﻿
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2023-08-02</date>
    <parliament.no>2</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>0</period.no>
    <chamber>House of Reps</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>1</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;" />
            <a href="Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 2 August 2023</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The SPEAKER (</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Hon</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">.</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Milton Dick</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">) </span>took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Selection Committee</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>1</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present report No. 15 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday 7 August 2023. The report will be printed in the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> for today and the committee's determination will appear on tomorrow's <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The report read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1. The Committee met in private session on Tuesday, 1 August 2023.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 1 August 2023, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 7 August 2023, as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Presentation and statements</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 Standing Committee on Pro cedure</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Raising the Standard: Inquiry into recommendations 10 and 27 of Set the Standard: Report on the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">all statements to concl</inline> <inline font-style="italic">ude by 10.20 am.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Neumann</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MS CHANEY: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to electoral matters, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Electoral Legislation Amendment (Restoring Trust) Bill 2023</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 1 August 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period </inline> <inline font-style="italic">not exceeding 10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 MS BELL: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Government's Cheaper Child Care policy has driven up the cost of early childhood education and care for families across Australia since it was implemented on 1 July 2023;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) families are reporting increases to the cost of their daily fees in excess of $20 per day;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Government's inability to manage the cost of living crisis in Australia is driving up the cost of rent, mortgages, groceries and everyday bills, like early childhood education and care bills, for Australian families;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the Government's inaction to address workforce shortages is limiting access to early childhood education and care for families; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) families continue to be unable to access early childhood education and care, particularly in regional and rural areas; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to deliver:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) more access to early childhood education and care places to support Australians to return to the workforce; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) real cost of living relief to families.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 31 July 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">35 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Bell</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 SOCIAL HOUSING: Resumption of debate (<inline font-style="italic">from 31 July 2023</inline>) on the motion of Dr Ananda-Rajah—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes the Government's announcement of a new $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator to deliver thousands of new social rental homes across Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges the Government's commitment to an ambitious housing agenda which will boost the supply of all housing, with more social housing, more affordable housing, more homes to rent and more homes to buy, and includes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) establishing the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee three months early, helping regional Australians purchase a home with as little as a 5 per cent deposit and avoiding paying Lenders' Mortgage Insurance;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) widening the remit of the National Housing Infrastructure Facility, making up to $575 million available to invest immediately in social and affordable rental homes, with projects already under construction as a result of this funding;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) working with the states and territories through the National Housing Accord and National Cabinet to support planning and zoning reforms to contribute to the aspiration of building one million new homes over 5 years from 2024, as well as investing $350 million in additional federal funding to deliver 10,000 affordable rental homes over five years from 2024 as part of the accord—matched by the states and territories;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) further establishing the interim National Housing Supply and Affordability Council to provide expert advice to Government on housing supply and affordability;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) delivering the largest increase to Commonwealth Rent Assistance in more than 30 years, with a 15 per cent increase in the maximum rates;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) increasing the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation's liability cap by $2 billion to provide lower cost and longer-term finance to community housing providers through the Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) providing tax incentives to encourage more build-to-rent developments to boost new supply in the private rental market;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) further providing an additional $67.5 million of funding to the states and territories to help tackle homelessness challenges as part of a one-year extension to the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement which provides $1.7 billion a year to the states and territories for housing and homelessness services; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) expanding eligibility for the Home Guarantee Scheme, which helps people purchase a home sooner by reducing the deposit they need to save; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) condemns the Opposition and the Australian Greens for blocking the Housing Australia Future Fund, and notes that every day of delay is $1.3 million not being spent on social and affordable housing for Australians who need it today.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">35 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Dr Ananda-Rajah</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that </inline> <inline font-style="italic">consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices — continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 DR M RYAN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges that lobbying can result in the development of policies that favour the interests of private corporations over the interests of the Australian public;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that there is a lack of transparency over the relationship between lobbyists and Ministerial offices;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) recognises that breaches of the Lobbying Code of Conduct are rarely identified by the Attorney-General's Department and that there are currently no serious penalties for breaching the Lobbying Code of Conduct; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) commits to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) extending the Register of Lobbyists to include registered professional lobbyists acting on behalf of third parties, services firms and lobbyists acting on behalf of businesses and industry bodies;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) extending the cooling-off period for former MPs and senior government officials to three years in keeping with international best practice;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) introducing new penalties for breaching the Lobbying Code of Conduct, such as suspending lobbyists from operating for up to two years; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) ensuring the National Anti-Corruption Commission has the ability to investigate alleged breaches of the Lobbying Code of Conduct and enforce penalties.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 1 August 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Dr M Ryan</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MR FLETCHER: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the digital economy plays a critical role in the Australian economy, helping to drive economic growth and create new jobs;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Government has not:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) provided sufficient funding in the budget to help grow the digital economy;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) produced a digital economy strategy; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Government abolished the role of the Minister for the digital economy; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to prioritise the digital economy by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) providing funding in sufficient levels to advance Australia's digital economy;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) delivering a digital economy strategy to make Australian a world-leading digital economy; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) appointing a Minister responsible for the digital economy.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 9 May 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">35 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr </inline> <inline font-style="italic">Fletcher</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 MS THWAITES: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges the release of the report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, a 990-page report that examined the establishment of the scheme and who was responsible for it, and made 57 recommendations;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises that the Robodebt Scheme, which was put forward as a budget measure in 2015 and was found to be unlawful by the Federal Court in late 2019, caused great harm to vulnerable members of the Australian community;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) notes that despite the mounting warnings and criticism of the scheme, in the words of the report the Government of the time 'continued to illegally raise debts against some of society's most vulnerable';</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) commends the courage, leadership and bravery of victims, families, advocates and whistle-blowers who continued to raise concerns about the Robodebt Scheme; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) welcomes the Government's commitment to ensuring such a tragedy never happens again, and to carefully consider the recommendations from the report and provide a response to these recommendations in due course.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 31 July 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">40 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Thwaites</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 MR CHANDLER-MATHER: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) that the Government has committed to funding $3.4 billion of the $7 billion Olympics infrastructure, in the middle of a cost living crisis, when it refuses to invest more than $500 million a year in social and affordable housing;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) that the average cost blow-out of an Olympics since 1960 is 2.5 times the original cost, which would see the cost of the Brisbane Olympics blow-out to $17.5 billion; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the recent decision by the Victorian Government to cancel the Commonwealth Games so as to save money for schools and hospitals; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) drop its support for the disastrous Gabba demolition and rebuild that will see the bulldozing of a local public school, East Brisbane State School, and Raymond Park, a much loved public park;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) re-negotiate a new Olympics infrastructure agreement that actually prioritises using existing infrastructure, like Carrara Stadium, and instead invests in new public transport and other long term community infrastructure; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) commit that any infrastructure built for the Olympics remains in public hands, including retaining the athletes' village as publicly-owned housing.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 1 August 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">20 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Chandler-Mather</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The </inline> <inline font-style="italic">Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 MS SCRYMGOUR: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges the sustained and dedicated effort by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) to increase the enrolment of all Australians, with a particular focus on the two cohorts of Australians who have long been under-represented on the electoral roll, being First Nations Australians and young people aged between 18 and 24 years;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises that as a result of the Government ensuring the AEC had the appropriate resources to improve enrolment:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) for the first time in since records have existed, enrolment of Australians aged between 18 and 24 year is now over 90 per cent; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) estimated First Nations enrolment has increased in every state and territory to the highest it has ever been so that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) nationwide it is now at 94.1 per cent, up from 84.5 per cent just six months ago; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) in the Northern Territory it is now at 87.0 per cent, up from 76.7 per cent six months ago; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) condemns the former Government, for failing to appropriately resource the AEC to take action to improve enrolment of First Nations Australians, including by cutting AEC personnel in the Northern Territory who were addressing these matters.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 1 August 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">20 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Scrymgour</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 MR HOWARTH: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) under the current Government, decisions to conduct review after review into defence and defence industry have resulted in unreasonable delays in awarding contracts; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) these delays have led to uncertainty for small and medium enterprises, threatening many businesses, and forcing them to consider leaving the industry;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Government's agreed recommendation from the Defence Strategic Review, stating that Australian industry content and domestic production should be balanced against timely capability acquisition, requires financial support from the Government;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) without such support, there is a risk of losing more contracts overseas;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Government's agreed recommendation from the Defence Strategic Review, calling for an increase in defence funding to meet our strategic circumstances, has not been meet in the 2023-2024 budget;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the Government should legislate a minimum number of missiles stockpiled to ensure Australia's National Security; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the Government's disconnect with Australia's defence industry should alarm all Australians because it shows a lack of understanding of the challenges facing Australia's defence industry; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Government to take real action in supporting and growing Australia's sovereign defence industry and boosting Australia's dwindling defence budget.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 1 </inline> <inline font-style="italic">August 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Howarth</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that </inline> <inline font-style="italic">consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices — continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 MR CHESTER: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) we have a world-class and sustainable native hardwood timber industry in Australia which delivers social, economic, cultural and environmental benefits for our nation;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) timber industry workers provide invaluable skills and practical support to their communities during times of natural disasters, particularly bushfires;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) banning native timber harvesting in Australia will result in more imported timber products, often sourced from countries with poorer environmental protocols; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) a sustainable native hardwood timber industry is part of the answer to reducing Australia's carbon emissions as timber products sequester carbon in our floorboards, furniture and other timber products;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that the Victorian Government's illogical decision to ban all native hardwood timber harvesting on public land from 1 January 2024 is based on political science, not environmental science; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) urges the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) recognise the sustainable native hardwood timber industry is an issue of national importance because of supply chain considerations and community safety;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) include the future of the native hardwood timber industry as an issue for discussion at the next National Cabinet; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) support a taxpayer-funded public information campaign to explain the importance of the native hardwood timber industry and dispel the myths perpetuated by environmental activists.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 21 June 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">40 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Chester</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 MR RAE: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises that the Government continues to strengthen Medicare through delivering the important service of the planned 58 Medicare Urgent Care Clinics which will take pressure off our emergency departments; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that Medicare Urgent Care Clinics are designed to make it easier for Australian families to see a doctor or a nurse when they have an urgent, but not life threatening, need for care that is bulk billed.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 1 August 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">40 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Rae</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8 MR VAN MANEN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) since 2007, the National Student Wellbeing Program (formerly the National School Chaplaincy Program) has been assisting Australian students in key areas, fostering student wellbeing, increasing connectedness and school and community engagement through tailored pastoral care;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) on average, chaplains have 15,724 conversations with students per week, across the country;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) every term, chaplains run 7,025 programs, supporting 313,109 students; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the program works and is delivering measurable results for children, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) a 2022 report from the University of Western Australia entitled, <inline font-style="italic">An Outcome Evaluation of School Chaplaincy</inline> noted the program had a considerable impact on:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) improved attendance;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) a focus on learning; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) improved behaviour.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) since its creation, under Prime Minister Howard's Government, the Coalition has supported the work of the National Student Wellbeing Program; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) by providing further funding of $245.7 million, the previous Government reaffirmed this commitment to the $60 million a year program, which provides $20,000 towards the cost of hiring a chaplain for over 3,000 schools; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) thanks all chaplains for their ongoing efforts in providing social, emotional and spiritual support to Australian students.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 21 March 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr van Manen</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee </inline> <inline font-style="italic">determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">9 MS J RYAN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes the Government's commitment to stand up for casual workers who want to become permanent employees;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises that this:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) will help more than 850,000 casual workers who have regular work arrangements, giving them greater access to leave entitlements and more financial security if desired;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) delivers on the Government's election commitment, ensuring that where a worker's pattern of work is no longer casual, they have the choice to move to permanent employment and gain the benefits of secure employment; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) forms part of a broader set of reforms to be introduced into Parliament later this year aimed at closing loopholes that undermine wages and conditions; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) acknowledges this is just part of the Government's commitment to deliver a better future for Australian workers, building on the strong foundations in the Secure Jobs, Better Pay legislation passed in December 2022.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 1 August 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">40 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms J Ryan</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this </inline> <inline font-style="italic">matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">10 MR BROADBENT: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) endorses the inalienable rights and freedoms of all Australians to make their own choices about their health and wellbeing, free from government interference;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises that ongoing discriminatory and redundant COVID-19 vaccine mandates are wreaking untold economic, social and psychological damage on many Australians who are still unable to work due to these mandates;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) notes the COVID-19 clinical trials did not include carcinogenic, toxicology, immunotoxicity or genotoxicity studies in humans prior to being provisionally approved;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) acknowledges that as at 1 March 2023, there have been 137,606 cases of adverse reactions and 981 deaths reported on the Therapeutic Goods Administration Database of Adverse Events Notifications; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) immediately intervene to prevent state and territory governments from mandating COVID-19 vaccines;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) review the rollout of vaccines until data around adverse reactions is investigated;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) broaden the Government's COVID-19 compensation scheme to include all COVID-19 vaccine injuries, not just those recognised by the sponsors and address processing delays; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) delay the purchase and procurement of further COVID-19 vaccines until a proper risk/benefit analysis has been conducted; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) legislate that taking the vaccine should be a decision between individuals and their health care providers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 20 March 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Broadbent</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 3 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that </inline> <inline font-style="italic">consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">THE HON D. M. DICK MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Speaker of the House of Representatives</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 August 2023</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>7</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 [No. 2]</title>
          <page.no>7</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7061" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 [No. 2]</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>7</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>7</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COLLINS</name>
    <name.id>HWM</name.id>
    <electorate>Franklin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>Over the parliamentary break, myself as well as other members of this place, have had the opportunity to visit many new, federally funded housing projects right across the country.</para>
<para>In Western Sydney.</para>
<para>In Melbourne.</para>
<para>In Brisbane.</para>
<para>And in regional Tasmania, just to name a few.</para>
<para>These projects are not just construction projects, they are new, safe, secure and affordable places to call home for Australians who need them most.</para>
<para>Before coming back to parliament, I revisited a site in Shorewell Park, in the electorate of Braddon, where new tenants have moved in.</para>
<para>These new tenants told me how life-changing it is to now have the security of a roof over their head.</para>
<para>'I'm going back to school,' one of the residents said to me.</para>
<para>That's what it means to have a safe, affordable place to call home.</para>
<para>Housing Choices Tasmania told me how important the Shorewell Park project is for vulnerable Tasmanians, and how it wants to do more.</para>
<para>This is why we cannot afford any more delays to the Housing Australia Future Fund.</para>
<para>Vulnerable Australians need the thousands of homes that the Housing Australia Future Fund will deliver.</para>
<para>This is why today I am reintroducing the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023, and related bills, into the House of Representatives.</para>
<para>When I stood in this place, many months ago, to first introduce these bills I said, 'The Housing Australia Future Fund will be the start of an enduring promise from the Australian government—that more Australians will have a safe, affordable place to call home.'</para>
<para>Our government has not forgotten that promise.</para>
<para>The government will use every opportunity to deliver the social and affordable rental housing that this fund will deliver. We need more homes.</para>
<para>The government will use every process available to us to make the case for this important legislation.</para>
<para>Again, as I said previously in this place, this fund will deliver that crucial, protected, ongoing pipeline of funding to provide certainty to community housing providers.</para>
<para>That will provide scale and invite new contributions to social and affordable housing from institutional investors.</para>
<para>That will be the end of the Australian government housing programs that make problems worse instead of better.</para>
<para>And, importantly, the structure of the Housing Australia Future Fund is protected from the whims of future governments.</para>
<para>This fund, of course, is not the totality of the Australian government's ambitious housing agenda.</para>
<para>But it is an important cornerstone—a cornerstone supported by community housing providers, frontline homelessness services, state and territory housing ministers and of course tenants of social and affordable housing.</para>
<para>I will now outline the functions of this bill. The Housing Australia Future Fund is one aspect of the government's commitment to improving housing supply and affordability. Central to this is the aim of increasing the supply of social and affordable homes and investing in more acute housing needs.</para>
<para>As announced in the October 2022-23 budget, disbursements from the Housing Australia Future Fund will be used to fund social and affordable homes and other acute housing needs. In the first five years of operation, the government intends to use the disbursements from the Housing Australia Future Fund to help build:</para>
<list>20,000 homes to provide social housing—4,000 of which will be allocated to women and children leaving domestic and family violence and older women on low incomes who are at risk of homelessness; and</list>
<list>10,000 affordable homes for frontline workers like police, nurses and cleaners who kept us safe during the pandemic.</list>
<para>The National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, which will be renamed as Housing Australia, will be responsible for administering the majority of the disbursements from the Housing Australia Future Fund to help build the 30,000 social and affordable homes in the fund's first five years.</para>
<para>Over the same time period, the fund will also provide:</para>
<list>$200 million for the repair, maintenance and improvements of housing in remote Indigenous communities;</list>
<list>$100 million for crisis and transitional housing options for women and children leaving domestic and family violence and older women on low incomes who are at risk of homelessness; and</list>
<list>$30 million to build housing and fund specialist services for veterans experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness.</list>
<para>The bill establishes the Housing Australia Future Fund and provides an initial credit of $10 billion. Disbursements from the fund will be made available for the purposes of funding social and affordable homes and other acute housing needs.</para>
<para>Under this bill, annual disbursements will be capped at $500 million per year to protect the balance of the fund and ensure a sustainable source of funding into the future. The legislation will require five-yearly reviews of the operation of the act, which will assess the extent to which the fund is meeting the social, affordable and acute housing needs of Australians.</para>
<para>The Housing Australia Future Fund will be managed by the Future Fund Board of Guardians, which has a proven track record of managing investment funds on behalf of the people of Australia and maximising returns over the long term.</para>
<para>The bill requires the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance to issue directions setting out the government's expectations as to how the fund will be managed and invested by the board, including setting a benchmark rate of return for the fund.</para>
<para>Any disbursements from the fund will require formal government approval.</para>
<para>As part of the annual budget process, the housing minister, in consultation with the Treasurer and the finance minister, will be responsible for bringing forward proposals for the government's consideration of the allocation of disbursements to deliver on the government's targets for social and affordable homes and acute housing needs.</para>
<para>The bulk of the annual disbursements from the fund will be allocated to Housing Australia to deliver on the government's social and affordable housing commitments. Allocations to Housing Australia will recognise that a minimum annual amount over the long term is likely to be required to deliver on those commitments.</para>
<para>In relation to the acute housing needs, the housing minister will also consult the other designated ministers—the Minister for Social Services, the Minister for Indigenous Australians and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs.</para>
<para>The housing minister will also consider advice from the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council before bringing forward spending proposals. The government established the interim council by administrative arrangement from 1 January 2023. The council will be established in primary legislation as part of this housing package.</para>
<para>The council will be an independent and expert advisory body to the government, to inform the spending from the Housing Australia Future Fund and provide policy advice on housing supply and affordability. It has already begun building a strong evidence base to support the Commonwealth in developing housing policy and position the government to provide an important leadership role in increasing housing supply and improving housing affordability in close collaboration with the states and the territories.</para>
<para>The bill will also establish the Housing Australia Future Fund Payments Special Account to make grants in relation to acute housing needs. Following a decision of the government to allocate disbursements from the fund, the designated ministers will request that the agreed amounts be debited from the Housing Australia Future Fund Special Account and credited to the Housing Australia Future Fund Payments Special Account for the purpose of making grants.</para>
<para>The designated ministers and the housing minister will also be able to request that a grant to a state or territory be channelled through the COAG Reform Fund. Payments to Housing Australia will be transferred to the Housing Australia Special Account for the purposes of making grants and loans for social and affordable homes and acute housing needs.</para>
<para>All funding decisions will comply with the Commonwealth's established rules and guidelines for grants. Detailed information on grants under the Housing Australia Future Fund will be published online.</para>
<para>Too many Australians struggle to secure safe and affordable housing, which is why we're committed to establishing the Housing Australia Future Fund along with other significant housing reforms such as the new National Housing Supply and Affordability Council, a National Housing and Homelessness Plan and the Help to Buy scheme.</para>
<para>The introduction of this legislation builds on the work we have already begun to address Australia's housing challenges:</para>
<para>The new $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator to deliver thousands of new social homes across Australia. This investment that will build more homes, for more Australians, in more parts of our nation;</para>
<para>A National Housing Accord which includes federal funding to deliver 10,000 affordable homes over five years from 2024, will be matched by another 10,000 homes by the state and territories;</para>
<para>Increasing the maximum rate of Commonwealth Rent Assistance by 15 per cent, the largest increase in more than 30 years;</para>
<para>An additional $2 billion in financing for more social and affordable rental housing through the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation;</para>
<para>Immediately unlocking up to $575 million from the National Housing Infrastructure Facility for social and affordable homes;</para>
<para>A $1.7 billion one-year extension to the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement with states and territories, including a $67.5 million boost to homelessness funding over the next year;</para>
<para>States and territories committing to improve renters' rights through the National Cabinet and the Housing and Homelessness Ministerial Council;</para>
<para>Our decision to bring forward the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee by three months, which has already helped thousands of Australians into homeownership;</para>
<para>The formation of the interim National Housing Supply and Affordability Council, which has already begun its work to deliver independent advice to government; and</para>
<para>National Cabinet's decision to re-establish the Housing and Homelessness Ministerial Council and the four meetings I have already held with my state and territory colleagues.</para>
<para>Delivering on the establishment of the Housing Australia Future Fund along with the other housing reforms will mean more Australians will have a safe and affordable place to call home.</para>
<para>The government once again invites this parliament to show its support to deliver more housing for all Australians.</para>
<para>We invite those who stood opposite us in this place—or stood outside—to stand with us now to deliver that safety and security a home provides; to stand with the states and territories and community housing providers who are ready to hit the ground running with the funding this bill will provide for more homes; to stand with the homelessness service providers who are seeing more people come through their doors in need of homes. Because the only way we're going to tackle the housing challenges we face is if we stand together.</para>
<para>Full details of the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023 [No. 2]</title>
          <page.no>10</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7064" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023 [No. 2]</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>10</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>10</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COLLINS</name>
    <name.id>HWM</name.id>
    <electorate>Franklin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023 (bill) establishes the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council (council) as an independent statutory advisory body. The council will inform the Commonwealth's approach to housing policy by delivering independent advice to the government on housing supply and affordability.</para>
<para>Establishment of the council was announced as part of the Safer and More Affordable Housing measure in the October 2022-23 budget. The bill forms part of the Housing Legislative Package, which delivers on key components of the government's ambitious election commitments on housing. Public consultation on the draft legislation attracted feedback from a broad range of stakeholders, including community housing providers, industry bodies, advocacy groups, research bodies, and state and territory organisations.</para>
<para>The council will help the Commonwealth play a leadership role in improving housing supply and affordability. In addition to providing independent expert advice to government, the council will research and report on matters relating to housing supply and affordability. Both advice and reporting may be requested by the minister, and the council will have the discretion to initiate its own research and reporting to the minister.</para>
<para>As well as its reporting and general advisory role, the council will provide advice to the minister on the allocation of disbursements from the Housing Australia Future Fund. This advice will inform government consideration of disbursements as part of the annual budget process.</para>
<para>To ensure the important work of the council could commence quickly, the government established an interim council from 1 January 2023. The interim council has six appointed members and one ex officio member and operates as a non-statutory advisory body.</para>
<para>Following passage of this bill or from 1 July 2023, the interim council will cease, and the council will commence operating as an independent statutory advisory body. The permanent council will consist of a minimum of six and up to a maximum of nine appointed members with skills and experience in a range of fields relating to housing supply and affordability. Increasing the potential number of appointed council members (compared to the interim council) responds to stakeholder feedback to ensure that there is the right range of skills and experience on the council. The council will also include an ex officio member from the Commonwealth Treasury.</para>
<para>The bill enshrines the independence of the council, ensuring it can provide full and frank advice and reporting on issues council members consider important across the housing spectrum. The requirements as to the skills and expertise will support the production of high-quality and targeted advice to the Commonwealth government.</para>
<para>An important function of the council will be to work collaboratively with other Commonwealth bodies, state, territory and local governments, and other stakeholders, to support the collection and publication of nationally consistent data on housing supply and affordability.</para>
<para>And this collaborative role will enable the council to provide important input into the development of the National Housing and Homelessness Plan, which will establish a clear shared national strategy to address the significant challenges we face to ensure that Australians have access to safer and more affordable housing.</para>
<para>Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 [No. 2]</title>
          <page.no>11</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7062" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 [No. 2]</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>11</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>11</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COLLINS</name>
    <name.id>HWM</name.id>
    <electorate>Franklin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 forms part of the Housing Legislative Package, which delivers on the government's ambitious housing election commitments announced as part of the Safer and More Affordable Housing measure in the October 2022-23 budget.</para>
<para>The government publicly consulted on the package from 19 December 2022 to 11 January 2023. Forty-six written submissions were received, and three consultation sessions held (two with state and territory officials, and one with community housing providers).</para>
<para>This bill amends the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Act 2018 (NHFIC Act) to rename NHFIC to Housing Australia. The NHFIC Act established NHFIC to improve housing outcomes for Australians and commenced operation on 30 June 2018.</para>
<para>NHFIC's responsibilities include the operation of the Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator, capacity building for community housing providers, administering the government's Home Guarantee Scheme and the $1 billion National Housing Infrastructure Facility.</para>
<para>The National Housing Infrastructure Facility was expanded in November 2022 to allow financing in support of social or affordable housing projects in addition to financing for underlying critical infrastructure projects.</para>
<para>Housing Australia will continue to operate as a corporate Commonwealth entity governed by an independent board, reporting to the Minister for Housing. It will be directed in its performance of its functions by an investment mandate direction, issued by the Minister for Housing.</para>
<para>In addition to the new responsibilities set out in the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill, Housing Australia will continue to administer the Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator, the National Housing Infrastructure Facility and the Home Guarantee Scheme. This will allow Housing Australia to build upon the NHFIC's successes whilst supporting the government to deliver on our new key housing commitments.</para>
<para>The bill also makes consequential amendments to reflect the change of the NHFIC to Housing Australia and ensure consistency across Commonwealth legislation.</para>
<para>This bill also streamlines the functions of Housing Australia and establishes an annual review mechanism for the National Housing Infrastructure Facility. This will allow the government to regularly review the facility's performance against the objective of increasing and accelerating the supply of new social and affordable housing.</para>
<para>The bill also extends the legislated Commonwealth guarantee, which underpins the NHFIC bonds that enable low-cost finance for community housing providers, until 30 June 2028. Extending the guarantee provides certainty to the community housing sector and investors in debt securities issued by the bond aggregator.</para>
<para>Finally, the bill makes a number of further consequential amendments to legislation in the Finance and Treasury portfolios to enable the effective operation of the Housing Australia Future Fund.</para>
<para>Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>12</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7051" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>12</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>12</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
    <electorate>Eden-Monaro</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Regulator Performance) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>12</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7043" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Regulator Performance) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>12</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>12</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUSIC</name>
    <name.id>91219</name.id>
    <electorate>Chifley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>12</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7057" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>12</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023. While Australians are enduring what's been described as the worst cost-of-living crisis for a significant time, multinational corporations continue to get away with industrial-scale tax avoidance. The Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency Bill makes a promising start on targeting large corporations by limiting the amount of debt deductions multinational entities can claim in an income year. The bill ensures that debt deductions are linked to an entity's economic activity and taxable income in Australia, which I commend. I'm encouraged by the commitment this bill makes to integrity, especially given that it is in line with international approaches to enhance corporate tax transparency. However, while I support any measure that increases transparency and integrity, this bill only scratches the surface when it comes to stitching up the myriad loopholes that currently exist in our tax system.</para>
<para>The Australian Taxation Office transparency report released in November last year revealed that 32 per cent of large and medium corporate entities, including mining, energy and water companies paid no tax at all in 2020-21. I'm just reminding everybody that that is one-third of large-to-medium corporations. Chevron paid just $30 in income tax, despite having a total income of some $9.1 billion. Loopholes in our tax system are allowing multinationals to extract billions of dollars from the Australian public. With the recent revelations concerning PWC and other major accounting firms, it's clear that our tax system has been exploited by multinationals for many years at the expense of hardworking, taxpaying Australians. Just repeating, the Australian Taxation Office's annual tax transparency report revealed the amount of tax paid by some 2,468 large-to-medium corporation entities, and it showed that no tax was paid by nearly one-third. More than half of the mining, energy and water companies included in the report paid by no income tax in 2020-21.</para>
<para>I'll just stop for a moment, because we know those companies are making record profits from Australian resources. They include companies like Adani Mining Pty Ltd, one AGL entity, Alcoa Australian Holdings, Ampol, Anglo American Australia, ExxonMobil Australia, two Glencore entities, Peabody Australia holding companies, Santos, two Shell Energy entities, Whitehaven Coal, Woodside Petroleum and Yancoal Australia. Remembering that at the moment we are having a debate, for example, as to why the Australian taxpayer is funding $1.5 billion towards the key infrastructure cost for yet another gas development. These large multinationals turn around and take the handout of public money to pay for infrastructure but then do not contribute back into the system. Every year, the Australian public is denied billions of dollars in tax revenue because of multinational tax avoidance. Why does this matter to everyone? That is money that could be spent on schools, hospitals, affordable housing and, in particular, climate change mitigation and transition which so many of these fossil fuel companies are in fact accelerating and making worse.</para>
<para>Whilst I commend the government for the bill, the bill does not address major tax avoidance schemes. The bill does not address situations like the one that occurred in 2017, when the Australian entity of multinational oil and gas giant, Chevron, was caught engaging in a transfer pricing scheme. Chevron's Australian entity borrowed at an interest rate of nine per cent from an entity it created in the US state of Delaware called Chevron Funding Corporation. That corporation was borrowing at just 1.2 per cent while lending at nine per cent to the Australian entity. This artificially inflated Chevron's expenses in Australia, thereby transferring profits to the tax haven state of Delaware.</para>
<para>The Australian Tax Office won a landmark case against Chevron, claiming that the scheme had denied the Australian public roughly $340 million in tax revenue. Using unusually high interest expenses paid to overseas subsidiaries is not the only way multinationals seek to game the Australian tax system. In July last year, Rio Tinto settled a dispute with the Australian Tax Office for some $991 million for its use of offshore marketing hubs and overstated borrowing costs to transfer profits offshore to avoid paying taxes in Australia. I find it rather ironic when I hear so many in this place go to bat for these fossil fuel companies, these big multinationals, when they are vowing to contribute back to the very substance of the community they're so happy to take from.</para>
<para>Multinational oil and gas companies essentially pay so little tax but receive so much funding and subsidies from the public purse. Last year, a report from the Australian Institute found that multinational oil and gas giants Chevron and ExxonMobil paid zero income tax over a seven-year period despite a combined total income of $100 billion. I find that obscene. When I think of the consequences that we as a society are going to have to pay—the transition, the adaptation and the preparation—I think not only have we been pillaged but, on top of that, the Australian people are going to be left to foot the bill. When thinking of that total income of $100 billion with zero tax when individual nurses are paying more tax than some of the nation's largest oil and gas companies, it's blatantly clear that our tax system has a problem and is broken.</para>
<para>There are a number of ways in which multinationals avoid paying taxes in Australia. It's when we step back and look at the strength of the other tax systems around the world that we realise how badly Australians are being fleeced. This is really important because we have incredible challenges ahead of us. We have big transition costs. We have a cost-of-living crisis. We have everyday Australians struggling. We have people in this place quibbling over small increases to support the most vulnerable in our community. We are actually not providing sufficient support. We are keeping people below the poverty rate. Yet, we have these loopholes remaining. It begs the question: is it because of our lobbying practices? Because these multinationals have voices and access to government in a way that so many others do not. We know that that has allowed this system to continue for way too long.</para>
<para>The comparisons with high integrity tax systems are important. For example, Norway has a highly effective tax regime. It has been taxing the export profits of its oil and gas sector at 78 per cent since the 1990s. Through this tax, Norway has built its sovereign wealth fund, which is now worth around $2 trillion, or around $1.5 million for every Norwegian family of four. Just stop and think about that for a moment. What have both major parties been doing for the last 20 years around so much wealth in Australia? We have just dug it up and shipped it out, and we have not made sure that the Australian people for generations into the future have the kind of wealth fund that should be there for them.</para>
<para>While Norway has been taxing its oil and gas export profits at 78 per cent for the past three decades—three decades, that's 30 years!—tax revenue from Australia's oil and gas sector has been in consistent decline.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
<para>In 1997, corporate tax paid on oil and gas export profits in Australia was 16 per cent of total revenue, but in 2020 it had dropped to just one per cent. Over the nine-year period from 2012 to 2020 the Australian oil and gas sector reported expenses to the Australian Taxation Office equalling a staggering 90 per cent of total revenue. That compares to an expense-to-revenue ratio in Norway of just 21 per cent. In Norway they claim expenses of 21 per cent. In Australia they are claiming 90 per cent to limit any kind of tax liability. It beggars belief that those numbers don't have the Australian government calling time and saying, 'Hang on a minute; we are not doing the right thing by the Australian people.'</para>
<para>The high oil and gas expense ratio in Australia either represents a woefully inefficient industry or an extremely effective campaign of financial engineering to exploit loopholes in our tax system and, I would argue, incredibly effective lobbying to both sides of this place. Australia needs to put in place some serious reform. The petroleum resource rent tax is a classic example. Here we are on the threshold of yet another opportunity where Prime Minister Albanese is going to need to stare down the question: do I do the right thing by the Australian people or do I continue paying lip service and doing what the gas industry wants? Further to broad multinational tax reform, we desperately need to fix the broken PRRT. After it was introduced in the early 1990s, the PRRT made up 19 per cent of total oil and gas revenue. Thanks to decades of lobbying, that has been whittled away to just one per cent of total oil and gas sector revenue. Australians are being fleeced on the sale of natural resources that ultimately belong to them and should be wealth building for generations of the future. In here I look at children in the gallery. They put their trust and faith in this place to ensure that we have laws that will take care of their future, and we are failing dismally because lobbyists and big corporate interests are coming before the interests of people.</para>
<para>The call is very clearly on the government when it is looking at the reform of the petroleum resource rent tax, which we know is coming: why are you ignoring the recommendation from Treasury, which actually collects a more significant amount of revenue, compared to the one the lobbyists and gas companies have been pushing? It's going to be a real test for the Albanese the government. On whose side do they stand? Do they stand on the side of securing generational equity, revenue for future generations, or do they stand on the side of the gas lobbyists?</para>
