at school—as was the case during the 1980s, when Chinese students were required to study Mandarin, and not Malay, as their second language, as part of a pro-Chinese government campaign. In Singapore, a citizen's race excludes them from holding certain positions in parliament, due to racial quotas. Not so in Australia. I never want to see racial differentiation introduced into our system of government. It is refreshing that my Australian citizenship certificate and those of millions of fellow migrants do not record our race. It gives us the freedom to be equally Australian citizens with the liberty to aspire to any office in the land; to stand for election to parliament and perhaps one day serve as Prime Minister or Governor-General; to live where we choose; and to study whatever subjects we choose. Therefore, we must resist differentiating Australians by race in the Constitution. The big danger with the Voice is the destruction of equality of citizenship. As my colleague Senator Nampijinpa Price, a proud Walpiri woman, says, 'We are one together, not two divided'. Enshrining our Constitution a body for only one group of Australians means permanently dividing Australians by race. The Voice will be a permanent, publicly funded group for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders with additional rights embedded in our Constitution. The Voice will forever be a symbol of division rather than an instrument of unity. The coalition does not believe that that is what Australians want. Our Constitution is the foundation document on which modern Australia is built. But it is not complete. It could not foresee that, over the next 122 years, Australia would become one of the great multicultural nations of the world, a country in which more than a quarter of Australians, including myself, my mother and my father, were born in another country, and almost half of all Australians have one parent born overseas. And, of course, our Constitution did not recognise our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. That all changed in 1967, when Australians, overwhelmingly, at a referendum, voted to bring our country together. The story of our Indigenous heritage is one of three great threads that are woven into the fabric of our nation. The other two threads, our British foundation and our immigrant character, have intertwined with it to build a nation with a unique character, made prosperous through agriculture, mining and industrialisation. The Constitution is our most important legal document. It establishes the legal foundation of our country, a nation moving forward. The Australian Constitution did not arrive as a perfectly completed document. In fact, took years of careful consideration and debate in its drafting. No-one in this place would argue that it is a perfect document and, indeed, every word is open to interpretation. By enshrining the Voice into the Constitution, we deny the parliament the power to alter it by legislation, as was the case when this parliament legislated to abolish the dysfunctional Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. Further, enshrining Labor's Voice will open a legal can of worms with challenges and interpretations adjudicated by the unelected High Court. Labor's proposed model isn't just the Voice to Parliament but to all areas of executive government. It gives unlimited scope, from the Reserve Bank to Centrelink. There is a significant risk of considerable delays to government decision-making, creating dysfunctional government. The Hon. Ian Callinan AC KC, a former High Court judge, said: … I would foresee a decade or more of constitutional and administrative law litigation arising out of the Voice. Former High Court Justice Hayne said it would 'disrupt the ordinary and efficient working of government' to such an extent that it would 'bring government to a halt'. It is a matter of public record that even the government's own constitutional expert group could not reach an agreement on what this constitutional change would do. Our Constitution has served our nation well in terms of stability. One of the key differences between the Liberal Party and Labor is that we, as Liberals, place far greater trust in the democratic institutions of our country. We are cautious about transferring the authority out of the hands of the people and into the hands of the courts, who do not represent them. Let me be clear: I do not support the risky, divisive, unknown and permanent change to our Constitution. Changing our Constitution is a momentous step. It hasn't been done by referendum since 1977. However, Labor is refusing to reveal the details of legislation before Australians vote. The Voice is a three-stage process: voice, treaty, truth. This referendum is only the beginning of the process—the tip of the iceberg. Many Voice activists say this will be the first step towards reparations and other radical changes to existing property rights. How can a nation sign a treaty with some of its own citizens? My constituents have continually raised their concerns with me, asking how much it will cost them. Prime Minister, how much will the Voice cost? How many extra public servants will be required to administer the Voice? What is the anticipated recurrent expenditure? How much will taxpayers spend on remuneration, motor vehicle fleets, accommodation and travel expenditure? These are all valid questions which the Australian public are entitled to ask. Budget Paper No. 2 in the 2023-24 budget makes clear the government will provide $364 million over three years to deliver the referendum on the Voice. This includes $336.6 million over three years for the AEC to conduct the referendum, $12 million for the National Indigenous Australians Agency and the Museum of Australian Democracy for civics education, $10.5 million for the Department of Health and Aged Care to increase mental health support for Indigenous Australians during the referendum period and a further $5.5 million for the National Indigenous Australians Agency for consultation, policy and delivery. In 2023-24 the government has allocated $4.3 billion for the National Indigenous Australians Agency, which has over 1,400 staff. Their role is to advise the government on improving the lives of Indigenous Australians. Labor's Voice would basically replicate this, and it is not clear how the two would interact. Australians deserve all the details before they vote on a permanent change to the Constitution. Bureaucracy slows things down. I have never met anyone who wants more bureaucracy in their life. The Albanese Canberra based Voice will mean administration and decision-making of government departments will be wrapped in another layer of complexity and will no doubt be slowed down by this process. If the Voice is given the constitutional function of making representations, many say it will have to be told in advance of relevant matters that are being acted on before they are decided by government. The Voice would then be given the time and resources to analyse these matters to decide whether they will put forward a position. If that is not done, its constitutional rights will have been breached, opening government up to constitutional and administrative law litigation. How can government operate effectively with such constraints? This potential administrative paralysis will happen across all government departments and other forms of government. Currently in our parliamentary representative system of democracy 27 million Australians are ably represented by 227 federal members of the House of Representatives and senators. This 47th Parliament is the most ethnically diverse parliament on record, with 11 members identifying as Indigenous. By proportion, Indigenous people are more than equitably represented in our present electoral system. The government's inquiry into this bill has been embarrassingly poor and has denied Australians the opportunity to understand the impact of constitutional change. The inquiry into the 1999 republic referendum had 12 hearings, after a full constitutional convention that invited delegates from around the country. However, this parliament's joint select committee was allowed less than 28 hours for hearings, including the time spent on introductory and ceremonial aspects. Incredibly, the joint select committee was given just six weeks. The government have also denied Australians the benefit of a constitutional convention, which could have ironed out details and narrowed the issues in dispute. As a first generation migrant, I value equality of citizenship and celebrate that my Australian citizenship certificate does not classify me by my race, unlike my birth certificate. Yet the fundamental premise of the referendum segregates Australians by race. The Albanese government has rushed through the referendum process without providing necessary detail, exposing the operation of government to legal challenge in the courts. The Australian people should never be asked to vote on a constitutional change without fully knowing what they are voting for. 12:20 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta The previous speaker on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 raised a litany of risks associated with the Voice: cost, sovereignty, bureaucracy, process and administration. But the bigger risk isn't this modest change. The bigger risk is that the situation in Australia remains the same—that we retain the gap in life expectancy, that we retain poor educational outcomes for First Australians and that we do not change the shocking health outcomes that persist in many Indigenous communities. That is the risk that First Nations Australians are living with today, and that is why we need a change and that is why we need a Voice. With this proposed referendum, our nation faces a test of maturity. Are we mature enough to recognise and acknowledge the reality of our nation's past—the pain and suffering caused by decades of injustice? Are we mature enough to strive towards a better version of ourselves—to strive towards a fuller and more inclusive definition of what it means to be an Australian? In the language of our anthem, can we advance Australia to be more fair? It's a fundamental fact that listening to communities leads to better laws, better policies and better outcomes, and the Voice proposal enables us to do just that. It will allow for proper representation from our First Nations peoples to inform the decisions that govern their lives, their communities and their future. It will allow for justice and help close the divide when it comes to education, health and economic outcomes. But, at the end of the day, it's also just the right thing to do. It's also just a change that we'll look back on in years to come and see as a positive movement forward in our national story. I represent a community built on the lands of the Burramattagal people, a clan of the Dharug. Parramatta is a great city, an aspirational city, and it's got a bright future emerging fast as a global city and one of the largest economies in New South Wales. But Parramatta's future is built on solid foundations, set over 60,000 years ago by the Dharug people on land where the fresh and salt water meet in the Parramatta River, creating fertile ground in which generations of Australians have flourished. The lands that the Dharug people presided over and took care of are rich in meaning and resources. Today in the heart of Parramatta's CBD, along the banks of the Parramatta River, you can see the artwork paying tribute to the Burramattagal people, telling the story of Parramatta through the eyes of our First Nations peoples, from time immemorial to the frontier wars to the decades of colonial policies that dug the trench that exists today in the health and education outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. I believe that it's time to add new chapter to this story—a chapter defined by recognition and reconciliation. This is what the First Nations voice is all about. It's what's inspired the design principles which will guide the Voice and ensure fair First Nations representation. The Voice will be able to make representations to the parliament and executive on matters relating to First Nations peoples. The Voice will be chosen by First Nations peoples based on the wishes of local communities and be representative of First Nations communities. The Voice will be empowering. It will be community led. It will be accountable and transparent. The Voice will make a positive difference. 12:25 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume Later this year Australians will face an important choice, a choice that will have lasting impacts on our country, and that is whether we will change the Constitution. All Australians want to see improved outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. Of course we do. We all want to see practical outcomes that improve the lives of Indigenous Australians, especially in some of our most remote communities. What is happening to Australians in those communities is truly terrible—devastating. As Peter Dutton has said, no leader, no party and no Australian occupies the moral high ground on this matter. The Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023, this proposal—the government's Canberra voice—does not provide any practical solutions that will address the issues Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians are facing. How can it? There is no detail. We do not know what it will look like, let alone how it will operate. Details should come before the vote, not after it. Australians deserve the detail so they can make an informed choice. To me personally, there are three good reasons to vote no. While we do support the Australian people having their say, let me be clear: we do not support this risky, divisive, unknown and permanent change to our Constitution. The first point I'd make is that this proposal before us is permanent. It is impossible to change without another referendum. Once our High Court makes an interpretation, the parliament cannot overrule it. Our Constitution, which this referendum seeks to amend, is, of course, our founding document, a document that has always intentionally been minimalistic. It's a short and relatively succinct constitution, deliberately so. It emerged from many, many years of constitutional conventions and deliberations. I encourage all Australians, if they get the opportunity, to have a look at some of those conventions and deliberations. They were Australians at their very best. They weren't Australians at that point, of course—they were part of a whole series of different colonies—but it was Australia at its best. It gave birth to the modern Australia that we know. This document is a recognition of the work, the collaboration and the time that went into its formation, of people from across all parts of Australia collaborating and working together to come to a document which has served us so well. Like many Australians, I'm sceptical about changes to our Constitution. Changes to our founding document have the ability to change the fabric of how our government, our country, operates, not always for the best. That's the very real risk for this proposal. The proposal risks that the administration and decision-making of government departments will be wrapped in another layer of complexity and, no doubt, be slowed down by the process. The government denied Australians the benefit of a constitutional convention in keeping with what brought our founding document into place in the first place. A convention could have ironed out details and narrowed the issues in dispute, but the government chose not to have one. The Australian people should be trusted to make an informed choice. They should never again be asked to vote on a permanent constitutional change without knowing what they are voting for. The second point I would make and reason why I'll be voting no is that this voice proposal is broad and it is uncertain. Australia hasn't changed its Constitution by referendum since 1967. These are big decisions that Australians rightly take very seriously. We want to know how proposed changes will work and what the impacts will be. Will there be unintended consequences? But the government has been deliberately vague. The government is asking Australians to vote without knowing how the Voice will operate. We don't even have the most basic details you would expect with a change of this magnitude. Australians deserve all the details before they vote on a permanent change to our Constitution. Is it a fourth arm of government? Is it another chamber of the parliament? Will there be another physical chamber? How many new politicians will there be? How much will it cost? What will be the practical applications of the Voice when it comes to decisions of government legislation? Will it delay processes of government, particularly urgent processes, as we saw during the pandemic? These are all questions the government can answer and has chosen not to, and clearly we don't have the detail we would expect of such a significant change. We have asked questions in this place that the government hasn't answered, like the scope of the Voice. Does it extend to the Reserve Bank, to Centrelink, to the many other agencies that work across government? How will it apply to them? What's very clear is that the breadth of what is being proposed could extend to those agencies. The practical operation of this is a very serious issue for governing this nation, and practical application matters. I learnt this in my previous life, in business and out in the community before coming to this place. Great ideas are one thing, but practical application is ultimately what matters. We don't know how the Voice will practically engage with decision-making processes, what role the Voice role will have in relation to the legislative processes, for instance. In fact, the Prime Minister himself has admitted it would be a very brave government that didn't take the advice of the Voice, whatever it may be. What is clear is that the proposal will reach far beyond just the issues that relate to Indigenous affairs. Labor's proposed Voice model isn't just to the parliament, but to all areas of executive government. Worryingly, there's no agreement amongst legal experts on the impact of the Voice and how the High Court will interpret such a constitutional change. For instance, Ian Callinan AC KC, former High Court judge, has said: … I would foresee a decade or more of constitutional and administrative law litigation arising out of a voice … We know that even the government's own Constitutional Expert Group could not reach agreement on what the constitutional change would do. The Solicitor-General has conceded there is room for argument, and we've former High Court Chief Justice French say a duty to consult would 'make government unworkable'. Former High Court Justice Hayne said it would disrupt the ordinary and efficient working of government to such an extent it would 'bring government to a halt'. Former High Court Judge Callinan, again, said no-one could reliably predict how the High Court would interpret the constitutional change. And former Federal Court Justice Giles has said the same thing. Let me turn to the third reason I will be voting no. We need to bring Australians together on tough issues, not divide them. The starting point here is that every Australian citizen is equal in the eyes of our founding document. This is a fundamental principle underlying and underpinning our democracy. All Australians are treated equally in the Constitution. Any and every Australian can be a member of our parliament, our judiciary, our executive—and that means Australians across all walks of life. We want to see Australians across all walks of life in this place. That's the purpose. At the end of the day, it is the House of Representatives. Labor's Canberra Voice will change this equality of citizenship that is so fundamental to what I have been brought up with and what has been such a successful formula in our nation. What's being proposed is to create a new institution where this is no longer the case, and the risk is that it will divide Australians and not unite them. Enshrining in our Constitution a body for only one group of Australian citizens means dividing Australians by race. It says to some of the most marginalised Australians, the Australians who do need appropriate support from this place, that you are different from everyone else, and you'll be treated differently forevermore. This proposal will enshrine in our Constitution a group right. Traditionally, constitutions around the world, to the extent that they acknowledge rights, have individual rights. There is no comparison with this group right in other countries. It would be unprecedented. That's not what we're about here in Australia. As I mentioned, the great thing about this country, the principle that I grew up with and believe in very deeply and very firmly, is that in our Constitution and in our nation all citizens should be treated as equal citizens in the eyes of the law. The Canberra based voice is permanent, broad, uncertain and risks being divisive. There is a better way forward. What's not permanent, broad, uncertain and divisive is establishing local voices. It's those local voices that know where the problems are. We all know in this place that local communities understand best what's right for them and what's needed for them. Every local community is different. I see that even across my community in Hume, which extends from south-west Sydney all the way out to Central West New South Wales. Every part of my electorate is different, with different communities with different needs, and that is absolutely true of our Indigenous communities as well. It's those local voices that we want to hear from, that we see as solving the hardest problems and needing strong and effective governance most of all. This wouldn't be a Canberra based voice but local and regional voices, recommended in the co-design process by Professors Tom Calma, and Marcia Langton. They are bodies embedded in local communities and regions, established at the grassroots level, and they would be recognised by legislation. These local voices have the potential to be engine rooms for real change on the ground, the change we all want to see, because they're tailored to the needs of that community. We could do that right now. We could establish that process, get it working, evaluate it, strengthen it and build from there. Outside of the Canberra bubble this is how businesses, community organisations and not-for-profits develop now. It's how the real world works. We have an opportunity to do that right now with agreement right across this place. What works, you keep; what doesn't work, you fix. This proposal being put forward by the government doesn't do that. Local and regional voices would not be divisive but would unite. Let me finish by saying that the sad reality is that it seems the government is happy to divide Australians. That's not what we want to see, but we have seen alarming signs of the divisive nature of this proposal by some. We have seen some appalling behaviour. Some of those on the 'no' side of this case have been treated in a way that is truly a disgrace. The sad reality of modern politics is that many now want to play the person rather than the ball. I implore both sides of this argument, both sides of this important debate, to focus on the issues, focus on the debate and focus on the arguments. It is a reflection on the people who have engaged in some of the less positive behaviour, rather than a reflection on the issue at hand. This sort of behaviour has unfortunately become part of the activist playbook for some. I won't engage in those tactics, and I certainly urge others to stay on the right side of this debate, which is to focus on the issues. I'm calling on all sides to be respectful in this debate. In this country we can disagree without personal attacks. The outcome of this referendum is not any political party's choice. It's not the choice of the Referendum Working Group, and it's not the choice of companies, businesses or sporting codes. It's the choice of the Australian people. This is every Australian's choice. 12:39 Ms 298121 Reid SITOU () (): I am so grateful to be able to stand in this place to talk about the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 bill in front of these flags here: the Australian flag and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags. I think it is important that we recognise that these flags symbolise the entirety of the Australian story. This is a message I often start my citizenship ceremonies with, when I have the privilege of going. That is a story to those new citizens who have just been sworn in—that they are now stepping into their Australian citizenship and that they are part of this Australian story. They are newer, and they may be adding more chapters, but they are part of an Australian story—not one that began 200 years ago; they are part of an Australian story that stretches back 60,000 years. When they stand up at their citizenship ceremonies they do it in front of those three flags, and it's important that they do. But, unfortunately, our Constitution is a truncated story. It doesn't fully express who we are as a country. It doesn't fully express who those individuals were who made up this country 60,000 years ago. I think it's time we tell the full Australian story. The Uluru Statement from the Heart is an incredible document, one which I hope becomes part of Australia's historical treasures. There were two parts in that document that I found particularly poignant. The first, at the very beginning of the document, is where it references the connection First Nations people have to this land. They call it 'a spiritual connection'. I was struck by those lines because whilst my connection to this country is deep, personal and emotional, and I'm thankful every day for my Australian citizenship, I don't however feel a spiritual connection to this land. Maybe it's because my family are migrants, maybe it's because I'm a city dweller, but I don't have that spiritual connection with our land, waters and skies. First Nations people do. Their connection to this continent is spiritual, profound and enduring, and there is much for us to learn from them. That we are home to the oldest continuing culture in the world is truly remarkable. That the culture, traditions, knowledge and storytelling of Australia's First Nations people has endured for more than 60,000 years is something we ought to celebrate. Yet, for too long, we haven't. We have denied First Nations people their identity, land and kin. The consequences of that have been long-lasting, the extent of which is captured in the Uluru Statement from the Heart: 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. That, to me, answers the 'why'. Just think on that: proportionally First Nations people are the most incarcerated people on the planet. I've also heard the Minister for Indigenous Australians say in this place that there are communities in Australia that do not have access to clean drinking water. Just think on that: in modern Australia there are people who do not have access to clean drinking water. It should hurt us in our souls that there are communities in Australia who are so disadvantaged. The answer to why we need a voice to parliament is so clear. It's time to get this done. It's time we recognise and celebrate First Nations people in the Constitution. It's time we listened to First Nations people and gave them a greater say over the policies and decisions that impact them. It's time we demonstrate we are a big-hearted and compassionate country. It's time we as Australians rise to meet this moment. 12:44 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper by leave—I've previously spoken in this place on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023, and my views are very well known, if you paid attention to the media this morning. I do want to talk about the Constitution because in the Constitution there is a section that talks about the separation of powers between the judiciary, the parliament and also law enforcement. It's been a long-held principle that that separation of powers should be adhered to. I would not contemplate telling a police officer how to do his job, nor would I consider in any way telling a magistrate, judge or justice how to do his or her job, or criticising a decision made, whether in sentencing or delivering a judgement to a jury. These principles are important, as is respect—respect for each other and respect for one's personal opinion. The debate on the Voice to Parliament, in my view, is lacking respect. You have one vote. I have one vote. Every Australian has one vote. It is yours to make. I will not criticise you for your opinion. But when those on the 'yes' side criticise those who choose to say no, it simply demonstrates the reason why those who choose to say no will not stand up publicly—because they are labelled racist, disgraceful or paternalistic. So I urge those people, I urge people on both sides, to show respect to one another. I will not walk back from my speech. I am proud of what I have said and I am proud more so of what I have done in this place. I support every member of my community and I support every First Nations person and every First Nations people. This is not a question about whether we should recognise them in the Constitution. They should be in the preamble, and I have said that all along. This is about a voice to parliament. Let's not conflate the two issues. 12:48 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell The Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 is a fairly simple and straightforward bill. It is designed to set in motion the process for a national referendum on establishing the Voice. It should not be complicated nor obfuscated by concerns as to how the Voice will operate, because that is a discussion for another time and place. It should not be clouded by spurious predictions of legal challenges to the Voice, most of which have been carefully examined and dismissed by senior legal minds. It should not be rejected by those who claim it is not the ultimate solution to centuries of injustice and disadvantage, because it's only intended as a beginning, and it should be embraced as such. The point of this bill is to enable the parliament to ask all Australians about whether our Constitution should formally recognise the First Peoples of this nation, in a long-awaited extension of the time we asked all Australians back in 1967 if Aboriginal people should be counted in the national census. We will also ask all Australians whether our First Nations people should have an enshrined body to speak to government for better practical outcomes. It is about nothing more and nothing less than this. This referendum we wish to put before the Australian people arises from a long and extensive conversation and consultation. There are many in this chamber who have and will present wise and passionate arguments in favour of this bill; there are many who will disagree. Perhaps I can offer a point of difference by providing the perspective of a migrant Australian. I still remember several decades ago when multiculturalism was considered a radical new policy. Once, so-called new Australians, of which I was one, arriving here 60 years ago this year, were expected to bury their birth languages and cultures to suppress their identities and assimilate into 'the Australian'—in that context, meaning the white Anglo-Celtic way of life. This in itself is quite an irony since a truly Australian way of life might be better equated with a number of our Indigenous cultures. After years of political struggle and campaigning, it is now widely recognised that Australia is a more just, richer, better-resourced and better-adapted society for its cultural and linguistic diversity through the embracing of multiculturalism. I trust that we as a nation also have the maturity now to embrace a formal acknowledgement of a voice for first Australians who, for so long, have been marginalised and discriminated against. The Constitution is the document that sets out who we are, what we aspire to and what our intentions as a nation are. It's right that it should also name and acknowledge the traditional owners and custodians of the lands, water and sky. The argument in favour of establishing the Voice beyond the main one, which is what multiple representative forums of Indigenous Australians have asked for, also requires a historical understanding. In the past, we have had various bodies and advisory councils to provide advice on important policy matters that particularly affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities. But they have always existed and operated at the behest of the government of the day. For decades there have been calls for an enduring representative body, not one that can be abolished or starved of funding by a minister or department. A constitutionally enshrined voice can establish the enduring vehicle by which Indigenous Australians can speak directly to parliament and government about the real-life issues facing their communities and how best to deal with them. We know that outcomes for First Nations communities in areas of longstanding and structural disadvantage are always better when government, policymakers and service delivery organisations work in partnership with these communities. We know how so many programs and interventions, some well-intentioned, others not so well thought out, have failed. They have failed to address the gaps in health, longevity, justice and flourishing caused by decades of dispossession, dislocation and discrimination. We've learnt the importance of working with community, not imposing upon community, if we hope to achieve real change and empowerment. This bill is simple, but it is also profound. It is deeply symbolic, but it is also about real and lasting change. It is about facing our past with honesty and embracing our future with hope and inclusion. It is about our integrity as a nation. It is about heart. It is about common sense. It is about honouring our First Nations people, as they have asked us to. So let's now give our fellow Australians the chance to answer this call. 12:53 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt As a representative of all of the Torres Strait and a considerable number of remote Indigenous communities throughout Cape York, I've developed an understanding of the issues that these communities face over my many years of service in the electorate of Leichhardt. When we talk about Indigenous disadvantage, we cannot equate the circumstances in remote Indigenous communities with those in metropolitan areas or larger regional towns. They are two very entirely different realities. The variety of choices and supports available to Indigenous Australians is not insignificant, but the supports are simply not found in the remote locations. There are choices that can be made in the metropolitan areas in schooling, universities, health, housing and jobs. There's no shortage of funding for Indigenous people to make these choices. Tick the box on the application and funding is available. The real challenge is being able to get people engaged and extending the support into our remote areas. The challenge there is finding a way of making sure that Indigenous Australians in these metropolitan, outer metropolitan and regional towns actually take the opportunities that are there. There are great examples of Indigenous Australians who are engaged and are doing wonderful things. We've got successful examples of doctors, lawyers, teachers, leaders across industries and even politicians. There are even some you might not expect, like Daniel Joinbee from Yarrabah, who runs Gunggandji Aerospace, which is the only 100 per cent Indigenous owned aerospace consultancy; and Sharon Bonython-Ericson of Illuminate FNQ, which is driving opportunities in STEM for kids and helping grow the capacity of regional Indigenous and non-Indigenous kids to quite literally reach for the stars and to follow in the footsteps of people like Daniel Joinbee. Another fine example is Tania Major from Kowanyama. She is a very proud Koko Bera woman. She went to university. She's a criminologist. She's done some fabulous work engaging her community through softball. While she's no longer living there, she's very committed to that community. She was also Young Australian of the Year. The point is that there's no shortage of capable Indigenous Australians. Unfortunately, when you make your way out into the very remote communities across Cape York, across the country and throughout other areas of Australia, the story is quite different. These choices and supports are not available and many of the opportunities that do exist are only for government-driven Community Development Program work. It's quite sad to see so many young people aspiring to be just CDP workers. Those who wish to remain in their communities are faced with limited options. They can be a ranger, an Indigenous health worker or a teachers aid. They are the main opportunities, but there are other roles that have relatively limited upward momentum within their respective remote communities. It might be of interest to members of this House to know that, unlike in metropolitan, outer metropolitan and regional towns, should a young person in these remote communities want to go out and make something of themselves, aspiring for a better life, but wish to remain in their community, they don't have the option of even having their own housing. They must stay in their family home because that is all that is built—family homes. Whereas, if they were employed somewhere else and then applied for a job in that remote community, they would be afforded a house by the department. So they would get a house if they flew in, but if they stay there they're not entitled to one. What a disincentive. For instance, a young person working irregular hours in, say, the health sector in the community is surrounded by their family—from infants to toddlers right through to grandparents—all living under the same roof. It's really not an insignificant issue. It's complex. It just reinforces further elements of disadvantage. You can't have your own space as a mature-aged young person in a community. You can't have your own place to learn to be house proud. You're trying to get ahead, but the needs and priorities of your entire family across generations can make it exceptionally difficult. And we expect this to be functional. These young people can't move into their own place. Anywhere else it's a rite of passage. This simple illustration says to me that they in fact don't have the choices and the supports. When we are talking about disadvantage in these areas, this is where we need to focus to improve the quality of life and to get better engagement and better choices. It seems that all we ever do is go around in circles. We saw what happened with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. ATSIC started with effectively the same aspirations being promoted for the Voice. Sadly, it was another abject failure. It was particularly a failure again in these remote communities. A privileged few did very well out of it, but the majority of those in remote communities have continued to largely suffer and go without. We've had slogans like 'closing the gap'. Have a look at the continual failures. Prime ministers from both sides have had to stand up year after year in this place and admit failure after failure. The metrics have stalled and the gap remains, if not grows. To me, the Voice is another slogan. We simply must do better. And there is no detail. It's all: 'Trust us. We'll change the Constitution and we'll fix all the problems.' Quite frankly, judging on the history, I don't trust that rhetoric. The reality is: we'd be far better if we were to legislate now so that we could then make the necessary changes until we got Indigenous policy in this country working for Indigenous Australians. I have no argument that Indigenous voices need to be heard. It's important that the 11 Indigenous voices that we have here in this parliament are heard. But it's equally important that those on the ground who are living in remote communities, facing the daily reality of failed Indigenous policy, have their voices heard too. I agreed with the Minister for Indigenous Australians when she said earlier this week that we need to deliver 'structural change that empowers Indigenous communities' and that we should be 'getting better advice so that we get better policies and better outcomes'. That's an absolute no-brainer. But I think we have to do this by listening to regional and remote voices. A bottom-up approach is needed. It's obvious to me that a bureaucratic approach is not going to resolve these ongoing challenges. It is the popularly elected leaders in our respective communities that have demonstrated their own successes that need to be given the chance to raise their voices; otherwise, we'll just get more of the same. A great example the House might be interested in is the remote community in my electorate of Old Mapoon, where Aileen Addo and her council, and their predecessors, have done amazingly well. We're talking about a remote community council consisting of four women and one man. Old Mapoon started like any other remote community, where governments brought together families from around the region, for convenience of management and supplying converts to the church. Sure, at the time, it was well-meaning. However, the community was betrayed in 1963 when, in the interests of further mining operations, the church, the government and the mining companies colluded and declared the mission to be unhealthy. They rounded up the entire community and forcefully relocated them to New Mapoon on the tip of Cape York. But, to add insult to injury, as the families were being barged out of the bay, they had to watch their homes being torched—a very sad indictment of the history of our region. Interestingly enough, half of the community chose to stay at the new site, at New Mapoon, and, to this day, continue to face many of the challenges we see in remote communities. The other half spread themselves around Australia and then, in 1984, they chose to come back home and decided to rebuild. And haven't they done a fantastic job. They brought many skills, acquired during their time of banishment. Another community leader worthy of mention is the long-serving mayor of the Lockhart River community, Wayne Butcher. It's certainly a community not without challenges, but the progress that has been made by Wayne and his team is worthy of recognition. Again, like Aileen Addo's, Wayne's voice is one that should be heard. These are wonderful examples of communities that have been successful, where, in stark contrast, other communities in Cape York continue to suffer from different levels of dysfunction. And I say this to underscore the fact that the community leadership has a significant role to play. Since the introduction of Indigenous policy in this country, there has always been a select group of self-appointed Indigenous leaders that are predominantly metropolitan academics. They have long provided guidance to policymakers, and it appears that this trend will continue to prevail under the guise of the Voice. And we've seen where that has got us today. Many people on both sides of the parliament have long hailed the work of Noel Pearson in advancing Indigenous policy. They've held him up as a messiah—like a figurehead for Indigenous Australians. He is acknowledged as one of the architects of the Uluru Statement from the Heart and of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to the Parliament that we're debating here today. There is no doubt that Noel has significant influence over Indigenous affairs, but I, like many others in Cape York who have seen the reality of his influence, have long been critical of governments and bureaucrats that only care to listen for his voice. Over decades, Noel Pearson and his organisations and policy initiatives have exerted growing influence over governments of all persuasions. They've received hundreds of millions of dollars over many decades for his pet projects. And for what? Many of these remote communities that Noel has used as policy experiments remain dysfunctional, whether it's Cape York welfare reform, Cape York Employment, Good to Great Schools or a range of other concessions—the list of Noel's entities and programs just goes on and on. With great difficulty, I've been able to ascertain that since 2005 Noel has accumulated something like $550 million of Australian taxpayers' money—and that's only what I've been able to find—and subsidies for his entities and policy initiatives. The vast majority of these have been in remote communities in Cape York. Noel comes up with the policy ideas, the government give him the money, he runs the program, and God help anybody who stands in his way. It's evident to me that these funds are a lot more than that and go back further than 2005. I ask the question: is there value for money? In my view, it's always been a ruse. I challenge anyone to come up and have a look at what influence he's actually achieved. The communities in Cape York who have, effectively, banned Noel—like Mapoon—are doing exceptionally well. Those who've let Noel's influence into their communities remain dysfunctional, and I'm sure the House is aware of the well-known example of Aurukun in Cape York. Noel has been in the government's payroll for decades, advising and influencing Indigenous policy, and I say to government: do we really need the architect of so many policy failures involved in producing another one? While he identifies himself as a Cape York Indigenous leader, Noel Pearson has never stood for an election. He certainly wants to lead—and should face the community. Let's see where he goes, then, on polling day. When it comes to a voice, many are calling for respect and restraint. When regarding the views of others, a level of dignity is required, particularly in these sensitive debates where such a diverse range of views is involved. I can tell you now, Noel, that you won't win the hearts and minds of others by penning pieces like the one you did in the Australian on 20 May, writing off baby boomers as racist just because they don't subscribe to your world view: The boomer readership of this paper is of course antipathetic to recognition. They are mostly obscurant and borderline casual racists in their views. As a baby boomer myself, I find these comments deeply offensive, a cheap, grubby attack on the genuine criticism relating to your brainchild. It's classic Noel Pearson behaviour—shout down anybody who disagrees with you and call them a racist. It really typifies the individual. That's not how you start bringing people along on a journey towards improving Indigenous disadvantage and securing constitutional recognition. I am not opposed to the Voice per se, but it should be legislated in the parliament. We have no substantive detail, and it's a very significant thing to change the Constitution. We can't expect Australians to vote on a feeling or a guess. The old line, 'Trust us, vote yes and we'll figure out the details later,' is simply not going to fly. It's an extraordinary proposition and I completely understand why many Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, are having serious reservations. Recognition is absolutely critical. We need to be taking recognition out of this debate and installing it in the Constitution immediately. What I'm urging us to do here is to get the Voice legislated and to work it through until it's the best it can be—when we start seeing improvements happening. Then we can start saying we're successful in this very important area of policy. 13:08 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I rise to speak on the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 known as the Voice. Asking Australians to participate in any referendum is a big deal. This is because any change to our Constitution, our nation's guiding rulebook, is a big deal. Every word in our Constitution can be open to legal challenge and interpretation. It is therefore the government of the day's responsibility to have very carefully thought through the wording of any referendum question being put to Australians and also the proposed wording to be incorporated into our Constitution. Once a change is made to our Constitution, it is very difficult to unchange it. History shows that there is very little chance of a referendum succeeding in Australia, regardless of the proposed wording change. Since our Federation, Australians have only supported eight of the 44 proposed constitutional changes. 1977 was the last time Australian electors approved an amendment to our Constitution. Given this, when considering asking Australians to vote on a referendum, I believe it is incumbent on the government to do a number of very key things: (1) ensure that the proposed wording change will not be open to legal challenge; (2) ensure that there is a rigorous review and consultation process; and (3) ensure that there is ample detail provided to Australians about the consequences of any proposed wording to our Constitution. Legal experts do not agree on how the High Court will interpret the proposed constitutional change to create the Voice. Ian Callinan AC KC, a former High Court judge, has said: … I would foresee a decade or more of constitutional and administrative law litigation arising out of the Voice. It is a matter of public record the government's own constitutional expert group could not reach agreement on the consequences of the proposed constitutional change. Some said it could give rise to a constitutional duty for government to consider any Voice representations even if the parliament did not want this. Others have disagreed. The Solicitor-General has conceded that there is room for argument. The government's inquiry into this bill has been poor. The inquiry into the republic referendum held 12 separate hearings. This was after a full constitutional convention that invited delegates from right around our great country. The Albanese government determined that a constitutional convention was not required for the Voice. There has been no explanation given for this decision. If we had had a convention on the Voice I'm quite sure that we could have ironed out the details and at least narrowed the issues in dispute. Instead, the government decided merely that a joint select committee would be formed to review the bill, and that was given only six weeks to conduct the inquiry. I believe that was woefully inadequate, and I simply don't understand why the rush. Prime Minister Albanese is asking Australians to vote for this change to our Constitution without providing the details of how the Voice will work in practice. Some 'yes' campaigners have argued that the proposed changes to the Constitution are modest or that they are no big deal, but, as I have said, any change to our Constitution is a big deal. In February this year I penned an opinion piece on the Voice which was published in the West Australian newspaper. In this piece I said: Closing the gap requires the support of both sides of the aisle … If we are going to propose the inclusion of the Voice in our Constitution the Australian public should be treated … with respect. Australians have a right to ask the Government common sense questions— regarding the referendum. Since February the government has announced a referendum question and the proposed constitutional wording. Sadly, there are now even more questions and even greater uncertainty as to how the Voice will work in practice. I went on further to say: In WA, our regional and remote communities are at breaking point. Our hospitals, police force, community organisations and local councils are literally crying out for help. I represent some of our most vulnerable Australians. I want only the best for my Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander constituents. I want the children to go to school and to get a job, for the home to be a safe place, for overcrowding to be a thing of the past, to keep our young people out of Banksia Hill Detention Centre. I want the reduction of alcohol abuse and drugs. The most important thing is to stop our kids from having kids. Clearly the way in which federal and state governments have been supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders needs to have a complete overhaul. It is simply not fit for purpose. I expect all of my federal colleagues here, and represented across our land, want the lives of our First Nations people to be improved. I do not think that that is being debated. Many argue that the Voice is the answer, but there are many others who are not convinced of that. According to the Calma-Langton report, which laid out in detail how a national Voice model would operate, the first step in the process of creating the Voice was to start with local and regional voices, and I believe, as someone who represents the second-largest Indigenous population in our great country, that that is a very good starting point. For too long Canberra has been telling Indigenous communities what is best for them. The government, however, has acknowledged at some point in the future there is an intention to create a local and regional voice structure. But, in the meantime, the proposed Voice model would be a top-down approach. I had hoped that the Voice would have provided a vehicle for Indigenous Australians to have their say in how national policy affects the local challenges, and we know there are plenty of challenges. But it will simply be impossible for the many Indigenous communities across Western Australia to be represented on any Voice committee, which will undoubtedly be a very city-centric, Canberra focused body. How on earth will the voices of regional Western Australia's Indigenous communities ever be heard under what is being proposed today? The Prime Minister says that the Voice will unite the nation. I'm sorry, Prime Minister; I disagree with you 100 per cent. If the Voice referendum is not successful, we will not only have expended many millions of dollars and untold amounts of human resources for no outcome, but the Canberra bureaucrats would have continued to spin their wheels without making headway to improve our existing programs. In conclusion, I do not support the proposal that is contained within this bill. However, I will not stand in the way of the Australian people having their say. It is right and proper that Australians have the final say on the referendum. 13:16 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland It's not without some degree of sadness and trepidation that I make my contribution on the bill before the House today, the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. I say that because I listened to the Prime Minister's speech here this morning and his claim that he is desperate to unite our nation, but just like the member for Durack, who made her comments just a few moments ago, I fear that the approach taken by the Prime Minister is dividing our nation in a horrible way. At a time when I would rather be here celebrating the extraordinary achievements of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in this country—achievements through the arts, through culture, through sporting fields, here in this parliament, in business and in commerce—we are having a conversation that is talking down our country in a way which makes me very uncomfortable. I stand beside the member for Canning, who knows full well the contribution that our Indigenous brothers and sisters have made to the Australian Defence Force over decades. Even before they had the right to vote, Aboriginal men went to war and fought for our country, and no-one saw the colour of their skin when they fought in the Army, the Air Force One or the Navy; they saw them as fellow soldiers, airmen and Navy personnel who could assist to keep our country safe. I'd rather be celebrating those achievements here today in my comments than participating in a debate which I fear can only end in a more divided Australia. In joining this debate, I want to make a very simple point from the outset: there is so much that I agree with the Minister for Indigenous Affairs on when she speaks about the enormous issues facing our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, just as I agreed with the former minister, my great colleague Ken Wyatt, and supported his efforts towards practical reconciliation measures and Closing the Gap measures. I offer my sincere bipartisan support to the minister in almost all of her endeavours, and I think that is a feeling, an emotion and a practical view that is held virtually across the entire chamber. But I do believe this debate will only get worse in the months ahead. It will become more divisive, and it will paint a negative picture at the expense of the truth, just as, when I worked very closely with our veteran community over a period of several years, there was a public narrative that all veterans were broken, busted and bad, which played into a cycle of despondency and desperation which simply didn't reflect the reality of the situation. Certainly there are many veterans who need great assistance from the government and our community, and they are entitled to receive that, but the vast majority are transitioning well and going on with their lives. In our Indigenous communities, there are many success stories we need to celebrate in this place, notwithstanding that we have to acknowledge the challenges we face. The minister and I agree entirely that issues around life expectancy, family violence, incarceration rates, and health and education outcomes are all genuine issues, to which the full strength of this parliament and the full strength of state parliaments needs to be applied to achieve real action on the ground, but in this debate we must be so careful not to completely embrace a simple narrative that everything is broken and everything is bad. There are some incredible programs occurring right now across rural, regional and remote Australia. There are local actions being taken by dedicated communities, volunteers and professional people achieving great outcomes. People are getting out of bed every day and making a difference in their own communities, and we must not disrespect them in this debate. We must not disrespect them by pretending that nothing good is happening on the ground in our communities at the moment. I say 'our communities', because it is 'our communities' in my party, the National Party. Overwhelmingly, the people we are talking about here, in this debate in Canberra today, live in rural, regional and remote Australia. I'm not for a second suggesting there aren't Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people living in our suburbs, but when you look at the electoral map and you look at the census data it is evident that a higher percentage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people live in the electorates that are represented in this place by the Nationals. I had the chance to listen to the contributions of several of my colleagues, and I want to single out a couple of them. I listened to Mark Coulton, the member for Parkes. I think the percentage of Aboriginal people in his community is about 16 per cent. In the last election, Mark received an increased primary vote, and he won booths which are the homes of predominantly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. He wouldn't have been winning those booths or winning that seat with an increased margin if he weren't doing a good job on these very difficult practical challenges of helping Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people achieve their full potential. I also listened to my good friend the member for Cowper, Pat Conaghan. He talked about his lived experience as a whitefella growing up in Kempsey, where there were Aboriginal kids playing sport with him and going to school with him. His dad was a doctor, the first doctor in his community to allow Aboriginal people into his clinic— in the 1960s—to get treatment. That's not the activity of a person who, as he was unfairly portrayed in today's media by a Supreme Court justice, is somehow being racist. In my own lived experience, growing up in Gippsland, my extended family included Aboriginal children who had been fostered and adopted by my dad's cousin, so family reunions were very much a black-and-white affair. The kids would turn up from Orbost. We'd have an instant cricket match when a busload of Aboriginal kids, who we regarded as our cousins, turned up. So we had a very interesting upbringing. So my opposition to the Voice today is not because I'm racist. It's because I believe it's actually poor public policy. I believe it won't achieve practical outcomes. What really worries me is that I believe the Voice, this debate, where we're heading, will divide Australians on the basis of race where we were never divided before. It actually undermines the way our democracy is meant to work, and I simply can't support it in its current form. From my experience, regional Australians do want to close the gap. They want to close the gap on Indigenous disadvantage. Regional Australians want to improve the lives of all vulnerable people, but regional Australians also understand it takes hard work and consistent effort—not simply voting for a vibe because urban elites, the Prime Minister, sporting organisations or big corporations tell you that's what you have to do. I have a simple message today in what is a complex debate. My simple message to people who are considering this issue is: it's actually okay to say no. You can consider this issue and reasonable people can examine the same facts in this complex area of public policy, and it's completely reasonable to have a different view—but please do it respectfully. It's actually okay to say no. You're not racist if you say no. If you don't believe that a new bureaucracy enshrined in our Constitution will make any difference on the ground, then vote no. If you believe the Prime Minister hasn't given you enough detail and he won't trust you with the detail of his proposed Voice, then don't trust him with a 'yes' vote. I've been contacted by many Gippslanders seeking my view, and I've gone into some detail to explain my reasons, including a lengthy explanation on my website, so I won't go into all that today. I won't seek to change anyone's opinion either. I think Australians are smart enough to figure this out for themselves. I will say, though, that the tone of this debate has to be reset, and the only person who can reset the tone of the debate is the Prime Minister himself. The Prime Minister has to reset the tone of the debate. He can't make public comments like, 'It's the decent thing to do to vote yes.' When he says that it's the decent thing to do, he's saying that, if you intend to vote no, as an Australian citizen, you are somehow indecent. I just don't believe that. I do not believe that the people seeking to vote no are somehow indecent. So I call on the Prime Minister to try to reset the tone of this debate. I know you're passionate about it, Prime Minister; I know what your view is. Everyone knows what your view is. But don't try to portray Australians as somehow being indecent if they happen to have a different view to you. But worse than that, we had the extraordinarily unhelpful comments from the leader of the Greens. The leader of the Greens is actually saying that people on my side of the House are racist if they intend to vote no. He's actually saying that we are racist by intending to vote. And then we have the Premier of Victoria describing people as mean and nasty if they intend to vote no. This is the grub who just sacked thousands of timber workers in my community, and he has the gall to suggest that somehow wanting to vote no in the referendum is mean and nasty. I say to people like that, do not talk down— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 I call the member for Makin. Mr Zappia HWB I draw your attention to the unparliamentary term that was just used and ask the member to withdraw it. Mr CHESTER IPZ For the sake of the record, I was referring to the Premier of Victoria and I called him a grub. But I withdraw the remark if you're offended by that. You're probably the only person in this place who would be. I withdraw the remark. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Please continue. Mr CHESTER IPZ What I'm saying is that we have people like a Supreme Court judge sending emails to a member of parliament from a position of extraordinary privilege in our community saying: 'Your position and the position of your party is needlessly cruel and mean-spirited and is patently based upon a political stance that is indecent in its ignorance. May you live long enough to acquire sufficient wisdom and self-awareness to be ashamed of yourself.' The point I would like to make very simply to people who have a different opinion to the 'yes' campaigners is that it's okay to say no if you have a different view. In my party, we believe in localism. We believe very strongly that the best people to make these decisions on how to overcome local challenges is to work within the structure of national laws and state laws, plus government supports where it's needed, but from our experience centralised decision-making across a range of key issues continues to undermine the success and prosperity of regional communities, including our Indigenous people. The Voice will entrench that disconnect. It is simply wrong and disrespectful to so many hard-working professionals and community leaders to suggest that nothing positive is occurring across our nation today when it comes to measures to close the gap. From my experience as a minister in veterans affairs and other portfolios, there's always more to be done in every area of public policy, but we should recognise the success stories. I say to those opposite and to those who have painted such a dark picture of our nation: imagine if all the programs from the federal and state governments that are already funded by taxpayers weren't in place today. We have to acknowledge that there are some great initiatives in place. From my experience, the programs that are locally run and directed at local problems tend to have the best outcomes. It's also incredibly important to keep recognising that Australian voters have already provided a voice in this place for Indigenous people, with the current federal parliament proudly boasting 11 MPs and senators across all political parties—a truly significant achievement. Our political reality in recent years has been that political parties and the Australian voters have recognised the lack of diversity among elected MPs and have taken steps through democratic systems to begin remedying that situation. In closing, I repeat my earlier comment: it is okay to say no to the Voice. I encourage everyone to treat each other with respect and kindness in this potentially divisive debate. I think Australians are up to the challenge, and I call on the Prime Minister to help reset the tone of the debate. I thank the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 43 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Religious Schools 43 13:30 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher Like many members in this place, I have spoken with constituents and faith communities who are concerned about the Australian Law Reform Commission's latest inquiry into religious educational institutions and antidiscrimination. The consultation paper essentially recommends a curtailment to the right of faith based schools to hire staff who share their religious ethos. We should be very proud in this place of our secular school system and those teachers and staff who make our schools as great as they are, but faith based schools also deliver a vital service: offering parents the freedom to decide how, and in accordance with which particular faith, their children are taught. Governments should nurture that freedom; they shouldn't curtail it. Society should nourish faith and freedom as a cause for celebration, not condemnation. I would encourage anyone listening to this speech: if you're concerned about these proposals, contact your members, contact senators in your states from across the political aisle, and make your voice heard. Miller, Mr Paul (Dusty) 43 13:31 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin On 16 April, 48-year-old Paul—aka Dusty—Miller died on the Kokoda Track in Papua New Guinea. He was there on his second day of hiking with his son Aaron, raising money for Defence veterans. A former Defence member for some 26 years, Paul had served in Iraq, Afghanistan and Timor-Leste. Having had personal experience of the toll on those who serve, in retirement Paul devoted much of his life to supporting other veterans who were struggling through life. He became a prominent active member of Operation Unity, raising money and setting up support programs and activities for veterans and first responders. I understand that the Kokoda Track challenge was a fundraiser for Operation K9, which trains service dogs for veterans with PTSD symptoms. Paul will be farewelled at a funeral service next Tuesday, 30 May, which regrettably, because of parliamentary sittings, I will not be able to attend. An additional service honouring and celebrating his life will be held by the Operation Unity team on 30 June. To Paul's partner, Amanda, and to his children, family members, many friends and Defence mates, I extend my condolences and my thanks for his tireless service. Vale, Paul Miller. Gambling Advertising 43 13:33 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon Last week I visited Gray Street Primary School in Hamilton to talk to them about the responsibilities of being a member of parliament. The previous week, they'd had the mock state parliament travel to Hamilton, where they got to debate a bill, and, as fortune would have it, the bill that they debated was about banning gambling advertising during sporting events. They had a very good discussion about this, and overwhelmingly, in the end, the students in this mock parliament thought it was a very good idea that a bill be introduced to ban gambling ads during sporting events. I said to the students that I was very keen to make sure that their voice was heard in the federal parliament, where we could try and see this become a reality. So I use the Gray Street Primary School years 5s and 6s as an example of why the Prime Minister and the government should act to ban gambling advertising during sporting events. They put compelling cases as to why this should happen. Government members interjecting— Mr TEHAN 210911 We can do it in a bipartisan fashion, and I'm glad all those opposite agree with me. Cambodian People's Party 44 13:34 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce Last week a local paper in my electorate asked me for comment on the establishment of a branch of the Cambodian Chamber of Commerce in south-east Melbourne, so, curious, I looked into it. Surprise, surprise, it's just another front for Cambodian dictator Hun Sen's Cambodian People's Party! A little bit more foreign interference in our suburbs! Of course, the elected president in Melbourne strenuously denies this—he's just a businessman. Unfortunately, photos surfaced of him decked out in party uniform alongside Kim Santepheap, the notorious head of the CPP working group for Australia and New Zealand. They've also set up, I think last week, in Sydney. The Chamber of Commerce is headed in Cambodia by Kith Meng, a CPP stooge and head of the Royal Group, who's made a career out of illegal logging and kicking villagers off their own land. Kim Santepheap was in Australia for these launches. He tried his best this time to keep out of the photos—but, bad luck, mate, we've got you on camera there in Melbourne next to Lau Vann. Speaking of Lau Vann, where did all those millions of dollars in property come from? Surely nothing to do with his positions in Brigade 70, a notorious military unit in Cambodia linked with illegal logging, forced evictions and political assassinations. These people are solely in our country to stir up divisions in the Australian-Cambodian diaspora community. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Kim Santepheap should not be granted visas to come to Australia. Universities 44 13:36 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar Our young people are working hard to get ahead, but, amid cost-of-living pressures, the unreliable gig economy and the impossible rent and housing market right now, the 7.1 per cent indexation hike on HECS and HELP debt is an unfair additional burden. Many young people are finding that, despite a year of working and paying off that debt, once it is indexed again next week for some their debt will be higher at the end of the year that it was at the beginning of the year. We know that HECS and HELP debts are likely to be indexed at high levels again next year. This is not how HECS was intended to operate. As we speak, intergenerational inequality is growing. It is getting harder and harder for young people to get ahead or even keep up. The government must address this head on, and a simple and practical start would be pausing the indexation of HECS and HELP debts. I call on the government to urgently consider pausing indexation prior to the 1 June indexation date next week. Longer term, the government must consider capping the indexation rate so that young people are never put in this situation again. Our young people need the breathing space right now, and in the future they must be given the same fair go we were given. Arts And Culture 44 13:37 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite Music is good for the soul. It uplifts us. It's a mirror to our culture. That's why we must respect and celebrate all those who create our nation's stories in songs, in words and in visual imagery. So it was a real privilege to celebrate last night with our Minister for the Arts and our Left Right Out band as we joined on stage with some of our nation's iconic musical storytellers, the Wiggles and singer-songwriter Dan Sultan. Everyone knows the words to 'Toot, Toot, Chugga Chugga, Big Red Car'! The Wiggles phenomenon has been exported to the world. The Albanese government understands the importance of our creative industries, and that's why today we've announced the next tranche of our Creative Australia policy to better support our nation's artists, to make sure that, when we watch a movie, turn on the TV, listen to a podcast or turn the dial on the radio, our culture is reflected strongly back at us. Australian content matters. It defines who we are. It uplifts the soul. Importantly, it helps employ our artists in secure, rewarding work. In closing, I give my thanks to the co-chairs of the Parliamentary Friends of Australian Children's Storytelling, the members for Solomon and Leichardt. There is no better fun to be had in parliament than to join the Wiggles. Universities 44 13:39 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan On 1 June about three million Australians will be hit with a crushing debt avalanche when student debt skyrockets by 7.1 per cent, on top of the astronomical $74 billion of debt they already have. This is going to impact thousands in my electorate of Ryan, home to the University of Queensland. This is the biggest increase since 1990. Why is it increasing? Because of the irrational, punitive policy of indexing HECS debt to inflation. It's bad enough that we're saddling people with debt in the first place. The Labor Party once introduced free university education, in the Gough Whitlam years. I was a grateful beneficiary. But the Labor Party of today is not the party of Gough Whitlam. Today's Labor won't even scrap this horrendous indexation that'll see debt expand beyond people's ability to repay. For many, this is decades of repayment. The problems facing our university sector don't stop at student fees and HECS debt. Junior staff are struggling with casual contracts, short contracts and shocking rates of unpaid extra hours. Power is being centralised in the hands of vice-chancellors on million-dollar salaries, and boards are stacked with people from huge corporations. Research freedom is being strangled by reliance on corporate money. We desperately need a wholesale overhaul of our university sector. Let's put students, lecturers, tutors and researchers back at the heart of it. Foley House 45 13:40 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser After years of long-term homelessness, addiction issues and poor health, 45 men have a safe and welcoming place to call home thanks to the Salvos. At Footscray's Foley House, staff provide around-the-clock care 365 days a year. Nearly a fifth of the men have an intellectual disability. Nearly half have an acquired brain injury. Three-quarters report chronic physical illness and disability, while nine out of 10 experience severe mental illness. Although the men have expressed significant trauma, they are turning their lives around thanks to the specialist support they are receiving for the first time often in decades. Staff look after all the men's daily needs and coordinate services to ensure continuity of care. The men also enjoy art, music, dog therapy, a cooking club, weekly meditation sessions and outings to local cafes, stimulating visits to places such as Scienceworks and the aquarium, live music events and the cinema, trips to the beach and, last but not least, the odd AFL footy game. Some of the men also like to visit the places where they used to sleep rough, as a reminder to them of how far they have come. Congratulations and thanks to all those at Foley House who make the good work of those who work there and live there possible. Tasmanian Young Achiever Awards 45 13:41 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass Congratulations to three Northern Tasmanians, winners of the 2023 Tasmanian Young Achiever Awards. Jamie Graham-Blair is 28 and was awarded the First Nations People Achievement Award for his work as an educator, ensuring Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students have a sense of pride and empowerment. A proud trawlwoolway and plangermairenner pakana of North-East lutruwita, Mr Graham-Blair is also about to finish his bachelor of marine and Antarctic studies at the university, combining both pakana and Western science to fight climate change. 'You don't belong to one of the world's oldest continuous cultures by not being sustainable and in touch with the needs of the lands you occupy,' he says. For the winner of the Small Business Achievement Award, Courtney Hill, the award is recognition of her dedication to addressing the cultural challenges of the hospitality industry. Hill, co-owner of the Dare Darlin' restaurant in Launceston, has a mission to inspire humanity to be kind, to educate and support young hospitality professionals, to create exceptional dining experiences and to waste little while doing so. Since the day the restaurant doors opened they've implemented a staff-first approach, with four-day work weeks, no salary packages, no underpayment and no unpaid overtime. Finally, my congratulations to young cycling champion Hamish McKenzie, who took out the Sports Award, including winning the under-19 time trial championship in 2022. I can't wait to see what you do next, Hamish. Bennelong Electorate: Public Education Day 45 13:43 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong Today we celebrate Public Education Day. It's a day to recognise and honour the central role public education plays in our community. It's also an opportunity to express our gratitude to the dedicated teachers, principals and support staff who work tirelessly to shape the minds of our young generation. Public education is the bedrock of our society, creating opportunities and setting up our young people for a brighter future. It is through public schools that we foster knowledge, critical thinking and social cohesion. That's why I'm proud to be part of an Albanese Labor government committed to building a better and fairer education system for all Australians. This includes fair funding in public education, addressing the workload of our teachers and working to turn around the workforce shortage. A properly funded education system is crucial to creating a better future for the next generation of young Australians. On that note, I'm delighted to inform the House that four local schools in my electorate of Bennelong were successful in their applications for funding under the Schools Upgrade Fund. Congratulations to Eastwood Heights Public School, Ryde Public School, West Ryde Public School and Carlingford Public School. This funding will help create better learning environments for their students and ensure that they have the resources they need to thrive. So today, as we celebrate Public Education Day, let's reaffirm our support for our great public education system. Let us appreciate all the individuals who keep it running every day. Moncrieff Electorate: St Hilda's School 46 13:45 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff Last week I had the great pleasure of visiting St Hilda's, a beautiful school in Southport in my electorate, and I received the warmest welcome ever. I was very impressed by the impeccable manners of all 91 girls, who shook my hand when they entered the room. Special thanks to Mrs B for organising this wonderful visit. The year 6 students at St Hilda's have been learning about the Australian political system and how our government and great democracy work, all in preparation for their upcoming school trip to this place. It was fantastic to have the opportunity to chat with the girls about all things Canberra before they headed off. We talked about the role of an MP, the importance of lifelong learning, what I do in Canberra in my shadow portfolios and, of course, in the electorate. The girls then had some wonderful questions for me, and there was absolutely nothing off limits: what a day in my life looks like; the favourite part of my role, which is, of course, visiting schools and speaking to students like them—I love that; how I became an MP; and my goals for the future, which, of course, are for a coalition government. Congratulations to the grade 6s. This was a very bright, inquisitive group of students indeed. And what a privilege it is to represent the teachers and families of St Hilda's, and every other school across Moncrieff, in this place. Thank you to St Hilda's for hosting me and for your warm hospitality. I hope you all enjoy your upcoming trip to Canberra. International Wine Day 46 13:46 Mr 298840 Hunter REPACHOLI () (): I rise today to celebrate a beverage that transcends borders, cultures and time itself: wine! Today is International Wine Day, so let's raise our glasses to honour the exquisite craftsmanship, the rich heritage and the undeniable allure of this ancient elixir. Wine has long been more than just a drink. It's a symbol of celebration, friendship and the simple pleasures of life. It is a testament to the patience of workers who meticulously tend to vineyards, nurturing each grape with care and devotion. The Hunter Valley boasts a proud tradition of winemaking that dates back almost two centuries. We are blessed with fertile soils, a temperate climate and a passion for producing the world's best wines. Today we pay homage to the countless winemakers, viticulturists and sommeliers who dedicate their lives to perfecting this art form. They have turned the humble cluster of grapes into liquid poetry, awakening our senses and igniting our passions. They have transformed a simple fruit into a catalyst of conversation, culture and creativity. But let's not forget the immense impact of the wine industry on economies around the globe, from vineyard workers to hospitality professionals. On this International Wine Day, I invite everyone to savour the exquisite flavours and bask in the beauty of this remarkable beverage. Cheers to International Wine Day and cheers to the Hunter Valley, a true paradise for wine lovers! Nicholls Electorate: Girgarre 46 13:48 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls Reports of the death of small towns are grossly exaggerated. They are still alive and well, but they need support. Girgarre in my electorate had a declining population for most of this century, driven by a loss of industry. The 2021 census showed that trend reversed for the first time in decades. And why did this happen? It was because the former coalition government had backed the Girgarre revival. Working with the state, we set about reversing the decline caused by drought, falling milk prices and the closure of factories, which had left Girgarre with limited amenities and half its historic population. The supermarket, the butcher, the hairdresser and the corner shop had gone, and, when the Heinz tomato processing factory closed in 2012, it looked like it could have been the final nail. But the community rallied and formed the Girgarre Development Group. Girgarre became part of a Small Town Transformations project, and the coalition government found $1.1 million to support the Gargarro Botanic Garden. This world-class botanical installation has a sound-shell for music performances and a thriving cafe. It's symbolic of the revival of Girgarre. And guess what? Industry has followed. Since opening in 2019, the Australian Consolidated Milk factory has doubled production to 200 million litres. New businesses have opened, and the community is thriving. This small town with a big spirit is growing, thanks to a coalition government that invested money in regional areas—as opposed to this government, which is cutting regional funding. Public Education Day 47 13:49 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid Former prime minister Paul Keating said that education provides 'the keys to the kingdom' because it unlocks opportunities for all. I know that because it unlocked opportunities for me. That the daughter of migrants who came here speaking very little English and having very little formal education was able to go on to study at university and then become the federal member for Reid is testament to the power of education and the power of public education. There is nothing more extraordinary than being able to open those doors of opportunity, particularly for people who are not born into positions of privilege. I want to particularly thank my former public school teachers, from my year 2 teacher, Ms Reaper, who taught me a love of learning by gifting me my first book, The Magic Pudding, to my year 5 teacher, Mr Wilson, for teaching me how to work in teams—and there are friends from that class that I have still to this day. I want to thank, in particular, my son's public school teachers, Ms Yang and Ms Beattie, for teaching him a real love of learning. To all our public school teachers: I want to wish you a very happy public education day. Flynn Electorate: Flynn Volunteer Awards 47 13:51 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn Volunteers play an important role throughout the Flynn electorate, giving their time, energy and skills to support others. By dedicating their time and effort to helping others, our volunteers are the backbone of many small rural communities. These Australians are resilient and selfless and work hard to make our communities a better place to live. They are the heart of our community groups, schools and sporting organisations and are some of the first to respond in natural disasters. In the lead-up to National Volunteers Week, I was pleased to present the 2023 Flynn Volunteer Awards to recognise our local heroes and show how much they are valued and appreciated. This program provided an opportunity for community organisations in my electorate to nominate five of their members who went above and beyond and made a significant contribution to the cause. Volunteers were recognised from organisations such as the CWA branches of Gracemere, Oakwood, Gladstone, Moonford and Mount Larcom; the Blackwater Bandits Football Club; the Gin Gin RSL; Gladstone MindCare; Gracemere Scout Group; the Port Curtis Historical Society; the Calliope River Men's Shed; North Burnett Community Services; the Monto Netball Association; the Mount Morgan Golf Club; the Model Engineers and Live Steamers Association; and Evenglow Gladstone. To our volunteers across the Flynn electorate I say: congratulations, and keep up your amazing job and your unrecognised work. Thank you so much. Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 47 13:52 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton A few months ago here in Canberra, I met Ava, a year 11 student from Yeronga State High School. On Public Education Day, I recognise that great high school in my electorate. Ava has been doing an internship in office as part of Yeronga State High's work experience program. She's turning 17 this year and so will not have the opportunity to vote in the referendum, but Ava does have a clear message to those who can vote. So I'm reading out to Australia what Ava has written so we can all hear her concerns: Repressed, ignored, forgotten, neglected. For over 200 years, First Nations people have been left out of the conversation. As a country we finally have a chance to give them the voice they should have been given 200 years ago and there are still people who ask, 'but why'. The matter is not one up for debate, the passing of the Voice would mean that we as a Nation are one step closer to representation and diversity in our parliament. As a delegate for Queensland at the 2023 National Schools Constitutional Convention I can confidently say that 90% of the delegates, all high school age, that attended—were not only for the Voice but were supportive of it since its proposal in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. So, although I cannot vote—I urge you to vote 'YES' on the Voice to Parliament. They are Ava's words—those of a year 11 student from Yeronga State High School—that I put on the table for Hansard, for everyone to listen. Thank you, Ava, for taking the time. I'm sure that you're going to be a great member for Moreton in years to come. Longman Electorate: Caboolture and Surrounds Business Showcase and Celebration 47 13:54 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman This Saturday, BPW Caboolture—business and professional women—will host their annual business showcase event at the Morayfield Sport and Events Centre, behind Bunnings at Morayfield. This event will showcase local businesses from the Longman community to display their goods and services and give locals the opportunity to engage with these businesses and hopefully encourage all of us, where possible, to shop local. Doing as much business as possible in your local community has so many benefits, including ensuring locals have employment opportunities close to home, which will reduce traffic on our roads as well as allowing people to spend more time with family instead of in the car, bus or train commuting long distances to work. There will be entertainment ranging from bands to dancing and boxing clubs, as well as guest speakers on a range of topics and around 70 local businesses represented. There's even a kids' corner with face-planting and colouring in for the little tuckers. For further details go to the BPW Caboolture Facebook page. Although this event is organised and run by BPW, it is not a women's only event for only female owned businesses; the ladies want me to stress that all are welcome. I encourage everyone to come along and support our local business community. The event starts at 10 am and runs through to 3 pm. My staff and I will be there, manning my stall during the event, to answer any questions constituents may have. It's only a gold coin donation for entry, so drop on in and say g'day. It's shaping up to be a great day. Macnamara Electorate: Restaurants 48 13:55 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara I am proud to come from the great state of Victoria. Victorians have good memories. We remember those who played politics during the pandemic and we remember the absurd statement that we were too afraid to go to restaurants at night. Yes, that's right. The Leader of the Opposition reached into his drawer of dog whistles and pulled out the line that we were too afraid to go to restaurants at night. The only person too afraid to go to a restaurant in Melbourne would be someone who's afraid of a decent meal. That's the only person. Melburnians know that some of the best food and coffee is right there in our great city. In fact, you haven't visited Melbourne if you haven't been to some of the world-class restaurants and food destinations in my electorate of Macnamara: Cicciolina, the Village Wine Bar, Carter Lovett, Monarch Cakes, Balderdash, the Wall in Carlisle Street, Jaggers, the Railway Club Hotel—there are just too many to mention. I even proudly brought the minister for health to our South Melbourne Market last week. We walked through all the local traders, and the only thing the minister was afraid of was having his tastebuds tantalised by all of the options he had before him. We Victorians aren't interested in the dog whistles that we heard from the Leader of the Opposition. We're about celebrating the food, sporting and cultural capital of our great country. Modi, Prime Minister Narendra 48 13:57 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe I rise today to speak about my honour in meeting the Prime Minister of the Republic of India, His Excellency Narendra Modi. Yesterday I was honoured to speak with PM Modi at a bilateral meeting with the Leader of the Opposition at Admiralty House in Sydney. I had the pleasure of talking to PM Modi about various issues, including my January trip to Gujarat with the BAPS, where they celebrated the Swaminarayan centenary celebrations, and also the warmth of the Australian Indian community. Again I think BAPS. Under the previous coalition government's initiative of the Safer Communities Fund program, Hindu temples, Sikh gurdwaras and places of worship receive funding security upgrades. I thank PM Modi for visiting Australia and raising the issue of vandalism on places of worship with PM Albanese when he visited India in March. PM Modi spoke fondly of the Indian Australian community and their success in Australia. I was pleasantly surprised with Mr Modi's friendly gesture and warmth; when I asked for selfie, he agreed with big smile. I was also fortunate to attend PM Modi's address to a sold-out rally of members of the Indian diaspora on Tuesday's community reception held in honour of him at Qudos Bank Arena in Western Sydney. It was an absolutely incredible event, and I thank him so much again for his visit to Australia. (Time expired) Salisbury North Football Club 48 13:58 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence It's been a very tough week this week, sitting in this chamber, listening to much of the debate. What I like to do after a tough week of tough debate in this chamber is to go home and visit my local sporting clubs, because that is the essence of an uplifting spirit. In that vein, there are a few names I want to read out: Gavin Wanganeen, Troy Bond, Shane Bond, Shane Tongerie, Michael O'Loughlin, Ricky O'Loughlin—six fantastic names, six Indigenous names, from my electorate of Spence and specifically from the Salisbury North Football Club. These are people that have graced the football oval at the highest level. This weekend, under the tutelage of Eugene Warrior, another fantastic First Nations person, the Salisbury North Football Club will grace the field and hopefully win for the second Indigenous round to be held at the Salisbury North Football Club. I'm really looking forward to being able to join the club and celebrate this fantastic day. I had the great pleasure of doing it last year, and watching the club win a fantastic game. This year we're playing Edwardstown and I am very, very sure, under Eugene Warrior, that we are going to deliver a successful game—another 'big W'—much like the referendum later this year. We're going to get it over the line. We're going to get it done. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 49 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Energy 49 14:00 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. This morning the Energy Regulator released data showing electricity bills surging under this government by up to 25 per cent for households and 29 per cent for small businesses. The Prime Minister explicitly and repeatedly promised less than a month before last year's election that he would deliver cheaper electricity and an annual cut of $275 to electricity bills. Prime Minister, how can Australians already suffering cost-of-living challenges possibly trust the Albanese government to keep this promise? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. Do not interject when the leader is asking his question. It goes to both sides. I give the call to the Prime Minister. 14:01 Mr R36 Grayndler ALBANESE (—) (): Today, Clare Savage, the chair of the Australian Energy Regulator, said: It's much lower than where we were fearing it could have been last September, October. Opposition members interjecting— Mr ALBANESE R36 What would she know? A lot of what we have seen in the price increases today have been driven by unreliable coal plants, outages and very high fossil fuel prices so that transition to clean energy is critical to bringing down prices. What we are seeing is that the contracts that retailers buy for the coming financial year have fallen quite a bit since the intervention in the coal and gas markets in October last year. They are about 40 per cent lower than they were in October last year. That's what Clare Savage, the chair of the Australian Energy Regulator, said. Mr Dutton 00AKI What did you say? Mr ALBANESE R36 Mr Speaker, he promised to smile more if they made him leader, but I've seen no evidence! There it is! That cheeky little smile. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my right. The SPEAKER 53517 And the member for Page— The SPEAKER 53517 and the member for Gippsland—will cease interjecting so that I can hear from the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Mr Dutton 00AKI Mr Speaker, on a point of order on relevance. This Prime Minister might treat the Australian public like a joke, but use your own words. You promised— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. Just before the Prime Minister continues, the Leader of the Opposition knows he has a great deal of latitude. Points of order for the rest of today will be made in accordance with the standing orders, which will simply be to state the point of order, which is relevance, and no further commentary. I give the call to the Prime Minister. Mr ALBANESE R36 Thank you, Mr Speaker. He's angry because he knows that he voted against helping people. He voted against $3 billion in direct bill relief. He voted against the price caps on gas and coal that the Energy Regulator was speaking about today. He's angry because he opposed the Safeguard Mechanism—their own policy, supported by business and industry. He's angry because he was a part of a government that had 22 energy policies but didn't land one. He's angry because he left us with an energy grid that was built for the last century. He's angry because his government gave $4 million to the proponents of a coal-fired power plant in Collinsville, knowing there was no chance—no chance!—that it would actually go forward. Those opposite are frozen in time while the world warms around them. Those opposite have no way forward. We have had practical measures put forward in this parliament to deal with the challenges that have arisen, that are global challenges that have had a global impact. Those opposite left us with a policy that simply wasn't landed. We're going forward and making a difference. Energy 49 14:05 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. What is the government's response to the release of today's default market offer and what action has the government taken to shield Australians from the worst of the global energy crisis? Are there any threats to this action? Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The House will come to order. The member for O'Connor needs to be reminded that before the minister has spoken is not the time to say a word. The member for Herbert is not helping either. 14:05 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable member for Werriwa for the question. She's a very strong advocate for south-western Sydney. She knows the importance of supporting families and households in places just like south-western Sydney through the period of elevated energy prices. The default market offer released by the Energy Regulator, Clare Savage, this morning does confirm ongoing pressure on power prices and the ongoing relief provided by the Albanese government and the importance of that relief. In the announcement made this morning by Clare Savage she indicated, for example, that the default market offer, which is a safety net offer that one in 10 households are on— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker will cease interjecting or will be warned. Mr BOWEN DZS in New South Wales, our home state, has seen a 21 per cent increase, compared to what the Energy Regulator indicated to the government was likely—a 40 per cent increase—absent intervention. In relation to those households, 1.6 million in New South Wales, for example, have received the rebates negotiated by the Treasurer on behalf of the Commonwealth and the states and territories. Instead of facing a 40 per cent increase in power bills they will see an eight per cent decrease, an eight per cent cut, in their energy bills as a result of the intervention of the Albanese government. There are similar figures right around the country. Take South Australia for example, which was facing a 51 per cent increase. Instead we've seen a 24 per cent increase. After the impact of the rebates, there has been a three per cent cut in their energy bills. The choice facing the Australian parliament was either to let these increases flow through to Australian households doing it tough and Australian businesses doing it tough or to intervene and act. The government chose to intervene and act. We've seen the impact of that today. Indeed, as the Prime Minister indicated, the Energy Regulator, in crystal-clear language, made the importance of that intervention clear earlier today, saying that these increases would have had a five in front of them in the absence of action. We've seen a similar response from the Australian Energy Council when talking about the impact of the rebates. The honourable member asked me about threats. Not only did those opposite vote against the intervention but the Leader of the Opposition has doubled down, not admitted he got it wrong and said that he would rip up this intervention if he became Prime Minister. He would repeal the intervention. He would see these power price increases flow through to Australians without any intervention on his behalf. He wouldn't step forward to protect Australians against the impact of these increases. He would just let them rip. That's his policy—let these increases rip. This government has a different approach. Whether you're in south-western Sydney or in suburbs or regions anywhere in Australia, this government will intervene to protect you from the impact of these power price rises. We will intervene to ensure support for Australians— (Time expired) Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! There's far too much noise in the chamber, particularly coming from over here. If it continues, people won't be warned; they'll be asked to leave. Energy 50 14:09 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Prime Minister. Hardworking Australian households and small businesses received news today that they will see huge increases in their electricity prices from 1 July. Each year households will be worse off by $594 in New South Wales, $512 in South Australia and $402 in South-East Queensland, even though the Prime Minister promised they would be $275 better off. Why did the Prime Minister break his promise and lie to the Australian people? The SPEAKER 53517 I think I know what the Leader of the House is going to say, but I want to hear from him. Mr Burke DYW The Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows that that was out of order, and I ask (1) that it be withdrawn as unparliamentary and (2) that action be considered into whether the question remains on foot at all. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is out of order, but I'm going to give the Deputy Leader of the Opposition a chance to rephrase it. Just withdraw the last part of the question and start a question again, without that inference at the end. Ms LEY 00AMN I withdraw the last part of the question. My question remains to the Prime Minister: hardworking Australian households and small businesses received news today that they will see huge increases in their electricity prices from 1 July. Each year households will be worse off by $594 in New South Wales, $512 in South Australia and $402 in South-East Queensland, even though the Prime Minister promised they would be $275 better off. Why did the Prime Minister break his promise to the Australian people? The SPEAKER 53517 Member for Deakin, I just warned the member for O'Connor about saying things before the Prime Minister or any other minister speaks. You will be warned now. If you say one more thing during question time, you'll be asked to leave. You have been continually disruptive all throughout the week. 14:11 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I'm asked about promises with regard to energy. At the 2019 election, the coalition promised to reduce the wholesale price of electricity to $70 per megawatt by the end of 2021. Spoiler alert: it didn't happen. By the time they left office, the price was $286. They promised $70 and they delivered $286. That was what we inherited. When they were in charge, the member for Hume also promised $1 billion to deliver 3,800 megawatts of new power generation. Spoiler alert: it didn't happen. Not a single kilowatt. Mr Burke DYW Not one? Mr ALBANESE R36 Not one. Not a single dollar—not even a watt. A government member: What! Why? Mr R36 Not a why and not a watt! They also promised a feasibility study on Collinsville. They didn't even publish a study. The proponents got 4 million bucks—$4 million! For what? They produced less than Barnaby Joyce produced as an envoy. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my left and right! The Prime Minister is using the incorrect titles for members, and I ask him to refer to all members by their correct— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I want to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher L6B On relevance, Mr Speaker: the question was very clearly about the Prime Minister's policies—this government's policies and their lack of consistency with what they promised. The standing orders are very clear. Ministers can be asked about and can respond about what the government is doing. The Prime Minister is off on a frolic, and he should be brought back to the question. The SPEAKER 53517 The— An honourable member interjecting— The 53517 No. I'm just going to call the— An honourable member interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 If I'm trying to rule on a point of order, I don't need assistance from people interjecting. I was going to say the Prime Minister has had— Mr Dutton 00AKI Twelve months! Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 I'll just call the Prime Minister, in continuation. Mr Albanese R36 Seriously, Mr Speaker! Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. The House is going to come to order. There is a general warning for the entire House now. The Prime Minister will be heard in silence. Otherwise, action will be taken. Mr ALBANESE R36 Thanks very much, Mr Speaker. We also had promises about Liddell. The former minister, the former member for Kooyong, used to stand here and speak about keeping it open. He promised time and time again. It closed at the end of April, exactly as was planned under their watch. That's exactly what was planned. What we have done is put in place a real plan, a real plan of $3 billion of energy price relief that they voted against—up to $500 in bill relief for eligible households and up to $650 in bill relief for small businesses. Real relief, right off your power bill, right when you need it. We've provided in the budget $1.6 billion for energy efficiency upgrades, including the new Small Business Energy Incentive. With Rewiring the Nation, $16 billion has been provided to unlock the grid, to upgrade it, so that it's able to accept more renewable energy. We signed Marinus Link, which was talked about by those opposite but nothing happened. We declared the first offshore wind zone in Australia. Four hundred community batteries are being deployed across Australia. We've implemented the Capacity Investment Scheme to unlock over $10 billion of investment in batteries, pumped hydro and more renewables in our grid. We have practical plans. Every one of them is opposed by the naysayers opposite. Budget 52 14:15 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid My question is to the Treasurer. Why is a methodical, consistent, responsible approach to managing the economy and budget so important? What are the consequences of not doing so? The 53517 The member for Barker is now warned. 