<para>Whilst this bill is a step in the right direction to limit profit shifting, much more needs to be done to rein in multinational tax avoidance. I commend the intention of this bill to turn the tide on multinational tax avoidance; however, it addresses just the tip of the iceberg. We need to get real in this place. If the government of Prime Minister Albanese wants to be seen as turning over a new leaf and doing things differently, let's call a spade a spade: if you genuinely want to reform, you need to do more than address just the tip of the iceberg. I will be looking with interest at the proposal the government bring forward when it comes to the petroleum resource rent tax. Are they going to be on the side of generational equity, ensuring gas companies pay their fair share of royalties, or are they going to be on the side of the gas lobbyists from the gas companies? The Treasurer, the Prime Minister—everyone in this government—will have that important question to answer to the Australian people.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms FERNANDO</name>
    <name.id>299964</name.id>
    <electorate>Holt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak on yet another crucial focus of the Albanese Labor government: multinational tax avoidance. It is prevalent in the global economy and has been ingrained in big business culture for far too long.</para>
<para>This bill delivers on another of our election promises to the Australian people.</para>
<para>Our nation's economic integrity and fairness have been sidelined for too long, and we must take a stand to ensure that everyone, without exception, pays their fair share. My constituents pay their fair share of tax, and I'm sure all of us in this place pay our fair share of tax. But for too long now those in the big-business and multinational world have used dodgy strategies to get around their tax obligations. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023 is a crucial step forward in closing the loopholes that have allowed some multinational corporations to avoid their tax responsibilities. It is time to level the playing field and create an equitable tax system that benefits all Australians, not just the privileged few.</para>
<para>For far too long multinational companies have engaged in complex financial manoeuvres, exploiting gaps and discrepancies in tax laws across jurisdictions. They have shuffled profits to low-tax havens, all while enjoying the benefits of operating within our secure and prosperous country. What has this meant for us? It represents a significant loss of revenue for our nation, reducing the resources available for vital public services like education, health care and infrastructure.</para>
<para>Schedule 1 of this bill targets both listed and unlisted Australian public companies. It will require them to disclose any subsidiaries they have and where they are located. This will go a long way in keeping these companies to account, by forcing them to be more transparent about their corporate structures and their tax arrangements. I suspect the Australian people would not be pleased to learn of companies that abuse loopholes and have subsidiaries sprawled across low-tax areas of the world. I would anticipate that many Australians would vote with their wallets and support the businesses that support them and their country.</para>
<para>Another positive flow-on from this change is that it will allow for better economic analysis and help the government of the day to determine whether our tax laws are working as intended. If the data shows our laws are lacking, changes can be made. This information will be disclosed as part of the company's annual financial report, which also helps to reduce compliance burdens. This is not a radical proposal. It is in line with other Western countries such as the United Kingdom, which already has these types of measures in place. It is estimated that $500 billion to $600 billion in corporate tax revenue is lost every year as these profits are expertly shuffled into low-tax regions across the world.</para>
<para>In Australia, company tax accounts for roughly 19 per cent of Australia's revenue, and our changes in schedule 2 of this bill are estimated to result in a gain to receipts of $720 million over the four years from 2023-24. This will be achieved through several measures, including limiting debt related deductions to 30 per cent of profits. An earnings based approach to debt deductions ensures that any deductions are directly tied to a company's earnings. This will assist in addressing the tax planning activities of multinationals. As debt is tax deductible, it has become a strategy for some multinationals to adjust debt levels and utilise borrowings to minimise the amount of tax they pay.</para>
<para>This has become such an internationally prevalent issue that it has resulted in an almost international effort to combat this practice, which has been led by the OECD. Several OECD countries, particularly the United Kingdom, as I have already mentioned; the United States; and the majority of the European Union have already implemented these earnings based interest limitation rules. Importantly, the new third-party debt test provides additional flexibility to deduct genuine third-party debt, which is consistent with common debt financing arrangements used across the world, all the while balancing the overall tax integrity purpose of this measure.</para>
<para>These changes are simple, commonsense propositions. It should not be the case in this country that someone on the minimum wage is paying more in tax than some of the top companies in the world. We cannot stand by and allow these corporate giants to manipulate the system, leaving everyday Australians to bear the burden of funding our nation's future. This bill signals to the Australian people that the Labor Party and the Albanese government will not stand by and let this continue. The time has come to hold these multinationals accountable, to require transparency and to close the tax loopholes that have been abused for far too long.</para>
<para>The core principle behind this bill is integrity. It aims to tackle the complex web of tax avoidance strategies and improve the transparency of multinational corporations' financial activities. By requiring these companies to disclose proper tax information to the Australian Taxation Office we can gain a clearer picture of their operations and ensure that they are paying their fair share. I understand the concerns raised by some who argue that these measures may discourage foreign investment or burden corporations with excessive regulation. All the changes contained within this bill were subject to extensive consultation in both August 2022 and April 2023, with civil society and industry stakeholders providing feedback that the measures in this bill are required.</para>
<para>Let us be clear. This bill does not seek to restrain business growth or innovation. Instead, it's about creating a level playing field for all businesses—large and small, domestic and international. We all know that local families and small businesses do the right thing, and so should big businesses. It's just that simple. By ensuring that everyone pays their fair share we can promote healthy competition, foster innovation and strengthen our economy in the long run. This legislation sends a powerful message to the global community that Australia is serious about tackling multinational tax avoidance. By helping to lead the charge alongside countries with similar laws, like others in the OECD, in enforcing fair taxation practices, we position ourselves as a nation of integrity, setting an example for other countries to follow.</para>
<para>This bill is not a magic fix for all multinational tax avoidance. Neither is it the only step needed to fully address the complexities of multinational tax avoidance fully. But it is a crucial and tangible step in the right direction. As the representative of a working class electorate I remain committed to working to strengthen our tax system to make it more transparent and ensure that it serves the interests of all Australians. I would hope that this government can count on all members in this place to support this bill and signal to the international community that all parties take tax avoidance seriously. I cannot think of anything more hypocritical than for those opposite, if on one hand they are saying they will repeal the increased welfare payments from the May budget, claiming that we cannot afford it, to then not support ensuring that multinationals and others are paying their fair share of tax. Do they think only everyday Australians need to pay tax? I would not want to be a coalition MP, having to go home and justify that to my constituents.</para>
<para>Regardless of what others say, I am proud to belong to a government that is united in creating a fairer, more equitable tax system that benefits every Australian. Let us remember the core values that underpin this legislation: integrity, fairness and transparency. To put it simply, the amendments contained within this bill, particularly the changes in schedule 2 that reform Australia's thin-capitalisation rules, will ensure that multinationals will pay an appropriate amount of tax in this country.</para>
<para>The timing of Australia's anti-avoidance legislation will assist in deterring multinationals from avoiding income tax, thus ensuring the appropriate amount of tax is paid and reinvested into services the Australian people need. By passing the Treasury laws amendment bill, we will take significant strides towards securing a better future for our great nation—where every individual and every company contributes their fair share to build a stronger and more prosperous Australia for all. Labor will always support legislation, like this, for a fairer and more just Australia. I thank the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VAN MANEN</name>
    <name.id>188315</name.id>
    <electorate>Forde</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I can assure the member for Holt that the coalition will be supporting this bill, but I note that the whole process conducted by the responsible minister has been a complete and utter shambles. That's not unusual for those opposite, since they've been in government. We've seen schedules pulled just hours before introduction, to the point where the explanatory memorandum refers to schedules of the bill that no longer exist. We know that Labor wanted this bill to be more onerous and to tie business down in more red tape, but that would have not improved, one iota, the level of revenue raised in this bill.</para>
<para>I think it's worth reminding the House and those new members opposite that this is just the latest tranche in a number of bills to improve the effectiveness and transparency of our tax system, particularly in relation to multinationals and ensuring they pay their fair share of tax. Many of those first tranches of legislation were introduced by a coalition government. The coalition government has a solid and sound track record in ensuring multinationals paid their fair share of tax, over the last nine years that we were in government, and minimising the risk of multinationals avoiding paying their fair share of tax. Our system is undermined when people and organisations avoid their tax obligations. That's why we worked so hard when we were in government to ensure they did pay their fair share.</para>
<para>We welcome the continuation of the OECD's two-pillar solution to multinational tax avoidance. This was started by the coalition government, and it's pleasing to see that the current government is continuing that process to ensure the integrity of our tax system. That is crucial for all of us, because that is what assists in funding the services that Australians rely on each and every day.</para>
<para>This legislation highlights an important point, and the shadow Treasurer's amendment to this bill reflects on that, that Labor have broken their promise on tax. Labor promised only to increase taxes on multinationals before the last election, but we've seen them break that promise. Labor have raised taxes on superannuation, capturing one in 10 Australians, over time, and young Australians earning average wages today, according to Treasury modelling.</para>
<para>Labor are taxing unrealised capital gains. Let's be clear. That is a wealth tax—unprecedented around the world—and an assault on family owned businesses and self-managed super funds. Labor are increasing taxes on franking credits, banking half a billion dollars in taxes from Australian companies, Australian retirees, Australian super funds and Australian charities. Labor have ended a range of small-business tax concessions, decimating the instant asset write-off, all but burying the technology investment boost and ending loss carry-back measures. This is despite independent economist Chris Richardson predicting Labor would breach the coalition's tax-to-GDP cap during their first year in office. Higher taxes will not assist with the cost-of-living crisis and they will certainly not assist with small to medium business and the productivity crisis that we are seeing with this current government.</para>
<para>Labor has broken promises on tax, and it proves they can't manage the economy and can't be trusted. As we have said all along as a coalition, higher taxes are in Labor's DNA.</para>
<para>But what's in this bill? Schedule 1 introduces new rules on the disclosure of information about subsidiaries. For the financial years commencing on or after 1 July 2023, Australian public companies, listed and unlisted, must disclose information about their subsidiaries in their annual financial reports.</para>
<para>Schedule 2 to the bill aims to strengthen the thin capitalisation rules in division 820 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. The amendments seek to address risks to the domestic tax base arising from excessive use of debt deductions, thereby transferring wealth elsewhere, to lower-tax environments, which amounts to base erosion or profit-shifting arrangements. These amendments introduce new thin capitalisation earnings based tests for certain classes of entities, replacing the existing asset based rules for those entities. The debt deductions under the safe harbour test will change from up to 60 per cent of assets to 30 per cent of profits.</para>
<para>These amendments also establish a new arms-length debt test in the form of a third-party debt test. The schedule also introduces a new subdivision, 820-EAA, for debt deduction creation rules. These rules disallow deductions to the extent that they are incurred in relation to debt creation schemes. The new test excludes related-party debt, supporting property and infrastructure investment.</para>
<para>As I said in my earlier remarks, these just build on the coalition's track record of nine years in government. In 2014, as the G20 host, Australia played a leading role in the original OECD base erosion and profit-shifting project, which was initiated in 2013 and delivered in 2015. Under the coalition, Australia was an early and vigilant adopter of the OECD/G20 BEPS recommendations. These established a multilateral approach to prevent tax avoidance and increase tax transparency to tax administrators.</para>
<para>The coalition government's measures included introducing the diverted profits tax, which limits a company's ability to shift profits out of Australia; introducing the multinational tax avoidance law, which ensures companies do not avoid a taxable presence in Australia; strengthening the thin capitalisation rules; strengthening transfer pricing rules; doubling the penalties for tax avoidance; and establishing the ATO Tax Avoidance Taskforce. The task force, created in 2016, enforces existing laws and supports the government's new tax avoidance measures. It targets multinational enterprises, large public companies and private groups, and wealthy individuals.</para>
<para>From 1 July 2016 to 30 November 2021, through all of these measures the ATO raised more than $24 billion in tax liabilities against large public companies, multinational corporations and privately owned and wealthy groups. This ultimately generated tax collections of some $17.3 billion. In the 2019-20 budget, the government provided additional funding to the task force to expand its activities, and this was expected to raise additional tax liabilities of $4.6 billion over the forward estimates. I think this track record speaks volumes for the work of the coalition government and provides a very sound foundation for the current government to continue building on.</para>
<para>But, in closing, let me speak more to the amendment. We've seen that the government has continued to break its promises in dealing with the cost-of-living crisis. The government knows only one way when they run out of money, and that's to come after yours. Changes to these multinational tax arrangements in this bill do not change that, whether it is franking credits or superannuation, you can't trust the government on tax. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer went to the election promising Australians that they wouldn't touch franking credits, yet in a year they've added two tax grabs on Australian shareholders.</para>
<para>Changes to these multinational tax arrangements in this bill do not change the fact that they've broken their promises in other areas of tax. I spoke earlier this week on the issue of productivity. We've seen a 4.6 per cent fall in productivity in this country under those opposite's leadership. Yet we see nothing from them about how they're going to turn that around and improve the productive opportunities in this country. Through their broken promises on tax or the collapsing productivity under this government, we are still seeing CPI at six per cent, and core inflation a little bit under that at 4.9, amongst the highest in the world.</para>
<para>The CPI data tells us what we know Australians are feeling each and every day: prices are not coming down. There's the broken promise on reducing your electricity bills by $275. I know from talking to many people in my electorate that their electricity bills are only going on way, and that's up. They're not going down, and there's no sign of that happening anytime soon. Whether it's grocery prices, whether it's petrol prices, whether it's a range of other costs across the economy, particularly mortgages for many people in my electorate, prices have only gone up. This government promised at the last election that the cost of mortgages would go down, the cost of electricity would go down and the cost of living would go down. Well, it has only gone one way since the election, and that is up. They have no answers.</para>
<para>This is a good piece of legislation in terms of ensuring multinational companies pay their fair share of tax, but it does not gloss over and does not hide the failure of this government to deliver on their other promises. There is no sign of that happening whatsoever. So I commend this bill to the House. As I said in my opening remarks, we will not be opposing this bill. But, once again, I just want to make the point that all we have seen from this government is higher cost of living, higher taxes and no sign of anything different from them whatsoever.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NEUMANN</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
    <electorate>Blair</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The legendary US President Franklin Roosevelt said this:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.</para></quote>
<para>It's an Australian principle too. It's a fair principle. Taxes are levied according to the ability to pay. The legislation before the chamber today is about fairness, not just about revenue. It's about making corporate Australia pay their fair share of taxes. So I am pleased to speak on this particular bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023, which is about transparency and integrity and making multinationals pay their fair share of tax.</para>
<para>Just as FDR, through his New Deal, saved American free enterprise, we need to make sure that the integrity of our taxation system is such that it saves free enterprise in this country and elsewhere. It's absolutely critical. Australians rightly expect that all taxpayers, from the largest multinationals to individuals, pay their fair share of tax. Our system of taxation, our system of government revenue, our system of government expenditure relies upon this.</para>
<para>It is said the legendary US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes was often cited for that famous statement, 'Taxes are the price we pay for civilization.' That was nearly a century ago. FDR made the point on a number of occasions that some people, including some opposite, if you listen to the previous speech, think that to individuals civilisation comes at a discount. It doesn't. We all have to pay our fair share of tax. That's the reality.</para>
<para>In that country, the United States, they brought in corporate taxation back in the robber baron era of the 1890s as a response to the outrageous and excessive profits, treatment of workers and the failure to pay their fair share of taxation. Regrettably, the US Supreme Court struck down those efforts in 1898. They brought in a corporate taxation rate in the US in about 1913, but—can you believe it—it was a one per cent rate of tax. We brought our own corporate taxation in when Billy Hughes was Prime Minister in 1915.</para>
<para>He made the point—and it's not often that I quote a bloke who ended up ratting on the Labor Party!—that it was really a necessary way to raise income.</para>
<para>So, the main purpose of this legislation is about making sure corporate Australia and multinationals pay their fair share of tax. It's estimated that around the world hundreds of billions of dollars are lost because corporate shenanigans are undertaken by multinationals to create shell companies and make sure their profits are directed to areas where there is really no corporate presence—no office, no employees—but they are low-taxation jurisdictions. These multinationals make sure that excessive debts are put into areas where there is considered to be a higher rate of corporate tax and that profits are directed to the low-tax jurisdictions, to ensure that little or no tax is paid. This sort of excessive debt loading is thin capitalisation, and multinationals do this—and do it successfully.</para>
<para>Listening to those opposite, you would think they were the champions of taking action in this area. But in fact little was being done, and it was left to us, in government, to pass this type of legislation. One of the reasons the now Assistant Treasurer announced during the election campaign that we would do this was that nothing was being done by those opposite during their dithering 10 years in office. So it's been left to us, in government, to make sure that corporate Australia particularly pays their fair share of taxation.</para>
<para>And, as I said, it's not just about much-needed revenue; it's also about fairness, and that's why it's absolutely critical. We need to work through the OECD arrangements. We already have a thin-capitalisation system in this country, which goes back to 1987, when Bob Hawke was Prime Minister. Our current regime was introduced in 2001 and of course needs updating, because it's still contained in the Income Tax Assessment Act. It's designed to prevent multinationals from claiming excessive debt reductions to reduce their taxable income in this country. The rules operate in a pretty clear way. They disallow a portion of otherwise deductible interest expenses where the debt allocated to Australia exceeds certain limits in the safe-harbour arrangements, at 60 per cent.</para>
<para>So, this legislation is really important, because it moves the emphasis away from the current ratio of debt to equity and picks up the recommendation that the taxation be levied on earnings. And we work with the OECD arrangements to ensure that we have a situation whereby tax is linked to income, as opposed to the allowance of complex corporate subsidy arrangements and subsidiary aspects being undertaken to ensure that that debt is funnelled or passed off to low-tax jurisdiction. It's about tackling not tax avoidance but really tax evasion, and I think it improves coherence and our contribution to international tax rules and ensures a more transparent tax environment.</para>
<para>As I mentioned, these policies are grounded in the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, or BEPS, which began in 2013. Working together within this inclusive arrangement, about 135 countries and jurisdictions are collaborating on the implementation of measures to tackle tax evasion, improving the coherence of international tax rules and ensuring a better tax environment. This bill, as I said, fulfils a commitment we made in the 2022 election campaign. We've got a record of standing on significant tax reforms in terms of multinational taxation and tax transparency. In fact, it was the then Assistant Treasurer David Bradbury who led Australia's contribution to the debate on base erosion and profit shifting at the time of the last Labor government and implemented key reforms in tax transparency, including the landmark amendments to the general anti-avoidance rule and modernisation of Australia's transfer pricing laws.</para>
<para>Of course, David went on to join the OECD in 2014. I was pleased to catch up with him in Paris last year, and I talked about the work he was undertaking in this area. He was part of a team that delivered the OECD/G20 base erosion and profit shifting project. David has contributed mightily to the OECD's work in securing a groundbreaking international tax agreement to address challenges arising from the digitisation of the economy.</para>
<para>More recently, Labor in opposition recognised that there was still work to be undertaken on improving tax transparency and on the failure of the previous coalition government in letting multinational companies off the hook on taxation. So we sought a mandate to undertake this work to improve the tax transparency of listed corporates, government tenderers and billion-dollar multinational companies, and we're committed to making sure that we deliver on this promise. This bill will bring into effect our commitments in the 2022 election campaign and also the commitments and undertakings we made in the October 2022 budget as part of our multinational tax integrity package to address tax loopholes exploited by those companies. This investment in tax compliance will improve the integrity, transparency, fairness and sustainability of our tax system, and we as a government are committed to doing this.</para>
<para>Schedule 1 of the bill amends the Corporations Act 2001 to introduce new reporting requirements for Australian public companies, both listed and unlisted, to disclose information about their subsidiaries in their annual reports. This reported information will ensure companies are upfront about how they structure their subsidiaries, including for tax purposes. Under the new tax transparency requirements that will be introduced from 1 July this year, public companies will need to disclose their subsidiaries and where they are based, large multinationals will need to disclose certain information on a country-by-country basis and their approach to tax, and tenderers for large government contracts will need to disclose their country of tax domicile. Improving transparency in this way is important to ensuring that the public is better informed of a multinational company's tax arrangements. These reforms will help to hold companies to account, particularly large corporate groups, on their corporate structures and whether they are operating with opaque or atypical tax arrangements. Given the global momentum towards ensuring that these firms pay their fair share of tax, it's in the public interest that shareholders have this kind of information. Ultimately, we hope this will drive behavioural change amongst large and highly profitable corporations about how they view their taxation obligations, make them more accountable to their shareholders and make fairer tax-planning strategies.</para>
<para>Schedule 2 is about revenue raising and thin capitalisation. Prior to the last election we pledged to close down the multinational tax loophole about debt dumping, as I explained earlier, and schedule 2 delivers on that commitment. These provisions amend our thin capitalisation rules to limit the amount of interest expenses that entities can deduct for tax purposes from 1 July this year. It is estimated that this tax integrity and revenue measure will gain about $720 million over the four years from this year. These amendments introduce earnings based interest-limitation rules for general class investors to replace the existing asset based rules, and there will be a new third-party debt test. The current safe harbour test lets an entity deduct all interest expenses where their total debt amount does not exceed 60 per cent of their total asset value. Under the new default fixed-ratio test, all interest expenses can be deducted where net interest expenses do not exceed 30 per cent of profits. That reflects this government's immediate priority to strengthen the thin capitalisation rules to stop excessive debt reduction and ensure that deductions are genuinely linked to economic activity and an entity's earnings and taxable income, rather than allowing deductions on falsified debt structures. This is a more robust approach to addressing the use of debt as a base erosion and profit shifting risk and is consistent with the OECD's best practice framework to limit debt related deductions based on earnings.</para>
<para>The bill reflects several technical changes proposed by industry under consultation to provide a better balance with commercial arrangements, including trust structures.</para>
<para>These arrangements and amendments strengthen our thin capitalisation rules. They will ensure multinationals pay an appropriate amount of tax in Australia while balancing tax settings. The measurements bill reflects several rounds of public consultation, as I've referred to, to balance the integrity of the system. There has been broad support for reforms from industry, unions and civil society groups. Treasury will continue to work with stakeholders to make sure the new rules operate as intended.</para>
<para>In response to concerns from some sections of the business community, the government will continue to engage with stakeholders in our commitment to introduce a public country-by-country reporting regime. Over the coming months we will consult further on appropriate levels in terms of reporting. This will build on refinements that are already being made to align our system with the European Union's public country-by-country regime. The government will continue to work alongside the ATO to create a system that is fair, transparent and consistent, and make sure the biggest companies are held to account. These commitments complement the government's ongoing engagement with the OECD's two-pillar global tax agreement, which includes a global 15 per cent minimum tax, ensuring some of the profits of the largest multinationals—particularly digital firms—are taxed where their products or services are sold.</para>
<para>Unlike those opposite, we won't allow multinationals to get off the hook when it comes to their tax obligations. The former coalition government was happy to praise the global efforts of the OECD and others, but took no meaningful steps to ensure that multinationals paid their fair share of tax in the countries in which they make their profits. Again, these commitments we are making are targeted and measured without imposing unnecessary burdens on genuine business activity. The government understands that businesses of all sizes make important contributions to the economy and we want to see businesses grow. Closing multinational tax loopholes will create an environment for products to flourish and productive firms to continue to grow, while improving our government services and corporate services, including government and corporate products.</para>
<para>We are going to improve public confidence in our tax system. I note the bill was referred to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee for an inquiry which will report back on 31 August, and most of those submissions seem supportive of this particular measure. I thank the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury—he has been an advocate for this for quite a long time, and I support him and commend him. I commend the legislation to the chamber.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to contribute to the debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023, and in particular in support of the amendment from the shadow Treasurer. We in the coalition have a very unambiguous position on taxation and the principles of taxation, which is that we want taxation to be as low as possible and also as fair as possible—that is, the lowest tax burden on everyone in our society but sharing that tax burden fairly and equitably. In principle, we always welcome the opportunity to support measures that are ensuring that the principles of our taxation system are not in any way being abused or sought to be exploited, or pursuing loopholes or structures in which the spirit of the fair taxation on economic activity that happens in our nation and that was derived from our nation is being avoided in any way. So this is a bill that continues along a path that, when we were in government, we were already well along on. Many people contributing in this debate have referenced the frameworks of the OECD, and the OECD has been a helpful body to bring together relevant nations that have these same challenges to talk about some principles in policy around taxation legislation that, if we have a degree of uniformity, will prevent some of the practices that we don't believe are fair and equitable. Most definitely, not enough tax is being paid in this country by some multinational companies because they're structuring their affairs in a way that exploit loopholes that are outside the principles of the fair taxation system and the principles of tax that we expect to be appropriately levied on corporations.</para>
<para>I'm obviously very wary—it's a principle of the coalition—around the topic of sovereign risk and the concept of changing policy positions or legislation where an investor might be able to say, 'I invested on certain terms and in a certain environment that I expected there to be consistency around. The fact that you've changed the goalposts on me is unfair and will mean that a lot of people will reconsider making investment decisions in your economy.' We on this side are always very wary of that. But this is an area that, in no way, comes into that principle of policy.</para>
<para>This is an area where we are identifying that the principles of our existing legislation, our existing taxation regime, are being exploited or enacted outside the principle that any investor should have properly understood was the purpose and intent of the Australian taxation system when they undertook investments in our economy. If they undertook investments in our economy that were contingent on acting outside the spirit of our taxation system—where perhaps they made investments and had a business structure and plan in mind that involved them knowing what the principle of our taxation system was but seeking to get around paying their fair share of tax in our economy—then I've got absolutely no sympathy for that type of investor, and I'm sure no-one in this parliament would.</para>
<para>The economic activity that occurs in our nation needs to be properly shared between a fair rate of return from an investor who takes the risk of investing in the economy and a business proposition. Equally, when they succeed in our economy, they, like any other member of our society, need to pay a fair and reasonable amount of taxation to the government. This is to support and provide the society that we expect to have as a dividend of the economy that we've got, a strong economy that we want to have, and a growing economy into the future.</para>
<para>Those are the principles with which we approach our decision-making in supporting legislation in this area. It's human nature for people, particularly for investors, to seek to maximise return on the capital that they employ. At times, they can be quite ingenious in identifying ways in which they structure their operations. In our view, they might be outside the spirit of our taxation system. Nonetheless, under existing provisions, they've found ways to structure their balance sheets, structure the way in which they realise elements of economic activity, within their operations in our country and not in our country. Clearly, they would not be illegal, lest they be open for direct prosecution, but they are outside the spirit.</para>
<para>When we see examples of corporate structures, corporate accounting and balance sheet manoeuvrings that are not capturing a fair return on economic activity, within our economy, through the fair established principles of our taxation system, then we've got to take action. We know the history of issues around things like transfer pricing, particularly in the mining and minerals sector.</para>
<para>This bill deals with issues around structuring balance sheets and leveraging assets, in this country, with certain debts that are not fair and reasonable, to achieve the dramatic reduction in realised income and realised profit that should be fairly taxed within our economy. We're addressing that in this bill. Equally, it's the principle of having a coordinated approach to this with similar economies. We want to always be about a low-taxing environment and take every opportunity to have the lowest tax burden on the people of this country that we possibly can. That includes the investors of this country.</para>
<para>We also recognise the zero-sum game of having a situation where countries are finding ways to make changes to the principles of their tax system, in certain elements of the tax system, not in the broad concept of low taxation. They're looking for ways to have particular tax treatments that would attract faux economic activity into their economies.</para>
<para>In that case, a particular tax treatment of a particular type of activity is lower in that jurisdiction and has a commensurate cost to another economy currently receiving that economic activity and the taxation of that economic activity. If we don't work together and cooperate on these matters through a framework like the OECD, we will have different types of tax treatments being used in tactical faux business and faux economic attraction principles rather than the general principle we all want—economic activity genuinely happening in our economy being up to us to determine tax treatment. Investors will then make decisions based on us ensuring that we have, generally speaking, the fairest and most equitable tax treatment on those investments that will still allow those investments to return a fair profit on that capital employed but also, given they're undertaking that activity within the economy, be big good corporate citizens that are contributing to the cost of running our society.</para>
<para>The shadow Treasurer's amendment here is very important. Beyond some of the schedules within this bill, it also makes very important points in taxation more broadly and where the government is heading in taxation. One thing that I don't think has had enough attention and needs it is the fact that, in this highly inflationary environment, income tax, in particular, but also the general issue of bracket creep, is really punishing Australian families and Australian income earners.</para>
<para>Inflation peaked at seven per cent more recently; it's still at six per cent. Some people are celebrating that. It's devastating and heartbreaking that, at the moment, our economy is seeing the value of the dollar deteriorate to the tune of six per cent in a 12-month period. That is the destruction of wealth and the destruction of savings for people that are provisioning for their retirements, for their futures et cetera. It also means that, because our income tax brackets are not index linked and as inflation runs hot, we're seeing an increase in the income tax take by default of inflation increasing everything in the economy and bringing the relative rates at which higher income tax is levelled down in real terms.</para>
<para>While in government we undertook a very significant reform now known as stages 1, 2 and 3 income tax cuts. Those were all about addressing bracket creep and inflation eating away at Australian workers' take-home pay. At times, there has been speculation around whether or not the legislated stage 3 of those income tax cuts will be honoured by the new government, who did say very clearly and repeatedly before the election that they wouldn't touch them. At this stage, that hasn't happened. Regrettably, an important point regarding stage 3 is that they are not the tax cuts that they were when they were passed, because we were not anticipating inflation to run at the levels that they have under this new government. So the magnitude of the changes to the stage 3 tax cuts are dramatically different, because inflation was not modelled by Treasury to hit seven per cent at the end of 2022, early 2023, and to now still run at six per cent.</para>
<para>We now have the RBA saying that their policy settings don't model inflation getting back to between their target range of two to three per cent for another two years. So every day, week, month that goes on that we're not within that target bracket, where inflation is running hotter than our target is around monetary and price stability in our economy, people's wealth and savings are being destroyed by the magnitude of that gap. And, of course, the expected benefit of changes to the tax scales are not what they were envisaged in the lower inflation environment, which was what was being projected when that decision was made.</para>
<para>We now have, as the shadow Treasurer pointed out, a circumstance where our tax-to-GDP ratio is going up. There are issues, which are just so perverse, like bracket creep and the dividend that the government will get from higher inflation because of that bracket creep. They're taking more money out of the pockets of Australians in real terms, and the growth of that tax-to-GDP ratio, which this amendment makes very clear, is projected to increase to levels that are putting a greater burden of tax on the people of this country.</para>
<para>So we debate this bill, which is about making sure that everyone pays their fair share of tax. In particular, this is targeted at multinationals and the structure of balance sheets and the like and about ensuring that proper capture of economic activity in this country is taxed at an appropriate rate. But we also make the point through the debate on this amendment that this government are increasing taxes. In some cases, it's by stealth, and, in some cases, it's vindictive, like the changes to the superannuation tax. 'You've been successful and you've got a lot of money, so we might just take some of it from you. We'll never tell you anything about it before an election because that might cost us votes. We'll wait until we've been elected and then undertake these dramatic increases in taxation on certain cohorts of Australians that we don't like.' That's the position of the government, so we oppose that.</para>
<para>This amendment highlights our position there and the general challenges around bracket creep and the increase in taxation from a percentage-of-GDP point of view, and that is, as I've canvassed, particularly aggravated by inflation running as hot as it is. Nonetheless, the principles that this bill is seeking to achieve are important. They are a continuation of the work that we undertook in government. We commend the OECD framework that sees governments working together on these issues, because we certainly believe that, as much as we want taxation to be as low as we can get it, everyone should pay their fair share of tax. Where multinationals are obtaining significant economic benefit from investing in our economy, they should pay their fair share of tax to pay for our society.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHARLTON</name>
    <name.id>I8M</name.id>
    <electorate>Parramatta</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023. The Australian corporate taxation system is an important pillar of our fiscal structure, and it's very important that we get that pillar right. If we don't then we face Australia becoming uncompetitive in global capital markets and we won't attract the investment that Australia has always needed to build our economy and fuel our economic growth. We want to make sure that foreign investors have confidence in Australia and get a strong return for the investments that they make here. Those investments build our companies, build our infrastructure and develop us as a nation.</para>
<para>But, when we don't get our taxation system right, we can create a series of problems that reverberate right through the economy. One of those problems is a significant revenue shortfall. When multinationals don't pay their fair share of tax, it means that other Australian companies and individuals have to step in to pick up the burden. The second problem is that it creates a lack of competitiveness: the level playing field disappears, and Australian domestic companies are at an unfair disadvantage to their foreign competitors. We need to make sure that Australia's corporate taxation system works for Australia and works for our investment partners.</para>
<para>Right now, Australia's company tax system is incredibly concentrated. Over the last several years, on average, just 10 Australian companies have paid a third of all corporate tax receipts in Australia. Those are familiar names to all of us. There are the miners. BHP pays $7.3 billion in tax. Rio Tinto pays $6.1 billion in tax. Fortescue pays $5.7 billion. The banks are very large taxpayers in Australia. There are also the supermarkets. Coles pays $455 million, and Woolworths pay $636 million.</para>
<para>These, together with a handful of other companies, pay a third of all the company tax in Australia. There's something that unites all of those companies: they're all domestic companies.</para>
<para>One thing that you rarely see on the list of high corporate tax payers in Australia is foreign companies. In fact, foreign companies are overrepresented in the third of Australia's big companies that pay no tax in Australia. Those companies listed in the tax transparency information include Adani, Alcoa, Anglo American, a number of entities owned by Glencore, BP and Viva. Many of these companies are doing the right thing. Many of these companies are following the law. They might have made significant capital investments and have big deductions as a result of those investments. Some of them were impacted by the pandemic. Qantas, for example, paid almost no corporate tax, because of the impact of the pandemic—completely understandable. Some companies have very significant periods before they become profitable, and they too will, very legitimately, pay no corporate tax. But the preponderance of low corporate tax payments by foreign companies is a perpetual issue in the transparency statistics, and it's an issue that we need to look at very closely.</para>
<para>We're not blaming businesses for following the law, but we are saying that that law needs to be tightened so that our system has integrity and everybody pays their fair share. We know that, regrettably, there are many actors out there who would wish to thwart the integrity of our tax system. We've seen, through the recent PwC saga, a number of companies taking advantage of information to restructure their affairs to minimise their tax. PwC did the wrong thing. Part of what they were doing was supporting foreign companies to find loopholes and other ways to reduce the contribution they make to Australia—a country where they earn their revenue and where they have millions of customers, but where they often pay desperately little tax. We know, from the information that has been revealed through inquiries into PwC, that they advised a number of foreign companies, including Uber and Facebook, to set up new structures to minimise their taxation based on information that they gleaned dishonestly from the public sector. Uber and Facebook were doing what they were doing. There's no suggestion they broke any laws, but there is a suggestion here that foreign companies are constantly looking for loopholes, and actors like PwC are helping them to find those loopholes.</para>
<para>The problem with this situation is that, if foreign companies do not pay their fair share of tax, other Australians have to step into the breach. We have a situation now in many industries where we have a domestic player and a foreign player, and the domestic player is at a disadvantage. For example, many retailers now face competition from foreign players who pay no tax, but domestic retailers pay a lot. Coles and Woolworths collectively pay a billion dollars in tax. Some of the foreign entrants that are gaining share in Australia pay almost nothing. We need to make sure that we have a level playing field in Australia so that we don't disadvantage Australian companies and Australian households that suffer from this low taxation because they have to step in and pay higher tax themselves.</para>
<para>The bill in front of us today is an attempt to fix many of those loopholes, to address the problems of integrity and transparency in our tax system. It does follow a global effort to curb multinational tax evasion. This has been a long process, and, for many of us who follow it closely, a very painfully slow process. It is a process that we wish was happening more quickly and yielding greater dividends to communities around the world. In 2012, the G20 met and discussed how to stop base erosion and profit shifting strategies used by companies to exploit loopholes in tax laws. In 2013, we had the report on base erosion and profit shifting, which delivered an action plan on those initiatives. That report acknowledged that effective taxation of mobile income is one of the key challenges facing economies around world today. It also encouraged us to not allow multinational enterprises to reduce overall taxes paid by artificially shifting profits to low-tax jurisdictions.</para>
<para>We're on a journey to solve this problem but we have a long way to go. There are many multinational corporations that are taking advantage of low-tax jurisdictions, and they're taking advantage of a number of loopholes that enable them to do so. The number of big foreign companies in Australia that pay massive royalties or other payments for intellectual property to foreign parents who just happen to be in low-tax jurisdictions is an outrage. These companies are simply taking money from Australia—from Australian citizens—and shifting it to low-tax environments.</para>
<para>We have desperately little information about these internal royalty payments, which have the effect of reducing the profitability of the Australian entity, increasing the profitability of the foreign entity in the low-tax jurisdiction and therefore shifting tax dollars from Australia to those low-tax jurisdictions. We have very little information because there is so little transparency. What do those royalties mean? What are those companies paying for in terms of this intellectual property? I don't doubt that there is significant investment in these big multinational companies' headquarters that does require some recompense from jurisdictions around the world, but it seems that these royalty payments are going way beyond that. These royalty payments are less about compensating for investments in intellectual property in those jurisdictions and much more about shifting tax liabilities. That's why often you find that, not coincidentally, these companies are domiciled in low-tax environments. We have very little information about that.</para>
<para>The second incredibly common loophole is the use of debt instruments, where a multinational corporation with a subsidiary in Australia lends that subsidiary large amounts of money through intercompany loans, and the Australian subsidiary then has to pay back the interest on those intercompany loans. That interest reduces the profitability of the Australian entity. As a consequence, the entity has very little reportable profit and—surprise, surprise!—it pays very little tax. Again, we have very little information to judge the merits or appropriateness of that type of intercompany loan. We don't know how big it is and we don't know what that loan is for. Once again—without casting aspersions on any individual company's behaviour—it seems the pattern is driven more by tax than by operational concerns.</para>
<para>In seeking to deal with these things, this bill contains two proposals: firstly, to amend the Corporations Act 2001 to force companies to disclose their subsidiaries in their annual financial reports; and, secondly, to amend our thin capitalisation rules to make sure that multinational companies pay their fair share. Under the Corporations Act, a company's annual financial report must contain the following: the company's financial statements, notes to the financial statements and a report from the company director. Schedule 1 of the bill in front of us would amend these requirements to enforce a disclosure of the company's subsidiaries within their financial statement, to give us a bit more information about how the company is structured so we can have a bit more transparency about its tax affairs.</para>
<para>The thing is that most companies already do this. We commend them for that; that is a good thing. This is about making sure that all companies follow the same good practice—that they're up-front about their subsidiary structures so we have information that enables us to understand the way the company is structured internally, to give some justification to the way that they conduct their tax affairs. In these declarations multinationals would need to include the name of each subsidiary; the residency of each subsidiary; whether it's a partnership, trust or body corporate; and, if it's a body corporate, the public company's ownership percentage.</para>
<para>This proposal follows best practice that has been implemented right around the world. Australia has been a member of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting. We're one of 168 members of the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes. After the measures agreed on by the G20 in 2012, more than 135 countries and jurisdictions have moved to address tax avoidance and improve tax transparency. There is clearly global demand for action on multinational tax evasion, and Australia is doing its part. I want to commend the Treasurer, the Assistant Treasurer and the assistant minister for all of the work they are doing to support the global process and to implement that process here in Australia.</para>
<para>The Treasurer has said that a big focus of the Albanese government is to address multinational tax loopholes, and that is exactly where our focus should be.</para>
<para>Those proposals that I just outlined will help in improving transparency and helping us understand the structure of subsidiaries to justify tax arrangements. Schedule 2 is about the debt issue and what's called thin capitalisation rules. This part of the bill proposes to change Australia's thin capitalisation rules, and these changes will directly address base erosion and profit sharing by reducing the amount of interest expense that multinational corporations can deduct for tax purposes. This will significantly improve tax integrity.</para>
<para>Right now, multinationals can deduct up to 60 per cent of their assets. Under this bill, the threshold becomes 30 per cent of profits. Profit is measured as earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation. This measure is estimated to gain $720 million in receipts over four years—$720 million is the rightful contribution of multinationals to the Australian state and to Australian citizens, based on their activities here, which, over many years, has been shipped abroad to low-tax jurisdictions.</para>
<para>We do not want to be in that situation. We don't want to race to the bottom around the world, where Australia and other nations are bound by international competition to continue to slash their tax rates and to deprive their citizens of that revenue just because if we don't some other jurisdiction will do it before us and the activity will move there. That's why we need to act as an international community. That's the only solution. But part of acting as an international community is for Australia to take these steps.</para>
<para>I commend this bill. I commend the work of the government's economic ministers. We look forward to continuing on the long journey to improve the integrity and transparency of multinational taxation in Australia, strengthen Australia's corporate tax system and make it fairer and more efficient for all Australians.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHANDLER-MATHER</name>
    <name.id>300121</name.id>