14:16 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thank you to the wonderful member for Reid for her question. Over the past 12 months the Albanese Labor government has begun the hard yards of repairing the budget and building a stronger, fairer and more secure economy. Our responsible economic management is leading to smaller deficits, less debt, less interest costs and a forecast surplus for this year. At the same time, we're delivering cost-of-living relief for Australians doing it tough. Today's DMO confirms we've helped shield people from the worst of the energy price spikes. In an uncertain global environment, our methodical and consistent approach is building buffers against global uncertainty and making our economy more resilient to external shocks. Contrast that with what we've heard from the Leader of the Opposition since his budget reply a couple of weeks ago. It's been two weeks since the budget reply, and the reason why we don't get any questions about the budget from those opposite is that their budget reply is already falling down around them in a shambolic mess. Let me give you a few examples of that. The big idea that the Leader of the Opposition had was to bring back Work for the Dole. The only problem with that is that Work for the Dole hadn't been abolished. It was in the budget. There are thousands of people participating in Work for the Dole, but he wants to bring it back. It's already happening, but he wants to bring it back. Two weeks ago he came up with this big idea about JobSeeker. He wanted to change the way JobSeeker worked. Two weeks later they still can't tell us how much it costs. Whenever they're asked, they say, 'We'll tell you later on, but we want you to support it now.' They have questions from up the back about how they want more people coming to Australia, and then, up the front, about how they want fewer people coming to Australia. That's because they've been busted trying to play two different tunes with the same dog whistle. It still hasn't dawned on them that they're using a measure of inflation that strips out energy and food costs, which they're arguing is the main driver of inflation. It hasn't dawned on them that, when they argue about the $20 billion net policy impact from our budget, that is half of the net policy impact of the last budget that they had, yet they pretend ours is inflationary and theirs is not inflationary. They say they want smaller deficits, but they want to spend more money on defence and they want to give bigger tax breaks to people who've already got tens of millions of dollars in super. They said on budget night that they supported, all along, our energy plan. The only problem with that is that it's the same energy plan they came in here and voted against. This is the usual coalition bin fire of haplessness, hopelessness and heartlessness. They've gone from born to rule to born to rort. You see that in the trillion dollars of debt they left us with almost nothing to show for it. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Riverina does not need to interject. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 52 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Australian Political Exchange Council: Philippines 52 14:19 The SPEAKER 53517 I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is the Australian Political Exchange Council's 14th delegation from the Philippines, led by Ms Eunice Babalcon. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you all. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 52 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Eating Disorders 52 14:19 M 008CH Goldstein s DANIEL () (): My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Recently, 16-year-old Katya from my electorate contacted me about the death of her 15-year-old friend due to an eating disorder. Katya says: 'The fact that the system is so bad that it caused a once young passionate girl full of life to commit suicide is so sickening. I can't even express my words for how disgusted I am.' On behalf of Katya and her friend, whose memorial service was this morning, why was there no new funding for eating disorder treatment in the budget? 14:20 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the member for Goldstein for her question and send all of our condolences to Katya's family and to her friend's family and other friends as well. I want to pay credit to the member's advocacy around this issue from the day she arrived in this place. She works across the aisle with others who've been impacted either directly or through their community representation by this devastating condition. We know it hits people in the prime of their life when they have so much potential before them. We know it's incredibly difficult to treat and sometimes difficult to diagnose, and we know it's incredibly dangerous, as this tragedy reminds us again. It is the single medical illness with the highest mortality rate of all medical illnesses. You also know that—and we've talked about this, member for Goldstein—there has been an increase in presentations right across the country through the COVID period, which has proved very stubborn. It hasn't yet started to subside, unlike some other health impacts of the pandemic. Historically, we all know that there has not been enough good evidence based treatment. Treatment has generally and historically been provided at the state level. We are trying to do more at a Commonwealth level, and to his very great credit, my predecessor, Greg Hunt, put in place a new Medicare program that provides up to 40 additional psychological sessions and 20 dietician sessions per year. That's been running for three years now. I think it's time to evaluate that program and the impact it's had on the community through a difficult period. More than 500,000 sessions of care under that program have already been delivered, which is a great thing, but it hasn't changed the picture nor shifted the dial sufficiently. As you also know, there was money allocated by the former government to state governments for residential treatment centres. I've written to them. We've talked about this not moving quickly enough. I'm hopeful of announcements, including in your state, very soon so that we can actually get up and running. We've allocated $20 million for competitive community grants, which we're about to announce as well. In the budget two weeks ago, we did allocate new funding for this area. It was new funding for services that were otherwise not going to be funded beyond 30 June. The residential treatment centre that you're familiar with on the Sunshine Coast, Wandi Nerida, needed additional funding beyond 30 June. There's the Butterfly Body Bright program, which is a terrific service, and a range of others as well. One of the areas that you and I have talked about, member for Goldstein, where there has never been enough effort in this area, is the area of research. I'm examining options to lift the research capability and the funding from government for research into this terrible area of mental illness, and I'll have more to say about that in the near future. 14:23 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson on indulgence—I want to lend the support of the opposition to the work of the minister and send my condolences to the family and to friends of this young individual, this young Australian, whose life has been cut short at a very early stage. It is one of the most confounding issues for us as a country to deal with. There are members in this parliament who have close family members who have been affected by this disorder. It's a very clear message that, as a parliament, we should send to the government, the crossbench and everybody here that this is an issue we want to do whatever we can to further address. When we were in government, there were 64 new Medicare items for eating disorders, as the minister pointed out, and patients can access up to 40 psychological and 20 diabetic services a year. If more needs to be done, more should be done, particularly in the research area, through the Medical Research Future Fund or other areas of endeavour that we could support in a bipartisan way, we would apply ourselves to that and provide full support to the government's efforts. Early Childhood Education 53 14:24 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to ensure early learning is more affordable for Australian families whilst also ensuring a child's education is of the highest quality? 14:24 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I thank the member for Hawke for his question, and I just want to acknowledge the member for Hawke's tireless work in representing the families and the children in the electorate of Hawke. All parents want the best for their children—a life of opportunities; a life filled with lifelong learning; a life full of experiences that help them thrive. On this side of the House, we want the same for every Australian child—no matter where they live, no matter what their circumstances, no matter what their background. The Albanese Labor government wants every child to have the very best start in life. On Public Education Day, I just want to take a moment to acknowledge the work of my colleague the Minister for Education in ensuring that that best start in life is continued right through schooling, through our public education system. A key part of that is access to high-quality and affordable early childhood education. That's why we're delivering on our commitment to make early childhood education more affordable for 1.2 million families right across Australia, from 1 July. That's just over a month away. That's why we're building on Labor's legacy to ensure that early childhood education and care in Australia is of the highest quality, and that's why we announced, in the last budget, measures to help build the capacity of the early learning workforce. Now, these measures are a direct response to the presentations from and the consultations that I've had with stakeholders and educators in the sector, and I want to thank them for their engagement. They told me that they want and they need professional development, but they often can't get it. They told me that the financial stress of having to undertake practicums was often a disincentive to further study and upskilling. So what we've done is to allocate $72 million in the budget to support professional development and practicums. These measures have been widely welcomed by the sector, including by Elizabeth Death from ELACCA, who said: 'Having the opportunity to undertake professional development and skills training will enable the workforce to build up their expertise and ensure that they have the support they need to advance in their careers.' This government recognises the professionals who educate and care for our children. We believe in the value of early learning. And we heed the evidence about brain development in those first five years of a child's life. That's why we're committed to an affordable, world-class, early childhood education and care system—a system that works for every Australian family and for every Australian child. Energy 54 14:27 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax My question goes to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Darren Pilcher has been a local cafe owner on the Sunshine Coast for the past 8½ years, and he has just gone through one of the toughest years in business, under this Labor government. Darren's electricity bill has risen 60 per cent over the last year, and gas up to 50 per cent. Why are power bills going up when the Prime Minister promised they would go down? 14:28 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I appreciate the question from the honourable member for Fairfax, especially given it's the first one he's asked me since February—since February, and here we are in May. I'm very delighted to get a question from my shadow minister. In fact, I appreciate the shadow minister, generally—generally, I appreciate him. It's very important to me that he stays in his current role. Now, in relation to Queensland's small businesses, it's also the case that, because of this government's intervention, the increase that Queensland's small businesses are facing has gone from 43 per cent down to 22 per cent as a result of the intervention of this government—an intervention those opposite (1) would not have imposed and, secondly, would repeal. The Leader of the Opposition was at the APPEA conference a couple of weeks ago promising to rip it up— Mr BOWEN DZS I say 'Ahpia', you say 'Apia'; I say 'renewables', you say 'nuclear'. Let's call the whole thing off! Now, the Leader of the Opposition was promising to 'rip it up'—to rip up the intervention. He was channelling his inner Reagan. He was saying he was like Ronald Reagan. He was saying: 'Mr Albanese, tear down this bill relief!' That was his message at the APPEA conference. Well, we're not going to stop the bill relief. We're going to continue with the bill relief, for businesses and for households right around the country, because that's what good governments do. Health Care 54 14:30 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. How is the Albanese Labor government's cheaper medicine policy making health care more affordable? Why is this important, and how is it helping to change the lives of Australians? How have the pressures on costs of medicines changed over time? 14:30 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank my friend the member for Makin, who has proudly served his community for more than three decades in the north-eastern suburbs of Adelaide—first as mayor and then, for a long time, in this place. He's been a relentless advocate for better healthcare services in the areas that he serves. Like the rest of us, the member campaigned very hard at the last election on our promise to make medicines cheaper, and we're delivering on that promise by listing more lifesaving, life-changing medicines on the PBS and by cutting the script prices for millions and millions of patients. Yesterday I had the absolute pleasure of joining three extraordinary young Australians and their parents: Oscar, who's 10 and, the Deputy Prime Minister will be pleased to hear, a fierce Geelong Football Club supporter; Ari, who's 12; and three-year-old Kira from the Sunshine Coast. All three of these kids have achondroplasia, the most common form of dwarfism. The 140 kids born with this condition every year are 50 times more likely than other babies not to live beyond five years of age. And if they do survive, they'll likely have to endure multiple major surgeries and live for years with pain and disability. Yesterday, we celebrated the PBS listing of an extraordinary new drug, Voxzogo—a treatment that was proven through global clinical trials led by the researchers at the Murdoch Children's Research Institute down in Melbourne. This drug is going to transform the lives of all of these kids. Without the PBS listing though, the drug that they'll have to take from early infancy up until the time their growth plates close at 16 or 18, would cost $330,000 every single year. Under the PBS, it will cost just $30 a script. We're also committed to cutting the price of PBS scripts for patients. I've said this a couple of times in this place, but on 1 January we delivered the biggest cut to the price of medicines in the 75-year history of the PBS. In the budget, we announced that we've also accepted advice from the experts in the PBS to allow patients to access up to 60 days supply of common medicines for chronic disease. This will halve the cost of those medicines for six million patients, which is why our decision has been supported by a long, long list of patient groups. It will also halve the number of routine visits to GPs to get a repeat script, freeing up millions of GP consults every year for other patients, which, again, is why our decision has been supported by every single doctors group in this country. We will reinvest every single dollar the Commonwealth saves from this change back into community pharmacy, but this government is deeply committed to delivering cheaper and cheaper medicines for Australians. It's good for their hip pocket and it's also good for their health. Renewable Energy 55 14:33 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn Mr Speaker, my question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. The minister stated in a speech on 24 September 2022 that Australia will need to install 22,000 solar panels every day and 40 wind turbines every month by 2030 to reach the government's 82 per cent renewable energy target. It has been over 240 days since this speech. Can the minister provide an update on how many solar panels and wind turbines have been installed in this time frame? 14:34 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I'm very happy to. Investment in large-scale renewables is at 55 per cent under this government. We've had 7.1 gigawatts committed of investment in renewable energy since this government was elected. That's the update for the honourable member. We on this side are very proud of renewable energy. They pretend—some of them pretend to support renewable energy; some of them, like the member Flynn, to his credit, don't bother to pretend. Family, Domestic and Sexual Violence 55 14:34 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie My question is to the Minister for Social Services. How is the Social Services portfolio delivering on the Albanese Labor government's commitments to prioritise action on ending family, domestic and sexual violence, to create a better future for all Australians? 14:35 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I thank the member for Macquarie for the question. The Albanese government has not wasted a single day in delivering our plan to build a better future for all Australians, and this of course includes in the Social Services portfolio. In our first 12 months we've delivered on our commitments, laying a strong foundation for a better future for all Australians. We've already delivered for over 16,000 older Australians who have now been granted the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card, who would not have been eligible previously. We've also legislated measures to support pensioners who are downsizing their homes, and we've frozen deeming rates. We've delivered the promised doubling of funding for disability representative organisations and we have begun development of the National Autism Strategy. We've improved paid parental leave and we're expanding it so that parents can access six months, and we're strengthening the social safety net by providing additional cost-of-living relief for those on the lowest incomes. Of course, a key priority for this government has been taking action to address family, domestic and sexual violence. We have delivered the 10-year National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children in one generation, with that commitment up by a $2 billion record investment in women's safety initiatives. Ms Ley 00AMN But you haven't delivered the action plan! The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Ms RISHWORTH HWA In the most recent budget, we've committed $159 million to extend funding for women's safety frontline services. We've delivered the national partnerships agreement that was due to cease— Ms Ley 00AMN Nothing's happened! The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause for a moment. Deputy Leader of the Opposition, when I say 'cease interjecting', that means cease interjecting. No more interjections. Ms RISHWORTH HWA As I was saying—the national partnerships agreement, which was due to cease on 30 June this year unless we intervened. This is in addition to funding 500 extra community and support workers for women and children experiencing family, domestic and sexual violence. We've made significant funding commitments to the First Nations family safety initiative. We've legislated 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave, which women are now accessing to keep them safe, and we've delivered more than $352 million over two budgets to extend, improve and expand the escaping violence payment. Of course, this program was left in absolute shambles by the previous government, and our government has been fixing the mess. When we came to government, there was a backlog of more than 4,000 people waiting for their payment to be processed. Wait times of payments were, on average, 33 business days from the date the claim was raised to being dealt with. This was unacceptable. I'm pleased to advise the House that, as at the end of April 2023, victims-survivors are having their claims dealt with within six business days on average. This is making a real difference to people and fixing the mess that those opposite left us. In 12 months, the Albanese government is delivering on our commitments to make a meaningful difference in the lives of Australians. (Time expired) Victoria: Taxation 56 14:38 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of the Victorian Premier's $8.6 billion decade of tax on businesses and property investors in that state? Yesterday, the Premier encouraged Victorians to use his so-called COVID debt levy to offset their Commonwealth tax obligations, costing Australian taxpayers $3 billion over the next four years. Does the Prime Minister support Premier Andrews's decision to slug Victorians with $8.6 billion of taxes? Opposition members interjec ting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left! The question was about the Victorian budget, but I just want to hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, ministers are to be asked, under standing orders, about what's within their portfolio. It is open to any member of the parliament to contest a state election. But, if question time starts to become commentary on every state issue, it fundamentally just undermines what question time's here for. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I want to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher L6B Mr Speaker, it very clearly has an implication for Commonwealth revenues, as indeed the Victorian Premier has explicitly pointed out, and that's why it goes squarely to the Prime Minister's responsibilities. The SPEAKER 53517 If the question was around the impact to the Commonwealth budget or something the Prime Minister—that was not part of the question. I agree with the Manager of Opposition Business, but the end part of the question was, 'Do you support the Victorian state budget?' That was the part of the question that was asked. I'm going to allow the question, but I just say, for the benefit of members in future: in framing questions, they can be related directly to the Prime Minister's or the minister's responsibility. That question is going to be totally within standing orders. Because of the respect I have for the member for Hughes, I'm going to allow the Prime Minister to address the end part of the question. 14:40 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I'm not sure what bit that was, Mr Speaker, but I'm happy to talk about budgets. I'm happy to talk about our budget, which I'm responsible for as the person who chairs the cabinet. I'm happy to talk about our boost to bulk-billing, helping 11 million Australians see a doctor for free. I'm happy to talk about halving medicine costs. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister for climate change is not helping and will cease interjecting or be warned. I want to hear from the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Dutton 00AKI Thank you, Mr Speaker. To assist you, as you directed: the question—and you directed the Prime Minister to the last part of the question—was: does the Prime Minister support Premier Andrews's decisions to slug Victorians with $8.6 billion of taxes? The SPEAKER 53517 I was listening carefully to the manager, and I was hoping that would be a cue, because the question was about responsibilities of the Victorian budget, which the Prime Minister does not have responsibility for. That is clear under standing orders, but I'm just going to allow this question to go, and I'm just going to get the Prime Minister to be as relevant as he can to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 I'm trying to help him out, Mr Speaker. That's a very generous ruling, of course, that you have made. I support the federal budget, which has benefits for every single state and territory in this country. Victorian aged-care workers will benefit massively from the 15 per cent pay increase that will occur. They'll benefit from the additional Medicare urgent care clinics that are there. They'll benefit from getting wages moving; that's occurring as well. Victorians will benefit from the energy bill relief that we put in place. Those Victorians who are searching for work and on JobSeeker will benefit from the $40-a-fortnight increase. Many Victorians, as well, particularly single mums, will welcome the additional support provided by extending the single parenting payment from the youngest child reaching eight to the youngest child reaching 14. Victorians will benefit from the increased rent assistance, the biggest increase in 30 years. They'll benefit from the 10 days family and domestic violence leave. They'll benefit from the energy efficiency measures that we have there as well. Victorian small businesses will certainly welcome the small business incentives that are in place as a result, including the expansion of the instant asset write-off. Victorians, of course, will benefit greatly from our budget. When I've been in Victoria, in the electorate of Higgins, with the member for Higgins, visiting a medicine centre, I talked with doctors about the benefit that they will have from our plan to increase the bulk-billing incentive by three times. That will make an enormous difference as well. When I was in the electorate of Goldstein at the Brighton pub—I suspect the first-ever Labor Prime Minister to visit Brighton—they certainly said that the budget was very well received. When I was in McEwen, at a childcare centre in McEwen just a week ago, they certainly were very pleased that cheaper child care will come in on July 1. I'll be in Ballarat in a short period of time— (Time expired) Vocational Education and Training 57 14:45 Dr REID 300126 Robertson My question is to the Minister for Skills and Training. How has the Albanese Labor government cleaned up the mess of a wasted decade in skills? How is the government continuing to work to give Australians the skills and training they need for the jobs and opportunities of the future? 14:45 Mr O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I thank the member for Robertson for his question, and I look forward to catching up with him at the Gosford TAFE in the near future. In the last 12 months, the Albanese government has not wasted a minute. That's because we're a government that responds to the national challenges that we confront. It's why we are laying a stronger foundation for a better future. It's also because, upon election, not only did we inherit $1 trillion of Liberal Party and National Party debt; we were bequeathed by those opposite a massive skills deficit across the entire economy. In fact, if you want to hear a few more statistics, in one year the number of occupations on the shortage list went from 153 to 286, almost doubling in one year. The OECD cited that Australia's labour shortage per capita was the second highest amongst OECD countries when we came to government. So we were dealing with massive challenges. That's why the government very quickly convened the Jobs and Skills Summit, bringing together industries, employers, unions, universities, the VET sector and state and territory governments. We know that to deal with these national challenges we must work together. We created Jobs and Skills Australia, which is providing strategic advice to deliver the existing skills that are in demand and those skills that are emerging in the labour market. We struck a 12-month agreement with all state and territory governments to deliver 180,000 fee-free VET and TAFE places, 150,000 of which are already filled. We're also strengthening and targeting support for apprentices to lift completion rates; encouraging more women into trade apprenticeships through improved financial and non-financial support; and supplying new energy apprenticeships to assist with the massive demand in the renewable energy sector, and 1,000 of those apprentices have already enrolled. But there is so much more work to be done. This includes negotiating a further 300,000 fee-free TAFE and VET places from 2024 and finalising a $3.7 billion National Skills Agreement which will provide greater access to the VET sector. This agreement will be the vehicle whereby we will bring about significant reforms of the VET sector to ensure that it is fit for purpose. We've been busy over the last 12 months, but we know there's a lot more to do. Those opposite can keep carping and saying no to everything. We'll just continue to deliver to Australian students, workers, businesses and the economy. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 57 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Australian Political Exchange Council: Philippines 57 14:48 The SPEAKER 53517 I was a little early before with the welcome to the Political Exchange Council's delegation from the Philippines, who are now here. I welcome their delegation, with Ms Eunice Babalcon. A very warm welcome to our parliament. Honourable members: Hear, Hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 58 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Forestry Industry 58 14:48 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. This week the Labor government in Victoria said it would end native forest logging, yet Australia has the highest rate of deforestation in the developed world and the federal government allows native forest logging to continue in New South Wales and Tasmania. When will the minister put an end to native forest logging across the whole of Australia? 14:49 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I want to thank the member for Wentworth for her question. I know that she is absolutely committed to better environmental protection around Australia and, like us here, as part of the Albanese Labor government, believes that we need to protect more of what's precious, restore more of what's damaged and manage nature better for the future. She's quite right that we saw some very big news from Victoria during the week, following news from Western Australia a few months ago about their native forest logging industry. I say to the member for Wentworth that we are very supportive and know that it's important to have a forestry industry here in Australia. That's why the Albanese Labor government put $300 million into upgrading the equipment for having more sophisticated forestry uses in Australia, into better training the workforce and, very importantly, into expanding plantations, which already provide about 90 per cent of our forestry needs here in Australia. On the issue of native forests in New South Wales and other parts of Australia, I think it's very important to acknowledge that forests are very important carbon sequestration providers. They're very important habitat. As the minister for the environment I'm obviously very concerned to ensure that forests that are homes for Leadbeater's possums, greater gliders and koalas, which are endangered now, continue to offer those important homes and habitats for those creatures. We are determined to make sure as we update the environment protection laws that regional forest agreements come under our new national environment standards. We're working very closely with the states, the industry and the conservation movement to make sure that happens. Employment 58 14:51 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. How is the Albanese Labor government growing the workforce we need in Australia's defence industry? Why are these measures needed? How do they differ from the actions of former governments? 14:51 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland I thank the member for her question and her passionate advocacy for the South Australian defence industry. The truth is that the Australian defence industry is a critical input to our national defence. Over 100,000 Australian defence industry workers get up every day to support the men and women of the Australian Defence Force. This will increase as we increase our defence funding to deal with the strategic challenges that we're seeing at the moment. Twenty thousand direct jobs will be created to support the nuclear propelled submarines alone. The truth is we'll need many more workers as we get on with the job of implementing the Defence strategic review recommendations, including modernising the Australian Army, enhancing the lethality of the Royal Australian Navy, giving more strike options to the Air Force and establishing sovereign missile manufacturing capability in this country. That means more business for Australian industry and that means more workers are needed. That's why the Albanese Labor government is making very significant investments. We're establishing the skills academy in South Australia to actually train workers to work in our submarine and surface fleet construction programs. We've announced $130 million for 4,000 additional uni places in STEM subjects. We've allocated $11 million to the WA Defence Industry Pathways Program. We're providing certainty to employers. We're taking the hard decisions around prioritising projects. We're increasing defence funding over the decade to give employers certainty to hire more Australian workers. This differs from the uncertainty and chaos in defence we saw under the last government. Firstly they wanted to build submarines in Japan. Then they spent $3.4 billion on the Attack class submarines. Then they stuffed up the Henderson maritime precinct. They then spent—and this is my favourite—$114 million on the Naval Shipbuilding College. Guess how many workers they trained? Zero. There were zero workers trained for $114 million of expenditure. There were 24 ministers in the Defence portfolio in a shambolic 9½ years and the result was 28 major projects running cumulatively 97 years late and $6½ billion over budget. They also left a 10-year capability gap with our submarines. The truth is that they talked the big game but they cut $12 billion from the defence budget and they added $42 billion of spending commitments without a single new dollar being added. By contrast, the Albanese Labor government is providing sober adult leadership. We're increasing resources to defence to face the challenges, unlike the negative 'no-alition' over there. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister is now warned. That term is not parliamentary. If anyone else uses that term, there will be actions. Forestry 59 14:54 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his statement to timber workers prior to the election where he said, 'Labor supports your industry, your family and your community.' Prime Minister, given the Victorian Labor government's decision to ban all native harvesting of timber in just six months, sacking thousands of workers, what support has the Prime Minister and his government actually provided for timber workers across Australia, or is this just another broken promise? 14:55 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I am asked the second question I have been asked today about Victoria. We know that in the last term of parliament, the attacks were pretty consistent from the former government against the Andrews government and we know how well that worked out for them, because the Andrews government received an increased majority when they went to the people of Victoria last year. The Victorian government has a $200 million structural adjustment package in its budget, given I have been asked about it. I certainly do support timber workers. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Gippsland is warned. If he speaks again he will leave the chamber. Mr ALBANESE R36 Through the regional forestry agreements process, we work with states and territories to support Australia's forestry industry to operate under high standards for environmental management and sustainable harvesting. We need timber products and we want sustainable forestry jobs. The SPEAKE 53517 The member for Barker will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Barker then left the chamber. Mr ALBANESE R36 That's why we, the Commonwealth government, are investing $300 million to grow plantations, modernise our timber manufacturing infrastructure and build the skills of our forestry workforce. I note that through the National Reconstruction Fund we specifically set aside funding to support the forestry industry, but the member for Gippsland voted against it and everyone here voted against it as well. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Gippsland on a point of order? The Prime Minister has concluded his answer, so it is not about the answer. Mr Chester IPZ Why do you hate timber workers so much? The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Gippsland knows what he has just done there, which is completely unparliamentary, and he will keep walking out of the chamber. Member for Gippsland, before you leave, I am going to ask you to withdraw that last part of your statement. Just withdraw being gutless. Mr Chester IPZ I want to understand on what basis, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER 53517 The phrase he used was unparliamentary. It is not only an abuse of standing orders; it's— Mr Chester IPZ I acknowledge the abuse of standing orders and I withdraw the word 'hate'. Is that right? The SPEAKER 53517 If you could just withdraw. Mr Chester IPZ I am withdrawing. I withdraw. The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the member. The member for Gippsland then left the chamber. Infrastructure 59 14:58 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. How has the Albanese Labor government delivered a better future across the country in the infrastructure portfolio over its first 12 months? Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Members on my left will cease interjecting. There is going to be silence so I can hear the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. 14:59 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I thank the member for McEwen for his question. He is a tireless advocate for his community and he knows first-hand how important it is that our government deliver on our commitments. Well, over the last 12 months that's exactly what we've been doing. First, we began the hard work of cleaning up the mess left behind by those opposite after a decade of waste, rorts and mismanagement. First, we began the hard work by reviewing Infrastructure Australia, returning—I can't hear, Mr Speaker. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! This has become an ongoing issue, particularly when ministers are on their feet. We had this problem yesterday. Allow the minister to be heard in silence. I can't hear a word that she's saying. It's unacceptable. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR We've reviewed Infrastructure Australia, returning it to its rightful place as the Commonwealth's infrastructure adviser, with the bill passing this House yesterday. We're fixing the major projects that will deliver a more resilient and prosperous future, starting with Inland Rail, a project where those opposite managed to build just over 16 per cent of the 1,700-kilometre track but still saw costs blow out by 559 per cent. We're starting work on new transformative nation-building projects like high-speed rail, focusing on Newcastle to Sydney. We're partnering with Queensland to deliver the Brisbane Olympics. We're working with the states and territories to clean up the infrastructure investment pipeline, conducting a 90-day review to make sure that the Commonwealth is investing in the projects that matter to Australians, but also so that we can invest in local government. We've ended the regional rorts that those opposite presided over. We've created new transparent and equitable grants programs for the cities, suburbs and regions. Thanks to these new programs, for the very first time every local government area in the country will be eligible to apply for an open, competitive grants program to deliver much-needed community infrastructure and bring forward plans to improve precincts to transform their communities. We've invested an additional $250 million in local roads in regional, rural and peri-urban Australia, on top of the $50 million we allocated in February and the billion dollars we're rolling out through this budget to every single state and territory for road safety. That includes $270 million for road safety projects in New South Wales, $255 million in Queensland and over $100 million in Victoria and Western Australia. We're building greater resilience in our supply chains through the work of our Strategic Fleet Taskforce, decarbonising the maritime sector with green shipping corridors. And we are setting the aviation sector up for the future with our Aviation white paper and our jet zero council. We're working on the largest scale projects, like sealing the Tanami and the more than $3.5 billion I released just this week for the metro to Western Sydney airport; and smaller projects, like the Santa Teresa Road, which I released $17 million for just today. We're getting on with the job of building infrastructure and delivering for our regions and our great cities right across the country. (Time expired) Youth Allowance 60 15:02 Mr BATES 300246 Brisbane My question is to the Minister for Social Services. My electorate of Brisbane has the youngest demographic in Queensland. Young people both in Brisbane and across the country feel left behind, struggling to afford rent, seeing their HECS debt skyrocket and watching their standards of living drop. Under the changes proposed in the budget, the rate of youth allowance will be $602.80 per fortnight, just $43 a day. Young people do not get discounts on their rent or groceries, so why is youth allowance still one of the lowest income support payments? A government member interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Whoever is groaning there—the member for Holt—will be warned. 15:03 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I'd like to thank the member for his question. What we've done in this budget is a very responsible cost-of-living package for those doing it toughest. As part of our initiatives, we have committed to a $40 increase in the base rate of many of those working-age payments. That, of course, includes JobSeeker, which those opposite have not made a decision about. It also includes Abstudy, Austudy and a range of other payments. This has been responsible and important. I'd like to point out to the House that this base rate increase, which I introduced legislation on into the parliament today, will actually have indexation applied after the base rate has increased on 20 September, if it indeed passes the Senate. I look forward to all of those across the Senate supporting that important piece of legislation. Also, as mentioned previously in question time today, we've increased the maximum rate of Commonwealth rental assistance by 15 per cent—the largest increase in over 30 years. Of course, that will have indexation applied as well. Many students do access Commonwealth rent assistance because they access the private rental market. Therefore, this payment and increase will be very much welcomed by students right around the country. What we've done in this budget is have a carefully calibrated budget that delivers for those on income support, including students, and I hope that we will see the support across the Senate from all parties, including the crossbench, including those opposite, because it will make a real difference to people 's lives. Regional Australia 61 15:05 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories. Over the last 12 months, how has the Albanese Labor government abandoned previous poor practices in order to deliver for regional Australia and create a strong foundation for the future? 15:06 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro I thank the member for her question, a strong advocate not only for her own regional community but for regional communities across the country. On this side of the chamber, postcodes don't matter. We know we've got to deliver for all of Australia and that's what we are doing. Opposition members interjecting— Ms McBAIN 281988 I hear the sea of suits—really lovely to hear you today! But when you were in government, instead of playing a game of charades about what you thought government looked like—it's more than just a press release, a photo, a head nod in the back of the press conference—you actually have to do the delivery part. That's what you forgot over the last 10 years. We have done more in the last 12 months than those did in 10 years, because the regions are much more than just a grants program, because we want regional Australia to seize the huge opportunities that come with a shift to cleaner and cheaper renewable energy, a shift that those opposite deliberately ignored for a decade. But, first, we've got to clean up the mess that was left by those opposite. Every time we've looked at the big regional programs dreamt up by those opposite, we've found real problems for our communities: an inland rail project that blew out by approximately $31 billion, an infrastructure pipeline where the projects blew out from 150 to 800— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Cowper will cease interjecting. Ms McBAIN 281988 without any additional funding, and projects that were promised with no funding partners and without any business cases. It's like an episode of Utopia. So many promises over those 10 years and nothing delivered. The only difference is, Utopia's funny; they are not. In 12 months we have delivered more and we are laying the foundations for a better future for our communities across the country. In our very first budget, we delivered and committed a billion dollars to new regional programs. Unlike those opposite, we've spent time to make sure that the programs we're delivering will be delivered in a fair, transparent and accountable way. It will be a fair process done, not one with colour coded spreadsheets, because we know regional Australians deserve much more than an ad hoc grants round. They want real programs to deliver real outcomes. We've already provided increased connectivity by properly funding the NBN and fixing mobile phone black spots, housing assistance through the regional first home buyers scheme, skills assistance through fee-free TAFE places and more university places, funds for increased disaster resilience and mitigation—and I note those laughing opposite about black-spot funds in natural disaster prone electorates. Shame on you! In our most recent budget, we continue to help regional Australians— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! There is far too much noise. Members on my left. Ms McBAIN 281988 by tripling the bulk-billing incentive, establishing a net zero authority and committing a billion dollars to the national biosecurity system. We have done more in 12 months to deliver than those did in 10 years, and you should be ashamed of yourself for— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for McEwen is warned. Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. Opposition members interjecting — The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left will cease interjecting immediately. If anyone else interjects while the Prime Minister is speaking, they will be removed immediately. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 62 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE McGovern, Mr Francis Joseph, OAM 62 15:09 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler It is fitting that our parliament pause for a moment to honour the remarkable life of a great Australian, Frank McGovern. Frank McGovern is the last of the survivors of HMAS Perth, and he passed away overnight. Frank joined the Naval Reservists in 1939 at just 19 years of age. He was on board the HMAS Perth in 1942 when it was attacked by the Japanese invasion convoy. Frank survived the sinking, but 357 sailors ultimately perished. Among them was Frank's brother, Vince. Frank was ordered onto a Japanese destroyer and became a prisoner of war, working on the infamous Burma-Siam Railway. In 1944, the order came for prisoners to be transported to the coal mines and factories of Japan. Frank was among the over 1,000 Australian and British prisoners forced into the cramped hull of Rakuyo Maru. In the early hours of 12 September 1944, the ship was hit by American torpedoes, unaware that Allied prisoners of war were present in the hull of that ship. This was one of Australia's worst maritime disasters. One thousand five hundred POWs perished in the sinking, including 543 Australians. Frank survived that attack—think about that; he survived two sinkings—and located a lifeboat left behind by the Japanese. For three days, he and 30 other soldiers survived in this lifeboat. By the third day, with nothing, Frank and his crew were ordered at gunpoint to board a Japanese ship, becoming a prisoner of war for the second time. He endured months of work in the factories at Kawasaki camp in Tokyo before the US commenced the deadliest air raid in history, with 2,000 tons of incendiary bombs dropped over 16 square miles of Tokyo. Frank was moved to a new camp only to narrowly survive another bombing. This one fractured his spine. In Shebora hospital, he was warned about the danger to incapacitated prisoners. Frank managed to stand and walk at pace for the Japanese guards. He told them the story about how some of his colleagues would go off for what was termed 'surgery' and be drained of their blood because it was being used for the Japanese soldiers who were injured. One of his colleagues and comrades told him that this was what was going on. So, somehow, with a fractured spine, he managed to stand and get out of the hospital in order to avoid the dreadful fate that some of his comrades were dealt. He returned to the camp and continued to work, somehow, because those who weren't able to work were not able to survive. He was one of the first Australians to be repatriated back to Sydney after the war ended by our friends, the United States. He arrived in Sydney on 15 September 1945. After his family reached out to me, I had the extraordinary privilege of meeting with Frank on 22 April, just before Anzac Day this year, and it was covered by the Daily Telegraph that day. He was, at that time, at the Eastern Suburbs Private Hospital. He was a bit upset, because Frank, at 103 years of age, was still living at home by himself and cooking for himself. He told me the secret to a long life was that he drank a bottle of wine every day, and he insisted, even though it was a reasonably early hour of the morning, that I have a beer with him, and I did that. He was amazing, an extraordinary Australian as part of our greatest generation—a man of deep modesty, gentle humour and powerful optimism. As I am a Roosters fan, he gave me complete curry about rugby league and how Easts were a much better team—of course, he still called them Easts—than South Sydney. His family were around him on that day. One of the great privileges of being Prime Minister is that sometimes you get to do some things like that without TV cameras. You get to just say thank you to a great Australian. After all that he'd endured, when he went through his story—a prisoner of war twice and a survivor of two torpedo attacks—he said, 'I've been lucky in life.' He told me that every Anzac Day—he didn't march anymore; he used to, but he ran out of mates—he thought about his family and spent the day with them. Frank McGovern lived to see what his service and his mates' sacrifice meant to all Australians. We salute his life today. He's gone but, like all who have served our great country in uniform in the past and today, he will never be forgotten. Lest we forget. 15:16 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson on indulgence—I want to join in supporting the Prime Minister. I congratulate him on his fine words in a very emotional contribution, and a very fitting one, on one of our finest Australians. It's a remarkable story. It's truly incredible when you think about the fact that he survived the sinking of HMAS Perth in 1942, 80 years ago, in modern history. He spoke about being a person who led a lucky life. We are the ones who are lucky to have had people of that character in our history. We are here today as a country, and we survive and are strengthened and stand tall in the world, because of people like Frank McGovern, and we should never forget it. We commemorate much of our history, but we don't concentrate enough on the great stories of those pioneers—those people in the first and second world wars, Vietnam, Korea and other conflicts, including in the Middle East, that have strengthened our national character. People like Frank McGovern would do it all over again for this country—for those people that they love and for the country that they cherish. I want to pay tribute to Frank and to his fallen comrades. A hundred and three is an incredible innings. We should point out, I suppose, Prime Minister, for the benefit of our colleagues: yes, to enjoy a bottle of wine each day will get you to 103, but that is not encouragement to have two bottles a day. To our colleagues: if you want to live beyond 103, it requires some other adjustments to lifestyle. I want to pay tribute to all of those men and women who have served in uniform, because Frank did that. He was a very significant part of the Coogee-Randwick-Clovelly sub-branch of the RSL. He was rightly honoured with an OAM, and he is a reminder, as the Prime Minister rightly says, of our greatest generation. May he rest in peace. Lest we forget. The SPEAKER 53517 As a mark of respect to the passing of Frank McGovern, I ask all present to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the House. Comrades Marathon 63 15:19 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner Mr Speaker, last sittings you generously hosted the Indigenous Marathon Foundation for an afternoon tea in your office. On 11 June I'll be running South Africa's 87-kilometre Comrades ultramarathon to raise funds for the Indigenous Marathon Foundation. Founded by South African veterans after World War I, the Spirit of Comrades is said to be embodied by the values of camaraderie, selflessness, perseverance and ubuntu. Comrades is the world's largest and oldest ultramarathon, and I hope members might consider supporting the Indigenous Marathon Foundation by sponsoring me in my run. The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the member, and wish him well. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 63 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report No. 26 of 2022-23 63 15:20 The SPEAKER 53517 I present the Auditor-General's financial statements audit report No. 26 of 2022-23, entitled Interim report on key financial controls of major entities. Document made a parliamentary paper. DOCUMENTS 63 DOCUMENTS Presentation 63 15:20 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I present the report to the statutory review of the Modern Slavery Act 2018, The first three years. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 63 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Power Prices 63 15:20 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Fairfax proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: This Government's failure to deliver its promised $275 cut in power bills and the damage this is doing to Australian families and businesses. 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— 15:21 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax As if middle Australia wasn't already doing it tough enough—higher prices, higher taxes and higher mortgages—it's just about to get tougher yet. Much of the pain felt by middle Australia—these are everyday, hardworking Australians—is a direct consequence of the failed policy experiments of the Albanese Labor government. Over the last 12 months the country has been changing, and so too has the way of life for everyday Australians as they come to appreciate the impact of a Labor government. This transition from a coalition government to a Labor government has reinforced differences between Australia's two great governing parties. For the coalition, we believe in small government. We believe in freedom of the individual. We believe in the importance of family. We believe in empowering local communities, and we believe in small business, free enterprise and entrepreneurship. When these values underpin the government of Australia, middle Australia wins. People's lives improve, family budgets get easier to manage and younger generations have more opportunities to get ahead, to buy a home and to make ends meet. But when the Labor Party is in power, as it is now, all this goes out the window, because what the Labor Party believes in is big government. Individuals, the family, the local community, businesses, enterprise, entrepreneurs—all out the window because all that matters to Labor is big government. This is especially the case when it comes to the energy system, where Labor believes not only in big government but also in big promises. Despite the coalition reducing power prices under its watch—in fact, in the last term of government alone, power prices went down by eight per cent for households, 10 per cent for businesses and 12 per cent for industries. But still the Labor Party went to the last federal election promising the Australian people they could get these power prices down even further than that. They made a promise, and they made that promise no less than 97 times before the election. They were so confident about it that even after the invasion of Ukraine they kept it going. If you go to the Australian Labor Party's website today, sure enough, that big promise is still there. The question I know you are asking yourself, Deputy Speaker Claydon, is: what was that promise? I'll give you a hint. The promise was about household power bills. Labor promised to reduce household power bills by—guess how many dollars? Have a guess. $275. That's right, Labor promised to reduce average household power bills by $275. Mr Hogan 218019 How's that going? Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 How is that going, Member for Page? How is that going? It's failing and failing miserably. And guess who's paying the price? Middle Australia. The same people who were ignored in the recent federal budget are the ones who'll be paying the price. These are everyday Australians who aren't recipients of government payments. In fact, they don't even want government in their lives. We're talking about the tradies who get up early every morning to make sure they're on site on time. We're talking about the bakers who are moulding dough before the sun even rises. We are talking about the cafe owners who get to the shop early to set up. This is middle Australia, people who don't ask for anything from government but for government to get out of their way so they can live their lives. But they won't get that from this Labor government because this government believes in big government. Since coming to office, the Albanese government have inserted themselves at the centre of Australia's energy market. With their unprecedented market interventions, the government now call the shots. They are the ones picking the technologies because they think they know better than the engineers, than the economists on how the industry should run. They don't believe in a balance of technologies like the coalition does; they don't believe in having an all-of-the-above approach like we do. Rather, they pick their favourites. But they also know the technologies they wish to demonise, and those they wish to demonise they restrict supply, or they seek to turn supply off. We know the result already from these massive interventions. We know that already we have gas at extraordinary prices throughout this country. We know that prices continue to rise for every single electricity user in this country. And we have our trading partners, some of our most important long-standing trading partners, now, for the first time, looking at Australia as a sovereign risk because Labor are demonising the very resources they rely on—and they are the same resources we rely on here for our own energy system. But here is the thing: if you want to be 'big government' and insert yourself or put yourself at the centre of the energy market then you can't have it both ways. You can't then blame someone else when electricity prices go up. If you want to be at the centre, if you want to call the shots, then you have to cop it when the prices go up—and the prices are going up. When government empowers itself, especially with a very, very visible albeit incompetent hand in the market, it is to blame when prices go up. Now, let's check out how they are delivering on that $275 promise. To date, instead of power prices coming down by $275, under this Labor government they have risen as high as $500 for average households. Think about this. You have power prices, Labor says they're going to reduce them by $275, but it goes up by $500. That means there's a $775 difference between what Labor had promised them they would pay and what they actually have to pay. That is the price of a broken promise. But the thing is, that's only the broken promise as of today. The real problem now for those people of middle Australia, hard-working Australians, is when they woke up this morning, they found out that it's going to get even worse because the default market offer said on 1 July it's going to get even more expensive. For those in the DMO jurisdictions, we are looking at average prices going up by around 25 per cent. For some households, the price increase will be as high as $600 a year. For some households there is a difference of $800. When you are talking about what Labor had promised those households and what they'll have to pay, it's a difference of around $1,400. That is the cost of what Labor is doing here. We can talk about numbers all we like, but there's a human story here. It's the human story that worries me most. We have 82,000 families in this country who are already on hardship programs. That's only going to get worse. If we think of last winter, we had stories of senior citizens who had to make a decision about whether or not they could turn the heating on or put food on the table. Will any of the Labor members who will speak today guarantee seniors that they will not have to make that tragic choice this winter? Behind these numbers lie the human stories of middle Australians that are struggling. The fact that this government did not have a single measure in its recent federal budget to assist middle Australia is a disgrace. These higher prices are on them. They have broken a promise and they are only making it harder for middle Australia. 15:31 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond We are a government that is committed to providing cost-of-living relief for Australian families, particularly when it comes to their power bills. We took urgent action to shield Australian families and businesses from the worst of the energy price spikes. Our energy relief plan is providing targeted energy bill relief and, very importantly, investing in cleaner, cheaper energy for the future. Meanwhile, those in opposition, the Liberals and the Nationals, voted to make power bills higher for families. They had an opportunity to assist Australian families, but they voted against it. The reality is that we are currently dealing with the most significant shock to energy markets in 50 years, due to Russia's prolonged attack on Ukraine. We know that global energy market disruptions have become more pronounced and are persisting longer than anticipated, and so are our domestic energy market challenges, which have all been made worse by ageing electricity assets and the decade of inaction and indecision by those opposite when they were in government. This is why our action as a government has been so incredibly important. We know, and the final default market offer confirms, that the Albanese government has limited the worst of the energy price spikes while investing in a long-term plan to get cheaper, cleaner energy to all Australians. The fact is our government has taken action to take that sting out of power prices and invest in the cheapest form of energy, renewables, because that's what the country voted for. One of the many reasons they voted against the previous government was its consistent inaction on climate change. But we are delivering on our commitment to take action because we are really focused on transforming Australia's economy to a low carbon economy. We are taking action to ensure Australia is positioned to become a renewable energy superpower. Of course, in our recent budget we had critical investments to save Australians money on their energy bills and invest in nation-building new industries. For too long our country was left behind the rest of the world because of the inaction of those in the opposition. In addition to targeted household rebates to provide energy bill relief, our recent budget is funding a plan to ensure households and communities can take advantage of the savings from smarter energy use and ensures that our nation is really prepared to capitalise on the global boom in clean energy investment. We're doing that through a whole range of measures. Targeted power bill relief is so important to families who are dealing with cost-of-living pressures at the moment. It was part of a huge cost-of-living suite that we put forward in the budget. This is something that they failed to do. None of these investments, in terms of our long-term prospects for transitioning our economy, were done by them. They took no action when it came to climate change. They failed to do it the whole time they were in government. Let's have a little bit of a look at their record. Shall we run through some of their record? It's quite a lengthy one. They voted down $1.5 billion in direct bill relief for those Australians who needed it most. They voted against price caps. There have been so many. We know the member for Hume hid the price rises before the election and then misled Australians about it, and all of us here remember— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Is this a point of order, Member for Herbert? Mr Thompson 281826 On standing order 90, on reflection: the member for Hume has leave from this House to attend to a family medical issue. Many of those opposite are aware of this. I think the minister should immediately withdraw the remark and apologise. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Minister, I didn't hear your comment, I'm sorry. Mrs ELLIOT DZW I was not aware of the member for Hume's personal issue. My statement was in relation to his role as a minister in the previous government. But I'm happy to move on and talk about the more than 20 failed energy policies that those across the aisle had when they were in government. I was in fact here and saw many of them. Every week we'd have a different policy from those ones, never actually landing on one. Now, in opposition, we do seem to have them landing on a policy in terms of climate change, which was recently released. What is it, yet again? Nuclear power. Here we go! That seems to be their only approach in terms of energy when it comes to climate change. Can I tell you that many people in my community are totally opposed to that. We know that nuclear power is (1) too dangerous and (2) too expensive. Yet again they are trotting this out, but I can tell you that in my community and across the country people are extremely opposed to nuclear power. That seems to be the only idea they have come up with over this long period of time. One of the worst things the former government absolutely refused to do was to invest in the cheapest form of energy—renewables. It took a Labor government to do that. So many communities suffered for so many years, particularly rural and regional communities, with that inaction. We are very proud as a government to be taking decisive action when it comes to acting on climate change. We're proud that we have legislated Australia's target of a 43 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030, along with net zero by 2050, and that we're supercharging new offshore wind industry and delivering the $20 billion Rewiring the Nation investment to decarbonise our grid and take us to 82 per cent renewables by 2030—a whole range of measures that we have put in place that we are incredibly proud of. We're doing that because we know it's so important to invest in renewables. We absolutely have to be doing that, because Australians deserve protection from the worst impacts of climate change. It certainly is an issue in my electorate. When it comes to those opposite not acting on climate change, it is a big issue. Last year we had the devastating floods. It is often very hard to articulate the devastating impacts of natural disasters like that. We see this inaction on climate change from the previous government. We know how important it is to act, and we have been acting. We have been acting through a whole range of measures when it comes to providing cost-of-living relief for Australians. One of the most important areas where we have done that, as I say, is in power bills, and there are so many other ways as well. Right across the board we have done that, whether it be increasing—in fact tripling—the bulk-billing incentives, reducing the costs of medicines or increasing many other allowances as well. We have brought in a whole range of measures to assist Australians. We do understand one of the biggest pressures is, of course, power bills. That's why we've had so many different initiatives. I find it remarkable that those opposite come in here and make these grandiose statements, when in actual fact their inaction often is what led us to this point. They persist in voting against any measures that will actually help Australians get ahead. I don't think they can really comprehend just how hard it is for Australians who are struggling at the moment and who need assistance. That's why our cost-of-living measures, which are so extensive, have made such an important difference. Look at our electricity bill relief. Up to $3 billion of that goes to assist people. We're working with the states and territories in terms of providing that. It will make a huge difference day to day, because people are in fact struggling. As I say, action on climate change is something that we are absolutely committed to. We made that commitment before the election. We have followed through on that with very comprehensive measures in terms of our investment there. Yet, again, all we ever see and all we ever hear from those opposite is about nuclear energy. They just keep pulling that out. Take that to the next election and see what people say—particularly people in coastal areas like mine. They know that's where you'd have to be building it, and I can tell you that's an issue that people are completely opposed to. In my community, people are very positive about the initiatives of the Albanese Labor government when it comes to this really strong action, particularly investment in renewables. What a great achievement that will be for our regional areas to have that investment, not just in terms of those environmental impacts but, very importantly, for the economy and for jobs in those regions. I know that's something people in my area and right across the country are very optimistic about. We can become that renewable energy superpower, and we can provide support for our regions as well, particularly in terms of their economic growth. All of that combined with our policies is making a huge difference to Australians who are, as we know, struggling with cost-of-living pressures. In our budget we have taken decisive action when it comes to that, particularly in relation to power bill relief. I would sincerely hope that those opposite perhaps reflect on the fact that they have opposed measures we have put forward to assist people with their power bills. They should in fact be voting with us to support people, support Australian families who are struggling. On this side, we do support Australian families who are struggling through a whole range of initiatives, as opposed to the Liberals and Nationals, who have failed to do so time and time again. 15:41 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee I believe keeping a promise is a sign of integrity. Those who are elected members in this House hold positions of privilege, and it is incumbent upon each of us to fulfil our promises—much more so from a Prime Minister. When he breaks his promise, the nation has a right to hold him to account. The Prime Minister and the Labor government had failed to deliver their promise of a $275 cut in power bills. They made that promise 97 times before the election, a promise that was reiterated even after Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Honesty should motivate the Prime Minister to stop using this as an excuse for energy prices rising. Alarmingly, today we find that households across the eastern seaboard are about to be hit by a further 25 per cent hike in energy by 1 July. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to work out the damage this will cause to family budgets and businesses. Labor's budget relief is a bandaid solution for a gaping wound experienced by middle Australia. Families already struggling with skyrocketing mortgage repayments and rents will be put under more financial pressure as they struggle to make ends meet. Mallee families are trying to work out whether they will be heating or eating this winter; keeping their kids warm or putting food on the table. Businesses are reducing their productivity because energy bills are making it impossible to grow and manufacture at full capacity. This is disgraceful, and the blame lies squarely at the feet of this Labor government and this Prime Minister. I have spoken about two Mallee businesses in this chamber recently. Mildura Fruit Juices Australia is a big manufacturer and exporter in my electorate, Australia's largest independent processor of fruit juices. I recently toured the plant with the general manager, Hugh Baird, who told me his company has had to reduce its intake of grapes this season due to the now unviable energy costs to evaporate the grapes into concentrate following a $500,000 price hike in electricity. That is before today's announced price hike. They are continually investigating energy options with little to no commercial alternatives and very little government support. These options include biofuel production, solar energy and other renewables, but to no avail, as there are very few commercial alternatives to the energy required for steam generation and freezing. They would need the equivalent of nine soccer fields worth of solar panels to meet their needs. When I raised the plight of Mildura Fruit Juices Australia in this chamber, I got a political response from the Prime Minister and his energy minister. While the Prime Minister blamed the coalition for voting against Labor's energy policy, the fact is that Labor's energy legislation actually passed this parliament and has not made one jot of difference. In case he is unaware, businesses are still hurting. The energy minister is completely disrespectful to all those businesses who are drowning in energy costs, claiming an average energy price saving of $1,670 for Victorian small businesses while ignoring the real $500,000 hike that I raised in my question about Mildura Fruit Juices' experience. While Labor play politics, their policies are closing businesses—policies such as this government's market intervention into gas. In the south of my electorate, Mortlock Hydroponics has been a tomato grower near Carisbrook for more than 20 years. They supply tomatoes all year round to the major supermarkets, as well as markets in Sydney and Melbourne. Ian Mortlock has told me the only gas contract he could get last June was for $40 a gigajoule, a 400 per cent rise on his previous contract—400 per cent. If Ian had continued with the same gas usage after June last year, his bill would have equated to $1.7 million. To avoid closure and laying off 35 to 40 staff, Ian's operation just used less gas. He reduced his productivity by 40 per cent. How is that helpful to businesses in Australia? It is a crying shame that this government needs to take full responsibility for. 15:46 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle There's no doubt that Australians are managing cost of living pressures, including pressures from energy prices. It's hard to see how they'll be assisted by the kind of carry-on that this debate represents. They suffered through nine years of a dishonest and incompetent government, and that incompetence was shown in the former government's carriage of energy policy as clearly as it was shown in any other area of their maladministration. Now Australians are suffering through 12 months of a dishonest, hopeless and, frankly, pointless opposition. The member for Fairfax almost beat his chest and made a point of saying how they are all about small government. I think he was being a bit modest, because what we saw from those opposite over nine years was a lot more than small government. It could barely be described as minuscule government. It was very close to zero government, and in some cases I think probably even less than zero. Mr Ted O'Brien 138932 We kept prices down, Josh. That's what the MPI is about. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Member for Fairfax, you will be asked to leave if you keep interjecting. Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 This is the lot that, in nine years, saw three gigawatts of energy generation come out of the system. The people who talk about the importance of supply couldn't deliver one additional watt of energy generation through their time. They had 22 goes at a national energy plan— An honourable member interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I'll make you stay for admitting that. Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 the one thing that might have made a serious contribution to putting us in a better position. They couldn't land a single one, yet they come in here and try and point the finger at us and make political hay from circumstances that are causing pain and difficulty for Australian households. People in Australia won't be fooled by that. Those opposite sought to take them as fools for nine years, and Australians have had a gutful of that. They've had enough of that, and they've chosen something different. They now have a government that is responsible and responsive. Facing the energy price rise circumstances which are fuelled by the war in Ukraine and based on nine years of hopelessness, incompetence and dishonesty, we are doing practical things to alleviate that pressure right now, and we're doing a set of things to put Australia on a much better footing for affordable, reliable power in the future. The Energy Price Relief Plan, which my colleagues have spoken about, started last year and continued in the budget. It is capping coal and gas prices and delivering specific relief to households. In my state of Western Australia, what would have happened but for the intervention of this government would have been a relatively modest increase in prices, because, of course, we have an enlightened gas reservation policy in Western Australia that a former state government put in place, which means that Australians actually get the benefit of the resources that belong to all of us. It's a shame that that kind of foresight wasn't applied more widely. As a result, the projected price increase in Western Australia was only going to be 2.5 per cent, which is pretty modest by Australian standards. In fact households, as a result of our Energy Price Relief Plan, will get cost reductions to the tune of 18 per cent, and that will make a difference to people at a time when they're doing it tough. That same impact is being shared across the country. It's something that we began introducing late last year and we've continued with this budget. That was voted against by those opposite, every single time. So, when they come in here with their stories about a business or a household, we know that, in each and every case, they haven't had the courage, when they've gone and spoken to that person who's said, 'I'm under this pressure,' to say:'Well, to the extent that the current government—after nine years of zero; after nine years of less than nothing—is actually taking steps to improve your circumstances, I voted against it.' And they never, ever have the courage to face up to those householders or businesses and say: 'We have stood in the way of some relief that you desperately need.' But we're doing more than that. It's not just about relief in the present; it's about our energy system as a whole. We are investing in renewables—as the minister said earlier today, investment is up by 55 per cent—because we know that renewables are far and away the cheapest form of new energy generation. We're investing in storage, with the community batteries program. There's $20 billion for rewiring Australia. And there's the new Hydrogen Headstart program that was announced in the budget. All of these things are about our energy future. All of these things are about low-carbon energy at the cheapest price and delivering Australia much greater control and sovereignty over our energy needs going into the future. Interestingly enough, the member for Fairfax didn't get on his nuclear hobbyhorse. We didn't hear, though we may yet hear, from the yellowcake brigade; we may yet hear from the recreational fissioners in the coalition, who want literally the slowest, most inflexible, most expensive, most dangerous form of energy. That's their one bright new idea. We didn't hear that, but maybe we will right now. (Time expired) 15:51 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler In the 2019 election, the Australian people heard all about the bill that Australia couldn't afford. And they knew it was the wrong bill. They knew they didn't want that bill. They didn't want to see that bill. They couldn't afford that bill. But, I've got to say, unfortunately, we got it wrong. The bill that the Australian people can't afford is the bill being provided by this federal Labor government and this Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, because electricity prices are not going down. They are going up. What is going up is taxpayer-funded subsidies—that is all. We've seen, today, news on the default market offer saying that the cost of electricity will increase by 20 per cent plus, across the board, on the east coast. But, in a matter of some inconvenience—I know it's inconvenient for those opposite and for the government—quite simply, that is just one increase. It doesn't include all the other increases that have already happened. We saw the Australian Bureau of Statistics say that, in Brisbane, in the March quarter alone, electricity prices in the south-east had gone up by 32 per cent plus—already—plus this 20 per cent increase. But, as to the idea that it will be fixed by a taxpayer-funded subsidy in a one-off bill—or maybe a second bill; perhaps it'll be split over two quarters; who knows!—the reality is: it is only for selected individuals; it is not across the board. It is not a reduction in electricity prices. Power prices are out of control. That impacts the entire economy because, if you are a farmer and you have irrigated agriculture, the cost of your production is going up and up and up. If you are using fertiliser, as they all will be, the cost of that is going up and up and up, because it is directly linked to the cost of energy. So, from the production of food all the way through to cold rooms and to delivery, whether it's from one of the majors or not, this is costing every Australian more, whether you are in business, whether you're running a medical practice, whether you have a warehouse—it doesn't matter. The increases in electricity costs are flowing straight through to the cost of living. The impact is enormous. We've seen reports in the last few days that the humble loaf of bread is up by as much as 70 per cent. People cannot afford to pay these types of increases—they simply cannot. And what did we see from the Minister for Climate Change and Energy in his press conference this morning? Well, we saw him howling at the moon about nuclear! I mean, the questions were quite ridiculous: 'What will you do with the waste? Where will you put the waste? How will you manage the technology?' Well, I've got news for the minister: the Australian people are getting this anyway. As to the AUKUS arrangements on nuclear submarines, you will put the waste in exactly the same place as you will put the high-level radioactive waste from a nuclear sub in 30 years time when those things come to the end of their operational life. The technology is already there. It is being delivered in Australia. Almost everything about nuclear technology has to be provided as part of the defence agreement, apart from the location. The idea that you could put a nuclear reactor in a very sophisticated tin can 200 metres under the ocean, full of Australian submariners doing a great job for our country, but you can't put it on a block of concrete in the most stable nation in the world—well, that is just hypocrisy. And those opposite know; they absolutely know— Dr Leigh BU8 Where? Where's it going to go? Mr PITT 148150 I'll take the interjection, because what we know from those opposite is they seem to be not committed. You are either in on this deal or you are not. You will deliver all of the things you need for technology around nuclear because it is a necessity for the agreement. So face up to facts, those who are opposed. This debate is over. It will be delivered in Australia. We hear about costs from Labor's long-term plan. It's a long-term alright because, quite simply, 28,000 kilometres of transmission, which has a direct return, a fixed-price return, that is paid for by electricity consumers—do you know how far that is, Madam Deputy Speaker? That 28,000 kilometres sounds like a number, but there's a thing for caravanners and those who travel around Australia called the 'big lap'. The big lap is a circumnavigation of Australia onshore, and it's 15,000 kilometres long. Effectively, you will have to build transmission almost twice a circumnavigation of this country. And somehow you're going to do that in what time frame? Not very long—without easements, without approvals, without environmental approvals, without an approval from anyone else that you need; whether it's local government or state government, it doesn't matter. The money you have put aside, $20 billion—even AEMO says that is nowhere near enough. It does not cut it. You are tens of billions short. The only thing it can do is drive up the price of power, because it is a regulated cost paid for by electricity consumers. It will impact every single user in Australia. From small business to big business, from pensioners to those hardworking taxpayers, they are getting robbed by this Labor government. 15:56 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce It is plainly wrong for those opposite to claim that the Albanese Labor government has not delivered on its promise to cut electricity bills by $275. Wrong. We absolutely took urgent action to shield Australian families and businesses from the worst of energy price spikes through a carefully developed plan. Our Energy Price Relief Plan is providing targeted energy bill relief and investment in cleaner cheaper energy for the future, because we are a government that cares. We care about the environment. We care about the budget of Australian families. We govern to make the lives of all Australians better. In contrast, the opposition voted to make power bills for families hundreds of dollars higher than they need to be. They voted against electricity price relief. They said no to that, no to helping families and businesses. And today we heard Clare Savage, the chair of the Australian Energy Regulator, say that power prices are much lower than they'd expected. The regulator said, 'We have seen a very substantial decrease in the price of contracts since the intervention in the coal and gas market, a decrease of 40 per cent compared with October last year. Clare Savage also said that it is important to keep investing in new sources of renewable energy so that we can keep moving forward, away from fossil fuels. This is why the Albanese Labor government is doing what they are doing. The final default market offer, the DMO, confirmed the Albanese government has limited the worst of the energy price spikes while investing in a long-term plan to get cheaper, cleaner energy to all Australians. The increases in DMO prices are up to $492 lower than they would have been without the government's intervention for residential customers. We are on the right track. We are making decisions that help ease the cost-of-living pressures that Australian families face. The world is a challenging place, and we are in the midst of the most significant shock to energy markets in half a century, due to Russia's prolonged attack on Ukraine. That war is wreaking havoc on energy markets around the world. That is why our Energy Price Relief Plan is so very important. Our plans on energy and renewable energy are practical and sensible. Renewable energy is cheaper energy. Yet those opposite have voted against every single dollar of bill relief and even said that they would go as far as repealing the actions we have put in place. That same Liberal-National coalition has left Australia with a trillion dollars worth of debt. We are acting to fix the mess left by those opposite. We are dealing with the results of a decade of chaos, a decade of denial and a decade of delay in energy policy, courtesy of those opposite. That saw four gigawatts of dispatchable capacity leave the system, with only one gigawatt entering to replace those losses. Australians are also dealing with the increasing energy costs that the previous Liberal-National government deliberately hid from them before the election. The previous government, including the former energy minister—the current shadow Treasurer—not only knew that electricity prices were skyrocketing; it also ordered that the information be hidden from the Australian people before the election. Shame! The member for Hume amended the industry code for electricity retailers on 7 April, just three days before the election was called, to delay the release of increases in the default market offer for New South Wales, Queensland and South Around until after the election. The Albanese Labor government is looking after Australian families and businesses and is demonstrating that. Around 90,000 small businesses in Western Australia that meet the definition of an electricity small customer will receive quarterly bill relief of $650 automatically from 1 July 2023. We are modernising the grid and building a system that works for 82 per cent renewable energy that will protect consumers from global market prices or disruptions in the future. We are working to create a strong foundation for a better future for Australians. 16:01 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt Today, the poor long-suffering electricity consumers of my home state of South Australia have regrettably had confirmation that, if they're on the default market offer, the average household bill will go up this year by more than $500. What that means to many families in South Australia, as it does to families across the country affected by today's confirmation, is that they have to make some heartbreaking decisions about the family budget in the next 12 months. They have to decide whether or not to cancel the family holiday, which might be something they look forward to as a family every year. They have to make other sacrifices around the home, losing what's left of their discretionary ability to enjoy those comforts that are now just not affordable, because things like an electricity bill increase of more than $500 is a really significant impact on those families. What those opposite have said to us is that those families should be grateful. They owe the Labor government their thanks for increasing bills this year by only $500. That is something that they should be applauded for, because apparently it could have been even worse than that. That is surprising because, during the election campaign that we were all pretty heavily engaged in and involved in, we all heard the now Prime Minister make a very solemn commitment to the people of this country that, if he were elected, electricity prices would fall by an average of $275. Let's be honest: that would have been quite appealing to voters. A lot of them probably wouldn't know the Prime Minister and might have thought it was a safe assumption to take him at his word, that someone who was seeking to lead the country and become Prime Minister would not say to the people of this country, 'Vote for me and I will reduce your power bill by $275,' and not mean it. That is a reasonable assumption for the people of this country, that, on something as fundamentally important as impacting the household budget, they could trust the alternative Prime Minister that he was telling the truth. I give a shout-out to the poor old people at RepuTex. I feel for them. I don't know if they're still called RepuTex or if they're going to rebrand soon and get a new website, because they have really had it tough, thanks to their association with the now government's infamous policy and modelling to reduce prices by $275. I'm sure they really wish this would be taken down from the website and find some way of expunging any association in history with Labor policy because, of course, that costing is an absolute humiliation. That document says that, by 2025, power prices—and this was published in December 2021—compared to today, we've run the ruler over what Labor is going to do, and the good news is that the average residential power bill will fall by $275 come 2025. Now of course we have the situation where this year alone in my home state of South Australia the average power bill is going up by more than $500. There is a gaping difference now between what Labor said they would deliver and what the reality is for Australian families, and there are serious consequences with that. As much as we have debates and make certain points in this place about the broken promise, the most important thing to the people of Australia is that they're suffering because of that broken promise. They're now having to make sacrifices and really difficult decisions in an environment where their real wages are declining at the greatest rate in my adult lifetime. On top of electricity prices, other prices are going up. Real wages are going backwards. Mortgages are going up. The price of groceries is going up. It's hard to make ends meet. In this debate we could have the Prime Minister and others at least give an apology for what they said they would do and have subsequently not delivered. There's nothing more appalling than saying to the people of this nation, 'Vote for me and I will put this significant relief in place for your household budget,' and breaking that commitment and promise to the tune of increasing the cost that you said you would reduce. It is appalling. The people of this nation deserve an apology for that. The members of this government should acknowledge that that they have totally and utterly failed on that core promise they took to the last election. 16:06 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke The rank hypocrisy of these Liberals—their decade of Liberal government was an absolute litany of policy failures when it came to reforming our energy markets and introducing renewable energy. The entire rest of the world agrees that renewable energy is the future of energy supply and bringing down prices. Renewable energy is the cheapest way for Australia to power homes and businesses. The rest of the world is all over this. They've been investing in renewable energy for years in Europe, North America and across Asia. These guys have their own wacky ideas. We've seen one of their former co-ministers sharing his personal views. I'm not quite sure the other members who were looking at their shoes during his contribution necessarily agreed with him on that fact. Mr Repacholi 298840 They did have nice shoes. Mr RAE 300122 They did. It's a wonder the member for Fairfax makes it to the chamber with the fluoride in the water these days and the chemtrails that prevent him from achieving his full potential. He comes in here with ridiculous assertions. After a decade of being in government they achieved nothing—and the problem was not so much the inertia but that they took Australia backwards, particularly in comparison to the rest of the world. They have hampered the ability of both households and industries to compete in international markets. Of course he harked back to his days in the family bakery, but ultimately what is clear about the member for Fairfax and, indeed, all Liberal members opposite is that they have no real understanding of Australian families and businesses. We're not silly just because we're working people. We know what you guys did. We know that you let us down. We know that you failed to deliver a single sustainable energy policy in a decade. We know that you were too busy fighting amongst yourselves and turning over prime ministers. You didn't get anywhere. You let us down. Now we're playing catch-up. We're playing catch-up on prices. We're playing catch-up on building renewable energy infrastructure that serves our purposes now and into the future. The member for Fairfax over there smiles. Mate, you're all sour and no dough. There is very little substance that gives anyone any confidence that you have the capability to serve in opposition, let alone in government. Maybe he's channelling his leader, the Leader of the Opposition, who went to the APPEA conference—and I'm not going to adjudicate on the pronunciation of APPEA; I'll leave that to others—and said, 'Just like Reagan, we will wind back government intervention.' They're going to wind back government intervention just like Reagan. I'm not surprised that the Leader of the Opposition wants to compare himself to fine American presidents and Ronald Reagan is the one he chose. Ronald Reagan was not my cup of tea from a political perspective, but he was handsome, erudite and remarkably popular. I think the Leader of the Opposition probably picked someone out of his league though. The member for Herbert was here earlier, and it gave me cause to think, 'Who is that American statesman that the Leader of the Opposition most resembles?' I think it might be former president Herbert Hoover. Herbert Hoover was the president at the beginning of the great recession, and through it. He is widely considered to have been a failed president—failed his nation; failed his country. He exacerbated the impacts of the recession upon the people, particularly the working people of the United States. In fact, one historical source notes about his presidency: Hoover's rigid adherence to conservative principles may not have been his greatest problem. A poor communicator, he came across as mean-spirited and uncaring. That is a much better historical point for the Leader of the Opposition to compare himself to. He should drop the attempt at Reaganism, and he should think a little bit more about Herbert Hoover and what Herbert Hoover can do for him. The very sad thing about Herbert Hoover is that part of his presidency was defined by his scapegoating of Mexican Americans, employing racism to defend himself and detract from his own economic and social failures during the Depression. (Time expired) 16:11 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders I hate to bring us back to the topic of power bills and interrupt the member for Hawke's florid recollection of American politics, but nevertheless. As if it were possible for Victorians to get worse news about the cost of living. Already the highest taxed state in the country, her residents are confronting the greatest cost-of-living crisis in living memory and now this—a 30 per cent increase in power prices. The Victorian Essential Services Commission will announce an increase in default power prices tonight, and Victorian households will be hit by a 30 per cent increase. A 30 per cent increase—I'm flabbergasted just saying it. Interest rates for most households on fixed rates are coming to an end this year, and for households transitioning overnight from about two per cent to a roughly eight per cent, and rising, variable rate it will cost an additional $20,000, at least, in repayments every year. The federal budget will continue to drive inflation and support the likelihood of even more interest rates over time. Groceries are going up. Fresh food, clothes, shoes, school supplies are all going up. And now there's a further 30 per cent whack in power prices. Even though most people feel they've already absorbed huge power prices in the last year, it's worth remembering that the Victorian default offer last year only rose by five per cent. This increase is six times that. Outside Victoria, the Australian Energy Regulator has confirmed prices will rise between 20 and 25 per cent from 1 July—higher than the draft offer that we raised and debated in March in this place, which was expected to be in the order of 20 to 22 per cent but came in higher. Since March, the Energy Regulator has seen this government do absolutely nothing to address the surging cost of energy. Indeed, it has done everything to drive prices up by injecting huge uncertainty into energy projects around the country. As a result of this government's failed and still failing policies on energy supply and cost, electricity prices will rise between 19 and 24 per cent in New South Wales, South Australia and South-East Queensland. Victoria's Essential Services Commission will lift prices by 25 per cent. The price increases will all come into effect in just a few weeks time, on 1 July. This will affect 600,000 customers in South Australia, New South Wales and South-East Queensland who are on the default offer, which is supposed to constrain huge price rises for households and small business alike. Following the blow of a budget which did nothing to help small business, in fact it took away many of the supports the former government had put in place for small business, small-business customers are now facing increases of around 15 per cent and up to 30 per cent in their energy prices. In opposition, this government misled the Australian people. Nothing they said in the 2022 election campaign would have left any voter thinking things could possibly get worse—indeed, so much worse—in terms of affordability. The now Prime Minister promised us that the Albanese Labor government would reduce energy prices by $275, not increase them. Let me count how much they're going to increase them by. That increase will be up to $594 a year in New South Wales, $512 a year in South Australia, $402 a year in South-East Queensland and $352 a year in Victoria. But the Prime Minister promised them prices would be reduced by $275 not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, not five times, not six times, not seven times—you can see where this is going. He promised them 97 times before the election that the cost of energy would go down by $275. For a while now he's been saying it's all Russia's fault, but he kept making the promise about the $275 well after Russia invaded Ukraine. I'm guessing most people in this parliament are not the person in their household who pays the bills. I do, all of them—less punctually than I used to, I have to admit, but I pay all of them. Let me tell you the story they tell—up, up, up, never down, not once. Like most Australian families, I open my bills with trepidation. The quarterly electricity bill for a household of five can deck you for a month or two. On all extra spending on the unexpected demands of life—a doctor's appointment, a dentist's appointment, a new pair of shoes because something broke, a school camp: if those costs pop up in the same pay period your electricity bill lands, you can forget it. Put it on the credit card and hope things ease up a little bit next month. The government talks about energy and climate like it's a value statement—not the daily impact it has on people's lives in terms of affordability and making ends meet. There has been a callous disregard for middle Australia and their reasonable expectations, their outright need, for help, when the Prime Minister promised 97 times that prices would drop. 16:16 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta Across Australia, many people are suffering the effects of higher power prices. This is an important issue that affects small businesses, families and everyone across the country. There are three questions to consider. First of all, what has the government done to assist Australians with power prices? Secondly, what's been the effect of this action? And, third, what's the alternative; does the opposition have any better plans? Let's start with what the government has been doing. Since we came to office, we, first, intervened directly in the market to assist Australians with energy bills. The energy price relief plan put temporary caps in place in the electricity and gas markets. This will reduce the impact of forecasted electricity prices to an estimated 23 per cent rather than the 36 per cent forecast in December. This is saving money for millions of Australians. And here's the thing: the member for Fairfax voted against it. The member for Flinders voted against it. They come in here for this MPI, talking about the effects of power prices on Australia, and every single one voted against the most substantive thing that has been proposed and actioned to do something about it. Every single one voted no. The second thing the government has done to support Australians with higher power prices is direct rebates. We have put in place rebates that help 5½ million households and a million businesses across Australia. The third thing we've done is energy efficiency measures. The budget contained a $1.6 billion energy savings plan, and this is important. By supporting increased energy efficiency in Australia, we kill two birds with one stone: firstly, we get energy prices down; secondly, we help with our emissions. And Australia has a long way to go on this dimension. We rank 58th out of 63 countries on energy use per capita. Our homes are largely inefficient. We know that upgrading an average house from a one-star rating to a three-star rating can reduce energy bills by 30 per cent and significantly reduce emissions. That's why our plan had a significant $1.3 billion investment to establish the Household Energy Upgrades Fund and $300 million to support upgrades to social housing, helping around 60,000 properties save up to one-third on their energy consumption annually. This is a measure which reduces emissions, cuts power bills and helps those in need. So what has been the impact of these policies? We've seen the default market offer in New South Wales, which I represent. There has been forecast a 21 per cent increase as opposed to the 40 per cent increase that would have occurred in the absence of the government's intervention. The 1.6 million people who also benefit from the rebates negotiated by the Treasurer won't see an increase at all. They will see an eight per cent decrease in their energy bills—a decrease. Nowhere in the rhetoric from the other side have those opposite talked about the impact of the government's actions on power bills. Throughout this entire MPI, none of them have acknowledged the significant savings that people across Australia will benefit from as a result of the government's swift action in this space. South Australians would have experienced a 51 per cent increase. Instead, they will get a 24 per cent increase as a result of the government's action. Again, those who are receiving rebates in addition to that will have a three per cent cut. Clare Savage, the energy regulator, said recently that if it had not been for federal intervention last December there would have been a rise of 35 to 50 per cent. This is the consequence of the government's action. This government understood this problem, responded to the concerns of Australians and took action—action which was rejected and opposed by the other side of the House, action which they voted against, action which is saving Australians money on their power bills. Finally, what is their alternative? Their alternative is no action to cut the price of coal and gas and no increase in supply. Their alternative is nuclear energy, which everybody, from the CSIRO to AEMO, acknowledges would be the most expensive form of power. It's not a response. It's about the politics of delay. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The discussion has now concluded. BILLS 73 BILLS Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Bill 2023 73

Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Bill 2023

Report from Federation Chamber 73 Third Reading 73 16:22 Mr 182468 Kingsford Smith THISTLETHWAITE (—) (): by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023 73

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

Report from Federation Chamber 73 Third Reading 73 16:23 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 2) Bill 2023 73

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

Report from Federation Chamber 73 Third Reading 73 16:24 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023 74

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023

Report from Federation Chamber 74 Third Reading 74 16:25 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023 74

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023

Report from Federation Chamber 74 Third Reading 74 16:26 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023 74

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

Report from Federation Chamber 74 Third Reading 74 16:28 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. ADJOURNMENT 74 ADJOURNMENT Housing 74 16:29 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin A survey of my electorate last week showed that housing access and affordability worries my constituents more than anything except climate change. Housing is a basic need, and we're now facing significant challenges that have taken decades to make and can't be fixed instantly. There are now supply and structural challenges all along the housing continuum, from crisis accommodation and social and community housing to rental housing, affordable housing and homeownership. At the acute end, there are about 19,000 households on the social housing waiting list in WA alone, with an average wait time of about two years. Renters are facing huge increases and no availability. Emma, a constituent, wrote to me this week and said: I can name at least 5 friends who are now facing debt or homelessness because they cannot afford the 33% rise in their rent and they no longer qualify for rental assistance. Owning a house is becoming increasingly out of reach. Emma, who's 25, also said: I can't see how I'll be able to afford a house in my lifetime without having to rely either on my partner or parents. It terrifies me that people who are in unhealthy or abusive relationships are now at the mercy of their breadwinning partner to secure shelter. Emma is right. When I was a kid, the average house price was 3.3 times the average income; it's now 10 times the average income. Many young people can't see a path to homeownership, which has a huge impact on their outlook in a range of areas. At the moment, the lack of housing supply is exacerbated by supply chain and construction industry constraints, as well as the COVID bounce back on immigration. So why is it so hard to fix this? In the housing shortage after the Second World War we built a huge amount of social housing, and for decades living in social housing was seen as an acceptable and respectable long-term option. This has changed. It's now only an option in extreme circumstances. In the private housing market, policy settings need to balance the interests of four groups: current homeowners, who have their savings tied up in their house as their key asset; prospective owners, who want to own a home but can't get into the market; renters, who may not want or be able to get into homeownership; and investors, who may have invested their superannuation or other savings in property based on expectations about the regulatory environment in the property market. All these groups have valid concerns, some of which are in direct conflict. To address these conflicts fairly we need to take a long-term view to any changes, which is bad news for those looking for housing now. But major change is politically unpalatable. The housing package, which is stuck in the Senate at the moment, is better than nothing and better than we've seen in 10 years, but it will not solve the broader problems. The major parties are gridlocked. No party is willing to consider changes that have losers, so most changes in housing policy have thrown fuel on the fire. They've injected more money into housing, whether through first homeowner grants or accessing super to buy a home. So what are the solutions? There's no simple solution, but it's clear that we need to make some big decisions in this area. We need to put all the ideas back on the table and have a national conversation about how we're approaching housing. I asked my constituents what housing reform they wanted to see, and they've come up with a broad range of ideas over just the last two days. They suggested lots of ways to increase the available supply of housing, like: incentivising pensioners to downsize; incentivising investors to sell to first homeowners; taxing vacant property; releasing more local state and federal land; incentivising the building of smaller homes; and various approaches to dropping or reducing capital gains tax concessions or negative gearing—for example, if properties are not occupied by long-term renters. They suggested improvements to rental supply too. I'm not saying all of these ideas will work, but people like David, Marg, Barry, Don, Elizabeth, Paul, Lee, Henry, Thilini, Geoffrey, Alan, Barbara and Daniel want to see their ideas being seriously considered. I urge the government to have an open-minded national conversation to find some circuit breakers. We need to move beyond the political constraints and work out how we get back to a position where Australians have somewhere to live and can aspire to owning their own place one day. I urge the government to be bold and start a broader conversation today. I urge the opposition and crossbench to create the multipartisan space for this discussion and not treat it as a point-scoring exercise. Public Education Day 75 16:34 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta Today is Public Education Day, and I want to acknowledge the important role of public education in our community. Good education is one of the building blocks of success later in life. It gives students the tools they need to tackle challenges and take advantage of opportunities. It instils in students values which will guide them to becoming better citizens and members of our community. Every child deserves the opportunity to access good education, and our public education system is what enables it. Public education is the key to tackling social inequality. It helps level the playing field and offers equal opportunities to children from all backgrounds. The success of our public education system depends on those teachers, principals, administrators, and support staff who work tirelessly to create a safe and supportive learning environment. This year we also celebrate 175 years of public education in my home state of New South Wales. There are many challenges in our education system. According to UNICEF, we rank in the bottom third of OECD countries when it comes to equitable access to quality education. In fact, when it comes to inequity across the three stages of education, we rank 30th out of 38. Public school teachers are also leaving the field in record numbers. Figures released by the New South Wales Department of Education earlier this year show that resignations have doubled in just two years. In 2022, 1,854 permanent public school teachers in New South Wales left their jobs. Among teachers who have just started out, 19 per cent, or one in five, leave their jobs within five years. The Albanese Labor government is committed to building better and fairer education for all Australians and will achieve this through fair funding in public education, addressing teacher workload and turning around the workforce shortage. We'll work with states and territories to get every school to 100 per cent of its fair funding level. Our May budget builds on our $328 million investment to tackle teacher shortages, including 4,000 additional university places for education degrees; funding for 5,000 scholarships and the High Achieving Teachers Program to attract more high-quality candidates into teaching; $25 million to pilot new ways to reduce teacher workloads and maximise the time they have to spend with students and teach; and $10 million for a national communications program to raise the status of the teaching profession. The Albanese government recognises the central role of education, and I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the recipients of the recent Schools Upgrade Fund in my electorate. I want to congratulate the Australian Performing Arts Grammar School, which received $25,000 for the purchase and installation of air purifiers and ICT equipment. I also want to the acknowledge the work of principal Ms Wendy Lindeman. I want to congratulate the Muslim Girls Grammar School for their grant of $25,000 for the installation of shade structures, and I acknowledge the work of principal Yasmin Gamieldien. Finally, I want to congratulate Rosehill Public School for their grant of $25,000 for the installation of shade structures, and I acknowledge the work of principal Tony D'Amore. These are important announcements that will make a real contribution to these schools, and it's fitting that they're announced on Public Education Day. Groom Electorate: Crime 76 16:38 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom I rise today to give my thanks, appreciation and gratitude for our local police service. Unfortunately, I've had cause recently to speak of crime in the Toowoomba area, and a very alarming incident that took place yesterday in our region brings me to that subject again. We saw yesterday an incident involving an alleged stolen vehicle. There were two stolen vehicles. One truck rammed a police car, injuring two officers. This incident was related to the theft of a ute from the same business on the same day. Of the two officers, I spoke to Detective Senior Constable Mark Penberthy, who has been released from St Vincent's Private Hospital in remarkably good spirits but rather knocked up. But, sadly, Detective Senior Constable Steven Ingerson remains in the PA. He was put into an induced coma, when he was trapped between the vehicles, and is in a very delicate state. Speaking with the head of the Queensland Police Union, Ian Leavers, I've conveyed both my and my region's thoughts to the family, who will be there during this difficult time, and, of course, the appreciation of all in Groom. I've talked about crime in our region before. We've seen these car thefts that are becoming far too common. We've seen break-ins and assaults. We saw just last week another car used to ram police on our streets. We saw the death of Robert Brown outside Grand Central. We saw a woman receive gunshot wounds just outside of my office—metres away from my office. We saw the stabbing of a young man in the centre of town only in February of this year. We saw footage that alarmed everyone in my community of a break-in in broad daylight, with the offender brandishing a machete as he went about his work. We see these rising crime stats in Queensland—despite, nationally, crime falling, we've seen a seven per cent increase in crime rates. To quote from an article in the Courier Mail last week: 'Property crime is booming in Queensland, break and enters were up substantially, unlawful uses were the same, and in the Darling Downs we saw a huge spike in both robbery and armed robbery in January, with robbery offences tripling and armed robbery rising by 16 per cent compared to 2022. We have a problem.' Further in the article, it says: 'We're seeing break-ins and thefts and retail crime skyrocket here in Queensland by 30 and 40 per cent.' Speaker, we have a problem. We have a problem that we need to address. We need to talk about this. I've raised previously that the changes the Queensland Labor government made—particularly, removing breach of bail as an offence, directing magistrates to use detention as a last resort and their refusal to use ankle monitors. Since they took these steps we have seen these rises in crime. Whilst I'm grateful for the first reversal of those to come, there is much work to be done. As we find out more about this incident, I will talk more on it. I'm not going to stop talking about it. The people who are choosing this life of crime are no longer afraid of the consequences. We had one gentleman with 80 charges and zero convictions. These people keep going through it. But now they're not afraid of law enforcement. They're not afraid to directly hurt and harm our police officers. Law and order is not the will of the state, it's an agreement between us the people. The job of governments is to codify that agreement in our laws. On this front, the Queensland Labor government is failing. This is not acceptable. This is not how we want to live. We are so very lucky to live in a country that has a view that law and order is important to us. I've lived in countries where it's not, where police are disrespected. Here, it's crucial, integral, to our way of life. If we go further down a path where the police, the courts, are completely ignored by those who pursue a life of crime this will get worse. Today, I want to pay my respects to our great coppers and say, 'Thank you, guys. You do a great job. The Queensland government might not have your back but the people of Queensland do. We want you and we need you to keep doing your job, and we thank you for doing it. Robertson Electorate: Roads 77 16:43 Dr REID 300126 Robertson I rise to draw attention to an important issue in my electorate of Robertson on the Central Coast. Over the past several weeks, residents in the suburbs of Hardys Bay, Killcare, Killcare Heights, Pretty Beach, Bensville and Empire Bay have been emailing me and contacting my office about the unsafe conditions at the Wards Hill Road and Empire Bay Drive intersection. Residents have said that this intersection is not managing with the level of traffic that passes through it, especially during peak periods of the day. Consequently, this situation is creating unsafe driving conditions for many people and causing anguish for residents. I have heard and read reports from residents who have been directly involved in car accidents and the long-term effect that this is having on their lives and on their families. Residents have also shared stories of their near collisions that have occurred because of the difficult and confusing design of the intersection. This intersection simply has become too dangerous for many residents to use. After reviewing the correspondence I had received, I decided to meet with the concerned residents on site. We met during a peak period of the day so that I could see firsthand the scale of the issue, and what I saw confirmed what residents had been telling me. The intersection is not managing current traffic levels, and this is causing unsafe conditions for drivers. Following on from this meeting, I have written directly to the New South Wales Minister for Regional Transport and Roads, Jenny Aitchison, and the Central Coast Council administrator, Mr Rik Hart. Residents may not be aware that both of these roads actually come under the responsibility of different levels of government: Empire Bay Drive is the responsibility of the New South Wales government and Wards Hill Road the responsibility of the Central Coast council. I am here in this capacity to bring both of these levels of government together to find a long-term solution to this issue, because that is what is required at this dangerous intersection. As your member for Robertson, I will also advocate at the federal level to support improving this piece of infrastructure. I will continue to keep the community up to date on the responses from the Central Coast Council and the New South Wales government. Already, the federal Albanese Labor government has contributed $40 million to address local road repairs and renewals across the Central Coast. I will continue to be a strong advocate for further federal government funding assistance for local road projects in our region. I'm pleased, as well, that there has been strong community support for action to date. My online petition has been signed by close to 400 people from not only the immediate surrounding communities but right across the Central Coast region. The Wards Hill Road and Empire Bay Drive intersection handles traffic from residents from the south, including from the peninsula—areas like Umina, Ettalong and Woy Woy—and residents from the north, including Erina, Terrigal and those central suburbs in Kincumber. The importance of this intersection cannot be understated. It highlights the need for urgent action and an urgent solution to this matter. I wish to thank the concerned members of the community who have already signed my petition, and I encourage others to complete the petition by visiting my website. Together, if enough people get behind this issue, we can achieve a long-term, positive solution for this intersection and for the thousands of Central Coast residents and Central Coast commuters that use this part of our road network. I want to give a special shout-out to some community advocates that have been emailing and calling both me personally and the office and have been advocating for quite some time for action on this issue. In particular, I'd like to highlight the efforts of Bill Young, Helen Matthews, Jane Leivesley, Samantha Goode and Treveen Brown. These residents on the Central Coast have been absolutely outstanding in their advocacy for local issues, but in particular they've been outstanding in their advocacy to improve the road network right across the Central Coast, including this most dangerous intersection. This must be addressed, and I'm here to bring all levels of government and stakeholders together to find a solution. 16:48 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I'm here to give the House an update on the natural disaster that hit my community last year, because there's still a lot of work to do. I am concerned about one of the programs, which is running out, and I think we may need to be flexible with how we deliver it. To remind you, Speaker, and the House, we had a flooding natural disaster in my region on 28 February last year. To give you the context of how big that was, the previous biggest flood by a Lismore standard was about 12.2 metres. We as a community could manage a flood around 12.2 metres. Houses were built to cope with that. The business community knew where to lift. Car yards knew where to move cars. The whole thing would be planned, and everyone would move to do their flood planning. People went to bed on the Sunday night thinking the flood was going to be 11½ metres. Everyone had actioned their flood plan. Then, at one o'clock in the morning, the flood was revised to be 14½ metres, 2½ metres bigger than we had ever seen and three metres bigger than what was predicted the day before. That caused absolute carnage. We remember obviously that, in the initial hours this was happening, the 'tinnie army' got out. This was neighbours going out in tinnies and kayaks and jet skis, saving their neighbour's and family's lives. Tragically, only four people died that day, but it was a miracle there weren't more. From that crisis in the sense of saving lives, people initially moved to evacuation centres. For three or four days, we were basically on our own. No-one could get in, given the road flooding. We had ADF aerial support on the first day, which helped save lies, but, really, we were there for about four days on our own. Food and petrol shortages were starting because quite large communities were isolated. We got through that with a lot of community resilience and a lot of community heroes. The ADF then arrived on the Thursday and people started to come in to help us clean up and start the recovery effort. With all due respect, there has been a lot of good work done by government, by the previous government and by the new government, which has continued a lot of grants programs. There have been a lot of grants programs rolled out, a lot of new programs, to help businesses and people to get back on their feet. There are two things I want to touch on. Some of the insurance companies have done reasonably well, but some of them have made really silly decisions. If your house gets flooded, you're first meant to rip out any gyprock or anything else where mould can grow. Insurance companies, in lots of cases, would not let people go into their houses and do that initial clean-up because they had to assess it properly first. That meant that in some cases it was six months before people were allowed to go and start the clean-up of their house. What happened over that six-month period? Mould got out of control and has become a huge issue. It has made the job bigger and more expensive. Both the federal and the state government have announced what we're calling the resilient home program. What do we do to keep people safe? We have people who live on a floodplain. There were probably 5,000 houses that were impacted at some level. But those houses impacted where we think something has to happen because they're not safe where they live, we're talking probably 800 to 1,000 homes. There are two strategies we have to use here. The first strategy they've looked at is a buyback program. This buyback program has been run far too slowly. People don't know if they qualify' they don't know what they are going to get offered. This is now a year on. So people have gone, 'Well, I can't camp in my house or live in a caravan for a year or two years or three years.' So either they've sold their house, which means the new house doesn't qualify for the program, or they've started to put their own money into their house so that they can go back and live with some dignity. I think that means that the take-up of the buyback will not be what government is forecasting. The Northern Rivers Reconstruction Corporation is assuming 70 to 80 per cent take-up of this, which means the majority of people will have moved off particular areas of the floodplain they think are most dangerous and, therefore, that has solved the human safety issue. My fear is that—talking to people on the ground anecdotally—that take-up will be closer to 50 per cent. The government's going to spend $700 million or $800 million on this. If we only move 50 per cent of people, it really hasn't achieved anything, because three, five, seven, and nine may have left, but two, four, six, and eight are still there. That doesn't achieve what we need to achieve, which highlights a necessity. When the CSIRO next year hands down its hydrology report, with its flood mitigation strategies, which it thinks can do things through engineering solutions and take up two metres off a flood, that mitigation study and that hydrology report has to be adhered to. Education 78 16:53 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke The public education system is an integral part of who I am as a person. I proudly went to public schools. My kids proudly go to our local public school. My mum, Penny, who I've spoken about many times in this House before, was a very proud public school teacher here in Canberra. She worked in the Canberra public education system for her entire working life. My mum embodied the absolute best of our public education system. She was passionate about every single one of the students that she had learning and living and thriving in the classrooms. She was determined to see them succeed, both inside and outside the school gates. As a union activist she fought for the rights and conditions of her fellow educators, knowing that better workplace conditions would lead to better education outcomes and fairer outcomes for our community overall. And it's fair to say that from time to time she did have to cop it from other teachers—her colleagues no less—when I was particularly boisterous at school. When my brother and I were growing up mum instilled in us the core values that I carry into this place today—the values I try to live my life by: fairness, collectivism and access to opportunity for all. So today I could not be prouder to stand up in this great place on Public Education Day to recognise all the public teachers, classroom aides, early childhood educators and principals across our schools, preschools and TAFEs. Each and every day in classrooms across the country our public school teachers go above and beyond. This Public Education Day is a time to recognise the central role that public schools, preschools and TAFEs play in our lives and our communities. Our schools and the way we treat them say a lot about who we are. Public education is a public good, which collectively benefits every single person in our country, and it should be recognised for that. In Hawke we are so fortunate to have local educators who have passion and drive for public education. We have schools like Sunbury Downs College, which offers a fantastic range of leadership opportunities, vocational training and so much more; and Melton Primary School, which has such a strong sense of community and brings everybody together. More than 17,000 students attend public schools in Hawke. Every day they are given the best start at life by the teachers and the educators that they work with. It is Labor governments that have always been and will always be on the side of public education. The Albanese government knows that when we invest in public education we're investing in all of our futures. We are committed to building a better and fairer education system for all Australians through delivering fair funding in public education, addressing teacher workload and turning around the workforce shortage. We've delivered more than $770 billion for better schools, happier and healthier students, and more qualified teachers. Not only that but we're encouraging more students to take up teaching, with university scholarships worth up to 40 grand, because the skills shortage in this sector was left to languish for a decade under the former Liberal government. We're making the necessary changes to set it right. Then there are reforms to TAFE. Together with the states and territories, last year we made a $1 billion investment in fee-free TAFE and vocational education places. This provided 180,000 fee-free TAFE places, making sure we're training the next generation for the in-demand jobs of the future. In April this year the Albanese government announced we're investing an additional $3.7 billion for a five-year national skills agreement, as well as $400 million for another 300,000 TAFE and VET fee-free places. No Australian should be held back from a chance at a better future because of poverty, postcode or lack of privilege. The contrast between the Labor government and the previous Liberal government could not be greater. It is the Liberals who close schools. It's the Liberals who cut education funding. It's the Liberals who slash TAFE places. It's the Liberals who undervalue the good work that our educators do, because, fundamentally, they don't value public education. Our teachers right across the country can see through their tactics when it comes to education policy. They left a mess that is now being cleaned up by this government, as all Labor governments do. We're making the system fairer, easier to access and more responsive to the needs of the next generation. We are building a better future for all Australians with our support for public education in this country. House adjourned at 16:59 The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ) took the chair at 09:29.