    <electorate>Griffith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Greens will be supporting this bill in the House. We would have preferred the government adopt the policy that both Labor and the Greens took to the 2019 election but that Labor since dropped at the 2022 election, which is a familiar pattern with this Labor government. It was to remove the safe harbour and arms-length tests for multinational debt deductions and instead limit multinational debt deductions in Australia to the same ratio as their worldwide debt-to-equity ratios. We are yet to be convinced that deductions denied under the thin capitalisation rules provided by this bill should be able to be carried forward for up to 15 years, and we will be pursuing this issue through the Senate legislative committee inquiry.</para>
<para>However, what I wish to focus on is what's not in this bill, and that is the public country-by-country reporting. In November last year, the Assistant Treasurer and the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury put out a media release promising that by 1 July this year Labor would require multinationals to publicly disclose revenues, profits and taxes paid in each jurisdiction, the operations and activities of the global group, and an entity's international related party dealings.</para>
<para>The exposure draft of this commitment proposed the first unrestricted and mandated public country-by-country reporting framework. In what would have been the first time in a long time, the exposure draft proposed by the government would have established Australia as the gold standard. It was widely welcomed by tax justice advocates and civil society in Australia and around the world. Of course, it was not so wildly welcomed by big business—businesses like who else but the globally renowned facilitators of multinational tax avoidance schemes and disruptors of government attempts to crack down on these schemes, PwC, who said in their submission:</para>
<quote><para class="block">…based on our own observations and discussions with stakeholders, domestically and internationally, there has been significant concern with these measures as currently drafted. In summary, in our view, the design of the proposed legislation may not meet policy objectives of enhancing transparency and trust without an excessively onerous compliance burden.</para></quote>
<para>That's why we don't see the public country-by-country reporting in this bill. It's because big business and their proxies and the big four consulting firms don't want transparency because of what that would mean—more public pressure on them to pay their fair share of tax.</para>
<para>And if we know anything about the Albanese government by now, it's that they're not up here to upset big business or take them on. One of the hallmarks of this government is to do just enough to be able to say they're doing something, while keeping to a bare minimum any inconvenience to big corporations and their wealthy shareholders.</para>
<para>But, in a clear demonstration of the government's backflip, public country-by-country reporting is actually in the explanatory memorandum of this bill. While the minister says it will come at some point in the near future, you can bet that it's going to be heavily watered down compared to what was originally proposed. In a similar process, when the government originally struck the deal with the Greens to introduce $1 million fines for bankers who break the rules, it took a day for the banking lobby to force the government to renege on their promise. I'm sure, in a similar process going on right now, the government will be backing down from what would have been an actually effective form of transparency imposed on these big corporations.</para>
<para>We also note that part of this bill's title is 'making multinationals pay their fair share'. Yet in this term of parliament we have seen the government go harder on making students pay than on multinational corporations. We've seen them go harder on people living below the poverty line. We've seen them go much harder on forcing millions of people to live in permanent housing stress. What we would like to see this government do when it comes to making multinationals pay their fair share of tax is to do the bare minimum and make those multinational corporations pay their fair share and pay some of their superprofits in tax. While millions of people in this country do it tough, we've seen companies like Chevron, Woodside and the big four banks record billions of dollars in profits. The big four banks alone recorded $17 billion in half-yearly profits this year. Compare what this bill is going to raise, which is just over $350 million a year, to how much students will have to pay when their student debt is indexed over the next four years, which is in the billions of dollars. In fact, the government are raising more money off indexing student debt than they will off apparently cracking down on multinational corporations and their tax avoidance.</para>
<para>If we did actually crack down on multinational tax avoidance and if we did make them pay their fair share in tax, then we could fund the construction of hundreds of thousands of good quality public homes. We could lift the over a million people being forced to live on just over $50 a day out of poverty and give them enough money to go and live a good life. We could make sure that the millions of people right now who can't afford to go see a dentist, because it's not covered under Medicare, could use their Medicare card and go to the dentist. We could make sure that we use the wealth in this country in a way that guarantees everyone what they need to live a good life.</para>
<para>It should be very clear to the public by now that these are political choices that the government is making. The inflation crisis is one driven by corporate superprofits, one driven by companies like Coles and Woolies increasing their profit margins, and one driven by companies like Chevron taking advantage of the war in Ukraine and price gouging this country for gas that should be taxed fairly and used to build wealth in this country that allows us to invest in alternative industries and manufacturing but is instead going into the profit coffers of the same corporations that happen to be some of the biggest donors to the Labor and Liberal parties.</para>
<para>So, while the Greens might end up supporting this bill, raising just over $350 million a year off multinational tax avoidance while they're raising billions of dollars off student debt should make clear to the public where this government's priorities lie. It is going to be another wasted generation where billions of dollars of this country's wealth is shipped offshore into the profit coffers of foreign shareholders and multinational corporations. Australians are often not going to see even a single cent of that wealth that could be put to work making sure that everyone in this country has what they need to live a good life.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNELL</name>
    <name.id>300129</name.id>
    <electorate>Spence</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise here today to speak in favour of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023. Beyond the introduction of this bill to the House, I am also glad to see that it was the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury that was responsible for doing so. I know, and for that matter anyone who knows him well or even has vague knowledge about him knows, that the assistant minister is extremely passionate about this issue and is determined to see some real progress occur in this space. Which is not to say that many of us on this side of the chamber don't share that same position; we definitely do—though the assistant minister's passion in areas such as this makes him quite an advocate for the devil in the detail.</para>
<para>Seeing real action on corporate tax avoidance, in particular by large multinationals, has been a long time coming. The world is a vastly different place than it was in 1915, when Australia first introduced company tax, something that helped us to fund the financial burden we faced as a result of World War I. Back then, international travel to and from Australia was done by boat, with journeys taking weeks out at sea. But today corporate profits can travel out of Australia to countries as far off as Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands in the time it takes for signatures to appear on a number of documents in a lawyer's office. And to think there was a time when we thought the Concorde was lightning fast!</para>
<para>I know there is a great deal of enthusiasm by members on the crossbench to get multinationals to pay their fair share of tax, and I'm sure there are some in opposition who want to see progress in this space, too—although I'm sure their support is somewhat less enthusiastic compared with other parts of the chamber. I would have thought they would be cheering from the sidelines on this one, because, after all, it is an established fact that the Liberal and National parties have had the two highest-taxing governments of the past 30 years. Perhaps it's the source of those taxes that matter the most to those opposite—and on that note we couldn't agree with them more. We want to see more multinationals paying their fair share of tax in Australia, after all. Just think, with the extra revenue generated by measures in this bill, those opposite could have built some eye-wateringly large car parks in Liberal and targeted marginal seats! They just lacked ambition. We are ambitious for them.</para>
<para>After all, those opposite stand on the shoulders of giants—giants such as Joe Hockey, a former treasurer who spoke of Australia being a nation of 'lifters and leaners' within our economy. Where multinationals that generate billions in annual revenues in Australia somehow end up paying zero or next to zero tax, you can only conclude that they are leaning on Australia, leaning on hardworking Australians who pay their taxes, with a few deductions here and there, but essentially contribute more income tax than a company that has taken in billions that year in revenue that was earned right here. Australia is meant to be the nation of a fair go, and that is most definitely not the best example of this being the case. I am at least somewhat hopeful that the present-day member for North Sydney sees things differently than her predecessors did.</para>
<para>Given some of the global events that have transpired over the past few years especially, very few things truly startle us. But there is a distinction between 'shocked' and 'surprised'. For example, when I hear that in the 2021 financial year Chevron paid $30 in income tax in Australia—$30!—on the back of revenue to the tune of $9.1 billion and a taxable income of $413 million, am I shocked? You bet I am. Am I surprised? Absolutely not. I am by no means approaching this from a background in corporate law or as a tax practitioner, but on the numbers alone we can all share in the perspective that something is clearly not right. There are many examples of companies operating in Australia that have paid very little income tax in Australia on the back of substantial revenue made in Australia. The list is a long one. Some have paid zero, or effectively zero, for several years now. Thankfully that data is now published through the Australian Taxation Office, through taxation transparency measures. If you want to uncover the names of some of the worst offenders, I'd encourage you to google it, and Chevron has definitely been one of them.</para>
<para>The brazen nature of corporate tax minimisation and avoidance is quite staggering, frankly. The effects can be felt by all of us. With the $30 paid by Chevron in tax in the 2021 financial year, instead of being able to contribute to paying for doctors or nurses at our hospitals or to vital public infrastructure, we can instead award one lucky taxpayer a few family-size pizzas and maybe even a garlic bread, with Chevron's generous contribution—a significantly more modest meal than the 'double Irish Dutch sandwich' that many global corporate hermits have chowed down to on from time to time. Some may say that some suspected companies haven't utilised that or similar methods, or that they don't utilise strategies like that anymore. Maybe it was a 'sometimes' food, or maybe tax transparency laws across the globe have shamed them into ceasing the practice.</para>
<para>Outside of the minds of the most hard-core free marketeers and libertarians among us, some of those practices utilised by many giants multinationals shock the conscience of those with the ability to understand what they entail. In the broader sense, multinational enterprises hoodwinking our tax system and taxpayers, in general, to the fact that they could pay more tax but will spend millions on lawyers and accountants to avoid paying millions and billions in tax is something the Australian people do not want to see continue, this flagrant disregard for our country.</para>
<para>The passage of this bill through the House is yet another example of the Albanese Labor government following through on an election commitment. Who knew that big multinational companies paying an equitable level of tax, or at least more than they had to, in a given financial year, would be a vote winner? But the problem of complicated tax strategies for large multinational enterprises is not a uniquely Australian problem. It is faced by many countries in the developed world, particularly within the OECD, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The OECD has been investigating corporate tax avoidance for several years, given that its member nations comprise over 60 per cent of the world's GDP and three-quarters of global trade. A cooperative approach by member nations on a domestic level can go a long way to curbing the ability of multinational companies to employ many commonly utilised strategies of corporate tax minimisation and tax avoidance that exist today.</para>
<para>This bill is split into two schedules. They neatly bifurcate the means employed to achieve the outcome of getting multinational enterprises to pay their fair share of tax in Australia. Broadly speaking, schedule 1 is focused on the disclosure of subsidiary entities, while schedule 2 is geared toward amending Australia's thin capitalisation rules. It is my hope to get stuck into explaining the nature of each schedule and why these reforms are sorely needed in Australia—and, for that matter, abroad—although, given the complex and voluminous subject matter, this may become a difficult task within the time constraints imposed on us. I'd better get a move on.</para>
<para>Schedule 1 lays the groundwork to impose greater financial reporting obligations for Australian public companies, listed or unlisted, to affirmatively disclose relevant corporate entities in their annual financial reports. If it's passed, the requirement would be for this to commence from this current financial year. This is the first step to addressing the problem. It should not take the release of another 'Panama Papers', 'Pandora Papers', 'Paradise Papers' or a leak from the inside to let governments, both our own and other nations', taxpayers and investors to get insight of a multinational's corporate structure.</para>
<para>Tax transparency is important. It shouldn't take leaks from insiders or corporate whistleblowers to uncover the full story behind how much tax a company pays and the layers upon layers of related corporate entities it has around it in order to shift profits, debt, IP or other intangibles around to avoid paying tax in one or multiple jurisdictions or to muddy the waters, to make investigating their tax affairs manifestly difficult, to downright impossible, to decipher the labyrinthine maze of financial documents that are publicly disclosed. This will provide a great deal of guidance to many about the true nature of how assets, revenue and liabilities move around between branches that, essentially, grow from the same trunk.</para>
<para>Having information like this being the norm can give the public better insights as to how good a corporate citizen and enterprise is within their country. This is useful for governments, investors, institutions, all the way down to individuals who are not particularly sophisticated themselves. Investors across the spectrum have the right to make decisions on ethical choices that a company makes, such as this. It is also a viable tool for the consumer, when there's enough viable market competition, to make a valid judgement call on whether to shop with a competitor, instead of with a corporation that specifically goes out of its way to avoid paying tax in Australia, especially when it is one that has made a concerted effort to do so financial year after financial year.</para>
<para>It isn't fair to Australian companies that do the right thing, especially when they try to compete with global giants that duck and weave around paying tax in Australia. Having a more digestible means of following the money is the right thing to do, no matter who is attempting to read this level of detail about a company, subsidiary companies or trusts that a company may be the trustee of.</para>
<para>The schedule accomplishes these aims through amendments to the Corporations Act to, as I alluded to earlier, create requirements for the disclosure of information by Australian public companies concerning subsidiaries in the form of a statesmen that is disclosed in a manner similar to others at the end of the financial year. This statement would include the names of relevant entities; the type of entity, meaning whether it's a body corporate, partnership or trust; their tax residency status; and, in the case of a body corporate, the percentage of ownership by the company releasing the statement.</para>
<para>Schedule 2 of the bill, on the other hand, concerns thin capitalisation. In an ordinary sense, capitalisation refers to the levels of debt to equity or gearing of a business. However, in thin capitalisation—schedule 2 of the bill affects this practice—a highly leveraged business utilises this to, in large part, minimise their profits by way of debt which is owed to often closely associated corporate entities to the business through interest payments on the debt that's parked on their balance sheet. The multitude of amendments further bolster the current rules that are in place within division 820 of the Income Tax Assessment Act. If they were working as desired, we would not be here right now. It is common practice among jurisdictions across the globe, but Australia, along with many others, are moving to place limitations on this practice. The bill's explanatory memorandum approximates that 2½ thousand taxpayers have potential to fall under the scope of the changes set out in schedule 2. Quite notably, the changes alter the approach for calculating the permissible limits from being a 1.5-to-one debt-to-equity ratio to instead cap interest deduction in the given financial year to 30 per cent EBITDA, meanings the earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation.</para>
<para>The rule changes do allow for a degree of flexibility and choice for entities, given the ultimate goal is to deter and prevent cynical arrangements that appear to have little commercial justification other than tax minimisation. The process, largely aided by consultations on this legislation, aims to reduce the potential for unintended consequences that may occur if the applicable rules were rigid and agnostic to the type of commercial activities a business is involved in, as an example. This is evidenced by the exclusion of related party debt from consideration which was aimed particularly at not adversely affecting the legitimate incurring of debt which aids property and infrastructure investment. I would actively encourage all members to pick up a copy of the explanatory memorandum for a more thorough explanation of the voluminous provisions contained not just in schedule 2 but across the bill in its entirety.</para>
<para>On a concluding note, I would observe the contribution made by the member of Hume, the shadowy Treasurer, in this place yesterday evening. The member for Hume came into this place parroting tired old lines that are quite easily refuted. You can always count on the member for Hume to supply his own hot take on economics or financial reports. He talks about productivity falling by 4.6 per cent, and he did so again reflexively during the debate on this bill last night, yet he continues to ignore that the weakest quarter was almost solely presided over by the Morrison government. You can call him naive for not knowing these things—or worse, if he was aware of this inconvenient truth. I will let us all reflect silently on which side of the coin the truth might land on. If he doesn't like where an argument is going, he will find some statistics to misdirect the room like someone playing economic three-card monte at a street corner. If doesn't like the numbers, he will thump his chest and argue louder as if to shield the audience from hearing the words he is using. If the argument isn't on his side and the numbers aren't on his side, as the City of Sydney is all too aware, there is always PDF editor. One can always count on the member for Hume to make you wonder what he can count on, what is party room can count on him for and, lastly, whether he can count at all.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At last year's election Labor clearly outlined how an Albanese government would ensure that multinationals pay their fair share of tax. Australia, with its rich resources, skilled workforce, vibrant economy and legal stability, has been an attractive destination for multinational corporations for many, many decades. They come here seeking to capitalise on opportunities in our domestic market—remember, the 13th biggest economy in the world—and also our international connections.</para>
<para>Labor welcomes foreign investment and recognises the benefits that this investment brings. However, it is essential that we create a level playing field for all businesses operating within our nation.</para>
<para>The current tax system facilitates multinational companies to exploit loopholes and employ aggressive tax planning strategies to shift profits overseas, resulting in minimal tax contributions here in Australia, which can benefit society. Often the mechanism is a sub-office in a cheaper tax jurisdiction entering into an intellectual property leasing arrangement with the Australian joint venture 'partner'. This is an accounting trick for tax minimisation purposes that is not illegal but is definitely immoral and certainly unAustralian.</para>
<para>Corporations should not come here to shelter under our social stability while using legal loopholes to leach extra profits offshore. This practice not only deprives this great southern land of much-needed revenue but also creates an unfair advantage for these large corporations over small and medium-sized Australian enterprises that cannot engage in such dodgy legerdemain. Small businesses in my electorate of Morton are paying their fair share of tax, and we need to make sure that the multinational companies are contributing and paying their fair share as well and not extracting an extra advantage over Australian businesses.</para>
<para>Australians are still shouldering the $1 trillion in public debt racked up by the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments that left the nation with little economic legacy—other than that interest bill. During the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison years, Australians were losing out on funds that should have been available for vital services like Medicare, aged care, child care and mental care. Australians lost out because multinational companies used tax havens and tax avoidance schemes to avoid paying their fair share of tax in Australia. We even had PricewaterhouseCoopers, PwC, using information gained through government contracts—they were engaged by the government—to help companies exploit the loopholes that they were actually contracted to help stop, putting private greed before public good. I hope the people who decided to do that will pay and pay dearly.</para>
<para>That is why the Albanese government will mirror global developments on multinational tax through a responsible and measured multinational tax integrity package that will close tax loopholes and improve transparency. This government understands that businesses of all sizes make important contributions to the economy, and we want to see that continue. This legislation is simply about levelling the playing field for Australian businesses and increasing transparency in our taxation system.</para>
<para>Schedule 1 of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill relates to the disclosure of subsidiaries, as well as introducing new reporting requirements for Australian public companies, both listed and unlisted, to disclose information on the number of subsidiaries they have and their country of tax domicile. This will assist in holding companies to account, particularly those large corporations that engage in dodgy practices. It will require them to be more transparent about their corporate structures and whether they are operating with some sort of questionable tax arrangements, such as through foreign subsidiaries in low-tax jurisdictions.</para>
<para>Tax havens aren't just a tax dodge; they're dodgy in other ways, too. Tax havens are favoured by drug runners, extortionists, terrorists and money launderers. Firms that use tax havens are rubbing shoulders with some of the world's most unsavoury characters. Yet there are plenty of firms content to play this game. According to one estimate, one-tenth of global GDP—around $12 trillion—is currently stashed away in tax havens. When multinationals exploit tax lurks, ordinary taxpayers end up footing the bill. A firefighter can't ask to be paid using a shell company in Bermuda. The local cafe operator can't route their coffee orders through the Cayman Islands. Across Australia, employers and firms are working hard and doing the right thing and often proudly paying their fair share.</para>
<para>Most people don't begrudge others for their success, but they expect to compete on a level playing field. How can a small Australian technology start-up take on the global giants if it has to pay a higher rate of tax than they do? You don't have to look far to find the fingerprints of tax havens. When you cast your eye over recent registers of the foreign ownership of agricultural land in Australia, you will initially see a list of companies that you would expect. The five biggest owners of farmland in Australia are Britain, the United States, the Netherlands, Canada and China.</para>
<para>Surprisingly, in sixth place comes the Bahamas. An island inhabited by a few hundred thousand people with income levels that sit at about half of Australia's is the sixth-largest foreign owner of Australian farming land. It doesn't make much sense until you realise that the Bahamas has no company tax and no income tax and appears on most people's lists of tax havens. And there are other examples. We need to know who is using the Bahamas and other tax havens to dodge paying tax from profits made in Australia.</para>
<para>Using the information that will be collected, the government can ensure better economic analysis can be used to inform whether current taxation laws are functioning as intended—paying your fair share—and collecting the amount of revenue that the Australian people are owed. The consequences of ignoring multinational tax avoidance are clear. Somebody has to pay for schools, hospitals, national security and transport networks. When powerful interests miss their turn, everyone else—everyday Australians—ends up paying more. That means teachers and nurses and amboes and child-care workers and fruit pickers will all pay more. Like Robin Hood in reverse, multinational tax-dodging hurts those who can least afford it. Companies will be required to disclose this information when completing and releasing their annual financial report, which will help to limit compliance issues and burdens.</para>
<para>This is not a new concept. In fact, a number of other countries around the world have similar measures already in place. This bill would simply bring Australia into line with international approaches such as that of the United Kingdom. This section of the bill was carefully constructed with stakeholder feedback—obviously not the tax avoidance people and not totally relying on PwC—and is a huge step in the right direction towards ensuring that we increase tax transparency. It complements the ongoing work being done by the Albanese government to make multinationals pay their fair share.</para>
<para>Schedule 2 of the bill relates to thin capitalisation, a topic that I know gets most Australians excited. It is a new revenue-raising scheme that targets a known tax-planning arrangement by limiting multinational companies' debt deductions. This is another change that will ensure that multinational enterprises operating in Australia are paying their fair share of tax and that we are levelling the playing field for Australian businesses. Under these new limits, a multinational company's debt deductions would be limited to 30 per cent of profits using the EBITDA test, which is earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation. This test will replace the currently used safe harbour test. However, in order to provide more flexibility for smaller entities with earning volatility, debt deductions denied under the EBITDA test where the interest expense amount exceeds the 30 per cent ratio limit will be able to be carried forward and claimed in subsequent income years. This measure will also retain the arms-length debt test as a substitute test which will be applied to an entity's third-party debt, disallowing deductions for the related party's debt. Adjusting to an earnings based approach to debt deductions will ensure that deductions are tied directly to the entity's economic activity and earnings. This is a more robust approach that ensures tax planning practices of multinationals are properly regulated.</para>
<para>The OECD has led global efforts to address tax integrity risks and limit multinational companies' adjustment of their debt levels and use of related party borrowings to minimise the amount of tax they pay. Most OECD countries, including the United Kingdom, the United States and most of the European Union, have already implemented similar earnings based interest-limitation rules. The proposed thin capitalisation amendments will simply bring Australia into line with our international counterparts. The Albanese government has held extensive consultation with different sectors. While some will have slight exemptions from the new rules, these sectors should be subject to the new interest limitation rules, as they can give rise to a base erosion risk.</para>
<para>By introducing this bill, the Albanese government are keeping our promise to make multinationals pay their fair share. We called on the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments to make these changes to multinational tax laws. Instead, they chose to chase welfare recipients to pay back incorrectly calculated and illegal debts. We're all paying the price for that, including some who've lost their lives. The Labor Party have a history of calling out injustice when we see it and legislating to stop it when we get elected. Making multinationals pay their fair share is a prime example of why Labor governments really do make a difference. This bill means more money for our hospitals, our schools, our crucial infrastructure projects and our environment, and I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KHALIL</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
    <electorate>Wills</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>You know, Deputy Speaker Freelander, as we all do here, that most Australians pay their fair share of tax. So why should the biggest multinational companies get away with paying sometimes zero tax in Australia? Did you know that one in three medium and large corporate entities paid zero tax in the last year? That is 782 out of 2,468 large-and-medium-sized corporate entities. In the mining, energy and water sector, more than half the companies paid no income tax. Among those companies, some of them just paid $30 in tax—Chevron was an example of that. In 2021 Google earned more than $7 billion but paid only—wait for it—$85 million in tax. That might sound like a lot but that's an effective tax rate of 1.2 per cent. Facebook, the social media giant, doubled its profits but funnelled nearly $1 billion into local advertising revenue to an international subsidiary, so their total Australian tax bill was $24 million. That's an effective tax rate of 2.4 per cent. Just last year, Aristocrat made $1.229 billion and paid $327 million in tax—a bit higher, an effective tax rate of 26 per cent. But the amount of corporate tax revenue lost annually due to multinationals minimising tax ranges is an estimated $500 billion to $600 billion. It's time they pay up. It's time they pay their fair share as companies that are operating in Australia.</para>
<para>This is an issue I'm clearly passionate about. There's a difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion: tax evasion being illegal and tax avoidance being within the rules—finding ways to get around paying your tax is tax avoidance. Every dollar lost through those attempts and those efforts is money lost to our kids' education, it's money lost to housing, it's money lost to health care, to protecting our natural environment, to looking after older Australians in retirement, and to reducing the cost of child care. I've been speaking about the issue for many years. In this place, when we were in opposition in the last parliament, I called on the former government to take bolder action. It's no surprise they did nothing—absolutely nothing. I wrote a policy paper on this issue back in 2021, laying out some of the ambitious reform ideas of how we could tackle the problem. I was so pleased that when I worked with our then shadow ministers Andrew Leigh and Steven Jones, and the now Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, that they were working on these ideas as well. They understand the fairness question around this, and that these multinationals should pay their fair share. As an executive team, they have done a tremendous job in putting together policies around making multinationals pay their fair share of tax. As a government, as ministers in the government, they are now taking concrete action through this bill. That's a lot more than the former Treasurer Josh Frydenberg did—he did nothing. During the 2022 election campaign, the Albanese government, with all the work that was done by Minister Jones, Jim Chalmers, Andrew Leigh and others, committed to ensuring multinationals pay their fair share of tax, took that to the last election, and now they're delivering on it.</para>
<para>The policies supported by this government are grounded in the OECD G20 inclusive framework on base erosion and profit shifting that began back in 2013. Base erosion and profit shifting, or BEPS, is associated with multinationals exploiting those gaps and mismatches between the tax systems of different countries and jurisdictions, and it affects all countries internationally. They look for the weak spots. In developing countries there is a higher reliance on corporate income tax, which means these countries are impacted more disproportionately from BEPS. Over 135 countries and jurisdictions are working collaboratively in the OECD G20 inclusive framework on BEPS.</para>
<para>This includes implementing actions to tackle tax avoidance, improve the coherence of international tax rules and ensure a more transparent tax environment.</para>
<para>These amendments will introduce new reporting requirements for listed and unlisted companies that require them to disclose their subsidiaries and where they are located, which addresses the risks to the domestic tax base arising from the use of debt deductions as base erosion or profit sharing—the BEPS technique. These measures will help us hold companies accountable and ensure greater transparency. This is about ensuring companies—in particular, large corporate entities—become more transparent about the way they operate, their corporate structures and whether they are operating with opaque tax arrangements and flushing that out, which could be through subsidiaries based in low-tax jurisdictions, which is a classic example or technique that is used.</para>
<para>Without this level of transparency, we will not know whether our tax laws are doing their job and whether they are collecting the fair amount of revenue that they should be. These changes will require companies to disclose this type of information as part of an annual financial reporting, which helps us work in line with other approaches seen globally, such as that which has been adopted in the United Kingdom.</para>
<para>Another amendment will be introduced to strengthen Australia's thin capitalisation rules. This is a revenue raising measure that will help level the playing field for Australian businesses. It will target a known tax planning arrangement by limiting MNEs' debt reductions and ensuring they pay their fair share of tax in Australia. More specifically, the measure will limit an entity's debt related deductions to 30 per cent of profits. This new earnings based test will replace the current safe harbour test. It will allow debt deductions to be denied under the entity level test, which provides smaller entities with earnings volatility and more flexibility, and will allow an entity in a worldwide group to claim debt related deductions up to the level of the group's net interest expense. This new group ratio will replace the worldwide gearing ratio and retain an arm's-length debt test as a substitute test, which will apply only to an entity's external third-party debt, disallowing deductions for related party debt under this test.</para>
<para>That all sounds very complicated, but they are very specific policies that have been worked through to ensure that these multinationals pay their fair share of tax. It's about time because a lot of these companies—not all but a lot of them—are still finding ways to avoid their tax responsibilities in Australia. If you're an ordinary Australian—you're a local Australian business, you're a cafe owner or you've got a small business—you're paying your 30 cents in the dollar or whatever it might be. You can't hide your profits or your revenue if you've got a local cafe in my electorate, in Pasco Vale or Brunswick. You're not hiding your revenue in a subsidiary on Cayman Islands. No cafe owner can do that, can they? They're paying their fair share. The average punter is paying their fair share of tax out of their salaries, out of their wages.</para>
<para>Is it too much to ask that some of the biggest companies in the world pay their fair share of tax in Australia, a country in which they are making a profit? Is it too much to ask that that revenue comes back to the taxpayer? I don't think it is. This bill, these amendments and the work that's been done by our ministers and our government is all about making them pay their fair share. It's about fairness. Australians deserve a government that does everything that it can to make sure that these large companies are paying their fair share. Australians should be able to have confidence in their tax system and the principle that everyone—from individuals and small businesses to those large corporations, both Australian and foreign owned—are contributing and giving back to our society through their tax payments.</para>
<para>Evasion and avoidance are not victimless activities. That's an important point. Every dollar that is lost through tax avoidance tactics that big companies utilise leaves us worse off as a society because that's money that would otherwise be going into a whole range of policies that go to Australians' quality of life. The whole community suffers when some members, whether they be individuals or corporate entities, wrongfully or artfully dodge making their fair contribution.</para>
<para>The other point I'd make is that while activities such as tax avoidance might be technically legal, they undermine the rule of law. They're certainly not in the spirit of the law. The primary purpose of the tax system is that it belongs to, and should benefit, the people of Australia. An activity such as tax avoidance also undermines public trust in government, because it is our responsibility to make sure that there is a level playing field where everyone is paying their fair share regardless of their size. It's about making sure that the tax system is fair for all.</para>
<para>After nine years of the previous coalition government doing absolutely nothing in this space—they couldn't even match some of the OECD initiatives—it is up to us, as a Labor government, to make sure that we're doing everything we can to close these loopholes and to shut down and mitigate these tax avoidance measures that are being utilised and exploited expertly by these multinational companies. It's up to us to instil some fairness back into the system and bring back confidence and trust that as a government we're doing everything we can to level the playing field so that when your average punter, your average cafe owner, who pays their fair share of tax, is doing their taxes at the end of the year—a husband and wife, a small family business or whatever it may be—they can have confidence that the government is ensuring that the big players, the big corporates, are also paying their fair share of tax and not evading that. It's up to our Labor government. That's what we're doing with this bill: taking real action to make those multinational companies truly pay their fair share. I commend the bill to the House and thank the minister for all of his hard work on this policy area.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPPIA</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
    <electorate>Makin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It was interesting listening to the member for Wills. I agree with his comments and summation of the importance of this legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023. For years now this parliament has been talking about ensuring that everyone pays their fair share of tax. It's one of the subjects that quite often gets raised by, I have to say, all members of this parliament, and I accept that there is goodwill from across the chamber to ensure that that is very much the case.</para>
<para>In the 2022 federal election campaign, Labor committed to ensuring that multinationals pay their fair share of taxation if Labor was to be elected. As part of this commitment, this legislation is now before us in the parliament. It is legislation which begins the process of ensuring that everyone in this country pays their fair share of tax. Whilst I'll make some comments about that in my own remarks, I'm pleased to see that everyone who has spoken thus far does not disagree with that sentiment.</para>
<para>The Australian tax system is complex. It has evolved over the years and has morphed into a tax system that is complicated, difficult to understand and manage, and filled with loopholes and other provisions which enable legal tax avoidance. I stress the word 'legal', because what most of those who avoid tax are doing is allowed to be done under our laws. If it wasn't, they wouldn't be able to do it. It is those laws that we need to try and rectify. Adding to the difficulties, we live in a global economy, where large corporations—and that includes companies that were founded here in Australia—operate across multiple countries. Each of those countries have their own tax laws, tax rates and tax compliance regimes. Through domiciling their head offices in low-tax jurisdictions or by establishing multiple subsidiaries, global entities are able to minimise their taxation payments and, in some cases, completely avoid taxation whilst operating entirely within the law. Australia's relatively high corporate tax rate adds to the incentive for global corporates operating here in Australia to engage in tax avoidance.</para>
<para>Whilst I note this is something other countries are attempting to address and I accept that there have been international discussions about how we collectively work on this problem—because it is a problem for other countries as well—the reality is that we still live in a global environment where almost half the countries of the world don't want to engage and will be happy not to be part of the discussions or part of a process by which everyone pays their fair share of tax. They don't want to be part of that process because, through their own systems of government and their own tax laws, they actually make money out of their jurisdictions being used as either tax havens or tax avoidance places by the corporates of this world.</para>
<para>This legislation attempts to bring back at least some additional genuine tax to Australian taxpayers. Schedule 1 targets Australian public companies, in expecting them to disclose their subsidiaries and where they are located—a point I was making a moment ago. Schedule 2 targets a known tax-planning arrangement by limiting multinational entities' debt deductions. That's a much more complex process and, I suspect, one that only good tax accountants understand. I think it is that complexity and lack of understanding that has allowed this process, a process whereby companies are able to claim many more deductions than they are legitimately entitled to, to continue for decades. If we can close it down, and I hope we can, it will be one way of at least recovering some of the lost tax that this country is entitled to.</para>
<para>I note that the legislation has been consulted on extensively. Consultation began almost immediately after the election in May 2022. In the first round of consultation, which was a broad consultation process, there were some 70 submissions. Later, in November, there were consultations with the tax advisory firms and the property sector. In March there were consultations on the proposed draft legislation, where another 55 submissions were received. The last round of consultations took place in April. I understand that they were mostly with industry representatives. I stress that point just to assure people in this place that consultation with respect to what is important legislation has been extensive and the proposal before us was reached after that consultation took place.</para>
<para>With respect to the disclosure of information about subsidiaries, Australian public companies will be required to disclose such information in their annual financial reports. This will impose some compliance costs—and I note that within the consultation process the issue of compliance costs was also raised—however, the reality is that those compliance costs are relatively minor in comparison with the turnover of the companies involved and the amount of tax that has been lost. Whilst there are indeed thousands of entities that meet the definition of those companies that will be part of that compliance, realistically this will impact only those companies that have complex corporate structures. I believe those entities are all in a position to meet the additional compliance costs required of them. My understanding is that the EM's indicative estimate of 471 entities is based on Australian public companies, with a group turnover of more than $250 million—that is, the large corporate groups. If that is the case, and they are companies or entities turning over more than $250 million, I suspect that the compliance costs would pale into insignificance compared to the total cost of running those entities.</para>
<para>I have spoken in this place on several occasions about multinational tax avoidance.</para>
<para>And I note that according to one 2020-21 report 73 of the 134 fossil fuel companies in Australia paid no tax at all on a total income of $164 billion. When the average person out there in the community hears figures like that, they ask the question, how can that be? We are talking about $164 billion of turnover, yet 73 of those fossil fuel companies paid no tax at all. The truth of the matter is that most of those fossil fuel companies are well-known brands—companies that people know of and know full well that they would be making handsome profits, albeit that they were able to minimise or totally avoid their tax obligations.</para>
<para>Tax is paid on profits made in Australia, and it is clear that those 73 companies, a number of which are amongst the richest and most profitable and powerful in the world, are shifting their profits offshore, either through subsidiaries or by having their head offices domiciled offshore. Then they pay head offices all sorts of fees at inflated prices to ensure that here in Australia their taxation returns show that they have not made a profit. That is what we need to try to work through and resolve.</para>
<para>On that issue of tax avoidance, I want to quote from some other reports and summarise what I think is the true situation across the world right now. In June an OECD report showed that in recent years across 15 countries, including Australia, a large proportion of inflation has been attributed to company profits. People in this place talk about the causes of inflation, and one of the drivers of that inflation is the profit-making by those large entities. Again, it's hard to single out anyone in particular, and it's hard to quantify specifically, but we know it is happening. And post the COVID pandemic there have been numerous reports—again, both within Australia and from around the world—that corporate profits soared. At a time when the economies of most countries were being shut down because of COVID, corporate profits were increasing. Again, it's hard to imagine, in the minds of most ordinary people, but that is in fact what was happening.</para>
<para><inline font-style="italic">Fortune</inline> reported in early 2022 that US companies posted their biggest profit growth in decades by jacking up prices during the pandemic. Again, looking at the issue of COVID and how those profits are derived, when not only were economies shutting down but also people in many cases had lost their jobs and were receiving no income or being supported by governments through welfare payments, these companies were making huge profits and actually increasing their prices. It's totally immoral and unethical. A Bloomberg article in August 2022 described a measure of US profit margins as being its widest since 1950—that is, in more than 70 years. Oxfam have reported:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The world's small elite of 2,755 billionaires has seen its fortunes grow more during Covid-19 than they have in the whole of the last fourteen years combined.</para></quote>
<para>And it has been reported this year that in Canada nearly every sector has achieved more gross profits than in pre-pandemic times. Lastly, Tax Justice UK reported in late 2021 that just six companies made 16 billion pounds in excess profits during the pandemic.</para>
<para>So, in the past three years, when the world was effectively on its knees in so many ways, the big corporates were making windfall profits, and it is those windfall profits that they should be paying their fair share of tax on. This legislation goes some of the way to trying to ensure that that is the case.</para>
<para>I note that similar types of measures have been introduced overseas and particularly in the UK, where much of the guidance for this legislation has been sought. However, if we are to truly tackle this problem, I believe that we need to ensure that it is done in a cooperative way right across the globe, not just with some of the countries that share our concerns about it. Because, whilst there are countries that are prepared to act as havens for tax avoidance companies, the processes and practices that these companies engage in will continue. And they will continue in a legal way.</para>
<para>The reality is that the effects of this go further than just simply those companies not paying their fair share of tax. It also gives them a competitive advantage when they are competing with other companies that are prepared to pay their fair share of tax, because, by not paying the tax, they have an advantage and, therefore, are able to undercut those companies. Secondly, it is totally unfair that companies will continue to do that whilst paying their executives millions of dollars. The average working person in Australia pays their full share of tax each and every week and is not able to participate in those tax avoidance schemes. And, thirdly, as others have spoken about, there is a concern that small entities in Australia don't employ the accountants and don't have the subsidiaries overseas to be able to engage in the tax avoidance measures that these companies are doing each and every day.</para>
<para>For all of those reasons it is important that we try to level out the playing field and have a fair tax system. In doing so, it will assist governments of all persuasions in raising their revenue so they can provide the services that everyone expects of governments.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr H</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
    <electorate>Bruce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>ILL () (): If you go and stand outside any set of shops in Australia on the weekend, as I and I know colleagues regularly do, one of the things that will always come up if you're there for an hour or more is the intense frustration that Australians feel about multinational companies that dodge their tax. People who pay their fair share of tax rightly get angry when big companies use every trick and loophole to avoid paying tax, and it's a serious problem not just in Australia, as this bill deals with, but globally.</para>
<para>The OECD estimates that base erosion and profit shifting costs countries between US$100 billion and US$240 billion in lost revenue annually, and it's growing. That's the equivalent of at least four to 10 per cent of global corporate income tax revenue gone. It means that governments across the world are denied hundreds of billions of dollars that should be able to provide services and infrastructure, lower the tax burden on workers and reduce debt. Multinational tax avoidance, though, is more than just lost revenue to governments and societies. It undermines the fairness and integrity of the tax system, and, as the member for Makin rightly observed, it's unfair to small businesses and other businesses operating in Australia that these big multinationals get a competitive advantage over them and can claim more market share because they are dodging their tax, while Australian companies are paying it. Global multinationals can pay armies of lawyers and accountants millions of dollars to reduce their tax bills, yet Australian workers, families and small businesses are the losers. It also has a deterrent effect in a bad way. It undermines voluntary compliance of taxpayers, both individuals and small businesses, because they see big multinational companies not paying their fair share and think, 'Why should I?' So they give it a crack.</para>
<para>How do multinationals do this? It's a nerdy topic, but base erosion and profit sharing, or BEPS, refers to tax planning strategies used by multinational enterprises to exploit gaps and mismatches in tax rules between companies. They are very clever and invest a lot of money doing this, but they exploit those loopholes in the misalignment of rules to avoid paying tax. Companies artificially shift their profits to low- or no-tax locations where there's little or no economic activity to erode taxes bases through deductible payments such as interest, royalties, inflated loans between them and selling marketing services from one country to another.</para>
<para>These practices have become more and more sophisticated in recent years as companies use intangible assets such as intellectual property that they then hold in low-tax jurisdictions and incredibly complex valuation arguments that cost governments million to prosecute. The rapid growth of the digital economy has actually exacerbated the issue. It will get worse, not better, if we don't act.</para>
<para>Although some of the schemes used are illegal, most of them are not, and that's where we as the parliament come in. We have got to tighten the law and address this. Frankly, it's not a problem that any country can address alone; it can only be dealt with through coordinated global action across more than 100 countries. Of course, it does require domestic action, like we are doing in this bill, to increase tax transparency, align laws and shut down the ability of big companies to dodge corporate tax. That's exactly what the government is doing.</para>