Thursday, 25 May 2023

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ) took the chair at 09:29.

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 80 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Melbourne Electorate: Australian Muslim Community 80 09:29 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne This year, I along with Victorian Greens leader, Samantha Ratnam, and member for Richmond, Gabrielle de Vietri, attended the Greens 10th annual Iftar at the Fitzroy Town Hall with about 250 members of the local Muslim community. It was a real privilege to be able to sit with so many old and new friends to celebrate Ramadan, the holiest month of the year for Muslims, as the community broke their fast for the day. As the sun set, we all ate a date, which I've learned along the way allows people to feel closer to their spirituality and is a sacred experience for Muslims. The date was followed by soup and a delicious Lebanese feast with Middle Eastern deserts and Eritrean coffee and tea. It's safe to say that the Iftar is one of the events my daughters and I look forward to the most each year. It's always special to sit side by side with our Muslim sisters and brothers, who come from so many different walks of life. The Australian Muslim community is vibrant and diverse, and it's wonderful to see so many people come together to share such an important meal. The evening was full of important conversations where we discussed pressing issues like the rise of Islamophobia, the housing crisis and how we can best support our community. It's always an honour to share a meal with so many people in the Muslim community, and I cherish the friendships that I've made with so many over the years. The Australian Muslim Social Services Agency, or AMSSA, is a community organisation and mosque located in my electorate in North Melbourne. It has been at the heart of the North Melbourne and broader Islamic community for the past 13 years. AMSSA run important educational programs and a number of supports to members of our communities, including residents living on the North Melbourne and Flemington public housing estates. In 2020, AMSSA played a critical role during the 2020 hard lockdown, organising and distributing food and other essential supplies for residents because the state government had failed to do so. During those weeks, I witnessed how quickly AMSSA leapt into action to provide culturally appropriate care packages for families and individuals who were understandably highly distressed by the situation. For over three years, AMSSA has been fighting a David and Goliath battle with big developers who have deep pockets. These developers are trying to quash AMSSA's proposal to build a community meeting hall and a basketball court for Muslim kids and for kids who live at the nearby public housing towers. They have opposed AMSSA's application every step of the way. While AMSSA were successful at VCAT, who affirmed that the proposal 'provides a demonstrable benefit in improving facilities at a valued community service', I understand the developers are seeking to take the matter to the Supreme Court. Unlike these developers, who have unlimited resources to thwart the proposal, AMSSA is a community organisation. The state member for Melbourne, Ellen Sandell, and I have called on the state planning minister to intervene in any way possible to support this plan, which will provide better services to the local community. We stand in solidarity with, and fully support, AMSSA all the way in this fight between the community and private developers. Housing 80 09:32 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond In my area of the New South Wales North Coast we have a housing and homelessness crisis. It was in place for quite a period of time, and it was all made so much worse by our devastating floods last year. There are so many people who have nowhere to live and who are desperate for a home. We need action. That's why in the lead-up to the election last year, Labor committed to our $10 billion housing fund. We were elected on this platform to deliver this vital housing reform. But it's being blocked by the Greens in this parliament, and that's disgraceful. They go out and talk about housing. Here's their opportunity to do something about it, and they refuse to. This is a big warning to our community that they can never ever risk supporting the Greens political party because they're blocking affordable housing for people on the North Coast who need it. The fact is that the Greens are teaming up with the Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation—all of them—to block our multibillion dollar efforts to fix the nation's housing crisis. Look at the contrast here. On one side you have Labor, the teals and Independents all fighting to fix this crisis; on the other side, the Greens, the Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation are all opposing it. It is disgraceful. Our housing fund is the biggest investment in social and affordable housing in over a decade. It is massive. Because the Greens refuse to support this legislation, they're directly delaying 30,000 people getting access to social and affordable housing. That includes 4,000 women fleeing domestic and family violence. It is absolutely shameful. While so many people in my area are living in their cars because they can't find decent housing, the Greens are just playing politics here in the federal parliament. And, as the Assistant Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence, I hear from so many people who need to have this bill passed, who need to have these houses built. I hear every day from members in my community who are appalled that parties in our parliament, including the Greens, are doing this to them, playing these political games. In response to that, I've launched a petition calling on the Greens to stop blocking affordable housing on the North Coast. When we look at the Greens, they have a disgraceful history in teaming up with the Liberals and Nationals. We all remember, in 2009, when they teamed up with them to block the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. And then, in 2015, they teamed up again with the Liberals and Nationals to limit access to the age pension. And now, in 2023, they're stopping locals accessing housing they desperately need. In contrast to all of these games we constantly see from the Greens, I'm really proud to be my community's strong voice in this parliament fighting for them. I have always done that, and I will continue to do that. I call upon locals to please sign this petition. The Greens need to hear it. They need to stop teaming up with the Liberals and Nationals, and on an issue like this, where people have nowhere to live, it is absolutely disgraceful. They should be ashamed of themselves, because our community needs housing now. Andrews Government: Budget 81 09:35 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders I rise to condemn the Victorian government's budget delivered on Tuesday, which, yet again, delivered so very little for the people of the Mornington Peninsula. I woke this morning to the celebration of a new cross-Peninsula bus line, only to find it was money for planning a bus line with no announced start date. But, I will take it, and I say thank you. But, there was nothing for the Rosebud Hospital, where some surgery has been stopped because its facilities are no longer fit for purpose. There was nothing for the Jetty Road overpass, the site of daily congestion along the Peninsula, even though $75 million was provided for it by the coalition government more than three years ago. There was nothing for social housing, even though existing public housing properties lie empty and are falling apart, and we now have 10 less public housing dwellings on the Peninsula than we had in June 2018. There was nothing for Baxter Rail, which remains the only single-track diesel line in the entire metropolitan rail network. There was nothing for Flinders Pier to protect this much loved site for locals and tourists alike. There was nothing for our great sporting groups in Summerville, Dromana and Mornington, all of which are operating beyond their intended lifespan and are bursting at the seams. Despite their degrading facilities, these sporting teams remain the lifeblood of our magnificent community. In failing to fund any of these projects, they've put at risk $300 million from the Commonwealth, funds which were provided for the Peninsula in previous coalition federal budgets. You may ask: where does the highest taxing state in the nation spend Victorians' hard-earned money? Well, it turns out they've tripled the number of Victorian bureaucrats who earn more than $500,000 a year and the proportion of Victorian public servants earning more than $350,000 a year is up by 140 per cent. Three years ago the Andrews government budgeted a salary bill of $26 billion this year, but the total price tag has actually come in at $33 billion. The Victorian budget is currently forecast to increase the state's net debt by 43 per cent from $116 billion in 2022-23 to $166 billion in 2025-26. Interest payments will grow as a share of government spending from nearly five per cent to eight per cent by 2025-2026. Interest payments on Labor's debt will almost double to $7.4 billion by 2025-2026, equating to $24,000 for every single Victorian. Victorians are now the most highly taxed Australians. The budget plans to increase the tax take by 14 per cent to 2025-26, with some tax revenues like payroll tax increasing to well over 20 per cent. Land tax is set to soar, yet again, which will just hike rents on the Peninsula, which are already beyond the means of most single individuals and some households as well. Despite this tax hike, masked as a COVID-19 measure, Victoria has the largest debt in the nation. It's more than New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania combined. The Andrews government should be ashamed. It is driving Victoria into the ground. Workplace Relations 81 09:38 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt I had the pleasure of hosting the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care, the Hon. Ged Kearney, in my electorate of Holt last week. I was honoured to show the minister one of the several aged-care facilities in my electorate, Lynbrook Park, where we interacted with facility manager Kami, her staff and the residents. Assistant Minister Kearney and I heard directly from the staff as how the Albanese government's 15 per cent wage increase will impact their lives for the better. It will mean less stress over having enough money to put food on the table, more security in their lives and, most importantly, demonstrate a real recognition of how crucial their services are to our society. This wage increase will affect 56,700 workers in Victoria, over 800 of whom live in my electorate of Holt, according to the 2021 census. Not only are aged-care workers feeling happy and supported but so are the residents themselves. I also enjoyed hearing from the staff and residents about how glad they are that the Albanese government is investing in aged-care reforms initiated by the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. For example, the introduction of star ratings for residential aged-care facilities serves to empower potential residents and their families in choosing a genuinely safe and enjoyable facility for their loved ones. That has been a welcome change. The simple measure provides transparency and a sense of certainty and security to aged-care residents and their families. At the same time, the measures reward facilities which provide great services and incentivise those near to the bottom of the ratings to up their game. This government is also committed to increasing the food and nutritional health in aged-care facilities. The $12.9 million in funding, part of a historic $36 billion aged-care budget, delivers a range of meaningful measures to enhance the quality of food for older people. A new hotline for food complaints and advice will be established and staffed by specialists. The support unit will also help providers build capability by linking them with support and education programs, including those delivered by accredited practising dietitians. I am so proud of the positive changes the Albanese government has made in aged care. Once again, I want to thank Assistant Minister Kearney for visiting my electorate and touring a local facility and talking to the residents and the staff members of that facility in understanding where they come from. Thank you once again. Veterans 82 09:41 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay More than 5,500 current and former service personnel live in Wide Bay, including at least two veterans of the Second World War. In the lead up to Anzac Day, and after, I visited Tewantin, Noosa, Gympie, Tiaro, Maryborough, Murgon and Tin Can Bay RSL sub-branches to meet with and present certificates of appreciation to veterans. The certificates of appreciation are one way of expressing our nation's gratitude to those who have served overseas in wars, conflicts and peacekeeping operations since 1945 and those who provided logistical support in Vietnam or served on the home front during World War II. I acknowledge all veterans in Wide Bay, and those who have personally received certificates of appreciation are as follows: Ralph Ackermann, John Bretz, Graeme Blackwell, Kelvin Bond, Colin Bryant, John Bryce, Michael Butler, Leigh Campbell, David Roy Clarke, David Collins of Rainbow Beach, David John Collins of Gympie, Lillian Coyne, Alan Dalton, Graeme Davis, John Drew, James Everson, Bruce Fitzsimmons, John Flowers, Keith Gibbs, Grant Godfrey, Desmond Hansen, Ray Harvey, Jason Heath, Peter Hegarty, Alexander Howard-Osborne, Tyron Jarman, Paul Jenkinson, Phil Jensen, Tuhau Kapea, Brock Kiehne, Eric Law, Noel Liesegang, William Louvel, David Macarthur-King, Lew MacLeod, Cameron Muirden, David Piggott, Peter Portell, Mick Purser, Trevor Sanderson, Rodney Scott, Brian Shute, Laurence Skinner, John Wayne Sloan, Gordon Smith, Scott Stone, Geoffrey Sullivan, Glen Trevor, Dennis Uren, Gregory Walker, Russell Watkins, Aaron Weinheimer, Robert Wheeler, Raymond Wilkinson, Scott Wilkinson, Trevor Williamson—my friend—and Bruce Wilson. It has been an honour and a privilege to meet local veterans and to listen to their experiences. Some were career soldiers; others were drafted to Vietnam or into national service. They all have different memories of their service and homecomings, but they all agree we should do more to look after our veterans returning home from overseas deployments. The freedom we enjoy today was, and continues to be, hard fought for by our defence personnel, and we thank them all for their service. Macarthur Electorate: Economy 82 09:44 Dr FREELAND 265979 Macarthur ER () (): I'm proud to represent an electorate that has a wide array of small businesses and manufacturers that contribute greatly to our economy and to our social cohesion whilst employing, training and skilling thousands of local men and women. There are over 12,000 businesses active in Macarthur, including Dumaresq Street Cinema, Southwest Automotive, the Minto Fruit Orchard, Papillons cafe, King Kebab and many others, offering a wide array of services to meet the needs of local people and, in particular, train our young people to work in the many and varied industries in Macarthur. We're fortunate to have over a thousand manufacturing industries operating in Macarthur, producing a huge array of goods and services that are exported around the country and abroad. One business is involved in producing defence materiel and exports to over 80 countries around the world, which is just amazing. Manufacturers such as Woolstar, which produces Australian-made wool and bedding products and wool accessories, export all around the world and produces high-quality goods with a high return on the products. WE Platt designs and manufactures weapon mounts for military vehicles. Noumi produces quality products such as the MILKLAB nut milks that are used in our local cafes. DECO Australia produces high-quality materials, coating aluminium and other metals that are used around the country and abroad for things such as signs you see at railway stations and non-flammable cladding for high-rise buildings. It is really high quality material that is exported and wanted around the world. I had the pleasure of inviting the Prime Minister out to DECO recently, where he opened DECO's newly built innovation centre and testing laboratory. It is one of the best testing and research laboratories for building products in the country, and it was a real pleasure to have the Prime Minister there—not for the first time but for the first time as Prime Minister. He's visited DECO several times in the past. We were also fortunate to have the Minister for Industry and Science, Ed Husic, visit Noumi Ltd to see their high-quality foods manufacturing in Macarthur. I am very optimistic about our future when I see the business and the manufacturers in Macarthur and what they're doing for the country and our young people. Our $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund it will help these businesses to improve and get ready for export futures, and I wish them all well. Barker Electorate: Roads 83 09:47 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker Tomorrow is Fatality Free Friday, and, of course, last week was National Road Safety Week. These are events which draw road safety to top of mind, which of course it should always be—never more so than when considering that Australia's road toll has increased, sadly, by nearly five per cent in the last 12 months. It doesn't sound like a lot, but that represents more than 50 additional lives lost this year relative to last. It's pretty clear that more needs to be done to address our Australian road deaths. So what is the government doing? Our road network is falling into disrepair faster than the government can get on with the ill-fated 90-day review, let alone get new money out of the door. I had never listened to a treasurer on budget night deliver a budget speech to the chamber that doesn't mention the word 'infrastructure'. Perhaps he was looking for the colloquial 'road' or 'roads', but they weren't mentioned either. There was nothing in this budget to improve roads in my local area that are desperately in need of significant upgrades. There was no additional funding to duplicate the Truro freight route, no more funding for the Sturt Highway, no funding for the Malee Highway or Marrabel Road and no funding for the Dukes, the Riddoch or the Princes Highway. I was at least relieved to see that they maintained the funding status quo for important, longstanding road funding programs such as Roads to Recovery, Bridges Renewal Program, Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program and the Black Spot Program. That was until a coalition colleague in the other place discovered, through questioning the department on Monday, that these four vitally important programs are included in the 90-day review. So not only are more than 400 important road projects under review in South Australia are facing Labor's chopping block across the country but now those opposite want to review funding programs as well, important programs that through state and local governments have delivered billions of dollars in local road improvements, particularly in rural and regional Australia, addressing the national death toll. The Roads to Recovery Program has delivered $68 million of funding in my electorate alone over the last four years; $52 million to South Australian bridges upgraded under the Bridges Renewal Program; and $70 million to improve South Australia roads and safety under the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program. Now we are facing a situation where these programs are under review; their future is uncertain. This has created shockwaves emanating from this building into the local government sector and to those who earn an income maintaining our national road network. Importantly, Australians deserve better. We need to push road deaths down. You do not do it by reviewing programs and cutting funding. Chishom Electorate 83 09:50 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm I would like to provide the House with a Chisholm community update and reflect on some of the happenings in my electorate over the last few weeks. It has been an extremely busy time, so here are just a few of the highlights. Earlier this month, I was thrilled to be invited to the Eastern Community Legal Centre volunteers and partnerships dinner and help celebrate the centre's fantastic volunteers, an event that, due to COVID, had been placed on hold for a few years. I want to pay tribute to the following individuals for their outstanding service: Pamela McNulty, Mike Tomisich, Briana Jackman and Brendan McCarthy. It is important to reiterate that what makes these achievements so extraordinary is that all these individuals are volunteer community lawyers who do absolutely essential work across the eastern suburbs of Melbourne supporting our communities. I must make special mention to the wonderful Dilnaz Billmoria, who received the lifetime achievement award and whose extraordinary contribution to serving our community is to be commended. In addition to attending this wonderful event I also hosted two community scam briefings at the Glen Waverly Bowls Club. My office was absolutely inundated with requests to attend these briefings, resulting in hundreds of people attending the sessions, where we all learned how to better protect ourselves against scammers, who unfortunately continue to target some of the most vulnerable members of our community. Of course, it has been great to see that, since hosting these briefings, the Albanese Labour government has announced $86.5 million package to combat scams and fraud, headlined by the establishment of the first national antiscam centre. We will look to hold more of these very valuable sessions across the electorate in the near future. I also had the opportunity to attend Huntingtower School. I was invited by the principal, Andrew Houghton, and the year 7 students for their project based class on politics. It was a great opportunity to engage in terrific discussions, answer some really tough questions and engage with some really inquisitive minds. I was also invited to play the role of Speaker at Wattle Park Primary School and learn how difficult that task can be, with some wonderful students and some fantastic speeches debating some really important issues to the students. I have also hosted mobile offices across the electorate and I really want to thank everyone who has taken time out of their very busy weekend to talk to me about issues that matter to them. One of the great privileges of being a representative is attending citizenship ceremonies, and I welcomed so many new citizens to our community in Chisholm. Braddon Electorate: Budget 84 09:53 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon Last week I wrote to the federal Treasurer seeking an extension to our instant asset write-off initiative to cover the in good faith investments, audit and invoice prior to 30 June 2023 that will not be delivered, received, into service by this due date. Since the inception of the instant asset write-off scheme, I've heard countless examples of its benefits. Take Burnie based family owned transport business De Bruyn's. They used the instant asset write-off to move their procurement program a full year ahead of schedule. This meant they could purchase a new fleet of trucks, which resulted in reduced maintenance costs, greater fuel efficiency, reduced emissions, better economics, and the list goes on. But most importantly, it has supported this business's ageing driving fleet. Their drivers are older. They cannot get people in these trucks. So, they're using older drivers, and these new ergonomically designed vehicles help that and assist that. Committed to the development of our region, De Bruyn's used this tax saving to invest in a new depot in Devonport, creating more jobs and more opportunities, and subcontracts were involved in its construction. I'm now hearing that there are businesses out there that have made these in-good-faith investments under this measure but, because of manufacturing delays and supply chain constraints, won't receive their assets prior to the 30 June deadline. Trucks, tractors and other assets associated with mining, agriculture, forestry, transport and other businesses often require an investment of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and these assets won't be eligible under the new pared-back instant asset write-off measure from 1 July. Take Ian Mahoney, who owns the BP petrol station. Ian ordered new underground fuel tanks. He made the decision based on the instant asset write-off measure. He purchased the tanks, and they're sitting in Port Melbourne, waiting for delivery. They won't meet him by that drop-dead date. That's not Ian's fault. He shouldn't be left to carry the unexpected financial burden. I'm genuinely concerned that this government doesn't recognise the severity of what they're doing and what they're responsible for. Businesses across the north-west, the west coast and King Island in the great state of Tasmania are moving forward. They're doing the heavy lifting. They're taking the risks themselves. It's their capital. They're making this contribution to improve productivity and to reduce emissions, and we know that they're the ones that are employing locals in the first place. I'm asking the federal government—I'm pleading with the federal government—not to turn your back on the business sector but to back it in, to honour this good-faith investment made under the instant asset write-off measure. It's something that can be fixed now with the stroke of a pen. I plead with the government to fix it. (Time expired) Adelaide Electorate: Blair Athol North Primary School 84 09:56 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide Recently I had the pleasure of visiting the Blair Athol North Primary School in my electorate for the official opening of their rain garden. It was a great occasion. A smoking ceremony took place. There was a fire pit in the rain garden and a display of the students' works. There was coffee made by their student baristas, and some amazing samples of Indigenous foods were shared. I've just got to say, what a terrific occasion it was, and I want to give a big shout-out to the people in attendance: Councillor Carol Martin; the chief executor of the Department of Education, Martin Westwell; the governing council; and the many parents who were there in attendance. Another big shout-out goes to Alice Paraskevas, the Aboriginal education teacher, and of course the principal, Darren Stevenson. They recently had another occasion to commemorate—their Reconciliation Week celebration—and combined their reconciliation action plan launch with the official opening of the Aboriginal learning studio. I apologised to them for not being able to attend due to committee meetings in Brisbane that day, but I was represented by staff from my office, and I will be visiting to see the new Aboriginal learning studio. I'm so impressed with the principal, the teachers and all the staff at Blair Athol North Primary School, who work tirelessly to lead and guide the children to fulfil their best abilities and who teach them about First Nations people's culture, languages, heritage and history and the significance that First Nations people hold in our nation. And I'm always extremely impressed by the children. Every student showed their respect, and did so wholeheartedly. You can see the children's eagerness to contribute, to learn and to grow, and that is truly inspiring. The children of Australia need all of us to look out for them, to look out for their future on this beautiful earth and to make sure that we are role models as they're growing up. I am proud that the education and skills funding to South Australia is estimated to be around $2.3 billion in 2023-24, and I'm proud that I've already been able to deliver funding for many of my schools through grants across Adelaide as part of our election commitments, such as Richmond Primary and Challa Gardens Primary. So I'll take this moment to thank not only the teachers at Blair Athol North Primary School, as well as the principals and the parents, but also teachers right across Australia, for fostering the generations to come. I also thank the children at Blair Athol North for hosting me, and all the children in my electorate and across Australia, and I ask them to keep on dreaming, to keep being curious. I wish them all a great year for the rest of the 2023 school year. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 85 BILLS National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023 85