<para>This legislation implements key parts of the plan that Labor took to the election to ensure multinationals pay their fair share of tax. It levels the playing field for Australian businesses and increases transparency. It's key. It shouldn't take leaks from corporate whistleblowers for countries and citizens to find out who owns the company, how many subsidiaries there are or where they are paying tax. The reforms will hold companies to account—particularly those large corporate groups—on their corporate structures and whether they are operating with opaque or atypical tax arrangements. Given the global momentum—it has taken years, but there is global momentum to this because the problem is getting worse—towards ensuring that firms pay their fair share of tax, it's in the public interest that shareholders have more information of this kind. Australian taxpayers paying their fair share rightly expect their government to make sure that global forms operating in our country are paying their fair share of tax too.</para>
<para>These laws are more urgent because of a decade of Liberal division, dithering, delay and failure under the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison regime to take meaningful action on multinational tax avoidance and crack down on it. The coalition's failure for a decade was deeply unfair to Australian firms. If you are starting a new business, you are not socking your money away in the Bahamas. If you're an Australian startup, you're not looking for a lurk in the Cayman Islands. Instead, you are working hard to try and come up with a new business model, monetise it, make it profitable, grow wealth, grow the economy and create jobs. But the previous government was content to sit by and let startups and small business face the potential of being cheated in an unfair playing field by multinational firms and tax dodgers who are investing all this money to use tax havens.</para>
<para>The voting record of the Liberals and Nationals speaks for itself. When Labor was last in office, the coalition voted against Labor's multinational tax measures under prime ministers Rudd and Gillard. One measure which I think the Gillard government legislated later saw Chevron, under the Liberals, forced to pay an extra $300 million in tax, which the Liberals—I was here—astoundingly tried to claim credit for. If we had emojis in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> we'd put a 'facepalm' in it at this point. They voted against Labor's crackdown on multinational tax, and then, when it actually worked, they claimed credit for it. Duplicitous.</para>
<para>Then there is a record of the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments—I don't mean the ATM government whirring out the cash, giving away billions to big business during the pandemic and putting it on the national debt. When Tony Abbott was elected, they actually scrapped multiple multinational tax measures which were there and ready to go. Then Malcolm Turnbull's main tax priority—we endured it for two or three years, sitting over there—was to cut corporate tax. That was his big economic reform priority—to cut corporate taxation. Scott Morrison's main fiscal achievement, of course, was $1 trillion of Liberal debt and record deficits.</para>
<para>To be fair, they did make a few tweaks here and there, but they were window-dressing; they were fundamentally designed to make people think they were doing something but not actually crack down on the problem. So I will stand by Labor's record on cracking down on multinational tax avoidance any day, because it is fundamentally one of fairness. It goes to the core value and the core purpose of the Labor Party to provide a level playing field, in this case, for Australian businesses to compete.</para>
<para>But it's not just their record of inaction; before the election, Liberal MP Michael Sukkar, the member for Deakin, and Senator Jane Hume put out a press release actually criticising Anthony Albanese, now Prime Minister, for wanting to do more on multinational taxation. They were actually criticising the Labor Party for saying we need to do more on this.</para>
<para>These policies are grounded in the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, which began in 2013. That's 10 years ago. We should have been doing these measures years ago, as others countries have. We're way behind. The reporting of subsidiary information in this bill is in line with other international approaches—for example, the United Kingdom's listing rules, which were introduced around 2016. That would be seven years ago! Anecdotal feedback from some industry groups was that this change in the United Kingdom actually resulted in companies simplifying their corporate structures.</para>
<para>How will this bill work? The new rules bring Australia into line with other comparable jurisdictions around the world. The legislation has been carefully designed. It's been the subject of two intensive rounds of consultation. Because we're a proper government that run a cabinet process and actually go and talk to business rather than making stuff up at press conferences, the government actually made changes to the exposure drafts because we listened to businesses about how these rules will work. The legislation has then been carefully designed to balance the tax integrity issues with economic considerations, particularly and importantly to make sure that we remain an attractive place for productive investment.</para>
<para>The bill will implement the OECD's global two pillars plan, which was designed to address challenges created by the digitisation of our economies. This includes a global minimum tax proposal to ensure that multinationals pay an effective rate of at least 15 per cent tax on the profits they make around the world. It's so important. What we've seen now for a couple of decades is what I've talked about before: a race to the bottom. When Turnbull and the Libs over there—a lot of them who were here then are still left over there—were arguing for that, it was like any cut to the corporate tax was always a good thing. If you take that logic, then zero per cent corporate tax would be nirvana. We've got to stop this race to the bottom, so that governments around the world have sufficient revenues and so that corporations are not rent-seeking but actually making a contribution back to the society that provides the space, framework, rules and courts within which they can do business and make profit.</para>
<para>The second pillar is a fairer distribution of profits by multinationals, particularly digital firms. Working together within the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, over 135 jurisdictions and countries are collaborating on the implementation of these tax measures to tackle tax avoidance, improve the coherence of international tax rules and ensure a more transparent tax environment.</para>
<para>Just briefly: schedule 1 deals with multinational tax transparency and the disclosure of subsidiaries, which I talked about. They are rules that have been in place in the UK for seven years. We should have done it years ago, but here we are. It introduces these new reporting requirements for Australian public companies, listed and unlisted, to disclose information on the number of subsidiaries, stuff like where they're located and their country of tax domicile. As I said, it's been informed by extensive consultation. It was introduced in the winter sitting to enable the changes still to take effect on the 1 July start date.</para>
<para>When this legislation is finally passed—it will be interesting to see how they vote and try to water it down, if you look at their record—it will require these large corporate groups to be more transparent about their corporate structures and whether they're operating with those opaque tax arrangements like subsidiaries in low-tax jurisdictions. This information will not only improve revenue collection but support better economic analysis and help to inform evaluation as to whether tax laws are operating as they're intended in collecting the right amount of revenue or whether further measures are required.</para>
<para>With the way it's been designed, companies will need to disclose this new information in their annual financial statements, which will help to reduce the compliance burdens. Again, that is in line with international approaches and how things have been done in the United Kingdom for some years. The stakeholder feedback in August and then April that led to this bill is that it really is a step change in ensuring tax transparency and that it complements the ongoing work to implement a beneficial owner register and public country-by-country reporting, which the government is continuing to work through with stakeholders.</para>
<para>Schedule 2 deals with thin capitalisation. It introduces Australia's thin capitalisation rules to address the risks to the domestic tax base arising from the use of debt deductions as one of those base erosion and profit-shifting measures.</para>
<para>I'll conclude where I started: it's fundamentally important that Australia's tax regime—and the rules that we're putting in place with this bill and subsequent reforms which are being worked on at the moment and will come to the parliament in due course—aligns with those of other countries, that we harmonise the frameworks and that we shut down the loopholes and the places that multinational corporations are able to utilise in order to avoid their tax. We need to close off those options. There is an Australia-specific approach, given the unique characteristics of our economy, for external debt—a third-party debt test—to support ongoing investment, including in the infrastructure and property sectors. There were particular concerns sensibly raised by those sectors throughout the consultation, and the government has taken them on board to minimise the transition cost for stakeholders.</para>
<para>Schedule 2 is a revenue-raising measure, and I know that sometimes makes those opposite twitch. It is a revenue-raising measure because the country has a structural budget deficit that the Liberals have left behind. This is an entirely appropriate place for the government to seek to raise some more revenue by making multinational corporations pay their fair share of tax. Frankly, if the Liberals had actually done this work in their last couple of terms of government, the deficit wouldn't be as big as the one we inherited, the national debt wouldn't be as big as what we inherited, and the country would be in a better position. Australian businesses would have been able to operate in a more competitive and fairer environment if the previous government had actually done their job instead of standing on the record, as they outlined earlier, of at every point under the Rudd and Gillard governments voting against measures to crack down on multinational tax avoidance—claiming credit for Labor's achievements back then when they worked and not taking any real action. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to join colleagues today to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023. Making multinationals pay their fair share sounds like a reasonable proposition to me, hence I am here supporting the bill. What price do we ask multinational companies to pay to operate in a stable democracy? What price to operate in a country with clear legislation and a judicial system that is separate from government? What price to operate and build a business here in our country? What price to be part of our egalitarian community? What price to use our roads? What price to hope to employ Australians educated in our schools—a workforce treated in our health care? Making multinationals pay their fair share is actually asking multinationals to be responsible corporate citizens and to be part of this broad Australian community—part of our economy, part of the global economy, but also part of this system and not predators of the system.</para>
<para>For as long as I have been here—which is nine years—as the member for Bruce so elegantly put, I have heard those opposite ready to take credit for Labor initiatives in the former Gillard and Rudd governments—where multinational Chevron ended up paying $300 million more in tax—as a line in a press release that said they were doing their job, when in fact they voted against that happening. Those opposite are often over there, and the tenor of the argument around taxation is always the same. The tenor is that if we don't create an environment in Australia where multinationals pay minimum tax, if we're not competitive on a bottom-line tax rate with every other country in the world, then multinationals won't come here to do business and, therefore, we'll miss out on employment and investment. But what this bill is saying is we need to balance those scales. They do not choose to come here simply for a taxation rate.</para>
<para>We know already that many of them are structured so as to avoid any taxation rate by using tax havens where they have a got a floor of taxation.</para>
<para>We know that in our global economy these multinational businesses have been structured to avoid tax not just in our country but in other countries around the world. One might argue that it is to avoid tax in countries where the vast amount of revenue raised by governments is from PAYG workers, everyday Australians paying their taxes every week. Our great Australian community, our egalitarian society, has a progressive tax system that draws from every worker in this country making their contribution to build our roads, to create the infrastructure we need, to build and fund our schools and our hospitals—all of the things we as a society value for ourselves. What is the price for multinationals to operate in that community, in that society? For me, the price is that they pay their fair share. It is that when they're using the roads, the highways, the freeways, the airports, the terminals and the ports they pay their fair share. The way they do that is not with a user-pays system where they get a ticket at the gate but through the taxation system. This bill is about doing exactly that.</para>
<para>This bill is about righting the scales and ensuring that multinationals who are operating here and multinationals who want to operate here are making their contribution to our local economy and are operating in the global economy in a responsible way, and when I say 'a responsible way', I mean in a way that respects the populace of the countries where they operate. That's what this is about. This is about ensuring that multinational companies operating in Australia respect us and pay their fair share.</para>
<para>This, of course, was an election commitment from the Albanese government. We committed to ensuring that multinationals would pay their fair share of tax. These measures are rooted in the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, which was established in 2013. For any of my constituents who aren't economists and aren't accountants, particularly high-flying accountants who deal in multinational taxation avoidance, this may sound like gobbledegook. What it really means is that, collectively, countries across the globe have gotten together and said: 'These companies are getting very clever. They're all avoiding paying tax. They're avoiding paying tax in the UK, in Australia and in other places around the world. We need to muscle-up together and come up with a framework where we can ensure that our populations and our societies are respected.' So more than 135 countries and jurisdictions are working collaboratively within the OECD/G20 inclusive framework on exactly these issues. The joint efforts are focused on implementing measures that address tax avoidance, enhance the consistency of international tax regulations and foster a greater degree of transparency in the global tax environment. It all sounds rather sensible to me.</para>
<para>As the member for Bruce pointed out on several occasions, a Conservative government in the UK was able to implement something seven years ago as part of this framework. My question to those opposite is: where have you been? A UK Conservative government saw the sense in this, but an Australian Liberal-National coalition government didn't. It chose to ignore it. It chose to allow the disrespect of our society by these multinational companies to continue. I can only imagine that what might have been driving them was that, if all of the 135 countries working together closed off all of these avenues for tax avoidance, we'd become the place the multinationals want to be. Except they're cleverer than our 10-year Liberal-National coalition government, because they're already avoiding our taxes, and the 135 countries that are getting together are getting together to say, 'We cannot allow them globally to avoid taxation everywhere. They have to pay their fair share.'</para>
<para>The bill will create a fourth element to a company's annual financial report. At the moment, a company's annual report already includes financial statements, notes to the financial statements and a director's report. This will bring in line a further disclosure. The financial statements for most companies will already include some information on their subsidiaries based on a subjective materiality threshold. The introduction of the disclosure mandate in this bill will enhance the information flow by necessitating the inclusion of details about all subsidiaries.</para>
<para>For those listening at home, it's the old saying: 'Follow the money.' Now you'll be able to follow the money, because they'll have to disclose the subsidiaries. It's pretty simple. Who will be impacted? It will only, likely, apply to large corporate groups that operate from complex corporate structures and multiple subsidiaries. Approximately 470 large corporate groups, entities with $250 million revenue or more, are likely to have multiple subsidiaries. At an aggregate level, the potential in-scope population is estimated at around 8,000 entities—2,100 listed entities and 5,750 unlisted public entities, based on financial report lodgement. However, a large number of these will be smaller companies that have no subsidiaries and, therefore, will disclose a nil statement.</para>
<para>This piece of legislation is our government trying to catch up with the other 135 countries, trying to catch up with what lots of other economies across the globe are doing. In terms of paying their fair share, this is our government doing their share of the legislative agenda to ensure that not just this country but other countries are able to collect the revenue they need to run their societies and economies.</para>
<para>The opposition's position is that the government did not provide enough time for affected stakeholders to understand and provide feedback. But we heard from the member for Bruce this morning that that's not the case, that there have been changes made, there has been consultation. The amendments were first announced in April 2022 as part of the government's election commitment platform. They've since been subject to extensive stakeholder consultation on all the schedules of the bill. In late 2022 there was a public consultation on design, through a consultation paper, and there was a consultation on exposure draft legislation for all schedules in March and April of this year.</para>
<para>The final legislative approach reflects this stakeholder feedback to accommodate genuine commercial arrangements, as much as possible, noting that it is a tax integrity measure. The tax integrity measure is not intended to reflect the status quo arrangement of taxpayers. Postponing the changes would present a revenue and tax avoidance risk by allowing taxpayers to artificially restructure their arrangements to avoid the new rules and gain a tax benefit.</para>
<para>I rise today to support the bill because I believe that multinational companies who operate in Australia should be paying their fair share of tax. I believe that operating here makes them a part of our economy and, therefore, they should respect the citizenry that has created and works in that economy. It's an easy thing to say, 'Make multinationals pay their fair share of tax.' We know, from over time, that multinational companies will gear up to try to avoid measures that have been put in place. But if 135 countries continue to work together, if the Australian government can be a force for good, in this space, rather than a recalcitrant, then we may find that our revenue in this country is enhanced and that we will be able to make commitments to our communities, that we will be able to, in good faith, say that we can raise revenue without raising their personal taxes, that we can raise revenue for the infrastructure that communities like mine so desperately need.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
    <electorate>Macnamara</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very pleased to rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023. This bill is an important bill, because across my electorate we have thousands of hardworking Australians going to work every single day and paying their fair share of tax—thousands of people who turn up to contribute to our nation's economy, who get up and go to their workplaces and contribute tax in the Australian system. We also have hundreds of small businesses in my electorate—businesses that make our local community what it is, businesses that give us so much character and depth as well as provide services to our local community.</para>
<para>The thing is, the individuals who work in my local community and right across the country, as well as the small businesses that I am so proud to represent in Macnamara and the small businesses right across the country, don't have the ability to put millions of dollars into their own tax teams, to get their own tax advice. They don't have millions of dollars to seek ways in which they can minimise their tax payments as a corporation or as an entity as a whole. They just have to pay their tax. So, this bill seeks to level the playing field. This bill seeks to say that if you're a small business or an individual paying your fair share of tax in this country then the multinational enterprises, who contribute to our society and who play an important role, should also pay their fair share of tax. This bill is about making it more transparent so that those multinational enterprises are put on a level playing field to those small businesses and to the individuals who pay their fair share of tax in this country.</para>
<para>The bill introduces new rules to protect the integrity of the Australian tax system and improve transparency. It will help ensure a fairer and more sustainable tax system. In recent years we have witnessed an alarming trend whereby corporations have exploited loopholes and engaged in tax planning to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. This not only erodes public trust but also puts an undue burden on the hardworking taxpayers I've been speaking about in this contribution. It undercuts the funding required for the essential public services that people all around the country rely on.</para>
<para>This is particularly unacceptable at a time when Australians are facing pressures around the cost of living. Inflation has been hurting Australian families and Australian workers. And while inflation is easing, thanks to the fiscal responsibility of the government as well as the hard work of the Australian people, I know that many people in my electorate are still finding the cost-of-living pressures real, are still finding day-to-day expenses extremely difficult to manage. So, it's only fair that, when small businesses that struggled through the COVID pandemic are now facing rising costs for a range of reasons due to inflation, much of which has nothing to do with the Australian economy but overseas international pressures, multinational enterprises pay their fair share of tax so that individuals who are feeling the cost-of-living pressures are not put under undue pressure to fill the gaps and to fund the programs that we all rely on and that it is a more equal and fair system, where the multinationals also pay their fair share of tax. I think it's important to be clear on this point: this bill is not an anti-business bill. On the contrary, this bill is about saying to the small businesses that don't have the capacity to fund millions of dollars worth of tax advice that they should be on a level playing field with some of the big multinationals who can afford to have teams and teams of people working to minimise their tax liabilities.</para>
<para>I represent an electorate where prosperity is built on successful small and medium businesses, where many people hold shares in large corporations. I want to see a strong corporate sector making profits, paying dividends to our local investors, but I also want to see those corporations paying their fair share and making sure they are taking part and carrying their fair share of the tax burden.</para>
<para>This is very much in the interests of the corporate sector itself. Many corporate leaders that I speak to understand this perfectly well.</para>
<para>This bill seeks to tackle the problem of corporate tax avoidance head-on. It is designed to restore integrity and transparency in our tax system and to hold multinational corporations accountable for their tax obligations. At its core, this legislation aims to close loopholes that have allowed some companies to shift profits to artificially low tax jurisdictions, thereby reducing tax liabilities in the countries where they actually operate and generate substantial revenue, like Australia.</para>
<para>Many investigations in recent years have identified methods by which multinational corporations evade their tax responsibilities. In 2014, the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Financial Review</inline> reported on a number of Australian companies avoiding tax by way of secret tax deals in Luxembourg, negotiated by the accounting firm PwC. The article identified hybrid debt structures, total swap returns, royalty payments and intra-group loans to reduce taxes. The ability to move profits around the world purely by paperwork, in return for what seems to be a minor fee to Luxembourg, is a recurrent feature in the subsequently leaked tax agreements. We regularly see reports about the number of corporations who pay little or no tax in Australia. There are sometimes legitimate reasons why a corporation will have no tax liability in a given year. But the broader picture shows that, in many cases, corporations have deliberately arranged their affairs so as to minimise their tax responsibility in Australia. This has to change because it's unfair. Government has a responsibility to address this harmful practice that undermines the government's ability to fund essential services. Miners, oil and gas producers and technology companies are among the multinational companies the government is targeting through the proposed legislation.</para>
<para>I'll step through some of the specifics of the bill and their implications. The first schedule is multinational tax transparency: the disclosure of subsidiaries and transparency and accountability. This schedule targets Australian public companies, listed and unlisted, requiring them to disclose their subsidiaries and locations. By doing so, this measure will hold large corporate groups accountable and promote transparency in their corporate structures. It will enable us to identify any opaque arrangements involving subsidiaries located in low-tax jurisdictions, helping us ensure that companies pay their fair share of taxes.</para>
<para>The second part is informed economic analysis. The disclosure, as I've just outlined, of subsidiary information will provide valuable data for economic analysis. This data will aid in understanding whether our tax laws are functioning as intended and collect the appropriate amount of revenue from multinational enterprises.</para>
<para>The third point is a really important point. This is a battle that we can't fight alone in Australia. We need to align ourselves with our international partners. The proposed disclosure requirements align with international approaches to tax transparency. The United Kingdom has had a similar measure in place for some time now. This will make our legislation consistent with global efforts to promote tax fairness. By integrating this information into annual financial reports, we aim to reduce compliance burdens for companies but we will also, at the same time, want to enhance transparency.</para>
<para>Schedule 2 revolves around thin capitalisation. This is about levelling the playing field. It's a revenue raising measure designed to ensure that MNEs pay their share of taxes in Australia by limiting debt deductions. We aim to create a level playing field for Australian businesses, preventing tax avoidance practices. By increasing the tax liabilities for multinational enterprises we are levelling the playing field for the small businesses and individuals who are paying their fair share of tax. We shouldn't—and I repeat—have a situation where small businesses who can't afford millions of dollars' worth of expertise to minimise their tax liabilities being disadvantaged by those companies that can. The new earnings based test is a schedule where rules will limit an entity's debt related deductions to 30 per cent of profits.</para>
<para>This is about making sure that businesses are unable to find these sorts of loopholes, where they just continually create deductions when they should be paying tax. This new earnings based approach ensures that deductions align with the entity's economic activity, and it will be a robust solution to address tax planning practices of multinational enterprises.</para>
<para>Finally, let me re-stress this point: this is about international best practice. Most OECD countries have already implemented earnings-based interest-limitations rules, including in the United Kingdom, the United States and much of the European Union. This will bring us in line with international efforts to address tax integrity risks. We need to close the loopholes so that businesses aren't looking for the lowest common denominator. We need to make sure—and we are working with our international partners, especially in the OECD—that businesses know that wherever they turn there is going to be a fair and equitable tax arrangement. Australia must do its part, and this bill contributes to that important principle.</para>
<para>I think it's important to note that the drafting of this bill involved extensive and meaningful consultation with key stakeholders across the economy. In August 2022 and in April 2023 we engaged with various representatives from the business community, tax experts, industry associations, advocacy groups, unions and many others to gather insights, perspectives and feedback. These consultations proved invaluable in shaping the bill's provisions and in ensuring that it strikes the right balance between tax transparency and protecting the integrity of the Australian tax system, while considering the diverse needs and concerns of all stakeholders involved. By collaborating with key stakeholders, we have built a comprehensive and well-informed piece of legislation that reflects the collective aspiration for a fairer and more sustainable tax system in Australia.</para>
<para>In conclusion, this bill is a necessary step towards building a fairer, more transparent and sustainable tax system. By supporting this bill, we are sending a powerful message that Australia is committed to ensuring that multinational enterprises pay their fair share and contribute to the prosperity of our nation and the wellbeing of our communities. I am proud of the hardworking people that I am privileged to represent. Each and every day, they go to work and make meaningful contributions to their businesses, their organisations and our local community. They come home at the end of the day and pay their fair share of tax. We have some incredible small- and medium-sized businesses that operate in my electorate, full of people who are smart, hardworking and, like those individuals, pay their fair share.</para>
<para>It is not acceptable that we have a situation in this country where large corporations who can afford to find these loopholes and who can afford to minimise their tax contributions are free to do so. We need a situation in Australia where our tax arrangements are fair and equitable across all different corporations. This bill is an important step in making Australia an international partner with our like-minded countries, in making our tax arrangements fairer and in creating more revenue to provide the essential services that our hardworking Australian businesses and community rely on. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>39</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7052" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>39</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TED O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>138932</name.id>
    <electorate>Fairfax</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The coalition welcomes the introduction of this bill, the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023. This legislation is aimed at giving expression to two sets of amendments that were made several years ago to the London protocol. In our view, these are each well-intentioned changes, and we stand with the government in supporting the passage of them through the parliament. If the bill is passed, it is likely to provide Australia with improved flexibility and opportunity in relation to the import and export of carbon dioxide streams and the rapidly emerging field of marine geoengineering.</para>
<para>In turn, these changes would be likely to enhance Australia's capacity, and indeed the capacity of other nations, to reduce carbon emissions.</para>
<para>To put this bill in a broader context: along with the London convention, the London protocol is an international treaty that is aimed at protecting the world's marine environments from the dumping of wastes and other hazardous materials. Australia was a relatively early signatory to both instruments. We signed up to the London convention with effect from 1985—10 years after it came into force internationally—and we became party to the London protocol in the same year as it came into force globally, and that was in 2006. Generally speaking, both instruments have worked effectively for us and for the dozens of other countries that are signatories. However, it steadily became apparent that there was a need to modernise the protocol in order to reflect a range of environmental issues and considerations in relation to the use of various emerging technologies, such as carbon capture and storage, known as CCS; carbon capture utilisation and storage, known as CCUS; and marine geoengineering.</para>
<para>This led to agreement on the development of two separate amendments to the protocol, one in 2009 and one in 2013. The 2009 amendment permits the international transfer of carbon dioxide streams between countries for the purpose of placing CCS or CCUS materials into sub-seabed geological formations. The 2013 amendment, meanwhile, allows for certain wastes and matter to be deposited into a marine area in order to facilitate scientific research through marine geoengineering activities, such as ocean fertilisation.</para>
<para>Around the world, parties to the convention and/or the protocol have taken a considerable amount of time to assess their response to these amendments. It should be stressed that the length of time it has taken is not a reflection of widespread or deeply entrenched resistance to such changes; instead, it has been because countries have wanted to consider the many potential implications and effects of them. Australia has adopted this sometimes painstaking approach too, and it is sensible that both coalition and Labor governments have taken time and care in endorsing and preparing for such changes. There are many important issues at play here, including—as many environmental groups have pointed out—the need for vigilant management and regulation of activities related to CCS, CCUS and, in particular, marine geoengineering.</para>
<para>In turn, work continues to be needed on assessing how Australia can practically extract the best value from each of these forms of endeavour. In all those respects the coalition is very appreciative of the work that has been undertaken, in particular by the members of three parliamentary committees over the years: the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change and Energy and the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee. Inquiries undertaken by each of these committees have elicited valuable information and evidence about the worth and potential environmental impacts and risks of CCS, CCUS and marine geoengineering.</para>
<para>Importantly, they each concluded on balance and taking into account the overwhelming majority of the evidence that had been presented to them that the 2009 and 2013 London protocol amendments have the potential to deliver a myriad of benefits to Australia and to other nations. Significantly, those benefits include the very real possibility of substantially lowering carbon emissions. That point has been expressed by expert witnesses on a frequent and repetitive basis.</para>
<para>We also endorse the general points included in the various recent committee inquiry reports about the need for careful monitoring, management and regulation of the kinds of activities that are subject of the bill, especially if and when they increase in frequency in relation to Australia. We do hope that the Albanese government will discharge its many responsibilities in this area sensibly and vigilantly. In the meantime, we thank them for bringing this bill to parliament, and we are happy to commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STANLEY</name>
    <name.id>265990</name.id>
    <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't think I'm exaggerating too much today by stating from the outset that I think my predecessor, the Hon. EG Whitlam AC QC, would be pleased with this piece of legislation. The reason is simple and twofold. Firstly, Gough was a great believer in ratifying international conventions. He thought they were a great way to make progress both at home and globally.</para>
<para>Today's bill, the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill, will amend the sea dumping act to meet Australia's international obligations under the London protocol to support ratification of the 2009 and 2013 amendments. Of particular interest, of course, is that the forerunner to this protocol was the 1972 London convention, which started on 29 December 1972—27 days after Gough's first historic victory. Secondly, I think Gough Whitlam would be delighted today because of the subject: protecting the marine environment.</para>
<para>Through the sixties, the Bjelke-Petersen government advocated for oil drilling on the Great Barrier Reef. In response to this, the Whitlam government passed the Seas and Submerged Lands Act, which gave the Commonwealth authority over the states in relation to the seas surrounding Australia. The aim of Gough's legislation was clear: to block the wholesale destruction of the Great Barrier Reef. Despite efforts by the New South Wales and Queensland governments in the High Court, Gough triumphed, and the legislation was confirmed as valid and the reef was saved—forever. Then, in 1975, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park was created. Sadly, of course, there's a new threat. This time climate change—and not the Bjelke-Petersen government—has emerged to threaten the reef, but that's a subject for another day and another debate.</para>
<para>This bill will regulate the loading, dumping and incineration of waste at sea and the placement of artificial reefs in Australian waters. It will also prohibit the disposal of harmful materials into the oceans that are considered harmful to the marine environment. The government realises that, while these amendments were agreed to by the parties to the protocol in 2009 and 2013 respectively, they have yet to enter into force.</para>
<para>The 2009 amendment was adopted to permit the export of carbon dioxide streams from a contracting state party to another country for the purpose of carbon sequestration into seabed geological formation, also known as carbon capture and storage. The 2013 amendment was adopted to allow the placement of waste and other matter for marine geoengineering activity, such as ocean fertilisation, for the purposes of scientific research. Examples of these sorts of scientific activities include microbubbles, injecting tiny bubbles into the ocean surface or into sea foam to increase sunlight reflectivity; marine cloud brightening or seeding, injecting sea salt into cloud updraft to reflect sunlight back into space; ocean alkalinisation, adding alkaline substances into seawater to enhance the ocean's natural carbon sink; and, macroalgae cultivation, large-scale growth of algae that converts dissolved carbon dioxide into organic carbon through photosynthesis.</para>
<para>The passing of this bill will ensure Australia is able to begin developing a robust regulatory framework.</para>
<para>In turn, this will enable the government to administer permits for these internationally emerging activities and ensure legal certainty. Put another way, should this not be introduced there would be no robust regulatory framework, such that operators and researchers may look for loopholes and create their own initiatives to undertake unregulated activities.</para>
<para>The bill makes updates to the sea dumping act to provide effective implementation and enforcement of new permits. The bill will also adopt modern drafting practices. And this bill is long overdue. Our marine environment is too precious and fragile to ignore. The ocean covers more than 70 per cent of our planet, and 97 per cent of Earth's water can be found in the ocean. Recently I was shocked to learn that even in the deepest parts of the ocean, in the Pacific's Mariana Trench, plastic waste has been found. That's 36,000 feet down, and it is a shameful indictment on how we have neglected our environment and our oceans.</para>
<para>We need to act now. I commend the minister on bringing this bill to the House and I also commend the widespread consultation that has been undertaken, both within government and with external stakeholders. Indeed, these amendments were the subject of a recent inquiry undertaken by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water. The committee recommended that these changes be enacted into Australian law for both environmental and regional foreign purposes. Further, the enactment of these amendments was also recommended in an independent policy insights paper from the Climate Change Authority in April 2023. Thus support for these measures in this bill is overwhelming. This member for Werriwa commends the bill to the House in the full confidence that her predecessor, the great Mr Whitlam himself, would heartily concur.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LEESER</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
    <electorate>Berowra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a pleasure to speak on the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023. It's an important bill. It's a bill that the coalition supports, and we welcome the introduction of this bill. The legislation before the House is aimed at giving expression to two sets of amendments that were made several years ago to the London protocol. In our view, these are well-intentioned changes. If the bill is passed it's likely to provide Australia with improved flexibility and opportunity in relation to the import and export of carbon dioxide streams in the rapidly emerging field of marine geoengineering, and it's very important that we are able to provide these new opportunities in emerging fields such as marine geoengineering.</para>
<para>These changes in turn would likely enhance Australia's capacity and indeed the capacity of other nations to reduce carbon emissions. I want to put on record at this point my pleasure at the important decision made by the Morrison government to pursue net zero by 2050. Along with the London convention, the London protocol is an international treaty aimed at protecting the world's marine environments from the dumping of wastes and other hazardous matter. Australia was a relatively early signatory to both instruments. We signed up to the London convention with effect from 1985, 10 years after it first came into force internationally, in 1975. We became a party to the London protocol the same year as it came into force globally, in 2006.</para>
<para>Generally speaking, both instruments have worked effectively for us and the dozens of other countries that have been signatories. However, it's become apparent steadily that there is a need to modernise the protocol in order to reflect the range of environmental issues and considerations in relation to the various emerging technologies, such as: carbon capture and storage; carbon capture, utilisation and storage; and marine geoengineering, which I mentioned earlier. This led to the agreement on the development of two separate sets of amendments to the protocol in 2009 and 2013, respectively. The 2009 amendment permits the international transfer of carbon dioxide streams between countries for the purpose of placing CCUS, or carbon capture, utilisation and storage, materials into sub-seabed geological formation. The 2013 amendment, meanwhile, allows for certain wastes and matter to be deposited into a marine area in order to facilitate scientific research through marine geoengineering activities, such as Ocean fertilisation.</para>
<para>Around the world, parties to the convention and/or protocol have taken a considerable amount of time to assess their response to these amendments. We should stress that this has not been a result of widespread or deeply entrenched resistance to such changes—it has been because countries have wanted to consider all the many potential implications that affect them. Australia, rightly, has also adopted this painstaking approach and it has been sensible and correct that both coalition and Labor governments have taken a considerable amount of time and care to endorse and prepare for such changes. There are many important issues at play here, including, as many environmental groups have pointed out, the need for vigilant management and regulation of activities relating to CCS, CCUS and, in particular, marine geo-engineering. In turn, work continues to be needed on assessing how Australia can practically extract the best value from each of these forms of endeavour.</para>
<para>In all of these respects the coalition is very appreciative of the work that has been undertaken, particularly by members by each of three sets of committees that have looked at these matters over recent years. They are: the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change and Energy, and the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee. The inquiries undertaken by each of these committees have elicited valuable information and evidence about the worth of potential environmental impacts and risks of CCS and CCUS on marine geo-engineering. Importantly, they have each concluded—on balance, and taking into account the overwhelming majority presented to them—that the 2009 and 2013 London protocol amendments have the potential to deliver myriad benefits to Australia and other nations. Specifically, those benefits include the very real possibility of substantially lowering carbon emissions, and that point has been expressed by expert witnesses on a frequent and repetitive basis.</para>
<para>Given all that context and background, we on the side of the House support the bill. We also endorse the general points included in the various recent committee reports about the need for careful monitoring, management and regulation of the kinds of activities that are the subject of the bill—especially if and when they increase in frequency in relation to Australia. We call on the government to discharge its many responsibilities in this area sensibly and vigilantly. It is good to be able to speak on this bill. It's good to be able to support this bill. I commend it to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRIAN MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>129164</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyons</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on this important legislation for our marine environment. This bill affirms the Australian government's commitment to taking strong action against climate change. The Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill is a significant step towards fulfilling Australia's international obligations under the 1996 protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter—this is a real mouthful—commonly known as the 'London convention'. This bill will ratify the 2009 and 2013 amendments to the convention, regulating the loading, dumping and incineration of waste at sea while prohibiting the disposal of harmful materials into our precious oceans.</para>
<para>It was President Clinton who once said: 'We know that when we protect our oceans we're protecting our future,' and that is what this bill does—it protects our oceans and thereby protects our future and the future of our children. The bill is composed of two amendments that ratify our commitments to our international partners. The first, ratified in 2009, allows for the export of carbon dioxide streams for carbon sequestration in sub-seabed geological formations. This international collaboration offers nations with limited storage capacity an opportunity to contribute to global climate mitigation efforts. By sharing the burden of reducing carbon emissions, we move one step closer to achieving a sustainable and resilient future for all. The second amendment, adopted in 2013, marks an important milestone in the field of marine geo-engineering research. It allows for the placement of waste and other matter for legitimate scientific research activities aimed at exploring methods to reduce atmospheric CO2. These initiatives, such as ocean fertilisation and marine cloud brightening, have the potential to complement traditional climate mitigation strategies. However, as we venture into uncharted waters, we must tread water with caution.</para>
<para>The proposed regulatory framework, built on a robust application, assessment and approval process, aims to strike a delicate balance between encouraging innovative research and ensuring the protection of marine ecosystems.</para>
<para>By subjecting marine geoengineering activities to strict oversight, we can best avoid unintended consequences that may arise from unregulated experimentation. This framework offers legal certainty to legitimate research institutions while safeguarding the marine environment from potential harm.</para>
<para>I would say this bill is long overdue, given our international obligations, but I'm very pleased to hear that the opposition is supporting this bill. That's great news, and I was very happy to be here for the contribution by the member for Berowra. But, over the past few decades, we've witnessed the alarming consequences of environmental degradation and climate change on marine ecosystems, such as plastic pollution choking marine life. I think I've heard the environment minister talk about evidence that, if we're not careful, within a few years the weight of plastic in the oceans will outweigh the weight of fish, which is an alarming thing to think about. So, from plastic pollution to coral bleaching events threatening the foundation of marine biodiversity, it is evident that urgent action is needed.</para>
<para>It's not the responsibility of just one nation but a collective duty of all countries to safeguard oceans and combat climate change. It goes without saying that our oceans are absolutely critical for all life on Earth. Covering more than 70 per cent of the planet's surface, oceans serve as a critical regulator of climate, a source of livelihood for millions, if not billions, and a treasure trove of biodiversity. The health and wellbeing of oceans is inextricably linked to human existence.</para>
<para>It's important to recognise the importance of this bill and the international commitments that it encompasses. The 2009 amendment allows for the export of carbon dioxide streams from a contracting state to another country for carbon sequestration in sub-seabed geological formations. This means countries without sufficient storage capacity can reduce their emissions by exporting CO2 streams to countries with geologically stable storage formations. By endorsing this amendment, we open the door to innovative solutions for reducing carbon emissions on a global scale.</para>
<para>In 2013 an amendment was adopted to enable the placement of waste and other matter for legitimate scientific research activities related to marine geoengineering. These activities, such as ocean fertilisation, as I said, and microbubbles injection, marine cloud brightening and ocean alkalinisation, hold the potential to reduce atmospheric CO2 and contribute to climate mitigation.</para>
<para>But with such novel approaches comes a responsibility to regulate them thoroughly to protect our marine ecosystems. The proposed bill outlines a robust application, assessment and approval process to ensure that only legitimate scientific research activities proceed under strict oversight, minimising any potential harm to our marine environment. The passage of this bill will mark a significant milestone for Australia, enabling us to develop a comprehensive and robust regulatory framework. This will administer permits for emerging activities, providing legal certainty for businesses and organisations involved in carbon capture and storage projects or marine geoengineering research. By ratifying the amendments, we display our commitment to both environmental protection and regional foreign policy alignment, as recommended by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water and the independent policy insights paper from the Climate Change Authority.</para>
<para>The 2009 amendment also holds additional significance, as it supports the Bayu-Undan Carbon Capture and Storage Project, endorsed by Timor-Leste. I see the assistant minister at the table, and I'm sure that'll be of interest to him in his travels around the region. This project, aimed at reducing carbon emissions, offers both environmental and economic advantages. However, the complex legal and regulatory barriers it faces can be eased through the passage of this bill. By streamlining the permitting process and ensuring a comprehensive regulatory framework, we create an enabling environment for such sustainable initiatives to thrive.</para>
<para>Additionally, these amendments come with an inherent emphasis on scientific research and evidence based decision-making. As we explore novel methods of reducing atmospheric CO2, it is imperative that our actions are guided by sound scientific research and data.</para>
<para>The proposed regulatory framework ensures that all marine geoengineering activities are rigorously assessed for environmental impact and feasibility, providing us with a strong foundation for making informed choices. This regulatory framework ensures offshore activities occur responsibly, protecting our marine ecosystems from potential adverse effects. Without these comprehensive regulations, unscrupulous operators and researchers may exploit loopholes, leading to unregulated activities that can pose significant risks to our marine environment.</para>
<para>Our oceans are the lifeline of our planet, and it is our responsibility to safeguard them for future generations. By endorsing this legislation, we both fulfil our international obligations and demonstrate our determination to lead in environmental protection and sustainable development. My electorate encompasses some of the best coastlines in Australia, if not the world. It's where the land meets the Tasman Sea. The Tasman is rich in ocean life and produces seafood that is frankly second to none, but it must be looked after if it is to keep giving us its bounty. That's why this bill is so important—so we can preserve our oceans for future generations and ensure there is an environmental and economic future for our oceans.</para>
<para>These amendments have garnered widespread support from experts and policymakers alike, and I'm pleased that the opposition is backing them. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water, after a comprehensive inquiry, recommended the enactment of these amendments for both environmental and regional foreign policy reasons. Similarly, the independent policy insights paper from the Climate Change Authority endorsed these amendments as a step towards fostering environmental protection and climate action.</para>
<para>The bill is a decisive step towards securing a brighter, cleaner future for our planet. By ratifying the 2009 and 2013 amendments to the London convention, we can implement the framework we need that fosters responsible research and carbon capture and storage projects. So let's come together to safeguard our marine environment, combat climate change and leave a lasting legacy for generations to come. We can embrace this historic opportunity to safeguard our oceans, foster innovation and climate mitigation, and uphold our responsibilities as custodians of our planet. By endorsing this bill we honour the past, we acknowledge the challenges of the present and we pave the way for a brighter, cleaner and more sustainable future for generations to come. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>According to United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, the era of global warming has ended and the era of global boiling has arrived. He went on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The air is unbreathable, the heat is unbearable, and the level of fossil fuel profits and climate inaction is unacceptable. Leaders must lead. No more hesitancy, no more excuses, no more waiting for others to move first. There is simply no more time for that.</para></quote>