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

Second Reading 85 10:00 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Our government is committed to ensuring that the legal framework of the national intelligence community, the NIC, is fit for purpose, proportionate and properly oversighted. These agencies keep Aussies safe from hostile foreign intelligence services, military threats, criminals and other cyber actors. But, to do their job properly, the NIC need the trust of the Australian public. That trust rests on a complex legal framework which underpins the activities of our intelligence agencies. It underpins the accountability and assurance that are vital to the integrity of our national security apparatus. That is why this bill is so important. The bill responds to a broad set of recommendations that were made in the 2019 Comprehensive Review of the Legal Framework of the National Intelligence Community. The review was delivered by Dennis Richardson to the former government in 2019. A declassified version of the report and the former government's response were released publicly in 2020. The report made 203 recommendations, 13 of which are classified. To date, 30 recommendations have been implemented, 53 require no further action and 120 are in progress. This bill seeks to implement 10 outstanding recommendations that fall within the Attorney-General's portfolio responsibility. First, the review recommended that the Law Officers Act be amended so that the Attorney-General could not delegate their power to issue warrants under the ASIO Act. That means that he or she could not delegate sensitive powers to the Solicitor-General, the Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department or any other public servant. The bill would implement that recommendation. The Attorney-General, as the first law officer of our land, has a unique role with respect to ASIO. These measures ensure that appropriate ministerial responsibility and accountability are maintained in relation to the powers in the ASIO Act. Second, the review also recommended that the Attorney-General's ASIO powers should not be able to be conferred on another minister through an action of the executive. The review recommended that the Governor-General's ability in council to make a substituted reference order regarding the Attorney-General's role in exceptional cases should be retained— A division having been called in the House of Representatives — Mr GOSLING 245392 In continuation, on some of the Attorney-General's roles that are in this legislation, one of them is his or her role in exceptional cases—that should be retained and would only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as when there is no Attorney-General. The bill would implement that recommendation. It also amends the ASIO Act and the Telecommunications Act to remove the ability of the executive to confer the Attorney-General's ASIO powers onto another minister. This could still be done through legislative amendment. As the first law officer, the Attorney-General has a unique role in authorising the use of covert or intrusive powers, and these amendments will ensure that in most cases the Attorney-General's ASIO powers cannot be conferred on another minister through an action of an executive. I welcome this reform, which signals how seriously the Albanese government takes the need to ensure the clear demarcation of portfolio responsibilities in cabinet. This is especially important concerning intelligence agencies because of the close relationship, mentioned previously, between transparency and accountability and the public's trust in the national intelligence community. We need to keep the Australian people fully informed of who exercises these important powers and when and how they do so, and that is exactly what this bill does. I don't need to remind honourable members that in the former federal government we had a case where we didn't even know there were double responsibilities held by first ministers. That has eroded trust, and this is part of making that transparency clear to everyone and rebuilding the public's trust. Third, another recommendation was that the defence, in subsection 474.6 of the Criminal Code should be extended for ASIO so that it applies to all offences in that section, which concerns interference with facilities owned by a carrier. The defence states that a person is not criminally responsible if they are a law enforcement officer or an intelligence security officer acting in good faith in the course of their duties. This provides a defence for ASIO concerning unauthorised modification of data to cause unauthorised impairment electronic communication. This provides a defence for ASIO concerning unauthorised modification of data to cause impairment and unauthorised impairment of electronic communications. These amendments will assist ASIO to better protect Australia and its interests from the growing security threats—and they are growing. In February, the head of ASIO reminded Australians that we face foreign interference levels eclipsing those of even the Cold War, and that is just one among a wide spectrum of escalating threats we face as a nation. Another part of the bill would amend the Intelligence Services Act so that membership of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security increases from 11 to 13 members. This has been the subject of some commentary in recent times. It sets out that the committee would include at least two government senators, two government members of the House of Reps, two non-government senators and two non-government members of the House of Reps. The remaining five members can be drawn from either chamber. A consequential amendment would also be made to raise the number for quorum in the PJCIS from six to seven members. These changes will allow greater flexibility in determining the committee's membership. Fourth, the comprehensive review also recommended that exclusions in the spent convictions scheme be expanded to enable ASIO to use, record and disclose this information. This scheme of the Crimes Act aims to prevent discrimination on the basis of older, less serious convictions by limiting their use and disclosure. This bill would create an exclusion for ASIO. In a dangerous world, access to spent conviction information is necessary and proportionate for ASIO to perform its functions and protect Australia from security threats. Fifth, the review recommended that the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security should be required to report annually on public interest disclosures and complaints. The bill implements this recommendation, which will ensure even greater transparency and accountability in the National Intelligence Community. This will be done, to the extent possible, without compromising national security, of course. Sixth, the review also recommended that ASIS, AGO, ASD, ONI and DIO should be excluded from the Ombudsman's jurisdiction, which this bill implements. ASIO, of course, is already excluded from the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. By convention, the Ombudsman currently does not investigate action taken by the rest of these agencies, although they do fall within its jurisdiction. These agencies are already overseen by the inspector-general, Australia's dedicated intelligence oversight body. That is why excluding ASIS, AGO, ASD, DIO and ONI from the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman would reduce unnecessary overlap in the oversight of these agencies. Seventh, another recommendation of the review was to amend the Freedom of Information Act to remove AGO's exemption for its non-intelligence functions. This bill removes that exemption only for those documents that have originated with, or have been received from, the AGO's non-intelligence functions in the Australian Hydrographic Office. Currently the whole of AGO is exempt from the operation of the FOI Act. This is appropriate in relation to the AGO's intelligence functions, where sensitive information, if released, could cause harm to Australia's national security, but the Australian Hydrographic Office does not provide an intelligence function. So these amendments will increase transparency over this aspect of the AGO. Eighth, the bill also implements the review's recommendation that the FOI Act be amended. This is so that documents relating to suspicious matter reports and suspicious transaction reports are exempt from the FOI Act. This exemption would occur, whether these documents are in the possession of AUSTRAC or another agency. The FOI Act currently provides that such documents are exempt only if they are in the possession of AUSTRAC. Given the sensitive nature of documents of these kinds, it is appropriate that the exemption be extended in this way. Ninth, the bill also actions the review's recommendation that all security matters under the Archives Act should be heard in the Security Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This will ensure that national security information is subject to appropriate protections. Tenth, the review also recommended that the FOI Act and the Archives Act should be amended. This is so that the inspector-general is only required to provide evidence that addresses the damage that would arise from the release of material involving the agencies it oversees. Currently, the inspector-general must comply with a request to appear before the AAT to give evidence, unless it is of the opinion that they are not qualified to give evidence. In a final amendment, the bill proposes that the IS Act provide greater certainty of the level of detail required by the foreign minister when directing the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, or ASIS. The practice to date has been for the minister to direct ASIS to undertake activities by reference to a purpose. The amendment is intended to make clear that the minister may direct ASIS to undertake an activity which can be of a specific or general nature or by way of a class or classes. Where a class has been specified by the minister, ASIS will be responsible for ensuring that a proposed activity falls within that class. This bill strikes the fine balance between empowering the intelligence agencies that protect us from the growing threats that are real while enhancing the already high standards of transparency and accountability in the National Intelligence Community. I want to quote ASIO Director-General, Mike Burgess, who I mentioned earlier and who, in this year's threat assessment said: Based on what ASIO is seeing, more Australians are being targeted for espionage and foreign interference than at any time in Australia's history. More hostile foreign intelligence services, more spies, more targeting, more harm, more ASIO investigations, more ASIO disruptions. From where I sit, it feels like hand-to-hand combat. That gives you a sense of the seriousness of the issues that we face and the need for this legislation. And that's what we are seeing and hearing not just from ASIO but from a range of government agencies. It is commonly said by many, indeed, by our government and I think by anyone across the chamber with any sort of strategic bone in their body, that we live in the most challenging strategic environment since the Second World War. It is so commonly said that we sometimes forget exactly what this means, but what it does mean is that even the Cold War, with all the peril of nuclear war that hung over the world, did not represent as a direct threat to Australia's sovereignty as the present circumstances do. The only worse within living memory for Australian security was the carnage of the last world war that was fought over and around our sea lanes and approaches, including the direct targeting and bombing of Darwin. It is my electorate. We're well aware of how serious those times were, but, from then until now, many of us in public life do acknowledge this sobering fact that we are in a period of significant strategic competition and threat. Not enough of us pay tribute to our intelligence community, whose job it is to help Australia navigate the storms around us and give our leaders warning and foresight of dangers through the briefings that they give. We rightly honour the military in our country, whose job it is to always be ready to defend Australia when our strategic circumstances go from uncertain to cataclysmic but also for the whole range of operations that our ADF does in peacetime. We always acknowledge our veterans, but I want to give a particular shout out to the veterans in the National Intelligence Community for the work that they do. They are highly capable men and women in our intelligence agencies, and they keep us safe. This bill implements sensible reforms that support our agencies while also strengthening their accountability, and it is for that reason that I commend it to the House and look forward to the contributions of other members. 10:58 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I rise to speak in relation to the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023. As the Deputy Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, it's been my privilege to be intimately involved in the examination of this bill. I'd like to commence by firstly saying that, of course, an Australian government has no greater responsibility than to ensure the protection of its citizens and the homeland. It brings me no joy to have been the deputy chair sitting on the committee when we had to provide a dissenting report—the first time in 17 years. There has only ever been one other dissenting report of this committee, and that was in relation to the listing of the Kurdistan Workers Party. This committee was formed in August 1988. Prior to this inquiry, on only one other occasion has the committee not spoken with one voice. So it was with great reticence that the opposition felt that it had to stand opposed to the recommendations of the majority and, therefore, also this bill. The opposition cannot support this bill in its current form. The bill itself is relatively uncontroversial. We don't quibble with the 10 items that arose out of the Richardson comprehensive review. That comprehensive review done by Dennis Richardson was the most significant piece of work done on our national intelligence architecture since the Hope royal commissions of the seventies and eighties. The implementation of the 203 recommendations of that comprehensive review has been ongoing for a number of years. There was no rush by the previous government and there has been no rush by this government to deal with it. It has been going through those 203 recommendations in a calm, methodical manner. The inquiry which was undertaken, which was the precursor to the bill—or of the bill, I should say—examined just 10 of the recommendations, and there are more to come. We don't quibble with those 10 recommendations; the opposition in fact supports them. The 11th recommendation, as the previous speaker, the member for Solomon, referred to, was to clarify the foreign minister's role in directing ASIS. There has been some contention about whether those directions were clear enough under section 6(1)(e) of the Intelligence Services Act. We don't quibble with that. But what we do quibble with is this government's decision to sneak—because that's what it has done—changes into section 28(2) of the Intelligence Services Act. The sole basis of dissent between the opposition and government members is in relation to the composition of the PJCIS. The PJCIS, the intelligence and security committee, is regarded as the most important committee in this place. Members of this and the other place scramble to get on this committee. It is a committee of some note. It's a high-profile committee. It is a committee where our intelligence agencies share information with members and senators on that committee to top-secret level. It is the only committee in this place that has that exposure. No other committee does. So membership of this committee is highly sought after. What the opposition is very concerned about is lifting the composition of the committee from 11 to 13 members. That might sound like a fairly innocuous type of thing. Attorney-General's in their submissions to the inquiry said, 'You guys are overworked,' and we are. 'You guys are overworked; we'll give you another two members.' But that is a total, utter ruse. The government seeks to add members to this committee, I fear, because it has done a grubby deal with some, perhaps all—I don't know—members of the crossbench. For what purpose, once again, I don't know. Whether it's because of support for legislation that has gone through the parliament or support for legislation that will go through the parliament, time will tell. Time will tell when this bill ultimately passes, because it will pass, sadly. The laws of arithmetic are against us. The government provided no consultation whatsoever—no meaningful consultation, at least—on this bill. Ordinarily, the government in relation to intelligence bills would provide a six-week period in which to conduct an inquiry. Often there's a consultation period of a month to six weeks. Do you know how long the government provided for consultation with stakeholders on this bill? I will tell you. Five business days. The committee received complaints from stakeholders saying: 'What? Five business days? We can't respond in five business days.' The government did not consult with the opposition on this bill. This is a bill on national security, which is very, very important. The government should have consulted with the opposition on this, but it didn't. It has tried to ram through this change to the PJCIS under the cover of darkness, under the cover of all of these other recommendations which we support. Members of the government will stand up here in this place when they are talking about this and they will talk about all the other 11 changes and they will maybe just refer a little bit to the composition of the PJCIS. In the inquiry I asked the Director-General of Security a very simple question: if there are more people who know a secret, is there a greater risk of that secret coming out? The answer to that was yes. He talked about the need-to-know principle. That's why we have the need-to-know principle. The fewer people who know a secret, the less chance there is of it coming out, either inadvertently or otherwise. So by changing the composition of this committee we are running the risk of having a greater chance of secrets being leaked, either inadvertently or advertently. I also have great concerns that this could have a chilling effect on the information that is shared with this committee. Since 1988, there has only ever been one nonmember of a party of government that has sat on this committee. By convention, the only members who sit on this committee are from parties of government. Why is that important? Because ultimately we are talking about matters of national security. When those opposite are in government—they are a party of government, just as we are a party of government—their obligation as a party of government is to protect Australian citizens. It's their obligation to ensure when they are in government that those laws are sounds, that they are workable, just as it is when it's our turn and we are in government. I am very concerned that by bringing a nonmember of a party of government onto this committee we will see a chilling effect on what is shared between our intelligence agencies and the committee. Madam Deputy Speaker Sharkie, you may have a very different view to me on this, being a member of a party that is not in government, and you are entitled to your view. But the reality is that since 1988 this has been a convention—that only members of parties of government sit on this committee—and that is for a very good reason. I'm not impugning you or any of your colleagues, but there is a very good reason that we have had this convention in place. But this government is changing that convention, and I'm very concerned about it. This committee is under immense stress and pressure all the time because of the number of inquiries it deals with, but it provides a degree of corporate knowledge—I'm a little hesitant to use the word 'expertise', because in this place you have to be a bit of a jack of all trades. But, by virtue of the fact of the workload of this committee, you do become a bit of a quasi-expert in intelligence and security. Increasing the number of members from 11 to 13 could promote a situation whereby fewer people decide to turn up to meetings, to hearings. The nature of the changes that are suggested in this bill is that it changes the composition to two government members from the House, two government members from the Senate, two non-government members from the House and two non-government members from the Senate, and the other five can come from either house. That means that if a government of the day wanted to be underhanded it could appoint, in the four places that are restricted to non-government members, purely crossbench members, cutting out the opposition entirely. That is a fact. That is an unmitigated, unmistakable fact. It could do that. It is incredibly important that on this committee, more so than on any other committee, there is a bank of members and senators who have an understanding—a good corporate-knowledge understanding—of issues of national security, because the tide always turns. The Labor Party might think they're in there forever, but the tide always turns. Politics is cyclical. And it is in the country's best interests to ensure that there are members of both sides who are competent, who are experienced and who are knowledgeable in matters of national security. We will continue to fight these changes, because we believe they are bad for this country's national security. 11:14 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills I would like to come to some of the matters raised by the member of Fisher, the deputy chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, but I want to start by speaking to some of the amendments and recommendations around the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023 that have been agreed to. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which I chair, put a report through with recommendations around the review of the bill to implement 10 recommendations of the 2020 Comprehensive Review of the Legal Framework of the National Intelligence Community, otherwise known as the Richardson review, after Dennis Richardson, the review's author, and these relate to the Attorney-General's portfolio. That review made 203 recommendations, 13 of which are classified. To date, 30 recommendations have previously been implemented; 53 required no further action; and 120 are currently in progress. This bill proposes two amendments to the Intelligence Services Act 2001 as well. The recommendation of the Richardson review implemented by the bill seek to improve and modernise various legal provisions, ensuring the national intelligence community can continue to undertake its important work effectively and with appropriate accountability in the current circumstances that we face and into the future. The bill also considers principles delivered by Justice Hope 40 years ago outlined in the review which highlighted the importance of agencies being held accountable and operate in accordance with the law with respect to human rights and fundamental freedoms while remaining politically impartial. This bill would amend multiple acts in implementing the 10 recommendations of the comprehensive review, the Richardson review, would also increase the number of members appointed to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and provide a more flexible composition of members from the House and the Senate. It would also clarify the level of detail required to describe a number of additional activities that the foreign minister may authorise to be undertaken by the Australian Secret Intelligence Service. Implementation of those recommendations from the comprehensive review provide the most detailed consideration of our national security laws through the 203 recommendations that I touched on earlier. The bill also includes amendments to address the following recommendations. Recommendation 18 is to amend the Law Officers Act 1964 to remove the ability of the Attorney-General to delegate their powers under the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 with the exception of measures relating to the provision of financial assistance. Recommendation 19 is to amend the Acts Interpretation Act, ASIO Act and Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act to prohibit the conferral of the Attorney-General's powers with respect to the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisations through executive action—instead, requiring legislative amendment—and the Governor-General would be able to make a substitute reference in ordering in respect of the Attorney-General only if the Prime Minister is satisfied exceptional circumstances exist. Recommendation 66 is to amend the Criminal Code Act to include Defence in a number of subsections, especially where ASIO officers are acting in the course of their duties and where that conduct is reasonable in the circumstances. Recommendation 136 is to amend the Crimes Act to expand exclusions to the spent convictions scheme. Recommendation 145 is to amend the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act and the Public Interest Disclosure Act to require the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security—IGIS for short—to report annually on public interest disclosures received by or allocated to the IGIS and complaints made to the IGIS. Recommendation 167 is to amend the Ombudsman Act 1976 to exclude the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, the Australian Geospatial Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Signals Directorate, the Office of National Intelligence and the Defence Intelligence Organisation from the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. These agencies are subject to the jurisdiction of the IGIS—Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security—which is the dedicated oversight body for intelligence and security matters alongside the PJCIS with the oversight work we do. Recommendation 186 is to amend the Freedom of Information Act to remove the ATO's freedom of information exemptions with respect to its non-intelligence functions regarding the Australian Hydrographic Office. Recommendation 188 is to amend the FOI Act to provide consistent exemptions under the FOI scheme to suspicious matters reports and suspicious transaction reports produced by the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre. Recommendation 191 is to amend the Archives Act and the AAT Act to provide that all security matters arising under those acts are heard in the security division of the AAT, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Finally, recommendation 192 is to amend the FOI Act and the Archives Act so the IGIS is only required to provide evidence in proceedings under those acts where the material in a proceedings relates to one or more of the agencies the IGIS oversees. There is quite a lot of detail there. All of those recommendations and in particular the 10 recommendations, some of which I have detailed, have been supported in a bipartisan fashion by the opposition members of the PJCIS as well as the opposition, I think, generally speaking. There's certainly no opposition to those recommendations. These have been in train for quite awhile, as I mentioned, with the Richardson review. There's also bipartisan support for the changes to ASIS. I think the Deputy Speaker and the member for Fisher noted that those hearings were classified hearings with respect to some of the ministerial directions and activities that ASIS conduct under the direction of the Foreign Minister. The bill, as I noted, would also amend the Intelligence Services Act to increase membership of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security from 11 to 13 members. The bill maintains the government majority on the committee. In addition, the bill will amend the current requirement of six MPs from the House of Representatives and five senators, changing it to provide a minimum of four MPs, including two government and two non-government MPs from the House, and four senators, including two from the government side of the Senate and two from the non-government side of the Senate. That's the change. The remaining five members can be drawn from either house of parliament. This is an important amendment because it provides greater flexibility for the composition of the PJCIS's House and Senate members while preserving the requirements for the committee to comprise members from both chambers. This committee has longstanding bipartisanship and collegiality. The opposition members, the non-government members and the government members on the committee have worked, I think it's safe to say, if I can speak for previous chairs and committee members, in the most respectful way to try to reach consensus that is considered in the national interest for our national security, and that has been done in good faith for a long time. Of course, as I mentioned, the opposition members have supported the changes to everything in this bill, including the changes to ASIS. However, it is the first time in 17 years that the committee hasn't reached a consensus. The opposition members chose, for the first time in 17 years, to break that bipartisanship to make a dissenting report on just that one recommendation in relation to the composition of the PJCIS. For my part as the chair, it is extremely disappointing that the opposition have chosen to politicise this particular change, because, frankly, there is a fair bit of misinformation and disinformation that has been bandied about which I would like to address now. In the House, the member for Fisher and the member for Canning have made a number of points in their contributions to this place in respect of the bill. They argued that there was a long period of time to form the committee and this was somehow the government's fault. Let's be clear about that. The negotiation to form a committee and ensure committee members are chosen for PJCIS, as I said earlier, currently requires you to have six members of the House and five members of the Senate. This is part of the issue of flexibility. There was back and forth about determining which non-government and government senators could conceivably be put on the committee, and that's often a consultation that occurs. That is really part of the reason for the change with this amendment. It is to give further flexibility while maintaining members from both houses. The difficulty of having that higher bar of five and six is removed. That's an important point to make amongst all the misinformation that we're hearing. The other points being made—and I heard them from the member for Fisher just before I rose to speak—are about these changes somehow changing the composition of the committee with the appointment of non-government members not from any of the political parties. The fact is this: the power to appoint any senator or member of parliament to the PJCIS currently exists. These changes do not change that power. That exists today and has existed for a period of time. There have been in the past other non-government members of the committee who have not come from a major political party. It has happened. The power exists and has existed for a period of time. These changes—which they are choosing to put out a dissenting report on, choosing to politicise and, in doing so, choosing to break the bipartisanship of 17 years—have no bearing on that power. The Prime Minister, in consultation with others in the parliament, can appoint any member of parliament, from the House or the Senate, to the committee. That has not changed. To make a disingenuous argument that they would oppose these changes around increasing the numbers and composition of the committee and somehow extrapolate from that that they know what's going to happen in the future, I think, is very disingenuous and very disappointing. I would like to put on the record that these changes, these amendments, have no bearing whatsoever on the power that currently exists to appointment members of parliament to this committee. That's an important point to make because there's been a fair bit of misinformation about that. As I said, the member for Fisher claimed that there's no evidence that the changes to the composition of the committee would lead to greater oversight and accountability. Well, actually, there's a very intense workload for this committee. I think everyone on the committee knows this. They know the reality of this—the important work that is conducted by the committee—and there is a great volume of work in the oversight of all of the national intelligence community and the security agencies. It is a very intense workload. Having members on that committee conduct that work is important. I think the changes, as I said, will add to the flexibility and relief of the workload that exists for this committee. Put simply, the amendments to the composition of the PJCIS allow for that flexibility, and increased membership of the committee allows for engagement in this important work by members of parliament. That's an important point to make. I want to put those facts on the record. I'm pleased that the opposition is supporting all of the elements of this bill, particularly those that we recommended in the PJCIS report we handed down. It is disappointing that they chose to make a dissenting report on one particular aspect of the work on this bill. In conclusion, I make the point that I would hope the opposition understands—and I think some of them do—the important nature of the work that is done in the national interest by the PJCIS. I hope that they would not seek to politicise that to score cheap political points in the media. I hope that the collegiality and bipartisanship in the work that we do, which is so important in this committee, is maintained, because we are in probably the most volatile strategic circumstances that we've faced as a nation in decades. The work we do to oversee our intelligence community and our security agencies is a critical part of ensuring that they are held accountable but that the taxpayer dollars that are spent on these agencies are spent in the best possible way to get the best value both for the work that they do and for the Australian people. It is an important role. I hope this is an aberration rather than something that will be continued by the opposition, and I hope we can work in a constructive way going forward. 11:28 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies I thank the member for Wills, who is also the chair of the PJCIS. I don't like to come into this place with just talking points. I listened very closely to what he said, and I'll adjust what I say in reply, because I think that's the duty that we all have in this place. He said some things that gave some comfort, I thought, and he deserves credit for that. I will start by reiterating the role of this important committee. It's an important one. I don't serve on the committee, but I'm glad that it is there. It has three main functions. The first is to provide oversight of Australian intelligence agencies by reviewing their administration and expenditure. The second is to build bipartisan support for national security legislation by amending national security bills introduced to parliament. Sometimes that involves quite technical legal work. It's easy to focus on the intelligence and national security roles of the agencies, but how they interact with our laws and regulations is of utmost importance. Some of those can lead to really sensitive and difficult interactions with our court system. That's not easy, because we have principles of open justice that sometimes clash with some other principles of need to know. They're not easy, and we have to preserve both. The third is ensuring that national security legislation remains necessary, proportionate and effective by conducting statutory reviews, because, in the end, our primary duty is to keep our nation safe, but we must never forget that we have civilian control over that, whether it's the military or national security intelligence agencies. That's very important in a democracy or, indeed, any other form of government—that there is civilian control. That is why this committee is quite important. The member for Wills did, quite rightly, note that there is a unique dissenting report. In fact, there hasn't been one put for 17 years. That was a fact that happened with disappointment from this side as well—we wish it didn't. It seems to me, as an observer listening to the member for Wills, one of the reasons that that occurred is there wasn't the consultation and communication there otherwise is and there should have been. When you analyse conflict and disagreement, whether it's in a family, in a court or in a parliament, there is usually a healthy dose of miscommunication. And, if there's miscommunication, the onus is on both those who should have communicated and those who were there to listen. I have no doubt that that is a factor here. But we are the opposition, the other side is the government. The onus is on you to communicate better, and, if there's anything you can take out from this, it is that there should have been better communication. I also thank the members who are in our national security and intelligence agencies. Unlike those who've served in the military and do get acknowledged on Remembrance Day and on Anzac Day and on other days, as they should, they don't get that. Whether it's overseas or domestically, they put their lives on the line, they work irregular hours and they generally don't get our thanks for that. It's important that we thank them for the work that they do, because the times that we are kept safe or that our national interest is advanced doesn't make the papers and it doesn't even get discussed in this place, but we are always very grateful for that. That is an important thing to acknowledge. The other thing I'd like to do is to focus particularly on where we disagree because it just comes to one part. It's the part where the membership of the committee will go from 11 to 13. The member for Wills has said that there is no change to the power of the Prime Minister to appoint members from the House or the Senate, and many others have given contributions about whether the members should be from parties of government. I understand that argument, that there is a potential for hubris in that argument because none of us should have a claim on being of government—we have to earn that right—so I won't go there. I will say this: when it comes to protecting our secrets, whether it's a national intelligence agency or otherwise, the need-to-know principle is just as important about whether you have a right to know or you're cleared to know. The reason the need-to-know principle is important is because it is a human instinct to think that if I tell one person a secret I've still kept it. We all would have heard times when someone has said: 'Hey, I've got this secret. Just between you and me, here it is.' And they think: I've still preserved my duties in keeping that secret. That's what humans do. There are studies that have been done on that. And then that one person thinks they have a right to tell one other person, and on and on it goes. So the fewer people who know things the better. We saw that. I think one of the most impressive parts of the AUKUS negotiation was how tightly held that was. One of the reasons it was so tightly held was because very few people knew about it. I'm sure there were people who in executive positions or were in agencies who were quite grumpy about that, but that is extremely important, because the fewer people who know about things the better. So, it is self-evident that in moving the numbers from 11 to 13 that risk expands just a little bit further, and you don't need to make comment about who that might be—I don't think that's fair. But just that mere movement of numbers increases risk, and we should be aware of that. Then this question has to be asked: why has that been done? I listened carefully to the member for Wills and I didn't hear a sufficient answer to that. Why is it from 11 to 13? Why is it not to 15 or 17? Let's get everyone involved in the PJCIS. I think expanding it creates risk, and it hasn't been justified. Others have said it may have something to do with internal politics. There was nothing that I heard from the member for Wills that pointed to that, but we will see. So we'll see, if and when this passes, who has been appointed and why, and there should be careful scrutiny of that. Again, that may not be the case. I hope it's the case, but, because of the lack of communication, the opposition is entitled to ask that question and is entitled to be a little bit suspicious. Because we've agreed on just about everything bar this, I won't use my full time, but I will just reiterate the importance of this committee. I gratefully acknowledge the people who serve in our intelligence agencies and highlight the inherent risk that comes with expanding this. It compromises, or at least potentially compromises, the need-to-know principle, and we will see where it goes from here. 11:36 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to make a contribution on the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023, and I will start by reflecting on the fact that we are addressing the framework of oversight of our security services. I think the most important thing when we debate these matters, which doesn't happen regularly, as that we reflect on that appalling and outrageous episode in 1973 when the then Attorney-General, Lionel Murphy, led a raid on the ASIO offices in Canberra and then, of course, flew through the night to undertake another raid, on the Melbourne headquarters of ASIO, without consulting, history tells us, the Prime Minister of the day, Mr Whitlam, without any particular consultation and not acting with any form of warrant or permission from any judicial oversight. That did lead to our looking at how it was that someone could unilaterally behave in that way and, in particular, undermine and frighten some of our allies who until then had felt a great deal of comfort and confidence in sharing important intelligence with ASIO and other Australian agencies because there'd never been a reason to fear that they could not be trusted. Indeed, those agencies could be trusted, but it turned out that the Labor Attorney-General in the Whitlam government was the one who couldn't be trusted and had frightened those allies—and with no justification whatsoever, because, of course, the outcome of that behaviour was that it was determined that there no substance to any motivation that he allegedly had for that conduct. So that was a good opportunity for all of us to start developing a framework for and oversight of our intelligence services and, indeed, the behaviour and role of executive government in how they interact with the intelligence services, and we know that within this bill there are some matters that have been touched on by other speakers around that and the role that ministers such as the foreign minister have with ASIS et cetera. It's very important that we have a robust framework through the PJCIS to look at and provide oversight of the intelligence services because we understand and respect that they are the custodians of certain powers that do need an appropriate level of oversight that it is not possible to provide in the open daylight of other processes that the parliament has the use of when looking at other parts of government, because the nature of the security services is self-evidently that they undertake activities and are in possession of information that needs to be protected. So the PJCIS, which has existed for many decades, is the mechanism that we have, and I think it has been extremely respected, particularly by current and former oppositions, who, indeed, are engaged to serve on that committee on the basis that there is a level of trust and that there is a very important agreement that the confidentiality and the protection information that they have access to through that process is thoroughly respected. I have colleagues that are also friends—including the member for Fisher, who gave his contribution earlier, Senator Paterson from the other place, and people in the former parliament who served on this committee—who absolutely had the highest standard of respecting confidentiality around the information that they had access to through that process. This building can be a rumour mill at times, and at times you do hear things regarding what is said and whispered in corridors et cetera, and I have never, in my four years, heard any suggestion of any concern that membership of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has ever been disrespected or compromised by any member who has served on it. This is an important principle to defend and protect, and that is why we have this very serious concern about the surprising proposal from the government to increase the size of the committee. As all previous speakers have outlined, it currently has 11 members—a majority of government members, which is very sensible and common in parliamentary committees—from the two houses, and five have been traditionally from the opposition benches. There are two important principles there. I respect and don't dispute the member for Wills outlining that there is a capacity to appoint any nongovernment member to the committee as things stand, and that has happened in the past. But it seems very much more likely when you have a larger size of committee that it will be the case and may become standard practice of the government to have a non-opposition member in that committee on an ongoing basis. My concern there firstly is that, with the greatest of respect to members that serve here on the crossbench, they do so proudly on the basis that they don't seek to be a part of a government. They are independents. They get elected and they say, 'We intend to go to Canberra to represent this electorate as an independent member. That creates a different dynamic compared to a member of the opposition who hopes to be in the government. While I completely respect the aggravation of these remarks to crossbench members, there are—and crossbench members reveal ad nauseam that it frustrates them and grates—absolutely times when governments and oppositions do work together and cooperate in ways that only governments and alternative governments can understand the benefit of doing. On PJCIS, when it comes to some of the most important elements of our national security arrangements, many of which are going to transcends governments for years if not decades into the future—AUKUS is one of the best examples of that—there are members who serve on the PJCIS who are from the opposition ranks who tend to be shadow ministers that may, if/when there is a change of government, serve in roles. The benefit of access to information they have through PJCIS is very valuable for the continuity of important decisions that we want a degree of bipartisanship around when it comes to the forward national security priorities of our nation. That is largely the way things are structured at the moment with the current composition. My second issue is about increasing the size of the committee—my colleague the member for Menzies made these comments, so I will very briefly summarise and associate myself with the point he makes. There are currently 11 people on this committee, and there is a one-in-11 risk that, for whatever reason, important information is provided to the committee. I'm not suggesting any skulduggery or motivation from those members, because a risk in bringing 11 people into an awareness environment of certain things that they do need to be made aware of in order to discharge their responsibilities on that committee. These are obviously sensitive pieces of information and/or intelligence, and they have the opportunity to ask questions in a very controlled, closed format environment. And they come back to their colleagues and say: 'Look, we are discharging our responsibility to interrogate things. We can't tell you what information we've been provided to achieve the level of comfort that we have over these matters, but we are indeed comfortable, because we've been given access to sensitive information, to support justification for certain things. Increasing that number of people from 11 to 13 obviously adds a degree of risk around the security and protection of that information. I completely defer to members in my party who have served on the PJCIS in government and opposition and who, having the benefit of that service—which I don't have—hold a concern that the increase in the number from 11 to 13 comes with a risk that is higher than the return or reward on expanding its membership. The whole principle of the PJCIS is that members who aren't on it rely on, count on, the people who are on it, because it's not like another committee that, generally speaking, operates in the glare of public oversight and media reporting et cetera—as it of course should not. So, we count on those members to counsel the rest of us on the fact that they are comfortable with how that committee is operating and that they're confident around the oversight that they're undertaking of the various matters that come before them. I'm in the position, as a member of the opposition, that my colleagues who serve on that committee have raised these concerns. Having not served on the committee, I find their concerns compelling. But, more importantly, from a position of trust—which, again, is the whole point of the PJCIS—I absolutely trust them that those concerns are serious and warranted. That is the basis of our concern. Of course, there are rumours and scuttlebutt around tensions within the government around serving on this committee. I respect and understand why being on such a committee is a sought-after opportunity. We are told that there are tensions within the government around its membership. If we're going through this process in order to make it a bit easier to manage personalities on the backbench of the government, then that is an appalling approach to the national security of this nation. If there's a personality issue, if someone's nose is out of joint because they wanted to serve on the committee—'Oh, well, we've only got six members, and we've put at least six on; I know: we'll increase the size of the committee; we'll get seven government members'—we'll find out who that seventh person is, and it will be very interesting when we find out who that person is who gets appointed by the government, the person who was so grumpy and threw some kind of tantrum about not being on the committee. This committee that is central to the national security of our nation is having the way in which is operates changed to accommodate a grumpy personality in the government, if that rumour is true—and obviously I don't know that it is. Nonetheless, we support the other elements of this. We've outlined our concerns. We concede, as the member for Fisher indicated, that the government will get their way on this. It's regrettable and disappointing, because, for those who have criticised us for having a dissenting position on this issue of the PJCIS—and I absolutely agree that the history is that that is not the case—it should be something that the government reflects on: why they've chosen to jettison bipartisanship on this, why it is that we have raised these concerns on something that everyone puts way above petty partisan politics and it's been the government's decision to ram this change through and abandon that bipartisanship. That is regrettable to us. Nonetheless, they are deciding to do it. We hold those concerns, and time will tell what the true motivation for that change is. With those comments, I conclude my contribution. 11:48 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I thank my parliamentary colleagues for their contributions to the debate on the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023. The government is committed to ensuring that the legal framework governing the national intelligence community is fit for purpose. It is vital that the responsibilities and powers of these agencies are underpinned by a rigorous legal framework and strong mechanisms. The national intelligence community is essential in protecting Australia's sovereignty and security. The Australian community trusts that our intelligence agencies are operating lawfully, with propriety and consistent with human rights. This great trust is built on an extensive and robust legal framework and reviews of this framework that underpin activities while also providing accountability and assurance. It was through the comprehensive review of the legal framework of the national intelligence community, the Richardson review, in 2020 that Australia received its most detailed consideration of its national security laws since the 1980s. The review reaffirmed that Australia's intelligence legislation remains fit for purpose. Though it's complex, the review noted this complexity stems from the intertwined nature of protecting and promoting the rights of individuals and broader societal interests related to national security and public safety in our liberal democracy. To maintain this fine balance, appropriate and tailored oversight mechanisms must accompany agencies' powers to maintain the vital trust the public holds in their legitimate although necessarily covert activities. Mr Richardson handed his report to the former government in December 2019, and the former government released a report a year later in December 2020. The Richardson review made 203 recommendations. The former government implemented just 30 recommendations between December 2019 and May 2022. This bill undertakes to implement a further 10 recommendations from the Richardson review that fall within the Attorney-General's portfolio. The measures in this bill will improve the legislative framework of the national intelligence community by: clarifying the Attorney-General's role in respect of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, ASIO; improving operational clarity for ASIO; improving oversight mechanisms; and clarifying the application of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 in respect of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation. The bill will also amend the Intelligence Services Act 2001 to provide certainty regarding the level of detail required to describe the directed activities, which can be specific or general or by way of a class or classes, in a ministerial direction under paragraph 6(1)(e) of that act and to expand the membership of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security from 11 to 13 members. I note that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security presented its advisory report on this bill to the House on 12 May. The government will consider the committee's report and table a government response in due course. In conclusion, this bill will continue to progress the important work of strengthening Australia's national security legislation as recommended by the comprehensive review. The government is committed to ensuring the legal framework of the national intelligence community is fit for purpose. The measures in this bill support this commitment and will provide increased assurance to the Australian community that intelligence agencies are operating in accordance with the law. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 2) Bill 2023 95

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

Second Reading 95 11:53 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner This bill deals with Medicare, an issue which has been long debated in this parliament. Indeed, elections from 1969 to 1993 were fought in large measure over universal health care. The battle over Medibank was one of the most bitterly fought battles of the Whitlam government. The creation of Medibank was opposed by the coalition, and the 1974 double dissolution was triggered in part by the parliamentary gridlock over Medibank. When Labor attempted to create Medibank, the coalition health spokesman at the time, Don Chipp, said the scheme would create 'anarchy in Australia'. The coalition were accompanied by the Australian Medical Association, which denounced Medibank as 'socialised medicine'. When the Fraser government won office, it scrapped Medibank, forcing the Hawke government to enact Medicare when it came into office. It was in 1987 that, as Leader of the Opposition, John Howard stated unequivocally that if elected he would dismantle Medicare at the first opportunity. The results of this were acknowledged by Peter Shack, then the Liberal shadow health minister, who in 1990 said candidly: I want to say with all the frankness I can muster, the Liberal and National Parties do not have a particularly good track record in health, and you don't need me to remind you of our last period in government. This is not ancient history. It was in 2014 that Senator Anne Ruston told the Senate: Everybody would like to think that we could go on in life with universal healthcare, with universal education and with all these wonderful things that over the last 20 years Australians have come to accept as a given. Unfortunately, the credit card is maxed out. It has taken a Labor government to strengthen Medicare, in our last budget tripling the bulk-billing incentive, the largest increase ever. We've increased Medicare rebates for longer consultations, restored bulked-billed telehealth and psychiatry consultations and increased the Medicare rebate for nurse practitioners. Our government is passionately committed to Medicare, as has every Labor government been throughout my lifetime. Medicare is a cornerstone for the Australian healthcare system, but it's also a touchstone for the Australian Labor Party, a point of pride for me and my colleagues. Over the last year that we've been in office, we've also worked to make medicines cheaper for millions of Australians through 60-day prescribing. We've announced 58 urgent-care clinics across Australia and committed to tackling smoking and vaping to ensure that another generation of Australians doesn't get hooked on nicotine. We've added 85 medicines to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, strengthened GP practices across the country with GP grants and incentivised team-based care so health workers can do what they're trained to do. We've boosted mental health interpreting services, helped rural graduates build their careers locally and provided more places for nurses and postgraduate psychologists. We've delivered Australia's first endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics, established the National Women's Health Advisory Council and supported a greater role for nurses and midwives in primary care. We've established the National Nurse and Midwife Health Service, funded the new National Lung Cancer Screening Program, delivered life-saving dialysis chairs to rural and remote Australia, delivered the Birthing on Country Centre of Excellence and boosted mental health support for First Nations people. Quality health care should be a birthright for all Australians. Medicare is a vital part of the Australian healthcare system, and under Labor we are taking better care of the health system in this nation. 11:57 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 2) Bill 2023, which obviously has a number of elements. The previous speaker gave a general contribution on Medicare, and indeed my understanding from the second reading speech of the minister is that the relevant Medicare provision in this TLAB is an increase of 3.9 per cent to the low-income threshold for single, families, seniors et cetera, which is effectively achieving a CPI increase on that threshold, which is good and which we support. Of course, CPI is running at twice the rate of wages growth right now, so, unfortunately for those low-income earners, the threshold is going up by CPI but their incomes are growing at half the rate of CPI, which means low-income earners are going backwards in real terms. This will help more people avoid the Medicare levy, but it doesn't help them meet the costs of putting food on the table, filling up car with a tank of petrol or paying the electricity bills they receive, their ever-spiralling rents and so on and so forth. We are in a very difficult time for the cost of living for low-income earners in particular, and under this government we are seeing a dramatic erosion of income and wealth for the Australians doing it the toughest. The government in this bill are increasing by CPI the threshold for the Medicare levy to be put in place, but we regret that there's not an opportunity for us to support a lot of other things that could be helping people who are struggling with a whole range of cost-of-living pressures, not just saving those that are currently paying the Medicare levy but might drop out of that bracket because of this increase. Like I say, there will be people who currently pay the Medicare levy that don't, because even though the threshold is increasing by CPI their own incomes are not growing by the same amount. So, even though that's a good thing, it's a stark situation when people are in a position where their real wages are going backwards so dramatically. It would be great to see some kind of broader plan from the government on helping these low-income earners, because what this does on the Medicare levy is nowhere near as much as what people need right now. They need a lot of help because all their costs are going up and at the same time their real wages are going down. There are a few other matters that come up, but the one I want to contribute on is the NHFIC provisions. It's currently called NHFIC; I think it's having its name changed to Housing Australia. This is one of the real focuses of the government: changing the names of agencies. It's apparently really important. We've done it to things like Jobs and Skills Australia. It's very Humphrey Appleby, the way all these pieces of legislation we're talking about seem to have renaming agencies as one of their core elements. That doesn't really have a big impact in achieving anything meaningful or practical on the ground for people that are facing challenging circumstances. Nonetheless, on this amendment around NHFIC's remit, I make the point that this is a good opportunity to talk about just how dire the housing situation is in this country right now. In particular, there are things we can do at the Commonwealth level in housing. In serving on the housing affordability inquiry that was held in the last parliament, I certainly found—we all understand this instinctively, but it's worth reminding people—that there are some very significant levers around housing that are available to the state and territory governments. There are significant levers with local government, and we too at the Commonwealth level have levers. Those policy levers are on the supply side and the demand side. We've just seen a state budget in Victoria which has shown how dramatically a state government can change for the worse an entire housing market and housing outlook with significant, dramatic and outrageous changes to the investment certainty environment for investors. The worst part about that is, with rents climbing as dramatically as they are right now in the state of Victoria, as surely as night follows day, if investors' costs on their investment properties increase they will pass those costs onto the poor people that pay them rent for those properties. The market is very tight. It is growing dramatically, and the Andrews government in Victoria have now effectively put in place a series of measures that are going to dramatically aggravate and increase rental pressures on people that can least afford to meet those costs right now. The other frightening thing with wall-to-wall Labor governments is that no doubt some other state Labor governments will look at what Dan Andrews has done and say: 'That's a good way of bludgeoning more money out of the lowest-earning people in our economy. We might have a crack at that as well.' The Andrews government are bragging about the fact that, through the tax deductibility of these higher state taxes, investors can pass on these taxes where they're offsetting those costs of property investment on their income tax. I'm sure the Treasurer is looking forward to also wearing those bills on behalf of the state Labor government in Victoria and potentially other state Labor governments around the country that like the look of this policy. We do regret that while the government are doing some things in housing this TLAB bill, they're not looking at doing anything serious that could assist people that are really struggling dramatically and substantially in that area. One of the opportunities that the government has is to cooperate with their state government and local government counterparts, who, as I say, hold significant policy levers. I've certainly indicated in the past that I think there's a big opportunity to apply the city deal concept of three levels of government working together, federal, state and local—to think about how a city deal model could potentially be applied to the huge challenge of the housing crisis that we have all round the nation that manifests itself in slightly different ways, depending on the part of the country you're in. We've got 1½ million people coming into our nation through the migration program, and we see no plan to accommodate those numbers. Housing is the obvious and most acute challenge right now. There are obviously broader, significant social and economic infrastructure challenges around that growth as well. We know that, when these enormous migration numbers are put into the Treasury modelling, a very good dividend comes out—from the models that Treasury use in their budgets. That money should be used to invest in the services that are needed to support that growth in population, and we're not seeing that. So that is a missed opportunity in this bill as well. With those comments, I conclude my contribution. 12:05 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong The Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 2) Bill 2023 encompasses several schedules, each designed to address crucial aspects of our society and our economy. Most or some might find these Treasury law amendment bills, or TLABs, as we call them, a bit boring. An honourable member: Shame! Mr LAXALE 299174 I know! But I really love them. They do the heavy lifting of the policy announcements of other ministers. Think about an ant lifting 30 times its body weight. They're doing the hard tax and financial work for programs initiated by the government of the day. I love the way that these bills, which often slide through without fanfare or attention, can hold within them tangible measures towards progress, equity and resilience. This amendment bill isn't just a collection of policies and provisions; it's testament to the steps that this government is taking towards a prosperous, inclusive and sustainable future for our nation. Each schedule tells a different story, and, as we unpack each of them, we can see the positive impact they'll have on the lives of everyday Australians. This TLAB No. 2 encapsulates the vision and dedication of a government that is committed to uplifting the lives of all Australians, because as a new government we understand that many Australians are doing it tough and that the cost of living is putting a squeeze on the household budgets of many. We also understand that it's our responsibility to ensure that no Australian is burdened by unnecessary financial strain when it comes to their health. That's why in schedule 1 of this bill we'll reinforce our commitment to the wellbeing of low-income families and the vital importance of accessible health care. This schedule will deliver an increase in the Medicare levy low-income thresholds for singles, families, seniors and pensioners, aligning them with the outcomes of the consumer price index. By bringing the Medicare levy threshold up to CPI, we'll make sure that the burden of the Medicare levy does not disproportionately affect those already facing financial hardship. It's important to alleviate financial strain on low-income households, and by raising these thresholds we'll provide much-needed relief and ensure that those below the relevant statutory low-income thresholds are exempt from the Medicare levy. By increasing the thresholds, we'll maintain continuity and stability in our approach, ensuring that healthcare costs remain in line with the overall economic landscape and that they become more affordable. It's estimated that about 1.1 million low-income earners across Australia will directly benefit from this measure. These are individuals and families who are the most vulnerable. They face daily challenges to make ends meet, and for them every dollar counts. This will hopefully empower these families to allocate their resources towards essential needs, and provide stability and security for themselves and their loved ones. Access to quality health care is not a privilege but a right. By easing the financial burden on low-income households, we'll ensure that our world-class healthcare system remains accessible to all Australians. It's just one more step towards creating a better future, particularly in health. You just need to look at not only the budget that was handed down just recently but also the one before that. Health and access to health care is something that this government is doing with a starkly different approach to that of the former government. Whereas they cut indexation, they froze indexation and they hacked Medicare, this government is restoring sustainability and integrity to the system. There is a $3½ billion boost in the bulk-billing incentive and an indexation increase by $1½ billion. Both of those things have done more for Medicare in one year than anything the previous government did in their entire nine years. This TLAB schedule, and this change to the thresholds, adds to that. Moving on, we go to another schedule and another story—this time, schedule 3. We find ourselves in a pivotal moment for climate change action and environmental protection. This government and the people of Australia are steadfast in their commitment to combating the challenges posed by climate change and transitioning towards a more sustainable future. In order to achieve our goal of net zero emissions by 2050, it's crucial that primary producers can participate in carbon abatement measures. Currently, income generated from Australian carbon credit units, or ACCUs, do not qualify as primary production income, which means it's restricted from access to tax concessions. This limitation to access to tax concessions hinders the growth and development of sustainable agriculture practices and poses a significant obstacle for primary producers that are committed to implementing environmentally sustainable objections—and many of them are. Schedule 3 of this amendment bill, once applied, will treat ACCU income as primary production income. By recognising the importance of carbon abatement activities as a crucial aspect of primary production, we expand access to essential tax concessions. This measure ensures that primary producers engaged in sustainable practices will benefit from the farm management deposit scheme and income tax averaging. Both of these will provide vital support to farmers as they navigate periods of market volatility and climatic events. Currently, producers who hold ACCUs are taxed annually based on fluctuations of the value of those units. This can lead to significant tax flow issues. To address this, schedule 3 will change the taxing point for eligible primary producers holding ACCUs to the year of sale. This will provide much-needed relief, enabling prime producers to manage their finances more effectively and plan for the long term. By implementing these measures, we ensure that our concessions remain targeted at primary producers who are actively driving sustainable agriculture practices and embracing their role as environmental caretakers. We know the primary producers that do, have access to greater markets around the world. By incentivising carbon abatement activity within the agricultural sector we are not only reducing emissions but we are also fostering a greener and more resilient environmental future for generations to come. Of course, these measures align with our commitment to combat climate change, protect our environment, grow our economy and ensure that Australia is at the forefront of global efforts to mitigate the impacts of climate change. Compare that to the action of the former government. They didn't take climate change seriously and because of that they were voted out of Bennelong and out of government as well. Schedule 3 represents a significant step forward in our climate change agenda. Next we have schedule 4. This one is close to my heart: I've run a small business nearly all my life, and decisions like these can make a real difference. This schedule will provide cashflow relief for small- and medium-sized businesses by reducing the adjustment factor to pay on your GST instalments every quarter or so—some pay annually. Under the current formula, the adjustment factor for the 2023-24 financial year sits at 12 per cent. Obviously, our GDP has gone up, reflective of higher commodity prices, terms of trade and inflation. While these factors may work for some large businesses, they do not reflect that throughout the rest of the economy and represent quite a big burden on small and medium businesses. By taking proactive steps to minimise adverse cashflow consequences for small businesses and by reducing that 12 per cent adjustment figure to six per cent, it will help small businesses get through the next financial year. It will ensure that cashflow implications for businesses are alleviated. The reduction in the adjustment factor better reflects the conditions for small businesses, and it ensures and gives them an extra helping hand to navigate the economic challenges ahead and maintain financial stability. Moving to schedule 5, we go into the Home Guarantee Scheme. Labor believes that everyone deserves an affordable and secure place to live, be that for homeowners or renters. This schedule takes a proactive approach to facilitate pathways for individuals who have not held a property interest in Australia for the past 10 years, providing them with an opportunity to re-enter the property market and regain their footing. This amendment extends the support to single legal guardians of children, acknowledging the unique challenges they face and providing them with the means to realise homeownership sooner. I applaud the government and the minister for taking this initiative. Too often, homeownership help goes to first homeowners, but we know that, because of things happen in life—be they divorce, de-partnering or people having to leave home—sometimes buying a second home is just as important as buying your first. By extending this out to people who haven't owned a home in the last 10 years, it potentially can take more and more people out of renting and back into home ownership. These changes will provide targeted support to those in need, aligns government support to the needs of those who face hardship and ensures that the Home Guarantee Scheme remains focused on providing tangible pathways to home ownership. Already, in the year that we've been in government, in my community of Bennelong 177 families have used this fantastic scheme with this expanded eligibility as proposed in this TLAB, and I'm hopeful more can get access to it and have a safe and affordable home. This is all I will talk about in regard to this schedule. It gives me great pleasure to commend this bill to the House, and I encourage all those here to support it. 12:15 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner by leave—First, I would like to thank the members for Bradfield, Sturt and Bennelong, who have contributed to this debate, and welcome the opposition's support on this crucial measure. Schedules 1, 3 and 4 of the bill will amend our tax laws to provide targeted support to low-income households, primary producers and small and medium businesses. In line with the government's commitment to provide targeted cost-of-living relief in this year's budget, the bill increases the Medicare levy low-income threshold for singles, families, seniors and pensioners by 3.9 per cent. This means that singles with a taxable income of up to $24,276 will not be liable for the Medicare levy—an increase of almost $1,000. The change to thresholds to reflect the CPI increases is consistent with increases introduced by previous governments and will support 1.1 million individuals. The bill also assists our primary producers to reduce their carbon emissions by providing concessional tax treatment for Australian carbon credit unit income. We will also change the taxing point for eligible primary producers holding ACCUs. Instead of being taxed as the value changes each year, they will be taxed in the year of sale. Doing so will help farmers distribute uneven income across multiple financial years, support cash flow and support primary producers to diversify their business into carbon abatement activities. The final tax measure presented in the bill reduces the GDP adjustment factor used to work out the amount of Pay as you go on GST instalments payable for the 2023-24 income year from 12 per cent to six per cent. The reduced GDP adjustment factor of six per cent strikes a balance. It will minimise cash flow impacts while helping businesses avoid tax debts through the contribution of reasonable tax instalments throughout the year. Schedules 2 and 5 of the bill amend access to government guarantees. As part of the privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank, the Australian government provided a guarantee to ensure that pre-privatisation members would not risk losing their superannuation following privatisation. The bill assures that these members will continue to benefit from the existing guarantee following a planned merger involving Commonwealth Bank Group Super. This will enable the merger to go ahead, as the superannuation fund trustee can only transfer its members to another fund without their consent if it is satisfied that those members will enjoy 'equivalent rights' in the new fund. Finally, the bill enables the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, soon to be renamed Housing Australia, to provide assistance to more Australians in need. Previous governments' failure to act seriously on housing has led to significant challenges across the country. It has meant homeownership is out of reach for many ordinary Australians. The bill will expand assistance to those who've not held a property interest in Australia in the preceding 10 years. This will allow those who have fallen out of home ownership, often due to financial hardship or a relationship breakdown, to re-enter the property market with government assistance. It also expands eligibility for single parents to include single legal guardians of children such as aunts, uncles and grandparents. The expansion in eligibility recognises the importance of stable and secure housing in providing a foundation for social and economic wellbeing. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2023-2024, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2023-2024, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2023-2024 99