<para>Whether you believe in the science or not, the reality is July was the hottest month in recorded history around the globe. Sea levels are rising, the Arctic is melting, coral reefs are dying, oceans are acidifying and forests are burning. At this stage, I don't think any of us should be arguing anymore as to what may be behind this climactic change; instead we should be focused on the reality that business as usual is not going to be enough for our planet.</para>
<para>We are no longer facing a climate emergency; we are living a climate emergency. Just a year ago, the people of North Sydney sent me to Canberra with a very clear priority: to argue incessantly for faster, tangible and more ambitious action on climate change, because the people living in my electorate know we must do all we can to restore and repair the environment within which we live whilst also avoiding further damage. Yet, at the same time as greenhouse gas pollution has driven global temperatures to unprecedented highs, this government has approved three new coal and gas projects in Australia. Today we are standing here and debating a piece of legislation that professes to be about environmental protection while in truth it is actually about providing an opportunity for ongoing pollution to be masked by hiding it under our seabeds.</para>
<para>We talk about reaching 2030 and 2050 climate targets, we talk about the road towards net zero, meeting our international obligations and embarking on major environmental law reforms. But talk is cheap, and, as Antonio Guterres says, leaders must lead. As leaders, then, and on behalf of the communities that have sent us, we need to prioritise real action. In this context, being presented with this bill at this point in time is incredibly disappointing.</para>
<para>Looking at the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023, we need to be clear about what problem this piece of legislation is trying to solve. Having asked myself that question and having looked to others for guidance and thinking long and hard about it, it concerns me no end that the only problem I see this legislation addressing is the fossil fuel sector's need to find ways to enable it to continue to do more of the same. In its current form, this legislation does nothing in terms of lowering our overall carbon emissions. Rather, it enables those who already create the largest burdens to continue to add to them. Net zero is not carbon emission reduction. Carbon neutral is not carbon clean. In that context, this place must recognise that while this piece of legislation may need be expedited for commercial reasons associated with the ongoing operations of the fossil fuel sector it does not present the environmental protection or the urgent climate response we need to see.</para>
<para>My electorate in North Sydney is despairing that this government continues to show a complete lack of ambition and leadership when it comes to moving our economy and nation forward into a brave and dependable future. But still we show up; we speak up. On my community's behalf, I'm here today to say that we cannot continue to create emissions simply because we have options to dump them. We must instead focus on driving down greenhouse gas emissions, not cleaning up the mess once it's made. Ultimately, I would say that this piece of legislation is trying to solve the wrong problem. My response to this bill will therefore be viewed through that lens.</para>
<para>With Australia's natural environment in a state of serious decline and an increasing threat from human activity, this bill is being pushed to give effect to Australia's obligations under the London protocol. The London protocol is one of the first global conventions to protect the marine environment from human activities, with the objective to promote the effective control of all sources of marine pollution. Ultimately, the protocol was about protecting and preserving our marine environment, and the irony of it now being used to enable sea dumping of carbon emissions is not lost on me.</para>
<para>This bill proposes to establish a framework for regulating the export of carbon dioxide streams for carbon capture and storage and for marine geoengineering activities, respectively. Both technologies may fall within the broad scope of the London protocol, but, arguably, they were meant to be curtailed by it, not enabled. Ultimately, these technologies present risks that are incompatible with marine environment protection. In 2022, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change observed the risk of leaks from undersea or underground CO2 storage. This bill, then, is not an environmental protection bill; it's a profit mechanism. And it should be called just that.</para>
<para>The risks associated with geoengineering, specifically ocean fertilisation, are also well known. The 2013 amendment to the London protocol was proposed by Australia on the premise that it should occur only for legitimate scientific research purposes and should otherwise be prohibited. During discussions on the amendment, the Australian government at the time actually said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The potential impacts of ocean fertilisation could be severe and may include ocean acidification, harmful algal blooms, oxygen depletion in deep waters, or other unwanted ecosystem changes and human health consequences.</para></quote>
<para>How then can a piece of environmental legislation possibly allow for solutions which bring with them this level of risk for environmental damage and enable continued carbon pollution? A report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water earlier this year said Australia supported the ratification of the London protocol amendments as 'a means for countries to respond to the real urgency of climate change'. As an advocate who is passionate about responding to the real urgency of climate change, I highlight a section in a report that also says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… while CCS is one of a suite of options available for reducing CO2 emissions, particularly in hard-to-abate sectors, it is not a substitute for the decarbonisation of the global economy.</para></quote>
<para>The only place for carbon capture and storage is in reducing emissions from genuinely hard-to-abate sectors, such as cement and steel, where there are no other viable solutions.</para>
<para>Rapid decarbonisation of the global economy must be a driving force of reform if we are serious about saving our planet from irreversible climate change. So I question why, when so much vital environmental reform has been promised, we are prioritising this piece of legislation. It should not be coming ahead of the long-awaited reforms of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. As I stated earlier, as I explore why it so urgently needs to proceed, I can find only economic and contractual negotiations between commercial parties as a trigger for prioritising this legislation. The IPCC has clearly noted that carbon capture and storage presents the risk of locking in existing energy structures—that is, the continued extraction of fossil fuels.</para>
<para>This bill is investing in the continued production of fossil fuels, rather than rapidly phasing out our reliance on them.</para>
<para>Looking closer at examples of how carbon dioxide streams could be exported under this bill, I was led to the Bayu-Undan gas field. This is a project which Santos plans to repurpose for carbon capture and storage and which traverses the marine boundaries of Australia and Timor-Leste. But in whose best interest is this project? There's no way that it's serving the purpose of protecting our marine environment, nor mitigating the impacts of climate change. Indeed, Santos managing director and CEO Kevin Gallagher has said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">CCS at Bayu-Undan has potential capacity to safely and permanently store approximately 10 million tonnes per annum of CO2 and could build a new job-creating and revenue-generating industry for Timor-Leste.</para></quote>
<para>How fortunate for Santos that they have the space to store the excessive emissions produced by their gas projects! This is 10 million tonnes per annum too much for our environment.</para>
<para>It says something quite concerning that the fossil fuel industry is largely supportive of this bill, while environment and energy non-government organisations are strongly opposed to it and consider carbon capture and storage an unproven technology designed to extend the life of the fossil fuel industry. In the words of the Wilderness Society:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Urgent environmental matters lay dormant while the needs of the fossil fuel industry leap ahead of the queue.</para></quote>
<para>At the very least, this bill must be accompanied by a guarantee that these changes will not be used for the ongoing use of fossil fuels, nor to facilitate the expansion of gas developments such as Santos's Barossa offshore project. It must also provide a guarantee of greater transparency over permit applications and public consultation.</para>
<para>Numerous submissions to the Senate inquiry expressed concern that the bill does not contain a requirement for an environmental impact assessment of the proposed activities. As it stands, the bill has no requirement for public consultation in relation to the permit applications, notification of interest holders nor any associated requirement from the minister to have regard to comments received from the public or interest holders. It is deeply concerning that so much power is being given to the minister without these checks and balances in place.</para>
<para>The successful adoption of carbon capture and storage in Denmark for genuinely hard to abate sectors has been accompanied by transparent processes. A robust stakeholder consultation platform with representatives of the EU institutions, EU and third countries, NGOs, business leaders and academia has facilitated the deployment of the technologies. Without amendment, it is far from convincing that this bill presents a solution that is in the best interests of our climate and environment. It is not the appropriate investment to make in the face of our current climate emergency.</para>
<para>As stated by Secretary-General Guterres, it is still possible to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels and to avoid the very worst of climate change, but only with dramatic and immediate climate action. This bill does not present us with dramatic, immediate climate action. Carbon capture and storage has been around for decades and has consistently failed to meet expectations. So where is the science of this bill coming from? Climate science is currently telling us there are far more urgent solutions that Australia should be prioritising investment in.</para>
<para>While the government is saying carbon capture and storage will play a role in the transition to clean energy, I argue that this legislation will slow that transition down. North Sydney believes that the policy needs to be accelerating the transition to renewable sources of energy, getting all of our electricity from renewable generation. There is no future for gas for the country or households, and there's nothing freer and more abundant than sun, wind and hydro opportunities in this country. The undeniable truth is that renewable energy solutions are becoming cheaper and more reliable and efficient every day, while our current continued reliance on fossil fuels is unsustainable and harmful to the planet. We must change the way we produce energy rather than continuing to invest in technology that encourages a reliance on fossil fuel, and this requires other solutions.</para>
<para>The government claims this bill is crucial for supporting our regional partners' net zero goals. I put forward a statement from Professor Samantha Hepburn which questions, 'If offshore carbon capture and storage has not worked effectively in Australian waters, it's unclear how these other countries will acquire the capacity and knowledge to achieve successful carbon storage when wealthy fossil fuel companies operating in Australia could not.'</para>
<para>The government continue to tell us that they are committed to making positive climate policy a priority, yet, rather than tackling the real elephant in the room—that is, the rate at which our nation is continuing to contribute to global greenhouse gases—it has tried to draw our attention away and towards solutions that ultimately enable those that pollute to continue to do so. Carbon capture and storage is not new technology, and it is largely unproven. It is not the right investment.</para>
<para>This is not what dramatic, immediate climate action looks like and therefore it is not what Australia or our region needs right now. The premise that this legislation is for the purpose of climate action is a stretch, and the place of this bill on the road to net zero is questionable.</para>
<para>I conclude by repeating these words from Secretary-General Guterres:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The air is unbreathable. The heat is unbearable. And the level of fossil fuel profits and climate inaction is unacceptable.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Leaders must lead.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">No more hesitancy. No more excuses. No more waiting for others to move first.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">There is simply no more time for that.</para></quote>
<para>We need the Australian government to look up—look up at the potential to move our country forward, look up at the need to protect Australian citizens right across this country, and look up so that we can step into the role we need to play as responsible international citizens.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MADELEINE KING</name>
    <name.id>102376</name.id>
    <electorate>Brand</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise in support of this bill, the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023. As I have said before in this place, there are few bigger global challenges than addressing climate change. Reaching Australia's legislated net zero targets requires transforming every sector of the Australian economy, and, as the CSIRO makes clear, no single technology alone will get us to net zero. There is no silver bullet. It will take a mix of technologies to drive decarbonisation outcomes across our economy. Carbon capture, utilisation and storage will be an important part of that mix of technologies. To quote the International Energy Agency: 'Reaching net zero will be virtually impossible without carbon capture, utilisation and storage.'</para>
<para>Australian resource projects and our world-class universities are increasingly at the leading edge globally in their plans to deploy commercial-scale CCUS technologies. Despite what many may think and have said, CCUS is in fact a proven technology. Indeed, eight million tonnes of CO2 has been stored off Barrow Island on the Western Australian coast and more will be stored into the future. I fail to see how taking eight million tonnes of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is a bad thing, as some people like to portray it.</para>
<para>Just last week, the Western Australian minister for resources, Bill Johnston, and I attended a symposium at Curtin University that provided many insights into some of the novel CCUS research being led out of Australian universities. We heard from Curtin PhD students Theo Alogalis, who is a young man from France, and Egi Adrian Pratama, from Indonesia, who, alongside their colleagues, are pursuing some truly groundbreaking work on microbubble carbon capture and storage technology. It was heartening to see some of our brightest minds working to advance CCUS research in this country.</para>
<para>It was also clear from the symposium that Japanese industry, including Tokyo Gas, Mitsui, MIMI, JERA and Osaka Gas, are firmly backing this groundbreaking research and see a strong future for CCUS in Australia. Of course, Japan have a goal of net zero emissions by 2050 and they will depend on partnerships to be able to make that happen for their community and for the benefit of all of us.</para>
<para>To put Australian CCUS projects in a competitive position and to back in our research efforts and unlock more private sector capital, it is imperative that we invest in our regulatory frameworks to ensure that they are fit for purpose. In the last federal budget the government invested $12 million to review and modernise our offshore environmental and carbon capture and storage regulations. This timely review will help to provide regulatory and administrative certainty for projects looking to sequester carbon dioxide in Australia's offshore areas. The government's efforts to create regulatory and administrative certainty extend to ratifying our international obligations under the London protocol, and that is the ratification enabled by this bill today.</para>
<para>In 2009 Australia agreed an amendment to the London protocol that enables the safe export of carbon dioxide for storage in geological formations under the seabed. In 2013 another London protocol amendment, which allows for the regulation of material placed into the seabed for legitimate scientific research into marine geoengineering, was also agreed. Importantly, ratification of the 2009 amendment will help to create a commercial pathway for transboundary CCUS projects, potentially including the Bayu-Undan gas field. Revenue from the Bayu-Undan gas field, located in the Timor Sea about 500 kilometres north of Darwin, has been a major contributor to the economy of Timor-Leste over 16 years, but the Bayu-Undan reservoir is now depleted of that resource.</para>
<para>As a reservoir that safely held gas for millennia, it is eminently suitable to return to that role and hold gas, this time CO2, for further millennia.</para>
<para>This government will always be a strong supporter of Timor-Leste's economic independence and resilience. It is therefore essential that our regulatory settings enable consideration of a commercial pathway for CCUS in the Bayu-Undan field. In ratifying the 2009 amendment we join the United Kingdom, Norway, the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, the Republic of Korea, Denmark and many others who have already acted to enshrine this amendment in law. I thank the Minister for the Environment and Water for her carriage of this very important bill. I also want to acknowledge the work of the House Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water—and particularly the chair of that committee, the member for Makin—which recommended that the government ratify these amendments to the London protocol. I also thank Senator Grogan and the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for similarly recommending that the government pass this bill. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms DANIEL</name>
    <name.id>008CH</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Everywhere we look, there's less than meets the eye. Again, look at what the government is doing, not what it's saying—or, if you do look at what the government's saying, consider the doublespeak that's going on. Unfortunately, this sea dumping legislation, with its gimmicky and misleading subtitle, 'Using new technologies to fight climate change', is a case in point. The aspirations for carbon capture and storage are hardly new, but they're yet to be realised—if they ever will be. Yet they're central to this legislation. Billions have been spent on CCS around the world, including around $4 billion here in Australia, to little end. And while the resources minister champions CCS, other ministers are apparently agnostic—in which case, why are we committing to this very uncertain path, if they don't believe in it?</para>
<para>Consider the following findings from June this year regarding research into two Norwegian gas projects that store CO2 under the seabed, held up by advocates as signs of success amid a sea of other failure. Now a new report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis calls that into doubt, stating that due to the unpredictability of the subsurface conditions the pair cannot be used as definitive models for the future of CCS and that the IEFC's literature review of technical studies and academic papers from the 1990s to the 2020s demonstrates that, even with the most advanced data, science and monitoring, subsurface unknowns can arise at any point.</para>
<para>The report goes on:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The findings raise onerous implications for the scores of CCS projects planned globally, with field operators and the governments that regulate them needing to expect the unexpected, make detailed contingency plans, and ensure funding is at the ready to address materialized risks.</para></quote>
<para>It's hardly a ringing endorsement, and it's worthy of close scrutiny.</para>
<para>At last year's election neither of the major parties really wanted to move on climate change. It was community pressure that made it happen. Labor, to their credit, then did advocate for a reduction of 43 per cent in our greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. But that is still less than eminent experts state is needed if we're to have a hope of getting to net zero by mid-century. The climate change minister himself admits that it will be a challenge to meet even the modest target that his government has set. As for the coalition, of course they were even less ambitious. Yet still we're giving with one hand and taking with the other, cancelling out the beginnings of good policy with bad as we seek to store CO2 under the seabed to enable new projects. Forget about net zero; this makes zero sense.</para>
<para>With respect to the minister's comments, to be clear: using CCS, if it works, might be okay if it removes CO2 from the atmosphere, bringing about an overall reduction. Using it to offset more CO2 production? Not okay. In other words, as my colleague from North Sydney remarked, while CCS is one of a suite of options available for reducing CO2 emissions, particularly in hard-to-abate sectors, it is not a substitute for decarbonisation.</para>
<para>In the months before the last election, communities around the country got together to activate campaigns which led to the election of the largest crossbench in the recent history of this House, with more-effective and more-rapid action on climate change central to that result.</para>
<para>Yet even with that outcome, even as Europe and Canada burn, we continue to try to have our cake and eat it.</para>
<para>This approach will not fix the problem, and this is just one of a growing list of problematic legislation. There are already real questions, for example, about the effectiveness and accountability of the government's safeguard mechanism. Will it really require the nation's 200 or so biggest polluters to change their carbon-heavy habits? Or will it enable them to use suspect carbon credits to try to account their way to zero? The challenge of climate change is not an accounting exercise. It does not allow us to change our behaviour at the margins to balance some imaginary book. It requires fundamental and rapid changes in the way we act as individuals, as families, as communities, as companies, as governments, as leaders. The same goes for the nature repair market legislation, which runs the risk of becoming a market for offsets rather than a nature-building scheme. We've now discovered that the government's plans for the petroleum resource rent tax were not Treasury's preferred approach but the option that the gas and oil producers were prepared to cop. The government should be more ambitious and seek a bigger yield than a paltry $2.4 billion over four years from multinational gas companies making superprofits from Australian resources.</para>
<para>The Treasurer says we need gas to assist in that transition. Okay. What we don't need is more gas, new gas. It's barely a month since the International Energy Agency declared that we must stop the exploitation and development of new oil and gas resources if we're to have even a hope of achieving net zero by 2050. At the end of the hottest July on record, the UN Secretary-General declared we're beyond global warming and now in the era of global boiling. The communities of south-eastern Australia discovered that in the black summer of 2019 and 2020. The people of the northern hemisphere are suffering it right now.</para>
<para>At the heart of the reason for this legislation is the Santos Barossa development, which yields gas with a very high—18 per cent—CO2 content. To make this giant project more environmentally palatable, Santos is proposing to export its CO2 via a proposed carbon capture and storage facility at Middle Arm in Darwin to the depleted Bayu-Undan gas field off Timor-Leste. In September 2021, Santos announced it had signed a memorandum of understanding to progress CCS opportunities at the Bayu-Undan site, involving repurposing of the existing facilities for CCS, with carbon dioxide streams to be captured at other gas fields in Australia's offshore areas, such as the Barossa field, and imported from other countries for injection into the Bayu-Undan field for permanent storage. Santos managing director and CEO Kevin Gallagher has said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">CCS at Bayu-Undan has potential capacity to safely and permanently store approximately 10 million tonnes per annum of CO2 and could build a new job-creating and revenue-generating industry for Timor-Leste.</para></quote>
<para>I will come to the ethics of that in a moment.</para>
<para>First, let's look at what we already know about the real-world record of CCS in Australia. The Gorgon gas development in WA was supposed to be our poster child for CCS, approved on condition that the company capture 80 per cent of emissions, around four million tonnes of CO2 a year, and with $60 million of our money to help the scheme. So what's the record? Gorgon injected 1.6 million tonnes into the ground beneath Barrow Island last financial year, down from 2.2 million in 2020-21 and 2.7 million tonnes the year before. It's going backwards. Not only that, and not surprisingly, emissions from Gorgon climbed to 8.3 million tonnes last financial year, up from 5.5 million the year before. As IEEFA notes:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Chevron in Australia has been trying unsuccessfully since 2019 to get its massive 3.5mtpa-4mtpa Gorgon CCS project to meet promised targets of 80% CO2 capture for storage, instead venting higher rates of CO2 to the atmosphere than intended.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In the regulatory realm, the need to assure CO2 stays in the ground permanently means CCS projects create potentially indefinite contingent liabilities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"With the unknowns of long-term subsurface CO2 storage, regulators could inadvertently allow material risks to be transferred to the taxpayer," Hauber says.</para></quote>
<para>Despite these risks, not to mention the potential risks to the ocean itself from experimentation with things like ocean floor fertilisation to absorb more CO2, we're now being asked to support this legislation.</para>
<para>The 2013 London protocol amendment allowing this kind of experimentation was proposed by Australia and co-sponsored by Nigeria and the Republic of Korea on the premise that ocean fertilisation should occur only for legitimate scientific research purposes, and should otherwise be prohibited. The then minister for the environment, now the Leader of the House in this parliament, Tony Burke, said at the time:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The potential impacts of ocean fertilisation could be severe and may include ocean acidification, harmful algal blooms, oxygen depletion in deep waters, or other unwanted ecosystem changes and human health consequences.</para></quote>
<para>These approaches need to be considered with great care.</para>
<para>There's also a sleight of hand with this legislation. Not only is it designed to enable domestic projects but the indications are that the legislation is a response, in part, to pressure from Japan and South Korea, whose geology is not stable enough to allow subterranean climate capture and storage even if the technology ever works.</para>
<para>Back to the ethics: what of the plans to enable the export of CO2 from the Santos Barossa gas field in the waters off the Northern Territory to Timor-Leste's depleted Bayu-Undan gas field? Part of the argument is that the revenue would help revive Dili's struggling budget. We should have thought about that before bugging Timor-Leste's cabinet room to gain an unfair financial advantage in negotiations over gas resources in the Timor Sea all those years ago. Now it appears we are incentivising Timor-Leste to accept our pollution and the risks that go with it in exchange for the prospect of a few pieces of silver. More than that, advice from the Parliamentary Library suggests that, even if this bill did not pass, Australia could still import carbon dioxide for sub-seabed sequestration under existing legislation, specifically the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The implication therefore is that this is more about exporting than about importing, that we want to 'dump', in the words of the bill, CO2 beneath the waters of a poorer, close neighbour as insurance against the possibility that we cannot find ways to sequester our own emissions within our own borders.</para>
<para>There is also the question of whether this legislative proposal is being used as insurance against the possibility that resources companies will need an escape route should CCS continue to fail to achieve what its promoters insist it will. One thing the revised safeguard mechanism would do is make it expensive for these big polluters if they cannot get CCS to work; in other words, as we're doing already, exporting our carbon emissions rather than taking responsibility for them right here at home. Look at what's being done, not what is being said.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPPIA</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
    <electorate>Makin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I note that I've got only about a minute before we go into 90-second statements, so, rather than getting into the substance of my speech, I just want to make three opening remarks. Firstly, this legislation, the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023, is not solely about carbon capture and storage. Indeed, it covers a whole range of areas where we need to try to protect our seabed, and where we need to do a lot more to ensure that we can safely continue to use our ocean waters without polluting them in the way that has been occurring for years and years.</para>
<para>Secondly, I reject any assertion that Labor has not been committed to climate change in the past. Indeed, it has been Labor, ever since 2007, that has pushed as hard as it possibly can to ensure that Australia responds to the threat of climate change. We did that right back in 2008 and 2009 with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme proposal, which at the time was perhaps the most effective way to respond to the climate change threat, yet it was blocked in this parliament by none other than the Greens.</para>
<para>Thirdly, I simply want to make this point.</para>
<para>The Minister for Resources, in her contribution to the debate thus far, I believe accurately outlined why it is important and why it is needed. There is a good case to be made as to why this legislation needs to be passed by this parliament. I will talk about that later on in my remarks when I resume after the 90-second statement period and later on this afternoon.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43, and the debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member was interrupted and will be granted leave when the debate is resumed.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</title>
        <page.no>49</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Western Australian Farmers Federation</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RICK WILSON</name>
    <name.id>198084</name.id>
    <electorate>O'Connor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I report to the House that, on Monday 24 July, 650 farmers gathered at the Katanning Leisure and Function Centre in my home town at the invitation of the WA Farmers Federation. The theme of the day was 'let farmers farm'. I would have thought that that's a fairly modest request. Western Australia has about 7,000 farmers, and almost 10 per cent of that farming community turned up. On average they produce enough food for between 25 million and 30 million people. So that's not a bad multiplier effect from a very small and modest community.</para>
<para>However, they are feeling under attack at the moment. One of the two issues that were discussed on the day was the live export trade, and I've spoken about this many times in the House. Suffice to say that farmers have been invited by the review panel to advise the government on how they can shut their own industry down. But the main issue that was discussed was the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act. This has made the Western Australian farming community, if I can sum up the mood of the crowd, bewildered by this attack on their businesses. They are frightened at the implications, and they are angry about the future of their farming businesses and families. I'll quote Mr Trent Rogers, who said, 'Everyone is worried about either going bankrupt or going to jail.' That's the state of WA farming at the moment.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rubik's WCA World Championship 2023</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAXALE</name>
    <name.id>299174</name.id>
    <electorate>Bennelong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last week I had the pleasure of hosting Brett, Jack and Peri from the Australian speedcubing team at my office to show off their amazing cube-solving skills and to tell me about the Rubik's WCA World Championship in Incheon, in South Korea. Brett and Jack are Bennelong locals, and it's very exciting to know that they'll be showing off their skills and representing Australia on the world stage. They'll join the 54-member-strong Australian team in Incheon, in South Korea. That is the fifth largest representation of all teams. The team currently boasts world record holder Jay and two-time world champion Feliks, who will compete alongside 1,400 of the world's best speedcubers from 62 nations.</para>
<para>You might not know it, but I have been practising my skills. I'm not sure I'm quite ready to join the championship yet; I can barely solve one side without the old 'peeling and sticking' to make sure that the colours match. But there are experts like Peri, who popped into my office the other day and completed the cube literally in seconds right in front of my eyes. It was quite extraordinary to watch. Representing your country abroad is one of the most amazing things to do, so I'd like to use this occasion to wish Brett, Jack, Peri and the entire Australian speedcubing team the best of luck at the world championships. No matter the outcome, you've done Australia proud already. Go and complete those cubes!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Freedom of Speech</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WOLAHAN</name>
    <name.id>235654</name.id>
    <electorate>Menzies</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am opposed to the government's draft misinformation and disinformation bill. 'Orwellian' can be an overused adjective. From <inline font-style="italic">Animal Farm</inline> to <inline font-style="italic">Nineteen Eighty-Four</inline>, George Orwell used metaphor as a simple warning. You can become what you hate. Freedom of expression, especially about political issues, is the lifeblood of our democracy. Democracies should be filled with many voices, especially those that are different and those that are contrarian. We should not have gatekeepers for political speech. We should not have separate status for those who can contribute to political discussion. Our democracy should not be owned by any government, by any bureaucracy or, indeed, by any technology company.</para>
<para>The government has argued that the bill does not allow the regulator to regulate speech, but that is exactly what it does. If passed in this form, ACMA will decide whether a digital platform is doing enough to combat misinformation.</para>
<para>There's also no equality in the draft. You get special exemptions if you're in government and you get special exemptions if you're in academia—but not ordinary Australians. This bill directly involves government in political communications. If passed, it may see the censorship of political views. It is illiberal and undemocratic and should be opposed.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Bean Electorate: Netball</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DAVID SMITH</name>
    <name.id>276714</name.id>
    <electorate>Bean</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last Sunday at the Netball ACT state league grand finals, three teams from the mighty Tuggeranong Netball Association, or TNA, played in their finals: the under-17s, the under-19s and the open women's division 1.</para>
<para>The under-17s were victorious in their match between TNA and Canberra Netball Association, the final margin being 37 to 32. This team fought against the odds, coming from fifth on the ladder at the start of July to champions on 30 July. Defender Jaida Crowle was named the most valuable player for the game.</para>
<para>The under-19s were runners up, a great achievement, as they also had to fight hard to make it to the grand final match.</para>
<para>The open women's division 1 team had a cracker of a match against Arawang Netball Association, also from Bean. TNA went into the last quarter with the teams trading goal for goal until TNA were able to get an intercept and went up, coming out as winners by 47 to 42 at the end of the game. The last time they were division 1 winners was in 2017, so it's a very sweet victory for the team. Shooter Sophia Martinussen, who is just 16 years of age, was named most valuable player for the game and is a Diamond in the making.</para>
<para>Well done to players, coaches, managers, umpires and all in the TNA community on a great season.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Climate Change</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BATES</name>
    <name.id>300246</name.id>
    <electorate>Brisbane</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We have now entered the era of 'global boiling.' These words from the Secretary-General of the UN came in response to the hottest month ever recorded. Europe and Canada have experienced some of the worst forest fires ever, ocean temperatures off Florida have hit nearly 40 degrees Celsius, and Antarctic sea ice is not recovering fast enough this winter and may never fully recover, further accelerating climate change.</para>
<para>Denying climate change is ridiculous, but acknowledging climate change is real and not doing even the bare minimum to address it is negligence. This government is not taking climate change seriously. The Labor Party still takes millions in donations from the fossil fuel industry and is still approving new fossil fuel projects, including three new coalmines in the last two months. The government needs to know that inaction speaks louder than buzzwords.</para>
<para>The only way we are going to solve this crisis is if government steps up. That's what our communities expect us to do in this place. No more tinkering around the edges, pretending to take action. What we need is a ban on new fossil fuel projects. We need a clear transition plan for our communities as we move to a net-zero economy, and we need one hundred per cent publicly owned renewable energy. We aren't asking for much. We want a safe climate, not just for ourselves but for future generations as well.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Employment</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MASCARENHAS</name>
    <name.id>298800</name.id>
    <electorate>Swan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's crystal clear: jobs growth only happens under Labor. That's not my opinion. It's a fact. Did the Albanese Labor government promise more jobs? Yes, we did. One of Labor's key election commitments was to create more jobs. It pledged to address the skills shortage in industry and business. Did the Albanese Labor government deliver on that promise? Yes, we did.</para>
<para>Last week, the June labour force figures were released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The June figures showed that there were 310,000 people in work in Perth's south-east region, which Swan sits in. This is an increase of 9,000 jobs compared to the same time last year. It's good news for my electorate of Swan, it's good news for Perth's entire south-east corridor and it's good news for the entire nation.</para>
<para>The figures revealed that the policies and investment of the Albanese Labor government are indeed working. This includes the national 18,000 fee-free TAFE places on offer this year. Also, we had a $436 million investment in the foundation skills program. These are two examples of investment in Australia's future that were lacking under the previous government. They are not lacking under Labor. Labor is delivering on jobs and delivering on skills, and having more people in jobs in my region is testament to that.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Universities: Sexual Violence</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Sexual violence is a scourge on our society. It occurs in workplaces, in homes, in schools and, horrifically, at horrendous rates on university campuses, a place where young adults are expected to mature and grow in a safe and supported environment.</para>
<para>The National Student Safety Survey from 2021 found that 275 young students are sexually assaulted on campus every week, predominantly in accommodation circumstances. Six years ago, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner declared the situation 'urgent' after conducting a survey of university students which found that one in 20 female university students have been sexually assaulted on campus. So, since 2017, that is 85,000 students that have experienced sexual assault. These statistics are shocking and should stop us all in our tracks.</para>
<para>We cannot make a difference on domestic violence and on gendered issues if we don't address this. The student led STOP Campaign have been in parliament today, and they are claiming that many universities are, in fact, actively inhibiting preventative programs from proceeding, despite the $1.5 million consent campaign targeting the issue, which was quietly discarded by Universities Australia. The STOP Campaign are calling on the minister to urgently pull the university sector together and require strong action on the ground.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Resolute Ready</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNELL</name>
    <name.id>300129</name.id>
    <electorate>Spence</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Earlier today, I had the privilege of having a meeting in my office with Lidia Hall, the CEO and founder of Resolute Ready, along with the member for Menzies, who is my fellow co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Veterans. I first had the pleasure of meeting Lidia earlier this year, back in April, when I represented the Assistant Minister for Veterans' Affairs at the launch of Resolute Ready in Adelaide. Lidia is a remarkable individual who tirelessly advocates for veterans, especially in the context of mental health. This involvement has ranged from supporting families of veterans throughout the process of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide to her involvement on the National Advisory Committee of Open Arms.</para>
<para>Resolute Ready's key initiative is their virtual hub, which is a global directory of services and organisations that cater for veterans, defence personnel, first responders and their families. Since the launch, the community's engagement with the virtual hub has been quite impressive, with engagement throughout the globe. Resolute Ready is a great initiative and an example that shows you can act local and think global at the same time. Engaging with the veteran community has been a special and rewarding part of my time as a member of parliament, and I'd encourage all members to get in touch and join the Parliamentary Friends of Veterans so that together we can engage with the veteran community better and learn more about how we, as parliamentarians, can serve those who have served us. Lastly, I close with the words of Resolute Ready: 'one stop, one call, one life'.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Casey Electorate: Homelessness</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
    <electorate>Casey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I commend the member for Spence for his contribution, but I rise to acknowledge that next week is Homelessness Week and to thank the many services in Casey that work every day to improve the lives of people experiencing homelessness.</para>
<para>Thank you to Neal Taylor from Holy Fools, who runs a wraparound support service for people experiencing homelessness and is well known for running Street Angels in Melba Park to feed those in need. I've had the opportunity to attend many times. It's a great day. Holy Fools are running their FreezeOut! event in August, and my team and I are looking forward to taking part.</para>
<para>Thank you also to Anchor. I recently met with the CEO, Heidi, and they're doing great work supporting people that need housing. We've also got Mustard Tree, providing food packages, warm showers and a hearty meal; Inspiro Health, providing low-cost health care for those that need it; and Soupees in the Dandenong Ranges, who are running an important homelessness forum this week. Unfortunately, I can't be there, but I'm looking forward to getting an update on how the forum goes.</para>
<para>I also recently visited Discovery Community Care, ADRA in Warburton, and HICCI, who are all providing food packages and support services to those in need. They're just some of the amazing organisations supporting homeless people in Casey. Thank you to all of those who provide this service in my electorate for doing their bit to help those in need.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Melbourne Kannada Bhavana</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms FERNANDO</name>
    <name.id>299964</name.id>
    <electorate>Holt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Recently, I had the privilege of cutting the ribbon at the Melbourne Kannada Bhavana in Noble Park. This is the first Kannada community centre in Australia, and its opening represents a significant milestone for the Kannada-speaking community in our country. For those unfamiliar, Kannada is a language spoken by millions in the South Indian state of Karnataka, where India's IT hub, Bangalore, is located. The Kannada community in Melbourne have contributed significantly to our society's richness, bringing with them an abundance of culture and traditions and a commitment to community service.</para>
<para>The Melbourne Kannada Bhavana is not just a building. It is a symbol of unity and respect for heritage and a testament to the multicultural fabric of our nation.</para>
<para>It highlights the Australian ethos of embracing all cultures, creating an environment where all communities can thrive. This community centre will be a hub for cultural activities and a platform for sharing and preserving Kannada language, literature, music and art. I commend Melbourne's Kannada community, particularly the Melbourne Kannada Sangha, for their initiative and determination in bringing this project to fruition. I thank the House.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Starkey, Mr Angus (Fox)</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
    <electorate>Longman</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last Sunday it was my honour to attend the ceremony of Angus 'Fox' Starkey receiving his Queen's Scout Award. This is one of the last Queen's Scout Awards to be presented, as it will now be the King's Scout Award.</para>
<para>Angus is a fine young man and has suffered personal tragedy, having lost his father two years ago when he was just 17. It was easy to see that his scouting family had stood up and made sure that he had the support he needed to get through this difficult time. I love organisations like the Scouts, as they help to produce citizens who possess great attributes such as honesty, integrity, a hard-work ethic, punctuality and self-confidence. Angus' mum, Sylvia, is a Scout leader herself and was proud as punch to watch her son receive this most prestigious award along with his Scout family and some rather cheeky mates from high school, like Jayden.</para>
<para>As someone who has come from a small-business ownership and having employed hundreds of people over the years, I shared with those present that when a job applicant had involvement in Scouts or similar organisations, like Girl Guides or Boys' Brigade, on their resume it gave them an edge on gaining employment. So, parents, if you want to help give your children the tools they need for success, please consider Scouts.</para>
<para>Congratulations, Angus! I know your mum is proud of you. And so would your dad be.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>King, Mr Mark</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr REPACHOLI</name>
    <name.id>298840</name.id>
    <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Bellbird miner Mark King has shovelled his way to glory, once again, at the Lightning Ridge Easter Festival. Mark has won the miners challenge grand final for the sixth year in a row. The Lightning Ridge Easter Festival Miners Rickshaw Challenge is held annually, during the Easter long weekend, and draws hundreds of visitors to Lightning Ridge. Opal and hard-rock miners from all over Australia take part in this annual competition.</para>
<para>With temperatures in the high-20s, Mark said it was a great weekend. There's always plenty happening at the festival, according to Mark. Mark has mined opal in the ridge for more than 20 years. He also works as a miner for Yancoal, at Mount Thorley Warkworth open-cut mine, just near singleton, my old workplace.</para>
<para>The rickshaw challenge begins with participants holding jackhammers for a predetermined period of time before sprinting into a large heap of opal tailings while pushing a miner's rickshaw. Every contestant then shovels opal dirt into the rickshaw, before racing back to where they manoeuvre the dirt into a 44-gallon drum. Mark completed the task in the fastest time—five minutes and three seconds—to take out the miner of the year title for the sixth year in a row. And a prize of $2,000 went his way. Well done, Kingie! I look forward to having a beer with you soon. Keep up the good work.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>NAIDOC Week</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ANDREWS</name>
    <name.id>230886</name.id>
    <electorate>McPherson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Earlier this month, our nation celebrated NAIDOC Week. I was absolutely delighted to attend various events and ceremonies in my electorate, including at Palm Beach Currumbin High School and with Kalwun Development Corporation at the senior services property in Bonogin.</para>
<para>I also had the great experience of taking part in a Jellurgal Walkabout tour of the Burleigh Headland to learn more about our local Indigenous history and culture. It was just sensational. I thoroughly enjoyed it. I do encourage all visitors to the Gold Coast to take that tour.</para>
<para>While Australians have differing opinions and concerns about the constitutional change being proposed by this government, what we can all agree on is that our nation's Indigenous achievements, culture and history should be understood and recognised. It was very heartening to see the practical work being done in my own community to improve outcomes and share and celebrate culture.</para>
<para>I join with others, in this place, in my hope for a respectful debate on the issues surrounding constitutional change. I have made it clear that I can't support the proposal in its current form and that I will personally be voting no, but I will continue to stand—every time—in support of practical policies that will improve the lives of Indigenous Australians, promote unity and ensure a deeper understanding of Indigenous history and culture.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Pensions and Benefits</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRIAN MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>129164</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyons</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>'I didn't know. It wasn't my fault. Nobody told me.' That is the defence that former Liberal ministers, including the member for Cook, have been rolling out in the wake of the damning findings of the robodebt royal commission. But they did know, it was their fault and they were told. In January 2017 the then Labor opposition formally requested that the then Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, halt robodebt. The scheme didn't end until November 2019, nearly three years later.</para>
<para>When the member for Cook got up on Monday to dismiss the royal commission's findings and complain about his treatment I could not believe my ears. The government he was part of and later led literally drove vulnerable people to their deaths, but he would have us believe that he is the victim. No, Member for Cook: the real victims of robodebt are the thousands of Australians who were demonised and harassed to repay money they never owed, including in my electorate: 500 people in Brighton, 300 in Derwent Valley, 140 in Sorell, more than 250 in the Meander Valley and 1,000 from other council areas. These people should have been able to trust their government but were betrayed by the holders of the most powerful offices in the land.</para>
<para>The Leader of the Opposition has chosen to support the member for Cook and continue that betrayal of robodebt's real victims. It's disappointing but not surprising. This is a Liberal opposition that has learned nothing. The royal commission didn't mince words. Its findings are clear. They did know. It was their fault. They were told. And they're being held to account. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline>.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Communications Legislation</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>241067</name.id>
    <electorate>Banks</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government has done some really bad things, but if you want to add to that list, have a look at the extraordinary misinformation bill that the government has put out. It is an absolute shocker. I would encourage all members of the government to read this bill, if they haven't. It's got some extraordinary content in it.</para>
<para>Under the bill, something that the government authorises cannot be misinformation, but if somebody criticises the government it can be misinformation. ACMA will have extraordinary powers which will mean that the digital platforms will self-censor a whole range of content, which will suppress the legitimate free speech of Australians. ACMA will be able to require any Australian to appear before it to answer questions about misinformation or disinformation and fine that person $8,000 per day if they do not appear before the ACMA misinformation interrogation. That is quite an extraordinary provision. If you're an academic, what you say cannot be misinformation, but if you disagree with the academic that can be misinformation under the bill. It's all in there. Please read it.</para>
<para>There is an open question. Did the Minister for Communications actually read and understand this bill before she put it out? If she did it's a damning indictment. If she didn't it's a damning indictment. This is an extraordinary bill, and it must be ripped up.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Boothby Electorate: Veterans</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MILLER-FROST</name>
    <name.id>296272</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last week, I visited the veteran wellbeing centre at Repat hospital in my electorate, which has been set up by the Plympton Glenelg RSL. This groundbreaking centre not only provides a one-stop shop to veterans and their families in my electorate and across Adelaide but also provides outreach to rural areas of South Australia and fields calls from across the country. The volunteers on reception are veterans themselves, and they talked to me about the importance of a friendly voice on the end of the phone, someone who knows the veteran journey and experience. The RSL assists veterans to access the services they need, apply for entitlements and submit claims, and Open Arms provides confidential counselling for veterans and their families, including a very valuable peer mentoring service. The service is supported by SA Health with access to services at the hospital.</para>
<para>When I was campaigning prior to the last election I met many veterans who told me about their experience of trying to lodge a TPI claim. I heard from people who had lodged claims and not heard anything for 18 months or more, so I am very pleased that this government has invested $87 million to improve the claims processing system and reduce waiting times and has also increased allowances. Our veterans and their families deserve all the support we can provide, and we thank them for their service.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workplace Relations</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BIRRELL</name>
    <name.id>288713</name.id>
    <electorate>Nicholls</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to talk about this apple I am holding. It is an apple that was grown in my electorate. It's healthy, it's clean, it's Australian grown and we should be proud of it. Apple growers are telling me that it's getting harder to produce this product because of the policies of the Labor government.</para>
<para>IR laws, including the changes to the PALM scheme, are making it incredibly difficult to run an orchard and grow healthy, clean Australian fruit. And the government's plan to rip a further 450 gigalitres out of the productive water pool that grows clean Australian food threatens the viability of orchards and dairy farms in the food bowl of Australia.</para>
<para>I've written to the Minister for the Environment and Water asking for a briefing and an explanation, and I haven't had a personal response. She hasn't met with the shadow minister since August. She won't meet with the constituents whose lives this effect—that is, the fruit growers, the dairy farmers and everyone else in the basin communities. Do we want our kids eating clean, healthy, Australian apples or do we want them imported from China? Get this policy right, Labor!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Facing North 2023</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
    <electorate>Solomon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, the Territory has arrived in Canberra. Tonight is Facing North, the showcase of the magnificent Northern Territory here in the Australian Capital Territory. I want to acknowledge my NT colleagues, Chief Minister Natasha Fyles, Paul Kirby and former chief minister Michael Gunner. We have captains of industry and leaders from Darwin, Palmerston and all through the Territory who have come down as part of Facing North. Facing North is to say to all of you, 'Look to the north!' That's where the opportunity is, that's where our national security is safeguarded, and that's where our future economic security will be continually safeguarded. We don't grow apples up there, but we grow mangoes and plenty of them.</para>
<para>We invite you all to face north with us and to the great opportunity that is there in the north. We'll have great food there tonight. To all the members of the House and to the senators that may be watching: you're invited to go along to the Great Hall tonight. Please, come and experience some of our culture; come and hear from the PM and the Leader of the Opposition. They know, and all honourable members understand in their gut, that the Northern Territory is key to the future of our great country along with our partners in the north, in WA and in Queensland. It's going to be a great night, so come along!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Child Care</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BELL</name>
    <name.id>282981</name.id>
    <electorate>Moncrieff</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Albanese government promised families on at least 100 occasions that they would be better off under Labor, and yet, in just over a month, I've been contacted by so many families expressing their frustration at watching their childcare fees increase, their out-of-pocket costs rise and their increased subsidy go up in smoke, Prime Minister!</para>
<para>According to The Parenthood, 90 per cent of families have experienced an increase in their childcare fees in recent weeks. Sarah from Jamisontown watched her fees rise by $18 a day, as did Holly from Everton Hills. Naomi from Rothwell watched her fees rise by $45 a day for her two children. I've heard from single parents who were hoping for fee relief so that they could pay their other bills. They need to pay their electricity bills. Now they're trying to figure out how to feed their families, pay their mortgages and keep the heating on this winter.</para>
<para>Labor threw $4.7 billion out the door without doing the proper modelling. That means that much of that funding has been eaten up by inflation and higher fees rather than going into the pockets of families who need it now. While Labor denied this policy would add to inflation, the ABS said, 'Price increases for a range of services like rents, restaurant meals, child care and insurance are keeping inflation high'. Australian families deserve more, and the tricky Albanese government— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing, The Big Issue Australia</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Many Australians know the great work The Big Issue does in providing employment and housing to people doing it tough. I recently caught up with their CEO, Steven Persson, to chat about their Home for Homes initiative in Queensland. This exciting initiative sees The Big Issue partnering with everyday homeowners and generously donating 0.1 per cent of the proceeds of the sale of their home towards building homes. These funds then go into the construction of new social housing for the homeless.</para>
<para>This generous tax-deductible gift is transferred during the settlement process. The sole property remains registered with Homes for Homes; thus, the new owners can continue this partnership when they sell. Homes for Homes can also partner with the sale or lease of offices, retail outlets, warehouses and factories.</para>
<para>Steven Persson and his team came up with a clever solution to the law against perpetual governance in Torrens title in Queensland. They worked closely with the Palaszczuk government on an administrative instrument, and now everyday Queenslanders can partner with Homes for Homes. Since 6 July, people can start giving to Homes for Homes when they sell, smart donations that will continue to accumulate in perpetuity.</para>
<para>Sadly, the state Greens somehow thought this was a bad idea. They spent their time in parliament ripping into Homes for Homes. It doesn't matter whether you're in Brisbane or in Canberra; the Greens political party loves nothing more than delaying the building of much-needed social and affordable housing—campaigning before people, clickbait before real change. They don't want solutions; they just want to pay politics with the lives of the people they profess to care about. Wolves in sheep's clothing. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>55</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Makarrata Commission</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
    <electorate>Farrer</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Members on my left and right will be silent so I can hear the question. I will ask the deputy leader to begin her question again.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Last month, the minister said: 'The Makarrata Commission would have two jobs. First, the national process of truth-telling and national agreement-making, which is really code for treaty without saying it.' Would the minister explain this statement to the House?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BURNEY</name>
    <name.id>8GH</name.id>
    <electorate>Barton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can I thank the member for Farrer for her question and say that my visit to your electorate was incredibly successful. The word makarrata is a word from the language of the Yolngu people from Arnhem Land. It means coming together after a struggle, facing the facts of wrongs, living together in peace. That word was gifted to the Uluru statement by the late Yunupingu, the great Gumatj leader from north-east Arnhem Land. This weekend at Garma we will gather again and we will remember his legacy and all that he did for his people over so many years. More than anything, he wanted to see constitutional recognition through a voice made reality. Later this year we have the chance to do that—recognition, listening and better results.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
    <electorate>Canberra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Housing. What is the Albanese Labor government's policy to get more vulnerable Australians into housing, and what is blocking further action?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COLLINS</name>
    <name.id>HWM</name.id>
    <electorate>Franklin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank the member for Canberra for her important question and for her interest in our broader housing agenda. Indeed, it's an agenda we have been working on every day.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Barker will cease interjecting for the remainder of this answer.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COLLINS</name>
    <name.id>HWM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It is an agenda we have added to at every possible opportunity, whether it be for renters, for homeowners or for Australians looking for a safe affordable place to call home. It's why we recently announced the $2 billion social housing accelerator to add to our agenda to deliver thousands more social homes across Australia. We are working hard to deliver on this because we know this action is needed. We are working hard to turn around the challenges that we inherited, as I talked about yesterday, after a decade of very little action those opposite.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Deakin. Just pause a minute, Minister. I said at the beginning of this answer that the member would not interrupt during this answer, and he has done that, so he is now warned.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Sukkar</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thought you said the member for Barker.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEA</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, the member for Deakin.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COLLINS</name>
    <name.id>HWM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We are working hard to turn around the challenges we inherited after a decade of very little from those opposite. Indeed, we are working hard to help the people that those opposite failed. We all know the Liberals and the Nationals never supported social housing. We know that in government they were heartless when it came to the robodebt victims. I say to those opposite in the Liberal and National parties: it's time find a heart and it's time to listen to people who desperately need housing right across Australia.</para>
<para>It's not just robodebt, though. Those opposite have failed to take responsibility for their inaction in housing for the thousands of Australians currently waiting on public housing waiting lists. After a decade of allowing the housing challenges across the country to grow, the Liberals and the Nationals are now blocking homes for people that need them. Those opposite, together with the Greens, who they've teamed up with, are blocking tens of thousands of social and affordable homes that would be built under the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund. They're blocking homes for women and children fleeing family violence. They're blocking homes for older women at risk of homelessness. They're blocking homes for veterans at risk of homelessness. That's why we're giving them another chance. That's why we've reintroduced that bill today.</para>
<para>I say to them: please do not continue to block homes. Don't continue to block homes for people like Lorilee, who I spoke about on Monday in this place, who wants to go back to school. Don't block homes for people like Lisa and Sean. Sean can now have an operation because he has somewhere to go home to. That is the seriousness of what we're talking about here. We want this bill to pass. That's why we've reintroduced it. We want to build more homes. It's as simple as that. We want those opposite and the Greens to join us and the crossbench to pass this bill. We want you to join the community housing providers who want this bill passed. We want you to join the state and territory housing ministers who want this bill passed. We want you to join the experts and those on the front line of our housing challenges who want this bill passed. We heard from the MBA today that we can't afford to play politics with the lives of the many Australians who are struggling. It's time to get on with it. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Makarrata Commission</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LANDRY</name>
    <name.id>249764</name.id>
    <electorate>Capricornia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. On 15 November 2021 the now Prime Minister said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Makarrata Commission will be independent and have responsibility for truth telling and treaty making. It will work with a Voice to Parliament when it is established.</para></quote>
<para>When will Australians know the details about the government's Makarrata Commission?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BURNEY</name>
    <name.id>8GH</name.id>
    <electorate>Barton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Capricornia for her question. The government of this country supports the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and the Uluru statement has three elements. The first request is for a Voice to Parliament, which is what the referendum will be about this year. It then refers to a makarrata for truth telling and agreement making. Progress on makarrata will not occur until after the referendum. Our priority is constitutional recognition through a Voice. Our priority is recognition, listening and getting better results. The 2023 referendum is an opportunity to advance reconciliation and move Australia forward for everyone.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Pensions and Benefits</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MURPHY</name>
    <name.id>133646</name.id>
    <electorate>Dunkley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Social Services. What action is the Albanese Labor government taking to provide support for some of Australia's most vulnerable people rather than punishing them?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to thank the member for Dunkley for that question and for the passion that she shows for those most vulnerable in her community and, indeed, right around Australia. I am very pleased to announce to the House that the Albanese government's strengthening the safety net package has just passed the parliament. This package includes a range of important and targeted measures to boost support to those most vulnerable. From 20 September, more support is on its way for those who need it most. Our safety net bill will deliver more support for those relying on student and working-age payments, more support for single parents, more support for older Australians facing additional barriers to work, and more support for those that rely on Commonwealth rent assistance. These measures complement other investments in cost-of-living support, including investments in Medicare, cheaper child care, cheaper medicines and energy bill relief.</para>
<para>Unfortunately, not all members of this parliament wanted to provide this extra support. Those opposite moved a mean-spirited amendment to scrap the government's $40 boost to working-age and student payments, denying much-needed support to almost a million Australians.</para>
<para>But, of course, this is all part of the pattern by those opposite—showing contempt for those who rely on the social security system. The Liberal Party's robodebt policy demonstrated that contempt as well. Through the royal commission into robodebt, it was established that the Liberal and National parties' robodebt policy was a cruel and crude mechanism that was neither fair nor legal, and it made people feel like criminals. Of course, most people would think that was never the intention of robodebt, but it was always the intention of those opposite. None of us can forget when former minister Tudge said, 'We'll find you, we'll track you down, you will have to repay those debts and you may end up in prison.' This demonstrates the cruel and callous approach of those opposite.</para>
<para>The architect of robodebt, the member for Cook, regularly bragged about being a strong welfare cop. He and the opposition seem to fail to truly recognise the damage that this scheme has caused. I would encourage those opposite to remind themselves of the royal commission's report that heard the evidence from witnesses who spoke about the distress and damage. The Liberal and National parties have demonstrated time and time again that they, whether in government or opposition, take a cruel and callous approach to those who rely on our social safety net, denying them the support they need.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>57</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gunner, Hon. Michael</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today is the Hon. Michael Gunner, former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. A very warm welcome to you.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>57</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Stronger Communities Program</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LE</name>
    <name.id>295676</name.id>
    <electorate>Fowler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. The Stronger Communities Program provides small but significant grants for all electorates. We all know how such funds can help our local community organisations with their small projects, such as having their community hall repaired for people to use. In these difficult economic times and in low-socioeconomic electorates like Fowler, this type of resource is vital. Will the government commit to ensure this grant will continue to be provided in future budget planning?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, I acknowledge Michael Gunner as well. I thank the member for Fowler for her question about the Stronger Communities grants. As the honourable member and probably all members would be aware, round 8 of the Stronger Communities Program is rolling out right now in our communities. Members of parliament and community groups will be hearing back around now about the success or otherwise of the proposals they have put forward.</para>
<para>Round 8 was announced in the March budget of 2022, the last budget under those opposite, but the budget didn't pass the parliament. So what we did—I pay tribute to my ministerial colleague—was to budget for round 8 in the October budget last year, and that's why it's rolling out right now. The matter of future rounds of Stronger Communities will be the subject, no doubt, of future budget deliberations, but there was no allocation for Stronger Communities beyond round 8. Obviously, in the usual responsible and methodical way, we will go through the merits of this, and we will make a decision in due course.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I hear those opposite interjecting. If they wanted it to go beyond round 8, why didn't they budget for it? Why didn't they budget for it? There is a pattern of behaviour here. They make big announcements about how they were going to chip in 50 per cent of Brisbane Olympic funding, and they provisioned exactly zero dollars for it. There is a pattern of behaviour. They were really good at the press release, but they weren't much chop at provisioning in the budget for the things that they announced, and that's the case for Stronger Communities as well.</para>
<para>I know that the honourable member for Fowler has asked this question in good faith. I know that she has also asked about cost-of-living pressures on her community in Fowler, that really important community in New South Wales. I wanted to tell the House as well that in addition to deliberating on future rounds of the Stronger Communities grants, when it comes to the cost-of-living assistance we're providing in Fowler, 39,150 people in Fowler will benefit from cheaper medicines; 95,485 people in Fowler are eligible for the bulk billing assistance; 14,840 people in Fowler will get the increase to JobSeeker, Austudy or youth allowance; 725 people aged 55 to 59 in Fowler will get the extra JobSeeker—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The members for Riverina and Gippsland will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">D</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Around 620 parents in Fowler will benefit from the changes to the single parent payment, and around 12,770 households will get the biggest increase to Commonwealth rent assistance in 30 years.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order. When the House comes to order I'll hear from the member for Jagajaga.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms THWAITES</name>
    <name.id>282212</name.id>
    <electorate>Jagajaga</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. How will the Housing Australia Future Fund improve the lives of Australians, and what is standing in the way of the government building more homes? How does this legislation fit with the government's commitment to not leave people behind?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Jagajaga for her question. What we know is that those opposite want problems to get worse for Australians because they think that's how things get better for them. Their priority is all about the politics and not about the substance.</para>
<para>We know that the Housing Australia Future Fund was the centrepiece of my second budget reply. The Australian people voted for it. It's supported by the housing and homelessness groups across the board, whether it be the Master Builders Association or whether it be organisations like Shelter. It will work alongside our other policies, including the $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator, to build more homes in every state and territory. But those opposite have blocked this bill.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Deakin is now warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's exactly why we reintroduced the bill today. But it is what we've come to expect from the party of robodebt. The same ideology that produced robodebt still drives the Liberal Party. Their gut instinct is always vindictive, always seeking to punish those who are less well off. Blocking affordable housing for women and children escaping domestic violence is just extraordinary.</para>
<para>Now, on Monday, they put out, in their vehicle that's open to them on a daily basis, the position that they wanted to block increased help for single parents, for people on rental assistance, for JobSeeker recipients; the extra JobSeeker for those over 55. They put out there that they were going to block that. But of course that courage didn't last until lunchtime, and the Leader of the Opposition had to reverse the position that he'd put out in the morning on the front page of the <inline font-style="italic">Australian</inline>. It didn't last four hours. But what is constant is their ideological obsession with punishing the most vulnerable, and of course we saw that with robodebt. It's horrifying enough to think that the one lesson that they took from robodebt was that they didn't go hard enough. It is a pathology of cruelty from those opposite, who are determined to make things as bad as possible by standing in the way of legislation that will make a difference because they think that that will give them a political advantage.</para>
<para>Well, I say to them that we need to deal with the issue of housing supply. We need to build more houses. There is legislation that is before the parliament that will enable just that to happen, and it should be passed by the Senate.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Prime Minister</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. On 97 occasions, the Prime Minister gave false hope to struggling Australian families and small businesses by promising before the election he would cut power bills by $275 annually, and now he pretends that he never said it. On 34 occasions, the Prime Minister told Australians he was committed to implementing the Uluru statement in full, which includes a treaty. In a train-wreck Radio National interview this morning, the Prime Minister was asked seven times whether he supported a treaty and seven times refused to give a direct answer. When will we hear a straight word from this Prime Minister?</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Treasurer will cease interjecting.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjectin g—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order on my left and right. I'll hear from the Leader of the House.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A point of order, Mr Speaker: questions are required to include a question, and that one, within the 30 seconds, didn't.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll deal with this. The problem I have is there's far too much noise in the chamber. It has accelerated at a rapid rate this week. I'm going to allow the question. If anyone goes over the time limit again, they will be sat down. I reiterate to the House that there must be silence while people are asking questions.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I did note the Leader of the Opposition's reference in an article today by that investigative journalist James Morrow. He had gone back to 1986—a time when <inline font-style="italic">Crocodile Dundee</inline> had just hit the theatres, most women didn't have paid maternity leave, and it was a crime in some states to be gay or lesbian and people were being jailed. And there was something else—terra nullius was still the law of the land. It was still the position that it was not acknowledged that there was ownership of the land prior to English people coming in 1788—terra nullius. In 1986 there was no Mabo decision, no native title and no Wik. Those opposite need to say whether that is still their position, because they were out there being critical about these issues. I am proud to have supported Aboriginal land rights in 1986 and been an advocate for social justice for First Nations people for four decades. I say to the Leader of the Opposition—</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! There is far too much noise on my left. The member for Hume is warned. I just said that questions should be heard in silence. It goes the same for answers. The Prime Minister in continuation.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the Opposition needs to spend less time on his dirt unit and more time in the red dirt of the Top End. I invite him to visit Garma on the weekend. I invite him to sit down with Indigenous Australians and talk with them—not talk to them and not talk at them but talk with them—about why they support and came up with the process of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, led of course by the great Yunupingu, who will be missing from this Garma festival. This is the major Indigenous cultural event in remote Australia. It will be on this weekend. I encourage the Leader of the Opposition to travel with me to that and to sit down and engage constructively, instead of having this absolute nonsense.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms DOYLE</name>
    <name.id>299962</name.id>
    <electorate>Aston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government managing the economy in the interests of all Australians and what approaches has the government rejected?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Aston, an absolute champion for her local community in Melbourne. As honourable members know, there is no shortage of challenges in the global economy or, indeed, in our own domestic economy. While yesterday's decision by the independent Reserve Bank was a welcome relief and a welcome reprieve, we understand that people are still under pressure. As the RBA made clear yesterday, the Australian economy has already slowed considerably, and this will continue for a little while yet. A combination of high interest rates, high inflation and global uncertainty is slowing our economy. It's putting a strain on our people and it will have an impact on our labour market as well.</para>
<para>Because inflation is still the primary challenge in our economy, it's the major focus of our government. Our relief is targeted to those areas where pressures are most acute, like out-of-pocket health costs, rent and electricity bills.</para>
<para>All of this is part of making sure that our economy and our society are more resilient to the global economic uncertainty that lies ahead, and we have made some progress in the last 13, 14 or 15 months of this government in office.</para>
<para>It's important to remember that quarterly inflation is less than half what it was in the last quarter of those opposite now. The unemployment rate is lower now than it was when we came to office. The participation rate is higher than when we came to office. Wages growth is quicker than when we came to office after a decade of wage stagnation under those opposite. The deficit was forecast to be $78 billion and there were big deficits in their budgets every year after that. They delivered the most consecutive deficits of any government since the 1920s. They didn't have enough to show for a trillion dollars in debt, and they found no savings at all in their last budget.</para>
<para>Compare that to where we are now. Inflation is moderating; it is higher than we'd like, but it is moderating. The unemployment rate is lower and it's near a 50-year low. There are nearly 500,000 more Australians in work. That's the most jobs created by a new government in a first year on record. A record number of people are in work. Wages are moving again. We've got the first surplus in 15 years, which will be just north of $20 billion. We've got lower deficits over the forward estimates—more than $140 billion lower than what they had in their last budget. The peak of gross debt is lower. The interest cost on debt is $44 billion lower than in their last budget, and we found $40 billion in savings across our two budgets.</para>
<para>We know that people are under pressure. We know that there are difficult times ahead, but our responsible economic management and our economic plan are helping people through difficult times. They are laying the foundations for a better future and they are cleaning up the mess left behind by those opposite.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Makarrata Commission</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
    <electorate>Farrer</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. I refer to her previous answer. The minister said, 'Progress of Makarrata will not occur until after the referendum.' Minister, the government has already spent $900,000 of $5.8 million on this commission. What was this money spent on?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Moreton will leave the chamber under 94(a). I can't be clearer when I say I want silence for questions and answers.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The member for Moreton then left the chamber.</inline></para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BURNEY</name>
    <name.id>8GH</name.id>
    <electorate>Barton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member opposite for her question. I would like to quote from the Uluru statement and what it says about makarrata. It says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda: <inline font-style="italic">the coming together after a struggle</inline>. It captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia and a better future for our children based on justice and self-determination.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is seeking a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Ley</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, Is it your ruling that questions can be asked to the minister and completely unrelated statements can be made and that she is not being brought back to answer the question which was specifically with respect to the timing?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That is not a point of order. You are asking me a question. We're going to move to the next question because that was not a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NEUMANN</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
    <electorate>Blair</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. Why is an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice important not only for Australian society but also for the Australian economy?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you to the member for Blair for his question. I will stand next to him and campaign with him for a voice to parliament in South-East Queensland and in the nation beyond. The reason those opposite ask questions about what the voice isn't about is because they want to distract from what the voice is about. As the Prime Minister and the minister have said, the voice to parliament is about recognition and it's about listening. It's about giving First Nations people a say in the matters which impact them and it's about making a tangible difference to the lives of people and communities. That means it's about getting maximum impact for the billions of dollars that we invest each year in closing the gap.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hamilton</name>
    <name.id>291387</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Why don't you tell us about that.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Groom is warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALME</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We shouldn't pretend that we have to choose here between good social outcomes and good economic outcomes, or that they are competing priorities. They're not. The Voice is about better outcomes, it's about better value for money, and that makes it good economic policy as well. We won't get better outcomes in this country by listening less. We won't get better outcomes by leaving this to our kids to sort out down the track in some kind of generational buck-pass or by surrendering to the scares and the lies and the cynicism and the misinformation which is egged on by too many of those opposite.</para>
<para>We'll get better outcomes if we listen more and if we build on a foundation of recognition and respect and decency and optimism. I think a lot about what Minister Burney has said. She said this:</para>
<quote><para class="block">For too long governments have made policies for Indigenous Australians, not with Indigenous Australians.</para></quote>
<para>The minister is spot on. This is a chance to do things differently and to do them better. We won't get better outcomes by doing everything the same way that has delivered us a wasted decade of division, of disadvantage and of disappointment. We want more people in work, in training, in uni, in good health, in good schools, in safe communities and out of the justice system. Just last week the Productivity Commission laid out the challenges before us and said that we need more consultation. We need to involve and empower people if we want to make a real impact. So this is about value for money, but it's about much more than that as well.</para>
<para>This is our big chance, and we can't waste it. This is our generational opportunity to do the right thing and to grasp the hand which has been stretched generously out to us, to move forward together in a spirit of respect and unity and decency and optimism in a Commonwealth of common purpose, shaping a better future on our terms; making a tangible, enduring difference to First Nations people and communities around our country; and strengthening our economy and our society in the process.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Agriculture Industry</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOYCE</name>
    <name.id>299498</name.id>
    <electorate>Flynn</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. So far, the minister has failed to rule out requiring farmers and landholders to undertake cultural surveys for agricultural practices on their private property, as part of federal cultural heritage reforms. Why won't the minister rule it out?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am so delighted to get this question! In fact, I was getting a little bit worried that we weren't going to go back here today, so thank you! I have made it superclear each day I've been asked this. We are not about to adopt WA laws or the laws of any state or territory. We are about reforming our cultural heritage laws as a Commonwealth government, in the same way that those opposite were previously in favour of doing this important work. I have to say: credit where credit is due. The former minister for the environment began this work.</para>
<para>A government member: Yes, she did. Well done!</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>She did begin this work, and she made some very important statements about this. She said in 2021, more than two years ago:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In the wake of the destruction of Indigenous sites at Juukan, we have commenced work with state governments and territories, and Traditional Owners to highlight the need for the modernisation of Indigenous heritage protection laws.</para></quote>
<para>Opposition me mbers interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Groom will leave the chamber under 94(a).</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">The member for Groom then left the chamber</inline> <inline font-style="italic">.</inline></para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>She also said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I am working with the First Nations Heritage Protection Alliance to discuss a pathway forward to better protect our Indigenous cultural heritage …</para></quote>
<para>She also said in a media release that Juukan Gorge 'highlighted a wider need for the modernisation of Indigenous heritage protection laws in Australia'. She said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">This year's Budget included funding for an engagement process that will work closely with Traditional Owners—</para></quote>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will pause for a moment.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Oh my goodness! I could not be more relevant!</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll hear from the Leader of the Nationals on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Littleproud</name>
    <name.id>265585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On relevance, Mr Speaker, and to help the minister: this is about farmers, not miners.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister is being relevant. The question was about cultural surveys. The minister has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The former minister also said that those heritage protection processes are not owned by the Commonwealth; they're owned by state governments. Again, we agree. So, what we have to do now, and what I've already started doing—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the Nationals is warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>is working out how the states and the Commonwealth can come together so we don't have gaps in cultural heritage protection. There are so many great quotes from the former minister, but I want to share this around a bit, because the member for Leichhardt has done excellent work, with Senator Dodson, on leading those two Juukan Gorge inquiries. The member for Leichhardt has talked about the serious deficiencies in the laws. He said: 'The legislative frameworks in all Australian jurisdictions need to be modernised. Action must be a national priority.'</para>
<para>The shadow environment minister more recently told the other place, just last year, that those events at Juukan Gorge 'were so disastrous that they made it very clear that comprehensive work needed to begin, as a matter of urgency, on modernising Indigenous heritage protection laws'. And I thank the member for Cowper for his bipartisan support for this work: 'We are very pleased that the minister has now made clear that she'—that's me—'will be continuing the work that has already begun.' He talks about 'this vital process'— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Pensions and Benefits</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BYRNES</name>
    <name.id>299145</name.id>
    <electorate>Cunningham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Government Services. In light of the final report of the royal commission into robodebt, what are the lessons? Why should Australians have confidence in the conduct of the royal commission?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>One lesson from the royal commission is: when governments are warned about harmful policies, don't shoot the messenger. But in his statement to the House on Monday, the member for Cook repeatedly attacked the royal commission's credibility, doing what he does best. Having gaslit the nation for four years, he's now gaslighting the royal commission. In exonerating himself on Monday, the member for Cook used coded and loaded words to discredit the royal commission.</para>
<para>Let me repeat some of the coded and loaded language of the member for Cook. He dismissed the findings as 'disproportionate', 'wrong', 'unsubstantiated', 'contradicted by clear evidence'. He accused the finding as 'not credible or reasonable', 'unfair', 'retroactive'. He painted the findings as 'allegations', 'unreasonable', 'untenable', 'false' and 'speculative'. He fumed that that the royal commission was 'speculative and wrong'. He verbally punched 'wrong', 'unsubstantiated', 'absurd'. He delegitimised the royal commission as 'quasi-legal'—as if somehow there was a question mark on the fairness of the royal commission. Interestingly, the Leader of the Opposition commended the speech by the member for Cook.</para>
<para>While the royal commissioner isn't here to speak for herself, the royal commissioner anticipated such fake news attacks. In volume 1 of the report, pages 6 to 7 directly address questions of procedural fairness and the standard of proof.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The commission noted that it applied the rules of procedural fairness. Persons who were likely to have findings made against them were notified in advance and given the chance to respond before the final report. All witnesses had the chance to seek leave to cross-examine other witnesses. The commission's processes were inquisitorial, not adversarial—not a party advancing a particular case. The commissioner explained that where she made findings against individuals that were liable to cause real damage to reputation she adhered to the Briginshaw standard. That is the application of extra care when making findings of fact in serious civil matters. The commissioner specifically stated that she did not reach her conclusions without a high degree of satisfaction as to the evidence.</para>
<para>But the challenge now for the opposition and the Leader of the Opposition is as simple as this, courtesy of the member for Cook: he disputes it. He implies very clearly that he didn't get a fair go. So, the choice for the Leader of the Opposition is very straightforward. Who's correct? Is it the member for Cook, who you said gave a strong defence on Monday night? But they were clever weasel words from the Leader of the Opposition. He said 'strong defence'; he didn't actually say whether he agreed with him. So now what we've got to do is ask the question of the Leader of the Opposition. This is a test for your leadership. Do you back the member for Cook? Or do you back the royal commission? You're in an untenable position and you can't sit on the fence any longer. My advice is, cut him loose before he drags you down with him.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gas Industry</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I give the call to the member for Brisbane.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp></time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Bates</name>
    <name.id>300246</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>They're easily confused, Mr Speaker. They lost my seat—just so you know.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Brisbane will get on with his question.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Bates</name>
    <name.id>300246</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. This morning on ABC Radio, you left the door open to how to get your gas tax changes through the Senate. It seems the government now has two choices: finally stand up to the fossil fuel industry and work with the Greens and the crossbench to dramatically increase tax revenue from gas companies or make a deal with the Liberals to weaken environmental approvals for gas projects in exchange for their support. Which option will you take?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Brisbane for his question. I say to him—I know this will come as no surprise to him, I would have thought—the government's position is in what we've put forward through the Senate. That's the government's position. The Greens have a position: do they want to oppose that and, therefore, have less revenue earlier from the gas industry? That's a question that they have to answer. The Liberal Party, of course, have a question before them as well. Do they support a fairer outcome, which is there in the legislation that has been put forward and that has been considered by the government on the basis of proper advice and proper consultation, as well?</para>
<para>It's strange to get a question about what the parties other than Labor should do, which is essentially what the question comes to. But what we are doing is fair, is right and will produce extra revenue for the government earlier, which is why we came up with that position. The Greens have the opportunity to talk to their Senate colleagues. Don't do what you've done up to now with the Housing Australia Future Fund and say: 'We want more. Therefore, we'll have nothing.' Don't do the same thing and say: 'We want more revenue. Therefore, we won't have any revenue from the gas sector.' That's up to you—to determine your own position.</para>
<para>But our position is very clear in what we've put forward. We'll continue to support that. It's up to those opposite as to whether we see the 'no-alition' continuing between the coalition, the Greens political party and, of course, One Nation—the same 'no-alition' that have combined in the Senate to, up to this point, oppose the Housing Australia Future Fund. I urge you to not do that. I urge you to stand up for more revenue so that, therefore, there can be better spending earlier on what Australia needs, such as health, education, housing and other issues.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme</title>
          <page.no>63</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHARLTON</name>
    <name.id>I8M</name.id>
    <electorate>Parramatta</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. How will 60-day prescribing make medicines cheaper for Australians with ongoing health conditions? Why wasn't this policy previously introduced?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Hindmarsh</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Parramatta for his question. He's an enormously talented new member of parliament, and we're very lucky indeed to have him as part of the Labor team. I'll say that he, along with all the other members of the Labor team, at the last election promised Australians cheaper medicines. Already, in just 12 months, we have delivered three stages of cheaper medicines reform, including, obviously, the largest cut to the price of medicines in the 75-year history of the PBS on 1 January—a cut that has already delivered $120 million back into the pockets of hardworking Australians.</para>
<para>But we know there is more to do, which is why we've accepted the advice of the medicines experts who manage the PBS to allow doctors to issue 60-day prescriptions for ongoing health conditions at the same price as a 30-day script, halving the cost of some medicines for six million Australian patients and freeing up millions of GP consults. Thirty-day scripts make a lot of sense for a one-off course of medicine for a single episode of illness, but they make no sense whatsoever for ongoing chronic health conditions, where patients are on the same medicine year in, year out and decade in, decade out—sometimes for the remainder of their life.</para>
<para>That is why countries that we would usually compare ourselves to, like the UK, Canada and New Zealand, and so many more have been allowing 60- or even 90-day prescriptions for a long period. That's why our policy is supported by pretty much every single patient group and every doctor group in the country.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Gippsland will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>But, as the question said, this is not new advice. It was provided by the same experts to the former government five long years ago, and they shelved it. They backed the lobby group instead of millions of hardworking Australian patients, making those patients shell out hundreds of millions of dollars that they shouldn't have had to pay.</para>
<para>And it seems they haven't learnt, because this week I read in the News Limited tabloids: 'Half-price medicines in jeopardy as Coalition refuses support'. They're blocking yet another sensible cost-of-living measure that will help six million Australian patients with their hip-pocket pressure and their health. This might not come as a surprise given the Leader of the Opposition's record as a health minister. Not only did he try to abolish bulk-billing—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Gippsland will leave the chamber under 94(a).</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">The member for </inline> <inline font-style="italic">Gippsland then left the chamber.</inline></para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>he also tried to jack up the price of scripts by five dollars. So maybe it's not a surprise to those hardworking patients he never supported as health minister, though it does show they've learned absolutely nothing from nine years of cuts and neglect of Medicare.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Woodside Energy: Protests</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>241067</name.id>
    <electorate>Banks</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Communications. I refer to the predawn home invasion by protesters at the home of Woodside's chief executive officer and her family. It was filmed by an ABC crew who were also present. Minister, who at the ABC had knowledge of the protesters' plans to carry out this home invasion? Has the minister asked the ABC if the person who took the decision to send along a camera crew in these circumstances will be sacked?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROWLAND</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
    <electorate>Greenway</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for his question. I'll start by reiterating the comments of my colleague the Minister for Resources, who has very eloquently and accurately stated that the unacceptable behaviour towards a private citizen in this matter is completely unacceptable.</para>
<para>I also note that, whilst the ABC has operational independence as well as editorial independence, its management will offer detailed commentary on this matter. I understand the ABC has confirmed that a television crew was present to film the protest for an upcoming report. According to the statements by the ABC, they had no knowledge of the nature of the behaviour that would occur. I would also reiterate that I have sought further information from the ABC on this matter, in addition to their public statements. However, again I note that the ABC has both operational and editorial independence and I await the further advice that I have requested.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Vocational Education and Training</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MASCARENHAS</name>
    <name.id>298800</name.id>
    <electorate>Swan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Skills and Training. How is the Albanese Labor government's fee-free TAFE policy helping to support Australians with cost-of-living relief, and what has the response been?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr O'CONNOR</name>
    <name.id>00AN3</name.id>
    <electorate>Gorton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to thank the member for Swan for her question. I look forward to joining the member at Bentley TAFE in her electorate later this month.</para>
<para>The Albanese government has been very focused on introducing, initiating and implementing fee-free TAFE, and it has been an extraordinary success. Over 150,000 Australians have enrolled in these fee-free TAFE courses, increasing access to training and skills that are in demand in our economy.</para>
<para>We've entered negotiations with states and territories to extend this approach into 2024 and beyond, because we know that nine out of every 10 future jobs rely upon post-secondary-school qualifications, whether they're in higher education—universities—or the VET sector.</para>
<para>We understand that. And the VET sector is indeed doing much of the heavy lifting.</para>
<para>That's why we're investing in TAFEs and students to ensure a pipeline of skills that are critical for this nation's future. It's critical in the areas of energy, sovereign capability, the care economy and many other sectors as well. The most popular courses to date have been in precisely these skill priority areas, whether that be early childhood education, nursing, cybersecurity, manufacturing, energy or construction. So we are continuing to work in these areas of demand. But fundamental to fee-free TAFE is the opportunity it provides Australians to get good, secure jobs in areas of high demand and also to supply those skills that businesses are crying out for. Our policy, of course, is also providing cost-of-living relief and removing cost barriers so that students and workers can access those much-needed skills.</para>
<para>But not everybody agrees with our plans to support students. According to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, fee-free TAFE is 'wasteful spending'. An initiative that is providing much-needed skills to students, workers, businesses and our economy is, according to those opposite, 'wasteful spending'. But what would you expect of the Liberal Party, the party of robodebt, a party that knowingly continued an illegal scheme that persecuted hundreds of thousands of vulnerable Australians?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will pause and resume his seat. I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On relevance, the question was: on fee-free TAFE, what has the response been? We've now got the minister going off on a frolic on a completely unrelated matter. You should direct him back to the question.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the House?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>To the point of order: the minister is explaining what the response has been. There is nothing out of order with the minister explaining that the response has been consistent with how they responded with robodebt. It's a completely reasonable part of the response.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question was about dealing with the cost-of-living relief. I'm just going to ask the minister to ensure his answer is reflective of that part of the question. He is entitled to the remaining 24 seconds.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr O'CONNOR</name>