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2023-2024

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2023-2024

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2023-2024

Second Reading 99 12:20 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 Before the debate on the bill resumes, I remind the Federation Chamber that in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 22 May 2023, a general debate will take place covering this bill and two related appropriation bills. 12:21 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga It is important to be here speaking on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2023-2024, the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2023-2024 and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2023-2024 at a time when our government knows that Australians are looking to us for support. Australians are looking to our government to steer our country through some difficult economic circumstances, and they understand that, in crafting the budget that we have put together, we are putting cost-of-living relief front of mind, while also behaving as a responsible government should do in circumstances where we do see inflation rising and where we do know that we have to be responsible economic managers in setting up our country for the long term. That is certainly very much what this budget is designed to do. I know from speaking to people in my community that it very much addresses the concerns that many in our community have. It does provide cost-of-living relief in some really important areas. In particular, it invests in our health system at a time when we know that our primary health system—our GPs and our local clinics—has been close to breaking. That's because what we've had until this point was a Liberal-Nationals government which neglected our health system and which seemed to think that Medicare didn't need investment. The previous Liberal-Nationals government did not invest in the fundamental piece which holds up our health system and which means that we have a universal system where health care is accessible to all. In my community and in communities around Australia, we have been seeing the impact of that underinvestment. In fact, I recently ran a survey in my community asking people to share their views with me on their priorities and, in particular, their experiences with health care. Nearly a thousand people sent back responses to that survey, and I thank everyone who took the time to share with me what's going on for them and what their priorities were. A very key theme that came from that survey was how our community values healthcare workers—the doctors, nurses and support staff who do so much—but also that they realise how the system is stretched. One of the key themes was around local health services. Miriam from Bundoora told me, 'The cost of seeing a doctor has gone up a lot, and it's harder to access bulk-billing now.' Irving from Macleod told me: 'I've been going to a local clinic that bulk-bills, but from 1 July they will stop that. So it will become more expensive to access health care, because out-of-pocket expenses will increase.' Meredith from Ivanhoe told me, 'It is nigh on impossible to get an appointment with my preferred GP.' Gayle and Brian from Research said: 'The wait for health care is too long. Local GPs are now too expensive, and we can't get in for appointments for at least three weeks in advance.' I'm really pleased to be able to say to all of these people and to the others who brought up health care in that survey that our government has listened. Our government knows that this is a priority area that we have to invest in, and we have invested in it in this budget. I'm very proud that our government is making a historic $5.7 billion investment to strengthen Medicare in this budget. We have heard the concerns of patients and doctors, and we are doing something about it. Our government is tripling bulk-billing incentives. This will make it easier and cheaper for people to see a doctor. It will support GPs in my community and in communities around Australia to bulk-bill. In my community it means that around 63,000 eligible people right across Jagajaga will have better access to bulk-billing. That is a huge difference, when we think about the importance of people being able to see a doctor when and where they need one. Recently I was pleased to be able to talk with some of our local health providers about the impact this will have. On International Nurses Day I visited Eltham Ridge Medical Centre with my friend the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care. We were there to thank the nurses and all the staff who keep that very busy clinic running. It was a great opportunity not only to thank them for the work they do but also to talk with them about what a difference this investment our government is making in bulk-billing will make. Having that bulk-billing incentive triple will make a difference to them in their practice and will make a difference to the number of locals they are able to bulk-bill. It will provide relief to ensure that the centre keeps going—that it can provide the essential services, that it can provide bulk-billing services. I know that that support will be there not just at Eltham Ridge Medical Centre but at GP clinics across Jagajaga, and I'm very pleased about that. Of course, on top of the huge investment we're making in bulk-billing we're also making medicines cheaper. An estimated 38,710 people in Jagajaga alone will be able to buy a month worth of medicines for the price of a single prescription for 300 common PBS medicines. This is going to halve the number of visits needed to GPs and pharmacists—again, taking pressure off our GPs—and will save people up to $180 a year on every eligible medicine they buy. In total, this will save Australians $1.6 billion. We've been very clear as a government that the savings the government makes in this measure will be put into community pharmacies. We do value our community pharmacies and will be reinvesting in them so that they can deliver more services. The final part of the health package that I would like to emphasise and that our government's been really working on is vaping. I know this has been a huge concern, particularly for many parents and teachers in my community, who have raised their concerns with me about young people taking up vaping and what that means for the future, when they're not realising the potential impact on their health and the dangers. Our government has committed $733 million to tackling the challenges we're seeing with both vaping and smoking, and our priority is protecting people, particularly young people, from the harms these cause. So we're working with states and territories to stamp out the growing black market in vaping by introducing stronger regulation and enforcement. Across these measures it is really clear that health is front and centre of our budget. Our government values the health of people in our community. We value Medicare. We will always protect and strengthen Medicare. We are putting your health care, the health care of people in my community, front and centre in this budget, and I am really pleased and proud and looking forward to seeing the impacts it will have on people in my local community. Our government recognises that cleaner energy is cheaper energy. Again, what a transformation from what we've had over the past decade—to realise that the future in our country is renewable. Again, when I go around my community, people absolutely understand this. They are looking—and have been looking for quite some time—at what they can do to make that switch to renewable energy. Our government has seen that that's an area where we can support people, that we can take action to support households with energy-saving upgrades; $1.6 billion is being deployed for energy saving upgrades for homes, businesses and social housing, helping people in my community and in others—those who have older appliances or homes that they need to upgrade—to make sure they are getting these upgrades that lead to more energy-efficiency savings. Our government's Household Energy Upgrades Fund will turbocharge financing options for upgrades by partnering with banks and other lenders on upgrading homes with battery-ready solar modern appliances and other improvements that will help keep energy costs down; 110,000 households will benefit from lower energy bills under this initiative. We're setting aside $300 million to support upgrades to social housing, recognising that a lot of the stock of social housing was built before minimum standards were put in place, and it is absolutely important that people in social housing get the benefits of those upgrades to energy-efficient appliances. Once implemented, 60,000 properties will save up to one-third of their energy consumption each year. We have also put in place a dedicated fund for small businesses with an annual turnover of less than $50 million a year. They will be provided an additional 20 per cent deduction on spending that supports electrification and more efficient use of energy. This will help up to 3.8 million small and medium-size businesses with ongoing energy savings. Our government is prepared to take a leadership role in this space. We have transformed our country's approach to tackling climate change. We have recognised that we need to make the investments that set us up as a future, not just to be a renewable super power—there is potential for our country there—but also the potential for all households, including in my community, to benefit from a renewable energy future. We are doing that work not only at a national level but we are doing it at a local and household level as well. Again, I know that investment will be warmly welcomed in my community. In the time left to me, I would also like to talk about our government's investment in the environment. My community in Jagajaga is a beautiful part of the world. Are we done? The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 Please continue. With the indulgence of the Federation Chamber, we will let the member for Jagajaga finish her remarks. Ms THWAITES 282212 I appreciate that. I will be brief. My community in Jagajaga is a beautiful part of the world. We are surrounded by trees. We value our natural environment. Indeed, I know many people around Australia do so. That's why I'm pleased that our government is also investing in the environment. Locally, we are investing in our local rivers with grants to help support local efforts to clean them up and protect them. But, nationally as well, we are investing in national parks, an area that has been long neglected but which I know people from my community love to visit and enjoy around Australia. We are taking the long-term investments that mean these places will be protected for us to visit time and time again. I commend this bill to the House and look forward to seeing the benefits of this flow through my community. Debate adjourned. ADJOURNMENT 101 ADJOURNMENT Bowman Electorate: National Volunteer Week 101 12:32 Mr PIKE 300120 Bowman Last week was of course National Volunteer Week, an opportunity for communities across Australia to engage in an annual celebration of volunteering, shining a light on local heroes and their wide-ranging contributions to Australian society. In my community of the Redlands, we are blessed to have so many great organisations that benefit from the contributions of thousands of dedicated volunteers. In fact, the latest census reveals that an amazing 17,682 people in Redlands undertook volunteering work in the last 12 months—an amazing figure given the age profile of my electorate. Volunteering Redlands, an arm of STAR Community Services, is a not-for-profit organisation that aims to build strong communities through volunteering and providing a range of resources, services and support to locals. Volunteering Redlands put on their annual community celebration of volunteers at the Raby Bay Harbour Park last Saturday, a fantastic event showcasing many of the great volunteer organisations that contribute to life in the Redlands. Organisations represented at the event included Royal Life Saving Society Queensland, Redland Museum, Redland City Council, Redland SES unit, Mission to Seafarers Brisbane, the Cage Youth Foundation, Rotary Club of Cleveland, Capalaba Rotary Club, Rotary Wellington Point, the Zonta Club of Wynnum Redland, the Freedom Hub, U3A Redlands district, Make-A-Wish Australia Bayside branch, RedFest, Redlands Modern Country Music Club, the Sycamore School, and the Redlands Community Centre, just to name a few. It was a great event that even included an amazing laser light show to conclude the festivities. I was honoured to present the volunteer of the year award recipients with their certificates at the community celebration event. This year's winners were Kym Courtenay of Night Ninjas, a terrific local charity aimed at supporting people experiencing homelessness; Carolyn Delaney from STAR Community Services, who provide a range of aged-care services, including home-care packages, NDIS and disability support services across South East Queensland; Karen Franklin of Make-A-Wish Australia, who works tirelessly to create hope and joy for those who need them most; Terry Moran of Circle of Men, an important group that helps create an environment for wellbeing and happiness of men in aged-care facilities; and Suzie Tafolo of the Redlands Coast Chamber of Commerce, who undertake so much work to advance our city and promote economic development and job creation. Congratulations to all those who were honoured at the celebration of volunteering event. Congratulations to Volunteering Redlands and STAR Community Services team for putting on another extraordinary event, and thanks to all the Redlanders who give up their time, energy and commitment to volunteer to make our community an even better place to live. Health Care 102 12:35 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore Before I was elected in 2019, people in my electorate of Gilmore told me loud and clear how hard it was to get in to see a GP. There was huge concern about GPs retiring and no-one replacing them. In many cases, existing GP books were closed. As you can imagine, with one of the oldest demographics in Australia, this was a huge problem for my electorate. Not long after I was elected in 2019, the coalition government axed the distribution priority status, meaning overseas trained GPs would no longer come to our area. This was devastating, and we saw a further decline in GP numbers. One busy practice told me recently how it had lost many doctors and was down to three, with waiting times blowing out to four to six weeks. When I asked the coalition government at the time about this, I was told that our area had too many doctors. Can you believe that—too many doctors? This was insane. In regard to the DPA status, they said: 'That will never change.' So, along with my community, I set out to campaign to have that DPA status reinstated, and finally we won. But that was just the start; Medicare was broken. I want to thank our local GPs, nurse practitioners and GP practice staff, who have been pivotal in helping shape health policy that puts primary care on a path back to where it should be: front and centre. I'm pleased to say that, after nine long years of coalition cuts and neglect, the Albanese government is making Medicare stronger for all Australians. The 2023 federal budget builds a stronger Medicare so all Australians can access the health care they need, no matter where they live or what their bank balance. Our historic investments in Medicare deliver the largest ever increase to bulk-billing incentives, making it easier for people to see a bulk-billing doctor. This is an historic $3.5 billion investment which triples the bulk-billing incentive and is an immediate injection to support patients and general practice, and it will strengthen the heart of Medicare bulk-billing. This largest ever increase to the bulk-billing incentive in the history of Medicare will provide a benefit to around 90,000 people in Gilmore, helping people access a GP to get the health care they need while easing the cost of living, just as people told me. Just this past week I had the honour of having the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care visit Nowra. We visited the Junction Street Family Practice, where we talked with GPs and nurse practitioners. We were told how the federal budget and its measures to strengthen Medicare had brought hope and confidence back to primary care. We're also delivering cheaper medicines, halving the cost of medicines and halving the number of visits to the doctor and pharmacy. Around 49,585 people in Gilmour will be able to buy two months worth of medicine for the price of a single prescription for more than 300 common PBS medicines. This will halve visits to the GP and pharmacist, saving people up to $180 a year for every eligible medicine they buy while reinvesting every dollar the government saves into our community pharmacies so that our trusted pharmacists and pharmacy staff can deliver even more services. This is more great news for people in Gilmour. Fewer visits to the GP frees up GP appointments for those who need them most. Locals know where people end up if they can't get into a GP. They end up in the emergency department at our local hospitals, putting more strain on our overburdened hospitals and health workers. And if our aged-care residents can't access a GP, they also end up in the emergency department. That creates bed block. Cheaper medicines from 1 September will not only be good for the hip-pocket by easing the cost of living; they will help those who are most vulnerable and are more likely to skip medications because they cannot afford them. I have never forgotten what people right across my electorate told me about the need to be able to access a GP and health services. Strengthening Medicare is not an easy fix. It's not like a road with potholes you can see and feel every time you drive over them. It's real people, real lives, real health and ill health. I want to thank everyone in my electorate that has contributed to strengthening Medicare. There's more to do, but we're up for it. Wide Bay: Energy 102 12:40 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay Powerlink's pylon parasites would invade Wide Bay under Palaszczuk's Labor pumped-hydro-power gamble. If the proposal proceeds, transmission towers of up to 500 kilovolts, up to 70 metres high and comprising 75 megatons of steel atop 20 cubic metres of concrete foundation would be built across more than a hundred private properties between Barambah and Woolooga. Barambah pumped hydro uses old technology to pump water up to higher ground, using intermittent solar and wind so that it can be run through generators later, which causes a net loss of about 30 per cent of power. Pumped hydro will be obsolete in years to come, when we move to the only true zero-emissions fully reliable power source that won't need invasive transmission lines: nuclear energy. Powerlink's proposal has exposed a clear power imbalance between property owners and government-owned energy corporations threatening to compulsorily acquire and access private land. What constitutes social licence when the heavy hand of government owned corporations railroads small communities into having towering monstrosities on land that is loved for its rural amenity? Under Powerlink's proposal, transmission corridors would be designed around state forests and cut across 129 freehold properties. So-called green energy does not come without environmental consequences. The privately held forest to be cleared for construction and maintenance of these towers is also a habitat for critically endangered fauna and flora, including the northern quoll, koalas and native guava. Yes, transmission lines get priority. Traveston Crossing dam was cancelled due to the impact on endangered flora and fauna, but now it seems that it's okay for the state government to trample all over habitat, because it's for renewable energy transmission lines. The Queensland government says forests such as those under the proposed Powerlink corridor around people's homes are very important for wildlife conversation, yet the Queensland government's Powerlink says these trees must be ripped out to plant monstrous transmission towers in their place. In other words, you can't touch the trees on your property, but the government owned corporation can. We have yet to see fair financial compensation for those which have significantly depreciated property values in other areas subjected to high-voltage transmission lines, such as HumeLink, Snowy 2.0 and Marinus Link, which have had cost blowouts from the impact of managing endangered species along the construction line. These projects are just the start of the Albanese government's $80 billion plan to carve more than 27,000 kilometres of new high-voltage transmission lines through our country to link industrial land-intensive solar and wind to the grid. The Queensland government says it has set aside $273 million for pumped hydro projects. Federal Labor says there is money for Barambah, but it won't tell us how much. We as taxpayers have a right to know how much of our money will be spent. When it comes to watering Wide Bay's agriculture to grow food in the Mary Valley and on the Fraser Coast versus water to generate hydroelectricity, who gets priority in a drought—Wide Bay's crops or Queensland's power needs? I call on the Queensland government to assure us our farms won't lose their water supply. This week we discovered that the $18 million Maryborough water security project had been secretly axed. Has Maryborough's agricultural water allocation been handed over to the hydro? Powerlink's shocking actions must be stopped before they cobweb our countryside with these high-voltage eyesores. Housing 103 12:44 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I just want to say a few words about housing. I know there are some minor parties in this House that are out in their electorates actually campaigning to stop new housing development during this nation's housing crisis. They flew down to Canberra and voted with Peter Dutton and Pauline Hanson to stop the new housing fund. They're hypocrites who say they want to help renters and say they want social housing built, but all they do is vote 'no' to housing, particularly in the Senate. In the Senate last week, these strange bedfellows formed a new 'no-alition' and voted to shut down debate. If they were serious about doing something on housing and really wanted more housing, they would work with the Albanese government to pass legislation when the Senate next sits. Right now, the Senate can deliver 30,000 social and affordable homes. It can do that right now. This would include housing for women and children fleeing violence. That would be in the first five years of the Housing Australia Future Fund. I have heard some pretty silly claims about what the Housing Australia Future Fund is—for example, that it is a 'gamble on the stock market'. That is a great one-liner, but it is a one-liner packed with falsehoods, because the Future Fund is an experienced fund manager, managing over $250 billion for the Australian government. The Future Fund invests in a range of assets in a diversified portfolio, just like the superannuation fund that supports retirement for working Australians, including politicians who fly down to Canberra to vote against public housing. Existing future funds provide consistent and allowable annual disbursements irrespective of returns. As Brendan Coates from Grattan Institute has said: … other future funds have continued to disburse moneys even when the fund hasn't given a return in a year. The whole point of establishing the Housing Australia Future Fund in legislation is to make sure that we provide a long-term, ongoing source of funding for social and affordable housing that isn't subject to the whims or prejudices of a future government. That, my friends, is called security and surety. What we really don't need is yet another short-term fix that has the potential to leave vulnerable people out in the cold once again. The Labor fund will be the end of the housing one-offs from the Australian government. It will be the end of Australian government housing programs that make problems worse instead of better. The Housing Australia Future Fund will be the start of an enduring promise from the Australian government that more Australians should have a safe and affordable place to call home. I want to remind those people who are misleading the country in their very loud mansplaining voices that future funds are used across government to provide secure, long-term funding for important policy objectives like the NDIS, medical research and disaster preparedness, to name just three. In my electorate of Moreton, the community groups that provide support and housing to vulnerable people have a clear message to these politicians who are using the housing crisis to draw attention to themselves. Their message is very simple: pass the bill. You know what else they dislike? The posturing about rent freezes. That's because they know that rent freezes have not worked overseas and they won't work here. The Housing Australia Future Fund is just one of the Albanese government's election commitments and it's not the only thing that we're doing. But, if you were listening to the Greens political party, you would think it is the only thing. It's not. But it is essential in creating an ongoing, secure source of funding for social and affordable rental homes. Safe and affordable housing is central to the security and dignity of all Australians. A decade of little action by the former coalition government has left us with significant challenges right across the country. That's why our budget delivered new action to help Australia renters, expand opportunities for homeownership and bolstered frontline homelessness services. At every opportunity, the Albanese government has built on our housing reform, because we know that our nation's challenges are quite significant. The budget builds on the work that our Labor government is delivering so that Australians can have a safe and affordable place to call home. I had a roundtable in my electorate with Minister Collins and a lot of the housing providers in my patch. I should declare that I used to be on the board of the Kyabra community organisation. It provides emergency shelter and also longer term accommodation. One of the workers from Kyabra that I knew from my time on the board said that never in her 35 years of working with vulnerable people has she seen housing in the crisis it is right now. So it's a simple message to the people who fly down here to vote 'no' to housing: get out of the way, vote 'yes', let these 30,000 homes go out and let the Housing Australia Future Fund come into being and start providing more housing. Albanese Government 104 12:50 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong In 20 May 2022, the Australian polity voted for change. They voted for transparency and integrity in government. In my seat of Kooyong, people voted because they wanted politics done differently. One of the things that people have spoken to me about during the election campaign last year and since that time has been their desire for integrity and transparency in government. What we have seen in the last government and, unfortunately, in the first 12 months of the Albanese government is that politics is still being done very much the same way it was before. Yesterday, in the House of Representatives, we saw the Albanese government block an integrity bill, an integrity measure to increase transparency around massive infrastructure projects in Australia. A succession of Independents and crossbenchers spoke in support of amendments which would have strengthened that bill and would have increased the transparency of this government. The Albanese government voted against an amendment it had previously put up itself in the last government, an amendment which had been proposed by the incoming Prime Minister. It opposed its own previous measure for transparency. It is a perverse measure and an incredibly disappointing one at a time that we know Australian people want integrity in their politicians. More recently, we have also seen increasing evidence of the malign effect of lobbyists in this country. There are more than 1,300 people who have access to the corridors of power in Parliament House. Many of them do not carry lobbying passes, and this is one of the measures I and other Independents will be working on in the next six months, to increase the transparency of who has access to Australian politicians right now. We have discussed this in this House and we discussed it in Senate estimates yesterday but there has been no change over many years. We know that hundreds and hundreds of people can enter Australia Parliament House and walk straight to the doors of politicians. We have no register of who half those people are, we do not know who they are talking about and we do not know what they're talking about. In recent years we have seen increasing evidence of the breakdown of the transparency of government. During the Morrison years we saw sports rorts, we saw water rorts and we saw the Leppington Triangle. We saw in my electorate alone car parks to the value of $65 million which had no approvals, and there were no infrastructural requirements. It was basically pork-barrelling. People do not want this and they do not want us as politicians to be immediately accessible by lobbyists. If a person is on JobSeeker or on the age pension or on a single parent pension cannot walk into Parliament House and talk to me, why should someone from the BCA or the ACTU be able to waltz into my office and do that? There is no parity or equity there. What we do need is to change the rules around lobbying in this country. We need a lobbying register which is legislated. We need a lobbying register which is enforced by the Attorney-General. We need to have real penalties for those people who break the rules, rather than a slap on the wrist and a temporary faux exclusion from this place for three months. We need to hold those people to standards of account. We also need to set access for ministerial diaries and we need to end the embarrassing, ridiculous way in which people from this House, ministers in particular, transition straight into very well-paid consultancy jobs immediately on exiting parliament. We need to end the constant shuffle between the halls of power in industry and the halls of power in this place. We need to give Australian people some assurance and some sense of surety that their politicians are accountable to them and are not just feathering their own nests and improving their own interests in retirement. In recent years we have seen a number of senior government ministers walk straight out of this place and into very well-paid lobbying jobs. We all know that there's a level of interest there, and we know that industry is not stupid. There's something to be got for those expensive sinecures that these former ministers are receiving in industry. The Australian people deserve better than that; we all deserve better than that. So, in the next year, I will be moving lobbying laws, and I will be improving the rules on this. National Reconciliation Week, National Volunteer Week, Eden-Monaro Electorate: Community Events 105 12:55 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro National Reconciliation Week is a time for all Australians to learn about our shared history, our shared cultures and our shared achievements and to explore how each of us can contribute to achieving reconciliation across Australia. The theme for National Reconciliation Week 2023 is 'Be a Voice for Generations'. It encourages all Australians to be a voice for reconciliation in tangible ways in our everyday lives: where we live, where we work and where we socialise. I want to thank the Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council for their support for a Voice to Parliament. I will be joining the Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council's National Reconciliation Walk in Queanbeyan on Tuesday 30 May. Please join us. It is a fabulous walk; they do it so well. It starts at 9 am in Queanbeyan's Riverside. I look forward to seeing you there. I attended the unveiling of an 'Acknowledgement of Yuin Country' sign at Narooma High School a couple of weeks ago. I was absolutely impressed with the work that was created by members of the Junior Aboriginal Education Consultative Group. Year 12 students Tara and Narlia created the artwork and JACEG students Summer, Requia and Jemesan wrote the acknowledgement with the assistance of local community members, who helped to translate it into Dhurga language. What a wonderful way to pay respect to our land's traditional custodians as you enter the school's grounds, and you leave with this beautiful message: 'Walawaani njindiwan. Yanabulwul nhaway buraadja buraagawalin.' It means: 'Safe journey all you mob. Walk strong today and tomorrow.' National Volunteer Week was last week, and there is absolutely no question that volunteers are the lifeblood of our communities and our community organisations across our region but especially in Eden-Monaro. During times of natural disasters, sporting successes, empowering education programs and everything in between, our volunteers in Eden-Monaro step up to lend a hand. This year's National Volunteer Week theme was 'The Change Makers'. I was so privileged to recognise over 250 volunteers across Eden-Monaro with certificates of appreciation, from the Queanbeyan Rodeo Committee and the Eden Community Access Centre through to Tumut Regional Family Services. I was lucky enough to be able to catch up with Monica Thomas from the Sleepy Burrows Wombat Sanctuary and Sue Rootsey and the inspiring team at Sapphire Community Pantry to present certificates of appreciation and hear firsthand about the amazing work that they're doing on behalf of our communities. I want to say a big thankyou to all of the volunteers across Eden-Monaro. Thank you for driving positive change and ensuring that volunteering is inclusive for all members of our community. I want to thank you for your tireless dedication, your unwavering advocacy and your long-lasting commitment to helping those in need across our community. I give a shout-out in particular to the Queanbeyan Rodeo Committee who were recipients of this year's National Volunteer Week Award. The aim of the Queanbeyan Rodeo is not only to be one of the best rodeos in the region but also to offer a professional rodeo experience while raising money to donate to worthy charities across our region. After a bumper event this year, the rodeo donated $52,000 to 18 local organisations and charities which, without this effort, would not have received those funds. The Queanbeyan Rodeo is a great example of regional areas having the local expertise and knowledge to hold professional events right in our own regions. I hope it goes to new heights next year, and I will continue to work with that committee to see what else we can do to make it a staple event in our community. Thanks so much for allowing me to be part of the terrific event earlier this year. Finally, I want to take this opportunity to highlight some of the inspiring things young people are doing across Eden-Monaro. Thank you to all the schools that have taken interest in our political system and arranged visits to Parliament House. I've recently had the pleasure of welcoming Quaama Public School, Jerrabomberra Public School, Mount Carmel School from Yass, Tumbarumba Public School, St Bede's Primary School in Braidwood and Queanbeyan East Public School. I'm always heartened to see how engaged students are. I've also had the pleasure of learning from some local schools about their own school parliaments and how they work. I commend the youth parliaments being run by students in Quaama, Googong and Gundaroo. I want to give a shout-out to Bega High students Jacob and Haidyn, who recently attended question time and budget night, just to learn more about our political process. I also want to congratulate Big hART for their recent Bulla Midhong event at Cocora Beach in Twofold Bay in Eden. Members of the public were taken on a song, dance and digital story-telling journey performed by various Indigenous students from the Eden Marine High School with the help of cultural mentors, local artists and the Big hART team. While I was disappointed not to be there, I've seen the photos. They look amazing. Thank you so much for sharing this cultural event, and thank you to the community for supporting the work. Federation Chamber adjourned at 13:00