    <name.id>00AN3</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I understand the Manager of Opposition Business being touchy on this issue, because they haven't apologised and they don't show any contrition with respect to this scheme. They show a callous disregard, whether it's students who need access to skills or whether it's, in fact, vulnerable Australians that were subject to the persecution we saw under the robodebt scheme.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting constantly.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>65</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. In this year's budget, individual taxpayers accounted for 48 per cent of total revenue, whilst 30 per cent of large corporations operating in Australia paid no tax at all here. It's estimated that one in every four tax dollars lost to multinational tax avoidance can be prevented by requiring all companies to publish country-by-country data. When will the government shift the burden away from individual taxpayers and place a fairer share on multinationals by introducing public country-by-country reporting?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I appreciate the question from the member for North Sydney about multinational tax reform. The member for North Sydney knows that this is a big priority of this government. If you look at the October budget last year and the May budget this year, one of the handful of tax changes in those budgets was around multinationals. As has been publicly and accurately reported, we are proceeding with a number of the elements of our multinational tax plan. We need a bit more time on country-by-country reporting, and that's the truth of it. We are genuine about our consultation, as you'd expect. We want to get it absolutely right.</para>
<para>There are some elements of the plan which are ready to go, which we've budgeted for and are advancing in this place in different ways, but we've said that we need a bit more time on country-by-country reporting. I'd be very happy to arrange a briefing, if the member for North Sydney would like, from either myself and my colleagues or the Treasury colleagues, because I do understand that your interest in it is genuine. We're happy to keep you posted as we progress through the additional consultation that I and the assistant minister will undertake.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aged Care</title>
          <page.no>65</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr MULINO</name>
    <name.id>132880</name.id>
    <electorate>Fraser</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. After a decade of missed opportunity, what is the Albanese Labor government doing to deliver the care that older Australians deserve and to support the skilled and dedicated aged-care workers who care for them?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WELLS</name>
    <name.id>264121</name.id>
    <electorate>Lilley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Fraser for his question. I know he has been very engaged with our reform process and ensuring that the aged-care workers in his electorate are set up for their future. This answer begins with thanking those amazing aged-care workers for everything that they have done and everything that they continue to do for older Australians. This government and the members on this side of the chamber deeply value you and your work.</para>
<para>But thanks is not enough. Working in aged care is difficult, complex and emotionally demanding. It is skilled work. The aged-care workforce deserves to be recognised for that through their pay. On 1 July that is exactly what happened, when 250,000 dedicated aged-care workers received a much-needed and much-deserved 15 per cent increase above the award as a pay rise. This is in recognition of their incredible work. But it's also important cost-of-living relief, helping to ease the pressure on families and family budgets. This pay rise means a $3.40 per hour increase for the lowest-paid direct care workers. For those personal care workers with years and decades of experience, it finally pushes them above the $30 per hour threshold for the very first time. For a registered nurse it means up to an additional $10,000 per year in their pay, which is a life-changing pay rise for aged-care workers and for their families. Helen, who's an AIN and has been a nursing assistant for more than 18 years, tells us this pay rise has meant that she can finally afford the hearing aid that she needs. This pay rise will also help change the lives of those that they care for. It will help us recruit and retain the workforce that we need to provide the high-quality care that all older Australians deserve.</para>
<para>I think I can speak for every MP on this side of the chamber when I say that we couldn't be more proud to have been the government to deliver this increase for the aged-care workforce of $11.3 billion, which is over 10 times what the previous coalition government spent on their workforce pillar. Those opposite ignored aged-care workers through their wasted decade in government, and the workforce will not forget their shocking neglect in a hurry. This government is not afraid to stand up for our aged-care workers. We are delivering for them, we are delivering for the older Australians that they care for and we are laying the foundations for a better future for aged care in this country.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Interest Rates</title>
          <page.no>66</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
    <electorate>Hume</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. The <inline font-style="italic">Courier Mail</inline> today reveals that more than 43 per cent of Queensland households are facing mortgage stress, but the Treasurer says that housing serviceability for mortgage holders has improved. Does the Prime Minister believe it is now easier for Australian households to service their mortgages?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the shadow Treasurer for his question, and I say that there's more than one group of people that need to listen, because he obviously hasn't listened to what the Treasurer has made very clear.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Taylor</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I've read his report!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Hume has asked his question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He has made very clear that we understand that there are pressures on the cost of living, and that is why the measures that we have put in place have been aimed at alleviating the pressure on the cost of living without putting further pressure on inflation.</para>
<para>That's why we designed the Energy Price Relief Plan in the way that we did. It will take three-quarters of a per cent off the inflation rate, according to Treasury and the Reserve Bank. That's why we prioritised cheaper child care, which will boost the workforce participation of women and boost productivity.</para>
<para>That's why we're addressing supply chain issues through fee-free TAFE, with 180,000 delivered and 300,000 to come—opposed by those opposite and seen as wasteful spending. We regard this as an investment that will boost productivity, that will boost the economy whilst not putting pressure on inflation. It's why we have a policy to assist households with cheaper medicines, already delivering substantial amounts through our measures on January 1, but with more to come.</para>
<para>It's why we have our three-point plan to deal with inflationary pressures, including dealing with supply chain issues, through our creation of the National Reconstruction Fund—opposed by those opposite. It's why we're dealing with skills shortages, through the creation of Jobs and Skills Australia—opposed by those opposite, like they opposed fee-free TAFE.</para>
<para>This government is determined to make a difference to people. It contrasts with those opposite who sat by and watched robodebt and the evidence that came amongst some of the most vulnerable. Melanie, who appeared at the commission, said this: 'I had to sell everything I could sell, just to get a little bit by. I had to go to the Salvation Army for the first time ever in my life, and it was quite degrading. It made me feel like I was a criminal.'</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Prime Minister will pause. I'll hear from the member for Hume on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Taylor</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, on relevance. These comments have absolutely nothing to do with mortgage serviceability.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Resume your seat. The question was about Queenslanders experiencing mortgage stress. The Prime Minister is being relevant. I'll listen for the remaining 30 seconds. By talking about people under mortgage stress and the impacts, I'm listening to what he says for the remaining 30 seconds to make sure he is relevant.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There was evidence also given from Ann Julie, who was in the position of living in a refuge. What she had to say was this: 'When I got my robodebt I was pregnant and living in a refuge in Canberra after escaping domestic violence. I was working three jobs to stay afloat. Because of this debt, I was unable to afford medication and was hospitalised.'</para>
<para>That's the position that those opposite sat by, year after year, even after they were warned. No compassion. No care. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired) </inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>66</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNELL</name>
    <name.id>300129</name.id>
    <electorate>Spence</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Industry and Science. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to help reduce pressure on energy prices for Australian manufacturers, like those in my electorate? How has this been effective compared to other approaches?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUSIC</name>
    <name.id>91219</name.id>
    <electorate>Chifley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's terrific to get a great question from a huge supporter of Australian manufacturing, and thank you for that.</para>
<para>The Albanese government believes in a future made in Australia. It's important for our longer-term economic and social good, and revitalising Australian manufacturing is a big part of that.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will pause. The member for Fairfax. I want to be clear. I can definitely hear what you are saying. I will ask you to cease interjecting. The minister, in continuation.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUSIC</name>
    <name.id>91219</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you. But if we want that to happen, there are some things that we can do that can help in a very concrete way. To get the job done, Australian manufacturers need access to affordable energy, be it for food manufacturing in Spence, making steel in Cunningham or producing trucks in Oxley. Our energy price relief plan is really important for Australian manufacturers. That will help them get goods to market better. It's also going to protect jobs. It will put downward pressure on prices and take up the fight on inflation.</para>
<para>When the global energy prices started to take off and you saw skyrocketing coal and gas prices, what did we get out of those opposite? We had 22 failed energy plans, and they actively conspired to hide price hikes from the Australian public. In the second quarter of 2022, the last quarter under those opposite, electricity prices paid by Australian manufacturers increased 60 per cent.</para>
<para>By contrast, new figures released last week showed that the Albanese government's approach is working. AEMO predicted electricity prices for manufacturers would go up by nearly 33 per cent in the second quarter of this year, but last week they showed prices actually went down 1.5 per cent. The big take-out on this is that the actions of the government helped shield manufacturers from the worst of the price increases. Those actions: an energy price cap, price relief for households, a mandatory code of conduct that makes it easier for manufacturers and producers to strike up contracts.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Fairfax is warned.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>So is the member for Page.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUSIC</name>
    <name.id>91219</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Those opposite will puff out their chests and say, 'I'll go to Canberra and ask a question about energy price increases affecting manufacturers.'</para>
<para>But here's a radical idea: why don't those opposite ever look those manufacturers in the eye? Why don't they have the guts to say they voted against the very energy price relief that would have helped those manufacturers? This is the standout quality of those opposite: they're never there with a solution but always there with a problem. Every single Liberal and National MP voted against energy price relief for manufacturers, just like every single Liberal and National MP refused to back Australian manufacturing by backing the National Reconstruction Fund. People who have seen through these guys have seen that they turn up only for a camera. They're never there with a solution but are always part of the problem. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>67</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
    <electorate>Casey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. James from Healesville contacted me when he received a letter from his power company advising of his energy cost increases for the next year. James's peak electricity cost is up 44.4 per cent and his off-peak electricity cost is up 41.44 per cent. James doesn't want a one-off hand out—he wants the prices to come down. Why is my constituent suffering because of this Prime Minister's incompetence?</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Members on my left! The member for Page is on a warning.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Casey for his question. The government put in place measures that we brought before this parliament last year—measures to assist individuals, measures to assist small business, measures to assist our economy. What is clear is that those measures have made a substantial difference. I hope the member for Casey tells James that he voted against energy price relief for James. I hope he gets on the blower and says: 'Sorry, James, I got it wrong. I voted against support for you, like I voted against every other positive measure that has been brought before this parliament.' Those opposite are obsessed with just saying no. They want people to be worse off because they think that will make them better off politically. That's the strategy that they have here—constantly being negative, constantly saying no. The Leader of the Opposition takes the last bit of his title very seriously: opposition for opposition's sake, never putting forward a constructive idea. They had one proposal in their budget reply. It took them 11 weeks to come up with costing and then they folded their tent.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister will pause so I can hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, on relevance—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In the interests of everyone, I've finished.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The manager will resume his seat. We will move to the next question.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>68</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHESTERS</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
    <electorate>Bendigo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How is the Albanese Labor government taking action to ease pressure on small business energy costs? What obstacles did the government have to overcome to deliver this plan?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
    <electorate>McMahon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank my honourable friend for her question and her leadership of her businesses in Bendigo, which I enjoyed visiting with her, as all ministers have, on many occasions. She is an excellent member of parliament for regional Victoria.</para>
<para>Here in the Albanese government, we know that energy costs are a huge issue for businesses, big and small, right across the country, and that is why we have acted. In the face of rising energy costs around the world last year, and in the face of evidence that Australian industry, particularly in relation to gas prices, would come under huge pressure this year, and that many industries would be faced with the decision to stay open or closed, we acted.</para>
<para>We've seen, as the minister for industry has updated us, the impact of that action in the last week. We've seen the ABS data showing that, instead of an expected increase in the cost of energy for manufacturers of over 30 per cent, those costs have gone down 1½ per cent. Instead of going up more than 30 per cent, they went down 1½ per cent. We saw it also last week in the <inline font-style="italic">Quarterly </inline><inline font-style="italic">energy dynamics</inline> report, which showed that wholesale prices are 60 per cent lower today than they were a year ago. This is the direct impact of this government's intervention.</para>
<para>We know that industries and businesses went to see the opposition and begged them to support this intervention. They asked them to act in a bipartisan way to protect Australian industry, and they got the hand: 'Go away. We're not interested; we're going to play politics.' Yet the opposition come in here day after day and pretend to care about energy prices. Instead of asking questions about higher energy prices, they could vote for lower energy prices, and they made their choice. They made their decision. We know that we need to act in the short term and in the medium and long term. We need to act for businesses small and large. That's why, in addition to the intervention last year, which the opposition did not support, the budget contained further measures of support for Australian small businesses.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Ted O'Brien</name>
    <name.id>138932</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>None of them are working, though.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Fairfax is warned and will now leave the chamber under 94(a).</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The member for Fairfax then left the chamber.</inline></para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Bowen</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The small business tax relief is for up to 3.8 million small businesses across Australia to invest in renewable energy and energy efficiency to reduce their power prices. On this side, we know what we're for; they know what they're against. They're against lower prices, and they're against renewable energy with that visceral hatred of renewable energy that so many members opposite have. On the other hand, the Albanese government will take whatever action is necessary to help small businesses. Whether it be short-term interventions like last year's or longer-term interventions like the budget, small businesses know they have a government on their side.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>68</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>124514</name.id>
    <electorate>Flinders</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. A new report from the Consumer Action Law Centre has blamed the cost-of-living crisis for a spike in personal debt amongst Victorians, with average debt now at $2,459, up 43 per cent in less than two years. Centre director Luke Lovell said of the rise:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Thousands of Victorians will be turning off their heating and shivering through this winter as energy prices are set to soar.</para></quote>
<para>Why are Victorians suffering because of this Prime Minister's incompetence?</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Treasurer will cease interjecting. Members on my right! The Prime Minister has the call.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Flinders for her question. I'm happy to get a question about cost of living because it provides me with an opportunity to talk about what we are doing with cost-of-living measures. We, of course, are trying to deal with inflation, and we have a three-point plan there. We will turn what was a $78 billion deficit under those opposite into a surplus that will be around $20 billion—the first surplus in 15 years. That makes a difference. We're providing cost-of-living help that supports household budgets without adding new inflation. The measures that we have in place that are not supported by the member for Flinders and those opposite include cheaper childcare, which is making a difference; cheaper medicines, which came into place on 1 January; the energy bill relief, which was opposed by the member for Flinders and those opposite; affordable and social housing that the member opposite is opposing—that support for increased supply.</para>
<para>On Monday morning the member was part of a political party that was threatening to block rental relief for people on rent relief, the increases in JobSeeker payments, increases above that for over-55-year-olds and the increased eligibility for parenting payment for single parents, particularly for single mums. Those opposite were threatening to block that. They said in one of their launches that they would do that.</para>
<para>It's no wonder it is the case that people look at those opposite and say, 'If they care about the cost of the living, why are they against every single cost-of-living measure?</para>
<para>Since 1 January, I can inform the member that cheaper medicines have saved Australian's $118 million, as of last month. That's $118 million in that single measure. The third measure we have is to invest in measures to tackle the supply-side challenges. The National Reconstruction Fund, fee-free TAFE, infrastructure investment and Rewiring the Nation are all making a difference. We saw in the CPI for the June quarter that the CPI rose by 0.8 per cent. We know that the largest increase this century was on the watch of those opposite, back in the March 2022 quarter, of 2.1 per cent. The member for Riverina shakes his head because he remembers those dark days. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>First Nations Australians: Digital Inclusion</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
    <electorate>Solomon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Communications. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to increase digital inclusion for First Nations Australians, particularly in rural and regional communities? And why is direct consultation with First Nations people so important in helping to narrow that digital divide?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROWLAND</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
    <electorate>Greenway</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Solomon for his question. Digital inclusion is central to the Albanese government's delivery of a more informed, connected and resilient nation. However, while digital inclusion is improving on average, there remains a considerable gap when it comes to First Nations inclusion, according to the latest Australian Digital Inclusion Index. The gap is even more pronounced in remote and very remote First Nations communities. Closing The Gap target 17 aims to achieve equal levels of digital inclusion between First Nations and non-First Nations Australians by 2026. But, make no mistake, it is a significant challenge, particularly because previous attempts to close the gap have failed to respond to the needs of First Nations Australians.</para>
<para>A recent landmark research project mapping the digital gap, undertaken through deep engagement with 12 remote First Nations communities, revealed the true nature of the gap, with shocking assessments of the realities on the ground and the failure of legacy approaches. Positive and measurable improvements require genuine consultation, and this is what I've heard directly from First Nations leaders and communities from Palm Island to Port Augusta and Darwin, where, last week, I launched our First Nations Digital Inclusion Plan, a framework that focuses government efforts around the three pillars of access, affordability and ability. Importantly, it commits us to serious, ongoing dialogue with First Nations communities about how to achieve target 17.</para>
<para>Consistent with that approach, the government established the First Nations Digital Inclusion Advisory Group earlier this year—experienced First Nations industry experts, chaired by Dot West OAM. The group is highlighting barriers to access, including high costs for prepaid services and poor digital literacy that's preventing First Nations communities from being able to enjoy the benefits of being online. Past co-investment programs have not achieved the right outcomes because they generally assumed a one-size-fits-all approach. When you ask First Nations communities what they need, whether it's connectivity, affordability or digital literacy barriers, you get more targeted and effective approaches and a more cost-effective use of taxpayers' money.</para>
<para>Digital inclusion is critical to economic and social opportunities, including access to health, education, financial and government services, and that's what the Voice can achieve across all portfolio areas: positive engagement with First Nations communities from around the country and getting the best outcomes. There is no sign that old approaches are succeeding, but, at least in the communications portfolio, there's every sign that, by acting in response to genuine consultation, we can make all the difference.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Albanese</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>69</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Intelligence and Security Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Government Response to Report</title>
            <page.no>69</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>BURKE (—) (): I present the Australian government response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security report, <inline font-style="italic">A</inline><inline font-style="italic">dvisory repo</inline><inline font-style="italic">rt on </inline><inline font-style="italic">the National Security Legislation Amendment</inline><inline font-style="italic"> (C</inline><inline font-style="italic">omprehensive</inline><inline font-style="italic">R</inline><inline font-style="italic">eview and </inline><inline font-style="italic">O</inline><inline font-style="italic">ther </inline><inline font-style="italic">M</inline><inline font-style="italic">easures </inline><inline font-style="italic">No. 2)</inline><inline font-style="italic"> Bill 2023</inline>.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>69</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Personal Explanation</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BROADBENT</name>
    <name.id>MT4</name.id>
    <electorate>Monash</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Referring to standing order 90, I have a personal explanation.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Do you claim to have been misrepresented?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BROADBENT</name>
    <name.id>MT4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Most grievously, Your Honour. Most grievously.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You may proceed.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BROADBENT</name>
    <name.id>MT4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Earlier in question time today, the Prime Minister claimed that the current distress of the Australian people was enjoyed by the opposition because it was good for us politically. This is a gross imputation of improper motives. I, being a part of His Majesty's opposition, am sorely offended by these remarks of the Prime Minister. These remarks should be considered highly disorderly, according to standing order 90.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member will pause. The Leader of the House.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It has always been the case with respect to making a personal explanation that you can't do it with respect to something that is general. It has to be a personal reference. That has always been the case. That's what the standing order specifies as well.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There are other forms in the House through which the member can correct the record. The member for Monash on another point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BROADBENT</name>
    <name.id>MT4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I took it personally.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member. We'll move to the MPI.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</title>
        <page.no>70</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Child Abuse</title>
          <page.no>70</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have received a letter from the honourable Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The importance of supporting Australian families.</para></quote>
<para>I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There is no more important matter for this parliament or indeed for Australian society to consider at the moment than the protection of children, the most vulnerable in our society. I think many Australians—every Australian—will have been shocked by the news in the last couple of days about a grotesque individual who's alleged to have committed some 1,623 child abuse offences, including 136 counts of rape and 110 counts of sexual intercourse with a child under 10 and 604 counts of indecent treatment of a child. The most important asset of any family is a child or children of that relationship, particularly younger toddlers and infants, those who deserve the protection of not just their families but those who have been charged with the responsibility to take care of them in the absence of their parents.</para>
<para>The reason I think this is a very important matter for the parliament to contemplate today is that the news cycle, as we know, moves on so quickly. World events and domestic events mean that the papers' headlines quickly disappear and the online version of the next story is quickly posted. Sometimes this subject matter is too shocking for families to discuss. Sometimes the detail is so depraved that you want to starve your children, social groups or contacts of the actual detail of particular incidents. But it is proper for our country to stop and pause at the time of these significant events because the children who are involved—all young girls who are now, in many cases, in their early 20s—will have had their lives changed forever. I acknowledge that even the conversation that we're having today or the newspaper reports that we've seen over the last couple of days will be a trigger for other victims of child sexual abuse. The discussion of the very topic will be very difficult for them and for their loved ones to contemplate.</para>
<para>But it is appropriate and absolutely necessary that we remind ourselves that people of this character infiltrate our society and that people in positions of responsibility commit these most egregious acts against those who are most vulnerable in our society.</para>
<para>Today we recognise the efforts of the Australian Federal Police, particularly those officers who are attached to the Australian Centre To Counter Child Exploitation, the police officers, the investigators, the analysts, and all of those from the Queensland Police Service and the New South Wales Police Force and their international counterparts. This is a very significant investigation that's gone on for some 10 years or so. It has spanned across states and jurisdictions.</para>
<para>We know that the prevalence of child sexual abuse is at record levels because of the use of digital technology. We know that—I want to say a human being—an individual here in Australia can direct a movie taking place in the Philippines of a child being sexually abused and penetrated and can direct from afar the actual abuse of that child. It's incomprehensible on many levels, but it needs to be spoken about because we can't pretend that it's not happening or think that, if we don't speak about it and ignore it, the problem will go away and our children won't be affected by the next offender.</para>
<para>It is one of those crime types where, unlike the stories you'll see on the news tonight of a stolen car or footage of a robbery or an assault that's taken place and a victim that's interviewed, we don't see the victims' faces in this crime type. We don't hear the detail even of, in some cases, the offender's name because of the protections, rightly or wrongly, under the law. And the impact on the victims, on the investigators and on our society is enduring.</para>
<para>As the Minister for Home Affairs, I'm incredibly proud of the work that we did to establish the Australian Centre To Counter Child Exploitation. It was a $70 million investment. In my budget reply speech, I called for the government—and we would certainly support and welcome an announcement by the government—to double the work and the funding to the Australian Centre To Counter Child Exploitation. It's essential because the work continues to compound. The investigation is more complex. We read in relation to this particular matter that a child's cot sheet was identified after painstaking work by the investigators to have been provided by a particular linen supplier to childcare centres, which led to the offender being identified in relation to that particular matter. That takes gruelling, hard work and investigative capacity, and additional support needs to be provided. I think that much is clear.</para>
<para>In highlighting this case today, I do believe that our parliament has a continuing responsibility to do everything we can to protect the children of this country, to make sure that we protect their sanctity and their innocence to allow every Australian child to grow up in a harmless environment that's conducive to the development of their mental health, to make sure that they have the best capacity to form functional, interpersonal relationships later in life. But if we allow this to just slide into yesterday's newspaper, then we won't be doing a service to the work of the investigators here, and we won't be helping those investigators send a message of deterrence to the person who's thinking about offending next. That's why I think it is incredibly important for the government to stop as well and listen to this issue and make the decision in relation to additional support. As I said, we would very much welcome the Prime Minister's efforts in that regard.</para>
<para>I also want to put on the record our very strong interest in supporting government action in relation to a child sex offenders registry. I believe the time has come. There's been much debate about this in recent years from people in favour, people against and people of good character who argue for and against the establishment of a registry.</para>
<para>But I do believe that we need a parliamentary joint task force to be established to review the effectiveness of working with children checks and to carry forward as a matter of urgency the establishment of a national child sex offenders registry, which I proposed as Minister for Home Affairs. The debate and the time for serious contemplation of that registry has now come, given the circumstances where an individual, over a protracted period of time, could work at multiple points where young children are supposed to be cared for and could commit these offences undetected in so many workplaces amongst so many other colleagues, parents and children. It was through no fault of any of those people that the attention of the police wasn't drawn to the particular offences. The registry may have been one element that could have averted further victims falling at the hands of this individual in relation to the alleged offences that have taken place.</para>
<para>The engagement of the states obviously is absolutely necessary, but, for our country, the time has come. There are certainly many international jurisdictions where a registry operates successfully. There is the opportunity in our country for that debate to now be had. And I hope that, in the time that we spend in the chamber today, we send a clear message of support to all of those who are involved in protecting children around the country—not just the government investigative bodies but also the not-for-profits: organisations like the Daniel Morcombe Foundation and those who are involved in spreading a message in childcare centres, other places of education and workplaces.</para>
<para>I say to all Australian families: please take the time tonight to have the conversation with your children and to go to the websites that are trustworthy: the eSafety Commissioner's work, the work of the Morcombe foundation and many others. Look there at the ways in which you can further empower and inform your children, because to do so will protect the most vulnerable in our society. For all of us here, that is the most important duty that we can undertake.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr LEIGH</name>
    <name.id>BU8</name.id>
    <electorate>Fenner</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As a father of three boys, I found yesterday's television stories utterly gut-wrenching. To see these accounts of a number of allegations is just extraordinary. I'd encourage anyone who is distressed by the news to seek support. The government thanks the hardworking officers of the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation and the Queensland and New South Wales police for their dedication to the case. They didn't give up until they identified all of the alleged victims.</para>
<para>It's important to remember that the matter is currently before the courts. We in this parliament have the liberty to speak about any matters we wish, but it has not been unknown for past court cases to be derailed, so I'd urge all those speaking on this matter of public importance debate to be careful. The Leader of the Opposition, as a former police officer, knows better than anyone to be careful in all of our words in what we say to ensure we do not jeopardise the work of the police.</para>
<para>The Albanese government has been working with all Australian jurisdictions on the National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse, underpinned by an initial investment of some $300 million over four years. The Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation received additional funding in our budget. The Minister for Education has asked the independent Australian Children's Education and Care Quality Authority to undertake a review of child safety arrangements, recognising these heinous events. The government will receive the authority's interim reports in October.</para>
<para>As we talk about the importance of supporting Australian families, it is also vital that the opposition does in this parliament what the MPI says it will do.</para>
<para>My day today started with a visit to Ochre Medical Centre in Gungahlin with the terrific Minister for Health and Aged Care, who's here in the chamber. We were talking about the three important measures that the government has brought forward to take cost-of-living pressure off Australian households: tripling the bulk-billing incentives; delivering cheaper medicines, benefiting some 11 million Australians; and putting in place 60-day prescribing, which will benefit some six million Australians—a measure which, alas, is being opposed by those opposite. I then arrived in parliament and joined colleagues in seeing the Minister for Housing reintroduce the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill. The coalition oppose putting downward pressure on house prices, and every day of delay to the HAFF means 16 homes that aren't built. Then, shortly afterwards, the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Safety Net) Bill passed the parliament. That raises payments by $40 across a whole range of payments, but the coalition tried to amend it to remove that rise. So having had these three measures today, where the government is looking to support Australian families and the opposition is opposing support for Australian families, I find it surprising to have the opposition talking about the importance of supporting Australian families.</para>
<para>Right now, unemployment in Australia is at a 50-year low. Our government has delivered half a million jobs, better jobs growth than any government on record over our first year. We have brought down a budget which reduced inequality by more than any budget in the past decade. Inflation is going to be three-quarters of a point lower as a result of the measures in the budget, according to Treasury modelling. The Reserve Bank governor has said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I don't think that the budget is adding to inflation, it's actually reducing inflation in the next financial year.</para></quote>
<para>Inflation over the last quarter was 0.8 per cent, less than half of the 2.1 per cent that it hit during the coalition's last quarter in office.</para>
<para>In my remaining time, let me just go through 10 examples in which the coalition have failed to support Australian families. First, they voted against energy bill relief, calling our Energy Price Relief Plan 'Venezuelan communism'.</para>
<para>Second, they voted against coal and gas price caps, another vital measure which ensures that our manufacturers don't pay wartime gas prices and households don't go to the wall as a result of price spikes in the global energy market. They failed to support that.</para>
<para>Third, they're voting against more housing, including housing for women and children fleeing family violence. They say that they're supporting housing supply, but, when it comes to supporting Australian families by getting more housing built, they're refusing to do it.</para>
<para>Fourth, they're opposing 480,000 fee-free TAFE places. A great way of supporting Australian families is to ensure that, when Australians want to get a trade qualification, they're able to go out there and do it, and yet the deputy Liberal leader said that providing 480,000 fee-free TAFE places was 'a waste of taxpayer dollars'.</para>
<para>Fifth, they're opposing cheaper electric vehicles, an important support for Australian families and an important measure in our green energy transition.</para>
<para>Sixth, they're refusing to report the Rewiring the Nation plan, this important investment in the electricity grid which in turn supports Australia families through more affordable power.</para>
<para>Seventh, they're refusing to support 60-day prescribing, a measure which benefits six million Australians. It allows many Australians with many medicines to pay just half as much in order to get those essential medicines. Instead of supporting patients, the coalition are supporting the lobby group. Instead of supporting Australian families, particularly those with high medicines costs, they are playing cheap, populist politics.</para>
<para>Eighth, they're opposing cheaper child care.</para>
<para>Earlier this week the Minister for Education, Jason Clare, and the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Anne Aly, met with parents Blanca and Chris in Nicholls in my electorate. They have a daughter, three-year-old Paloma. Blanca said that, as a result of Labor's policy to make child care cheaper, she was able to make the choice to increase her working days from three to four, doing important work as a lawyer working for the government.</para>
<para>Yet when my party introduced cheaper child care the member for Wannon called it 'communism'. It's a bit of a theme: cheaper energy prices—communism; cheaper child care—communism. The shadow finance minister, Senator Hume said, 'It's certainly not the policy that we would have introduced.'</para>
<para>Ninth, those opposite are failing to support Australian families by refusing to back our measures to get wages moving. Of our industrial relations changes, Senator Cash said they would 'shut down Australia.' Under the former coalition government, wage stagnation cost the average worker $16,000 compared to what would have happened if wage growth had been at the levels of the former Labor government. Under us, we've seen the minimum wage up nearly $3 an hour and the gender pay gap at a historic low.</para>
<para>Tenth, those opposite are opposing a voice to parliament. For Indigenous families, a voice to parliament is a way of being heard on issues around employment, education and health care. If you want to support Indigenous families, you need to support a voice to parliament.</para>
<para>In our time in office we've delivered an aged-care pay rise of 15 per cent for 250,000 workers, delivered10 days family violence leave, boosted Commonwealth rent assistance by the largest amount in 30 years, expanded eligibility for the single parenting payment and delivered the first surplus in 15 years.</para>
<para>Finally, if we're talking about supporting families, let's think about the victims of robodebt. As one witness, Ms Bevan, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I'd often go without food so that my kids could have more food. I wouldn't buy lunch or anything, I'd just have breakfast and leftovers of what the boys didn't eat …</para></quote>
<para>A party that claims to support Australian families should admit what it did wrong with robodebt and acknowledge the importance of that never happening ever again.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BELL</name>
    <name.id>282981</name.id>
    <electorate>Moncrieff</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would join the Leader of the Opposition with regard to his remarks about the heinous alleged crimes perpetrated against 91 precious young Australian girls. It was he, as the Minister for Home Affairs, who set up the agency the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation, in conjunction with the AFP, the Queensland Police Service and the New South Wales Police Force, who were able to uncover these shocking and distressing alleged crimes. I would like to pay tribute to the Leader of the Opposition for his dedication to our youngest Australians, to the children of our nation. Today my thoughts remain with those victims and the families of those victims.</para>
<para>The member for Fenner said that the opposition didn't support cheaper child care. To be clear, Member for Fenner, the opposition supports anything that supports Australian families. But the truth of the matter is that out-of-pocket costs have gone up for Australian families. The truth is that the Labor government's policy on cheaper child care—$4.7 billion—has not delivered to every family, as they promised. They were promised cheaper child care by the Prime Minister. I've lost track of how many times he's said the phrase 'cheaper child care', using early learning centres as the backdrop for his political props.</para>
<para>In the lead-up to the last election he told parents and families that Australian families would be better off under Labor and that their out-of-pocket costs would be lower. That's easy to do for a government who have no idea what they're doing and did no due diligence to ensure the policy would work as they promised. Then 1 July happened, and what the government thought would be a huge win for them turned into a massive fail. Imagine promising families time and time again they would be better off and then standing by and watching as billions of dollars were immediately eaten up by inflation and higher fees.</para>
<para>We know that Labor is bad with economics, but how embarrassing this must be for the government.</para>
<para>According to the Parenthood, 90 per cent of Australian families have watched their early childhood education fees increase in recent weeks. Remember, last time Labor was in government, fees skyrocketed by 53 per cent in just six years. They've already increased eight per cent in the last nine months. My office has been inundated with emails from families who are further out of pocket now than they were before 1 July. This includes Sarah in Jamisontown, who watched her fees rise by $18 a day, and Naomi in Rothwell, who's now paying $45 more a day for her two children. The Prime Minister promised families they would be better off, but what I'm hearing is that families are out of pocket and they're struggling to pay their rent or mortgages, their bills and their early learning fees.</para>
<para>Labor like to claim they support families, but, when you look at their policies and their track record, they simply have not delivered for Australian families and they have failed to deliver with this policy. Four point seven billion dollars: that's how much Labor's cheaper child care policy cost—$4.7 billion, and I haven't met a family who claim they are better off now than they were 12 months ago; $4.7 billion, and yet the number of families stuck on waiting lists continues to grow; $4.7 billion, and not one single dollar will be spent to create one additional place at a centre or increase access for new or existing families.</para>
<para>During the winter break, I spent some time travelling through regional and rural South Australia, Victoria and Tasmania, speaking with parents and families who have no access to early learning, who cannot return to work and whose children cannot experience the wonderful benefits of early learning. It's no wonder those parents are absolutely angry. I've asked the department why and I've asked the minister why, and I can't get a straight answer to why communities who most need access are being left behind by this Labor government. Labor has left regional communities and those families behind, and it's disgraceful. It's an absolute disgrace.</para>
<para>It has become pretty clear the Albanese government have no idea what they are doing. They have no plan to increase access, no plan to address rising fees and no plan to fix the workforce concerns. With out-of-pocket costs rising again, Australian families deserve to know why they always pay more under Labor.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KHALIL</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
    <electorate>Wills</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I join the previous speakers in noting how shocked we all are by that case of sexual abuse, and the distress and the unimaginable horror and pain that the victims and their families must be feeling right now. I also think it's important to encourage anyone who is distressed by this to seek support at this time. I do also want to acknowledge the Australian Federal Police and thank them for their hard work—and all the police services and others who were involved in this case. It's going to be a very difficult period for those families, going forward.</para>
<para>In the MPI today, we're talking about Australian families. They are one of the highest priorities of the Albanese government because we know that the cost of living and the pressures of the cost of living are front of mind for so many Australians. We know the economic downturns around the globe have impacted Australians negatively. Those factors mean that the basics cost more and have cost more. Obviously, we know that the rising interest rates over a period of time have made it much harder to pay the mortgage, for those who have mortgages, and people are grappling as well with increased rents and pressure in the housing market.</para>
<para>But, unlike the coalition when they were in government, we are taking action in this space. We are very focused on relieving the pressure for Australians that are finding it so hard to get by. We know that inflation is the biggest challenge, and that's why the Treasurer and the government have been focused on a budget that takes the pressure off inflation and at the same time delivers cost-of-living relief, and that invests in lifting the capacity of the economy as well. Of course inflation is higher than we'd like to be, but the latest CPI data shows that we're heading in the right direction.</para>
<para>The 2023 budget—such a contrast to the previous government's lack of effort—provides substantive cost-of-living relief for Australians.</para>
<para>It is the biggest ever investment in bulk-billing and lowering of the cost of medicines. So many families, pensioners and people with debilitating chronic conditions no longer have to pay more for their medicines. That's significant. It's meant better pay and conditions and more job security for aged-care workers, with the critically important work that they do. And we're providing real energy bill relief for more than five million eligible households and one million eligible small businesses. That's real relief, and it's flowing through now from the budget and the decisions that were made.</para>
<para>We're increasing the base rate for eligible recipients of JobSeeker, Austudy, youth allowance and other working-age payments, as well as supporting 57,000 single parents by expanding eligibility for parenting payments. We're also increasing the maximum rate of Commonwealth rent assistance by 15 per cent. This is the biggest increase in three decades. Our budget also focused on supporting small businesses and entrepreneurs to commercialise their ideas and grow their businesses. And we're giving Australians the skills they need to secure jobs, providing 300,000 fee-free TAFE places and more university places. I think the Prime Minister noted today that some 140,000 Australians have already benefited from those TAFE places.</para>
<para>Much of the support is being rolled out as we speak. This is real. I know these MPIs can get into a bit of a partisan debate and a bit of movement and colour. But these are facts. These are things that are actually helping Australians right now, and they're benefiting Australian families. That will keep happening over the coming weeks and months. As a government we're also pursuing, as you all know, the ambitious $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, which is all about giving Australians safe access to affordable housing and reducing the pressure on the Australian rental market. As someone who grew up in public housing—and the Prime Minister and the Minister for Housing also grew up as 'housos', like me—I'm very passionate about this fund, because it provides a roof over people's heads and a safe place to live. That public housing gave me and my migrant family a fair start in life, alongside access to education. It literally opened the door to opportunity.</para>
<para>It is remarkable—it's astonishing—that the coalition, possibly through their cruelty, are opposing this and have teamed up with the self-indulgent, populist Greens political party to block 30,000 affordable homes to be built over the next five years, 4,000 of which would be for women experiencing domestic violence, as well as funding for Indigenous housing and for veterans. It is remarkable. I encourage them to get over the political posturing and the partisanship and support the housing fund.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr WEBSTER</name>
    <name.id>281688</name.id>
    <electorate>Mallee</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I start I want to acknowledge the profound words of the Leader of the Opposition in response to the horrifying news we have received in the last 24 hours: the child abuse case that is now moving forward in terms of its investigation. Every one of us in this House—it doesn't matter which side we sit on—have families. Our children are the most precious thing to us. Our grandchildren are the most precious thing to us. To hear this news is confounding, frankly. I want to honour the work of the Leader of the Opposition in his previous roles. I think together, in a bipartisan way, we want to see this situation rectified.</para>
<para>This Albanese Labor government talks about all the measures they're taking to ease the cost-of-living crisis which is crippling Australian families. My focus is on the one-third of Australian families who happen to live in regional Australia, who always get the short end of the stick when Labor is in power—the forgotten Australians. Regional families are struggling to make ends meet. They can't afford to put food on the table. Their energy bills are exploding out of control. And in my electorate of Malley people can't work, because there is no child care available.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister's contempt for Australian families who are doing it tough was on full display for all to see yesterday. When I asked him in question time what he could do for my constituent Brendan Reinheimer, a father of a young family whose electricity bill just went up by $970, what was his answer? The Prime Minister blamed the coalition for voting against his energy relief bill in the Senate.</para>
<para>I would remind the House that the measure actually passed into legislation, but it actually hasn't made a dent of difference to Brendan's electricity bill; it has still gone up by $970. I suppose the Prime Minister would have the same contempt for Steve Cross and his family of five, who have seen their electricity bill rise by a whopping $1,280. His promise of $275 relief on energy bills sounds like a bad joke, frankly, to the struggling families who are living in my electorate.</para>
<para>The Labor government continues to grandstand day after day while families in regional Australia literally cannot afford to keep the lights on. It is obscene. As the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister make clear, the Labour government's $5.4 billion childcare subsidy has been exposed as poor policy, as it is overlaid by skyrocketing fees and no relief for those who live in regional towns, especially in my electorate of Mallee, where there is no child care. Goodstart Early Learning operate four centres across Mallee and have increased their fees by nearly eight per cent, which they argue funds increased wages and increased operating costs. Nationwide, fees are rising in some cases by more than 15 per cent, piling pressure on Australians during the Labor government's cost-of-living crisis. Families across Mallee have told me of their inability to access child care, which renders any taxpayer funded subsidy 100 per cent useless. The dire situation of childcare deserts in Mallee has a flow-on effect for the workforce, which is experiencing severe shortages in sectors such as health, aged care and education. Labor's one-size-fits-all, policy-on-the-run approach has failed Mallee mums and dads.</para>
<para>Billions of dollars in subsidies makes for a flashy Labor headline, but where was the mechanism to prevent that subsidy being eaten up by higher fees? And what is their answer to regional towns with no child care at all? A subsidy is about as useful as a headless hammer if there are no childcare facilities and no workforce in the first place. How are families in Mallee who can't work due to lack of child care going to pay for the Prime Minister's renewable bonanza? What is Labor's answer to these skyrocketing energy prices that are sending families over the financial cliff? They'll just keep ramming through their ideological agenda to reach 82 per cent renewables by 2030 whatever the cost to families and whatever the cost to regional communities. They must do better.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs PHILLIPS</name>
    <name.id>147140</name.id>
    <electorate>Gilmore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am really pleased to be able to speak on this matter of public importance on how the Albanese government is supporting Australian families, because as a mum myself, raising my family of four children on the New South Wales South Coast, I see firsthand what local families are going through. It is difficult for families, but that is why I am proud to be part of a government that is helping make families a priority. The Albanese Labor government has accomplished so much in such a short time.</para>
<para>Let's start with cheaper child care. A few weeks after the Albanese Labor government's cheaper childcare measures began to take effect, I met with local mum Lisa from Gerringong. Lisa told me that our cheaper childcare measures were great for her family. Lisa told me that cheaper child care means she doesn't have to choose between progressing her career as a health professional and being a mum. That's a huge win. I don't want to see a situation where people must choose between having a family and progressing their career. In Lisa's case, the Albanese Labor government's cheaper childcare measures are helping her have both. But cheaper child care isn't just good for Lisa's family, because Lisa works in health care and she works with children. Cheaper child care allowed Lisa to do another day at work per week. As part of her work, she could then help other families whose children needed her specialised services. Cheaper child care is about doing what's right, letting people make the choices they need and allowing them to do what is best for their family. That's just one example.</para>
<para>Just today, legislation passed in the parliament that will strengthen the safety net for around two million people across the country. Two million Australians will soon benefit from cost-of-living relief through our improved safety net. Commonwealth rent assistance is going to increase by 15 per cent. This will add an average of $24 to the monthly payment for people receiving rent assistance. The legislation will also help single parents. Because of this new safety net, 57,000 single parents with children aged eight and above will also now be eligible for the higher parenting payment for single parents.</para>
<para>This will add at least $176.90 per fortnight to the support that single parents with a child under 14 receive—and, might I add, 90 per cent of the single parents who will receive the payment are single mothers.</para>
<para>But it's not only that. We've increased the base rate of working-age and student payments, including JobSeeker, youth allowance, Austudy, Abstudy, living allowance and disability support pension for youth carers. I'm proud to be part of a government that is strengthening the safety net to protect people and their families.</para>
<para>Another measure we're implementing to help with the cost of living and helping families is our cheaper medicines policy. With the approval of their doctor, eligible people will be able to get double the medicine for the price of a single script. That's 320 medications on the PBS that Australians will be saving on. Sixty-day dispensing is smart policy because it saves patients money and it's good for health, and it helps free up more GP appointments for those that need them most. And all savings from the implementation of the 60-day dispensing will be reinvested back into pharmacy.</para>
<para>One of these new measures is the Regional Pharmacy Transition Allowance. This new transition allowance will mean significant support for community pharmacy over four years. In my electorate, many pharmacies are classified as MM5, meaning that many will qualify for over $338,000 in support. The Regional Pharmacy Transition Allowance is in addition to the Regional Pharmacy Maintenance Allowance. On that note, we've doubled the total budget for the Regional Pharmacy Maintenance Allowance. This means that many pharmacies where I live will be eligible for over $70,000 in assistance. That totals hundreds of thousands of dollars in support to help our valued community pharmacies.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government is taking care of health in our communities and supporting community pharmacies to pay a bigger role in the health care of our communities. And there is more to come. But it is safe to say that the Albanese Labor government is working hard to address the cost-of-living pressures on Australians and their families.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs McINTOSH</name>
    <name.id>281513</name.id>
    <electorate>Lindsay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We often charge ahead in this place, really focused on what we're doing. The opposition leader today managed to really stop us with a shudder. Families send their children to child care because it's a safe space, not only for learning but for the care of their child, and it is so sickening to hear those reports that the AFP have arrested somebody for the alleged sexual abuse of almost 100 children. Just having that figure is a horrible thing to imagine, and I commend the Leader of the Opposition for shining a light on child exploitation, not only today in the chamber but throughout his whole career. I know it's something that he is really passionate about doing something about.</para>
<para>It is particularly concerning to hear about the terrible trajectory of child exploitation online. I know, from hearing from charities in my shadow portfolio of mental health, that there seems to be an increase in young people reporting sextortion by overseas crime gangs, and this is something that should be a priority of our parliament. As the opposition leader said, there is no bigger responsibility of parliamentarians than protecting our most vulnerable. So I thank him and acknowledge him sincerely for bringing this to our attention, as uncomfortable and horrible as it is.</para>
<para>Moving on to the debate today around families—and again, it's hard to move on to anything other than what we just talked about, because it is absolutely essential—protecting families and representing families and communities is what it's all about. When I'm speaking to people across my community about what matters most to them and the impact of the cost of living on not only them but also their children and their families, they're telling me that they're really struggling right now. They're struggling with energy prices; they're struggling with their mortgage repayments and their rent increases; they're struggling with child care.</para>
<para>I know this because I put out a survey and had thousands of responses.</para>
<para>I held a tele town hall. This came back loud and clear. We discussed many things, including the $275 that was promised to them. This actually means something to them. It's not a figure that should have been just plucked out of thin air. Young people, families and seniors are all concerned about the cost of living. Mums and dads, as I said, are trying to put their kids through child care while trying to work.</para>
<para>The substantial rises in childcare fees are taking their toll. I have one example of Chloe from Glenmore Park in my Lindsay electorate. She is a single mom with three children. She works five days a week and needs access to child care. Her children attend a centre in Regentville, which has increased its fees to $170.35 per day. This is unaffordable for Chloe. The out-of-pocket fees have risen almost 50 per cent. The additional costs will mean that this financial year's pay rise for her will go straight to paying the increases in childcare costs.</para>
<para>The government's policies on early childhood and child care are not adequately supporting families. I have another example of this. Sarah from Glenmore Park reached out to me about increases in costs at the childcare centre her child attends in Jamisontown. It has raised its fees by over 11 per cent. She said that there are no changes for her childcare subsidy. She said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I'm not sure how anyone can expect women to remain in the workforce when it costs so much to send children to daycare. I wonder how many women will actually have to pull their kids out of daycare, because they can't afford it anymore. Those women then stop paying super, and down the track become a burden on the system because they couldn't work and couldn't contribute to their retirement. It makes no sense.</para></quote>
<para>The most important point she raised was about this Labor government's wrongful narrative on its childcare policies. She said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It has honestly just been so demoralising to realise I won't be saving anything on daycare after hearing for so long that a new subsidy would bring some relief.</para></quote>
<para>We know cost-of-living pressures are stressing Australian families. We should be doing more about it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHARLTON</name>
    <name.id>I8M</name.id>
    <electorate>Parramatta</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In this MPI discussion the member for Moncrieff and the member for Mallee have spoken about the pressures on Australian families—from energy costs to mortgage payments and childcare costs. They are right—Australian families are doing it tough. Inflation takes the most from those who have the least to give, and many Australians are suffering the triple whammy of high inflation. They are suffering, first, from higher prices; second, from higher mortgage interest rates driven by those higher prices; and, third, from an erosion of their real wages as the prices take away their purchasing power. That is why this government—and I acknowledge the work of the Assistant Treasurer and the Treasurer—has made inflation its core focus.</para>
<para>What those families suffering from inflation want and what all Australians want is real help. They don't want grandstanding in this parliament, political pointscoring and slogans. They want real help with the pressures they face every day. Let's go through each of those pressures, what they really mean to Australians and what's really happening.</para>
<para>The first is health. They're right that the cost of health is going up. The health component of the CPI was up 4.9 per cent over the last year. This is a big expense for many people. We should note that it went up a massive 37 per cent under the coalition government between 2013 and 2022—a 37 per cent increase in the health component of the CPI. Health prices rose by 2.3 per cent in the last quarter of the coalition government. That was the last figure they left us with on a quarterly basis.</para>
<para>The happy news is that in the very last quarter, the most recent quarter of the Albanese Labor government, the health component of the CPI has been flat—in fact, it is very slightly negative. The coalition delivered 37 per cent increases in health costs over the period of their government and left us with a quarterly number of 2.3 per cent, but it is now just slightly below zero. That's good news for Australian families. We've acted on that: $3.5 billion to triple the bulk-billing incentive, immediately benefiting 85,000 people in my electorate of Parramatta; and 60-day prescriptions so that Australians save on their prescriptions and have to go to the doctor less frequently, helping nearly 37,000 people in my electorate of Parramatta.</para>
<para>Not only did they leave us with incredibly high inflation in health; they are voting against many of these measures. Why? Because they don't care about actual solutions; they just want a political dividend.</para>
<para>Let's go to energy, another significant area of concern for many Australian families where costs are rising significantly. What did the coalition government leave us with in their last quarter of the CPI in energy? 6.3 per cent, quarter on quarter. What was the most recent quarter of the Albanese government, the quarter that has just passed; the latest print? The CPI for gas in June 2023 was -1.2 per cent. We've gone from 6.3 down to -1.2. Why is it coming down? Because of energy price relief, because of the gas policy to keep prices down. We've acted very directly to support people with rising energy costs. They, of course, left us with rising costs and then opposed the measures to resolve it.</para>
<para>Let's go to the third one: housing. Housing costs have been increasing significantly right across Australia for many years. In my electorate, 30 per cent of people are in housing stress, which means that more than one-third of their disposable income is going to meet interest payments, rent payments or other housing costs. During the last government, the CPI on housing increased by 20.2 per cent over their years in government. In the last quarter of the coalition government, what did they leave us with? Again, they left us with CPI and housing running at 2.7 per cent quarter on quarter. Now, a familiar pattern: what is the last quarter of the Labor government? What has the Albanese government just printed on the housing CPI? 0.8 per cent. They left us with 2.7, quarter on quarter, and it's now down at 0.8. Once again, this government is acting. It is reducing the pressure on families. In my electorate, $32 million was shared with the New South Wales government to build social and affordable homes in North Parramatta, part of the $575 million in the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation.</para>
<para>Let's move on to food. Again, going up a lot. The food CPI went up 20 per cent in the period of that coalition government from 2013 to 2022. In the last quarter they left it running, on a quarterly basis, at 2.8 per cent, the last print of the Morrison government. The latest quarter of this government was 1.6—down from 2.8 to 1.6. This government has been acting on every element of the CPI. We've actually been taking pressure off families, and the numbers show it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
    <electorate>Casey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>First, I want to echo the words of the opposition leader. They were shocking and terrible allegations that we all read about yesterday. Like any parent, when you read them it's that sinking feeling in your stomach. I want to echo his words and thank the work of the AFP and the police that are involved in that investigation. They, too, will struggle for many years, I'm sure, with the trauma of what they've done.</para>
<para>I will move to families. I commend the member for Parramatta. As one of the government ministers said today, he's very distinguished and accomplished. He gave some extraordinarily impressive numbers. The wonderful thing about numbers is that the numbers are the numbers, but they don't exist in the real world. This is sometimes the problem in this House. We talk about the numbers and we don't talk about the real world. He was very quick to talk about those inflation numbers.</para>
<para>There were a couple of things that happened in the world around that time. We talk about things that happened in the real world. I think most of us remember COVID. COVID existed. They don't remember COVID. COVID didn't exist in 2020 at all. It had no impact on the numbers that the member for Parramatta referenced. It was all the government of the day. COVID didn't exist and didn't have any impact on any of the economic challenges that we faced at that time. The invasion of Ukraine apparently did not happen in this world. The Treasurer likes to talk about that one-quarter that had significant inflation. That was the quarter that Russia invaded Ukraine—shock, horror! That's what it's about with this government. It's all about spin. It's not about dealing with what's happening in the real world.</para>
<para>Child care is another issue that is significant for many families. I'm fortunate in my electorate of Casey that we've got a wonderful organisation called Mums of the Hills. It was founded by Belinda after she fell off a ladder and was injured. She had a moment of realisation that she was completely isolated at home. She'd just moved into the Dandenong Ranges.</para>
<para>She was lucky that she wasn't seriously hurt, but she had a moment of realisation that, if she had been incapacitated when she'd fallen, she had no-one to call and no help nearby. Her husband was working in the city. She realised that she was all alone at that moment, so she created an online community called Mums of the Hills. That community has grown to over 6,000 mums supporting each other in the Dandenong Ranges, the Yarra Valley and all of the outer east of Victoria.</para>
<para>It's a valuable organisation. They've just moved from the online world to the real world and created their new hub in Belgrave. That's going to give mums a place to go for support and refuge. Belinda has done an amazing job supporting so many people. What she does so well is advocate for them in the challenges they have. I've been fortunate to get to know her since being the candidate and the member for Casey. Senator Hume and I visited her just a few weeks ago to talk about some of the challenges that mums are having in the Dandenong Ranges, the Yarra Valley and all through Casey. The first issue she raised was the childcare desert that exists in our community, particularly in long day care. This is really important because if mums are unable to have their children in care all day they can't leave the Dandenongs to go to work in the city, which is an hour away. It's impacting them, so we need to continue to create more places. If there is more supply, then prices will go down.</para>
<para>I spoke to Belinda today because I wanted her first-hand information on this. She talked about an ABC article that identified this startling figure: there are between 15.43 and 15.87 children competing for every one childcare place in our community. In my remaining time I want to talk about prices. The prices families are paying are not going down. They're going up. One family has gone from paying $162 per day to $175 per day. They are $8 a day worse off after the increase in the subsidy. Another family has had a $13 a day increase, from $129 to $142 a day. Another, a $65 a week increase—now $157 per day, up from $142 per day. In the real world families are paying more for child care, and they know it. They've been let down by this government, which has plenty of political— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ANANDA-RAJAH</name>
    <name.id>290544</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm a little concerned that this MPI has a subtext, and the subtext is that, somehow, we in the Albanese government do not care for families. Well, nothing could be further from the truth. We are here to govern for everyone. The Albanese Labor government—in fact, all Labor governments—do not carve out Australia into favourites. We are here to support the young. We are here to support the old. We are here to support singles. And we are here to support families.</para>
<para>We recognise that families all throughout Australia are doing it tough. The inflationary beast is a global phenomenon, and Australia is not immune to these pressures. The response so far has been one where inflation has been bludgeoned by interest rate hikes led by the independent Reserve Bank, but it requires something more, and that's where we have stepped in, with surgical precision. We have provided targeted cost-of-living relief while laying the foundations of our future prosperity. Those foundations include skills, the energy transformation and investment in onshore manufacturing—the future that our children, the children of the families of today, will inherit. That future is there for them to seize.</para>
<para>In terms of the short-term cost-of-living relief—it has already been discussed, but for young families we delivered $4.7 billion in cheaper child care in the October budget. That is flowing now to 1.2 million families around Australia, including 4,400 families in Higgins. We know that the highest costs for families are mortgage repayments, the car and child care, which is actually third in those early years.</para>
<para>We recognised that at the outset, and it was one of the key reasons that young families voted us into government.</para>
<para>The second intervention was, of course, paid parental leave, which is designed to break those gendered norms that box in men as breadwinners and women as homemakers and actually last for decades. They start in that early period, when baby comes home, but they become entrenched and they last for decades. We want to smash those norms.</para>
<para>In terms of the middle years, a more universal area is health care. As a doctor, I was so heartened to see in the last budget a tripling of the bulk-billing incentive—a $3.5 billion investment. What does that mean? It means that more Australians can benefit from universal health care—Medicare. The reason I sit on this side and not on that side is because I believe in Medicare. It has been my life and my career.</para>
<para>In addition to that, in a few months from now, we will be delivering 60-day dispensing of medications to Australians. Eleven million Australians have chronic disease in this country. It's about 50 per cent of the population. Cheaper medicines through 60-day prescribing will benefit around six million Australians. That's going to halve the cost of their medicines. That's a significant cost-of-living benefit. It will deliver not only cost relief but also convenience. It will also improve compliance with medications. Why? Because when people run out of their medicines, they stop taking them and they deteriorate. If you have a chronic illness, whether it be diabetes or chronic heart failure, when you deteriorate, what ends up happening? You end up in hospital in the emergency department. You can see how a policy like this will pull one lever that will have economy-wide benefits not just to the individual but to the rest of the country, and it will have a knock-on effect—a virtuous cycle.</para>
<para>In addition to this, we know that families have been struggling with the mental health impacts of this pandemic. Parents are completely exhausted. Children have struggled to recover from the lockdowns that we had, particularly those in Victoria. I recognise that, and I hear it from my constituents, and this is why we committed over half a billion dollars—$586 million—towards improving mental health in Australia.</para>
<para>One of the key initiatives is removing the bottlenecks to psychology training. We need to have more psychologists. We also want to improve mental first aid so that anyone can deliver it.</para>
<para>While they are a party of division, we are a party of doers, and we are here to govern for this whole country.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The discussion has now concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>79</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Safety Net) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>79</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7041" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Safety Net) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Returned from Senate</title>
            <page.no>79</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>79</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee</title>
          <page.no>79</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>79</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MURPHY</name>
    <name.id>133646</name.id>
    <electorate>Dunkley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, I present the committee's report entitled <inline font-style="italic">You win some, you lose more: </inline><inline font-style="italic">online </inline><inline font-style="italic">gambling and its impacts on those experiencing gambling ha</inline><inline font-style="italic">rm</inline>, together with the minutes of proceedings.</para>
<para>Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MURPHY</name>
    <name.id>133646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—'You win some, you lose more,' the government's tagline on gambling advertising, adopted recently as part of the National Consumer Protection Framework, aptly sums up the evidence received during the inquiry of this committee of which I'm very proud to be the chair.</para>
<para>The evidence was clear. If the status quo on online gambling regulation, including but certainly not limited to advertising, is to continue, Australians will continue to lose more—more money, more relationships, more love of sport for the game rather than for the odds. It is clear from the 31 bipartisan recommendations contained in this report that the committee's view is that we cannot accept that. What we heard from submitters, ranging from people with lived experience to researchers, academics and even people in the industry, is that tinkering around the edges isn't going to cut it either.</para>
<para>This inquiry considered whether the current regulatory framework for online gaming and gambling advertising in Australia is fit for purpose and meeting community expectations. We received powerful evidence from people with lived experience, peak bodies, community organisations and concerned individuals about the harm that online gambling is causing to everyday Australians, to the people that they love and to their communities.</para>
<para>We like to be the best in the world in Australia. Australians outspend the citizens of every other country on online gambling. In many of our communities and in many of our families, it is wreaking havoc. We heard over and over again, as members of this committee and as members of this chamber, that families believe saturation advertising is ensuring their children's future losses. It is absolutely unarguable that there are three organisations at the moment which are gaining from the status quo: online wagering service providers, the advertising revenue for media and—there is some argument about whether this is a gain or not—the money that major sporting organisations receive not just from sponsorship but also from product use agreements with online gambling providers.</para>
<para>Our inquiry heard from gamblers who not only lost more than they could afford but who were encouraged by wagering service providers to gamble more, even after they incurred serious losses. We also heard from those who won and were prevented from gambling further. Any business model which encourages harm deserves to be closely scrutinised and that's what this inquiry did. The evidence is overwhelming that Australians don't like being flooded by messages and inducements to gamble online and they worry about the effect this is having on children and young people. Most believe that gambling is harmful for society and that it has become too easy to gamble in Australia. Almost half of Australians surveyed last year placed a bet on sports or racing and about two-thirds of those people are at risk of harm. It's not about safe gambling; it's about the risk and the reality of harm.</para>
<para>Online gambling is of course a form of entertainment, and many people can talk about how they indulge in it without experiencing harm or causing harm to others. But it is different to other forms of entertainment because, as we heard from the experts, it has the potential to cause psychological, health, relationship, legal and financial harm to both the individuals engaging in it and those around them. We heard, tragically, about gambling being a key risk factor for suicide. We heard from experts who talked about gambling progressing to a behavioural addiction of gambling disorder which has the same effect on the brain as addiction to substances and some of the same treatments.</para>
<para>The recommendations show that it's the view of the committee that there aren't enough safeguards to protect people from gambling disorder from online gambling harm and that too many people find it difficult to ask for help because the stigma associated with harm from gambling is silencing. Those who do seek help, find it difficult to access appropriate treatment and support.</para>
<para>Australia's fragmented regulatory framework, in many places, is too weak. What it does at the moment—and the approach across jurisdictions, but the Commonwealth, which we were looking at, does at the moment—is place the onus for reducing harm on the person who gambles. Despite gambling harm being a major public health issue we don't treat it like one. And by 'public health issue' we don't necessarily mean something that has to be dealt with by a department of health, but a 'public health issue' is something that causes health consequences and something that we should be looking at in terms of prevention, early intervention and treatment.</para>
<para>Our policies and regulation at the moment encourage responsible gambling. That was one of the things that the taglines I started off with has moved away from. Responsible gambling focus absolves online wagering service providers of much of the responsibility for the harm their products cause.</para>
<para>This inquiry heard about inconsistency across states and territories on how online gambling is regulated, and little incentive being placed on states and territories to impose tougher regulations or licensing fees.</para>
<para>The Northern Territory Racing Commissioner is in many ways Australia's de facto online gambling regulator.</para>
<para>I'm proud to say that this committee delivered a unanimous report. Labor, National, Liberal and Independent members of the parliament came together and delivered a unanimous report without any additional comments. Thirty-one recommendations apply that new lens—often called a 'public health lens'—to online gambling where we say, 'How can we not blame the individual but work to make sure these harms don't happen?' We have recommended: a single Australian government minister be responsible for developing and implementing a comprehensive national strategy—which must be done with states and territories—on online-gambling harm reduction, supported by national regulation; an online-gambling ombudsman; a harm-reduction levy on online wagering service providers; a public education campaign; more independent research; and improved data collection. We've recommended a crackdown on illegal gambling operators, including online casinos and skins, and e-sports betting websites. We've recommended a range of measures to improve the availability and adequacy of the support and treatment available to those experiencing gambling harm, and to reduce stigma.</para>
<para>We have recommended that the states and territories work with the Australian government so the Australian government could be responsible for regulation and licensing of online gambling while states and territories could retain the capacity to levy point-of-consumption taxes. We've recommended stronger consumer protections for online gambling, including a requirement for wagering service providers to verify their customers' identities before accepting bets from them. We've recommended a ban on inducements, a ban on the practice of going to people who are vulnerable—in particular those who have taken time out from gambling—and saying: 'Welcome back, here's some free money. Here's some match bets. Keep gambling.' We've also recommended a legislated duty of care on wagering service providers.</para>
<para>We know that online gambling companies advertise so much in Australia because advertising works. Online gambling has been deliberately and strategically marketed alongside sport. It has normalised gambling with sport as a fun, harmless and social activity that is part of a favourite pastime. It portrays gambling as perhaps making sport more enjoyable. But we heard evidence about the way gambling advertising also grooms children and young people to gamble and encourages riskier behaviour. The experiences of parents is that the torrent of advertising is inescapable. Their fears are that it's manipulating an impressionable and vulnerable audience to gamble online.</para>
<para>We heard in this inquiry from Australia's largest professional sporting codes, and the broadcast media, in step with their advertising and sponsorship partners in the gambling industry, broadly opposing further restrictions. We do understand that sponsorship and partnership with sporting organisations from gambling industry is significant money, and that advertising for free-to-air is significant money, but as the chair said, a time has to come when these organisations also think about their social licenses and their moral obligations. Although it may be difficult, they need to work out a way in cooperation with governments to wean themselves off that money if it's money that comes largely from people experiencing harm.</para>
<para>The committee shares the concerns of many witnesses and the community that the status quo is leading to a generation of young Australians who view gambling and sport as inextricably linked. It's concerning not only because of the potential increase in Australians experiencing gambling harm but also because of changes to the culture of sport that it has and can bring about. Australia would be diminished if sport was to be so captured by gambling revenue that providing an opportunity for betting came to be seen as its primary purpose. Sport is so much more than content for gambling, and surely the way the Matildas have inspired girls and boys and men and women alike over the last few weeks is evidence enough of this. The committee has recommended a phased comprehensive ban on all gambling advertising of online gambling services on all media—broadcast and online. It leaves no room for circumvention.</para>
<para>Partial bans haven't worked. Well-intended changes in 2017 and 2018 only led to the number of ads on television increasing. Industries will identify and capitalise on gaps in marketing restrictions and take advantage of the less regulated online environment. Targeted advertising online is causing harm and will continue to cause harm. The committee recommended that it be banned. The highest-risk harm should be addressed immediately. Sporting bodies and broadcasters will need adequate time to locate alternative sources of broadcasting revenue and to comply with concurrent contractual obligations. That's why the committee recommended a comprehensive ban be phased in.</para>
<para>The number of Australians who want to control their gambling is staggering. Half a million Australians have asked their banks to put temporary or permanent gambling blocks on their bank accounts. While most Australian banks have introduced measures to assist their customers in managing their gambling, there is inconsistency in the approaches taken by individual banks and other payment methods.</para>
<para>The committee has recommended the Australian government develop a set of minimum gambling harm prevention standards to be implemented by all Australian banks and for a ban on payment methods for online gambling that do not minimise the risk of criminal activity and gambling harm. The recent announcement by the government of the ban on the use of credit cards for online gambling is recognition that people should not be gambling with money they don't have, and it's welcome. The committee is also concerned about payday loans and the need to ensure the compliance of the payday lending sector with their responsible lending obligations.</para>
<para>The committee also heard evidence of children and young people being exposed to gambling through interactive games, like social casinos, which simulate real gambling and include gambling-like features such as loot boxes. Often, they're provided on platforms without appropriate classification guidance. The committee has supported the government's proposed changes to the classification system to reduce the risk of harm for social casinos and loot box features and interactive games, and we look forward to that occurring soon.</para>
<para>We have recommended that the classification scheme be consistently applied across online app stores, that a simulated gambling warning label be developed, minimum consumer protections on games, and that there be better education for young people, parents, caregivers and teachers about simulated gambling. We have heard that the National Self-Exclusion Register BetStop will be launched on the 21 August this year. Crucially, the government will also introduce a customer pre-verification requirement, meaning that individuals will not be able to place a bet until their identity has been verified. This is a very speedy implementation of an important recommendation of the committee and will both strengthen BetStop's protections for highest-risk gamblers and remove an opportunity for minors to gamble.</para>
<para>In conclusion, I wish to extend my sincere thanks and that of every member of the committee to the many people who contributed their time and expertise to this inquiry, particularly those who shared their personal experience of gambling harm. We know that it took incredible courage and strength for you to come forward, and members of the committee were very moved and impacted by the evidence that we received. It's your experiences, described in your own words, that have provided the foundation for this report and its recommendations.</para>
<para>I want to thank every member of the committee for their dedication and collegiality and emphasise that this committee listened to the evidence and provided a comprehensive and implementable recommendation base, based on the evidence we received. The members of this committee didn't take partisan positions or adopt any attention-grabbing recommendations or go for what was easy. Instead, everyone on the committee sought to grapple with the issues from all sides and to balance the choice of Australians to engage in betting as an entertainment with the financial implications for broadcasters and sporting organisations and the unarguable harms that are occurring across the industry.</para>
<para>I believe as chair that we have provided a road map for the government, and I've been heartened by the comments of the ministers about their approach to working through these recommendations and road map. I believe that the work of this committee, in particular, was an example of parliament at its best.</para>
<para>The other example of parliament at its best is the secretariat. They are sitting here today. Their work was second to none. Without the secretariat, I could not have chaired this inquiry and we could not have handed down such a significant and comprehensive report. I thank you all very much—John, Joel, Miriam and the team—for all of your hard work. We couldn't have done it without you.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONAGHAN</name>
    <name.id>279991</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I'd like to start by firstly thanking and commending the chair, the member for Dunkley, for her words in presenting this report from the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs. It has been a pleasure to work side by side with her, as it was with the entire committee. It was good to see a committee working together to work on policy that will change people's lives. And that, I believe, will happen and must happen.</para>
<para>Since my election in 2019, I've consistently received calls from constituents—parents—relating to the proliferation of online and free-to-air gambling ads and the apparent lack of any sensible regulation in the arena. I've also spoken to concerned parents who lamented the relentless streaming of loot boxes, games and social casino apps that would pop up on their children's video games, and I've heard from desperate family members of those negatively affected by gambling, asking for help from others to stop them from falling in the gambling trap. That's why this inquiry was so important, and I think it could be said that every member in this House would have received those telephone calls, those emails and that correspondence.</para>
<para>Unlike more traditional modes of gambling, online gambling is instantly accessible 24 hours a day, and its regulation is inherently difficult, due to the reach and ever-evolving nature of the digital environment. It is also more open to insidious practices that are able to flourish without regulation and classification. We heard from members of the public who are directly affected by gambling harm and we heard from family members who have been affected through tragic circumstances. I applaud and commend their courage for coming forward to allow us to see the real impact, not just anecdotally, and hear those tragic stories. I thank all of you for coming along and providing your submissions and the evidence we heard so we could make an informed view.</para>
<para>The recommendations put forward by the standing committee go directly to answering those concerns. Importantly, these recommendations are not aimed at removing an individual adult's right to bet and they are not aimed at reducing Australian freedoms in relation to responsible gambling. What they are specifically aimed at is protecting our most vulnerable from experiencing gambling harm.</para>
<para>The recommendations include ongoing educational programs aimed at youth, parents, those currently experiencing gambling harm and culturally and linguistically diverse communities. They cover labelling and classification of apps and games. They include the implementation of technological solutions to identify and block problematic offshore gambling sites. They include comprehensive bans on all forms of advertising for online gambling outside the dedicated racing channels and programming. Our kids should not be bombarded with gambling messaging while watching their sporting heroes or watching the nightly news. They include the national regulation of available payment methods for online gambling, prohibiting methods that do not minimise the potential for criminal activity or gambling harm. One of those was to ban the use of credit cards and credit facilities, and we were all in agreement that you should not be gambling with money that you don't have.</para>
<para>These are just a few examples of recommendations contained within the comprehensive report. Each of these recommendations provided are pragmatic, actionable, achievable and will drive positive change in the protection against gambling harm. I'd like to thank each member of the standing committee for their contributions to the report and the bipartisan approach taken by all involved. I echo our massive thanks to the secretariat. We couldn't do it without you. Thank you.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MURPHY</name>
    <name.id>133646</name.id>
    <electorate>Dunkley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the House take note of the report.</para></quote>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>83</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MURPHY</name>
    <name.id>133646</name.id>
    <electorate>Dunkley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Human Rights Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>83</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>83</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
    <electorate>Macnamara</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled <inline font-style="italic">Human rights scrutiny report 8 of 2023</inline><inline font-style="italic">.</inline></para>
<para>Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I am pleased to table the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' eighth scrutiny report of 2023. In this large report, the committee has considered 24 new bills and 190 legislative instruments, and it has commented on six of these bills and one legislative instrument. The committee has also concluded its consideration of eight bills and four legislative instruments.</para>
<para>The committee is seeking information in relation to several bills, as per the normal practice of the committee. For example, the committee has considered the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023. This bill seeks to introduce new offences relating to the public display and trading of prohibited symbols, including the Islamic State flag and specified Nazi symbols. It would also introduce new offences relating to the use of a carriage service to access violent extremist material and expand the existing offence of advocating terrorism.</para>
<para>The committee has noted, with deep concern, the rising number of disturbing events involving the public display of Nazi symbols and emphasises that these displays of hate have no place in Australia. Indeed, Australia has obligations under international human rights law to prohibit any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence and to eliminate all incitement to or acts of racial discrimination.</para>
<para>The committee considers that, if criminalising the public display and trading of prohibited symbols deters and prevents the commission of violent offences and reduces the harm caused to others by the display of such symbols, this bill would promote a number of human rights, including the right to life and the prohibition against inciting national, racial or religious hatred. The committee also notes that the measures in this bill may limit some rights, including the right to freedom of expression, the right of the child and the right to equality and nondiscrimination. As such, the committee is seeking some further information from the Attorney-General in the usual practice in relation to the bill.</para>
<para>The committee has also concluded its assessment of a number of bills and legislative instruments. One of them is the Migration (Specification of evidentiary requirements—family violence) Instrument, and it specifies what constitutes acceptable evidence for a non-judicially determined claim of family violence for the purposes of migration regulations. The committee considers that there is a risk that applicants from non-English-speaking backgrounds or certain cultural backgrounds may face more difficulties obtaining official evidence of family violence, meaning the measure may permissibly limit the right to equality and nondiscrimination. The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs has advised that this measure will be reviewed in the next 12 months, and the committee has recommended that this review include consideration of the matter that the committee has raised.</para>
<para>Lastly, I will mention that the committee has concluded its consideration of a telecommunications interception and access declaration. This declares the New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice to be an enforcement agency, with each staff member of Corrective Services NSW to be authorised to access telecommunications data relating to inmates. This does limit the right to privacy. The committee acknowledges the importance of correctional facilities being able to investigate criminal activities or threats, but it considers that the necessity of this power has not been established, noting that all other state and territory corrective services agencies access such data via the police. Further, the declaration enables thousands of employees to access telecommunications data, and so it appears to be insufficiently defined. The committee considers that this declaration is not compatible with the right to privacy and recommended some amendments to make sure that the measure is compatible with human rights.</para>
<para>I encourage all members to consider the report closely. I thank the committee secretariat, who, over the July period, have done an enormous amount of work to support the committee. I thank our committee members for this unanimous report, and I commend the committee's <inline font-style="italic">Human rights</inline><inline font-style="italic"> scrutiny report 8</inline><inline font-style="italic"> of</inline><inline font-style="italic"> 2023 </inline>to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>84</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>84</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7052" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>84</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPPIA</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
    <electorate>Makin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In continuing my remarks with respect to this legislation, I will provide some context to the legislation that is before us. The Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, otherwise known as the London convention, came into force on 30 August 1975. Eighty-seven states are parties to the convention, which is designed to ensure the protection of the marine environment from human activities. The London convention entered into force for Australia on 20 September 1985. The London convention ensures that a special permit is required prior to dumping certain materials, such as dredged material or man-made structures, at sea and a general permit is required for other wastes or matter.</para>
<para>The London protocol, which will eventually replace the London convention, and which currently has 53 parties signed up to it, came into force in Australia in 2006. The London protocol is more restrictive than the London convention and applies a precautionary approach. The protocol, through a permit system, may allow the dumping of certain materials, including carbon dioxide. In particular, the 2009 amendment permits the export of carbon dioxide streams from a contracting party to another country for the purpose of sequestration into sub-seabed geological formations as a climate change mitigation measure. At present, only 10 of the 53 contracting parties to the London protocol have ratified the 2009 amendment.</para>
<para>The Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water conducted an inquiry into amendments to the London protocol. Our report was handed in several weeks ago. Within that inquiry, we heard evidence that not all countries have access to suitable sub-seabed storage areas. To date, only six of the 53 contracting parties have ratified the 2013 amendments. Climate scientists tell us that we must reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases if we are to avoid catastrophic global warming levels. Carbon capture and storage in sub-seabed geological formations is one of several means by which atmospheric carbon levels can be limited. The process can be difficult, and there are risks associated with it. We heard that from Geoscience Australia, who outlined a whole range of risks. Time doesn't permit me to go through the whole component of that, but there are risks associated with that, and we accept that.</para>
<para>However, with the right regulations and oversight, the risks can be managed. Again, we heard evidence of how that is being done in Europe right now, where there are some very clear protocols and guidelines as to how you can safely store carbon under seabed geological formations. Norway, which has been storing carbon in sub-seabeds on a commercial scale in the North Sea for over two decades, has an extensive record on this practice. Indeed my understanding is that it's being done pretty well over there. I'm not suggesting that there have never been problems, but I understand, again from the evidence that was provided to the committee, that it is being done effectively and indeed the more it's being done, the more they learn about how to do it even better.</para>
<para>According to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, in their submission to the committee's inquiry, in 2022 there were 30 operational carbon capture and storage projects globally, 11 under construction and 153 in development. That means that countries around the world are indeed looking at this as one of the ways to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide. The fact that there are 153 projects in development around the world in addition to those that are already underway suggests to me that, whether we do it or not here in Australia, it is going to take place, and it will take place in other countries around the world. My view on that is that if it is going to take place in other countries, and we in Australia have some of the best and safest geological formations—again, according to the evidence that we received—then I would rather see it done under our regulations, our supervision and our oversight than see the carbon dioxide exported offshore to a country where I don't know whether they will have the same oversight as we would have here in Australia.</para>
<para>But it seems to me that this is a practice that is now being embraced globally. I quote directly from Geoscience Australia's submission to the committee:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a mature technology with commercial-scale projects operating around the globe, both onshore and offshore. CCS is regarded by many, including—</para></quote>
<para>And I stress this—including—</para>
<quote><para class="block">the International Energy Agency (IEA, 2020; 2021) and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2022), as an essential tool to meet emission targets and climate goals.</para></quote>
<para>Geoscience Australia, for which I have a great deal of respect, having listened to presentations in the past, and which I think is one of the leading scientific organisations in the country, has made that statement. I've always come into this place with a view that we should always accept the advice of our best scientific organisations, just as we do on the very issue of climate change. However, as I said, because not all countries have suitable geological formations underground or under seabeds, storage has to be done on the basis that there will be occasions when transcontinental transfer of sequestered carbon needs to take place. Those countries that do not have those same opportunities should be able to go into a contract with a country that does in order to achieve their own carbon reduction goals.</para>
<para>The legislation before us makes the transfer of carbon possible when and only when it is safe to do so. In addition to the general provisions of this legislation, there is attached a process of regulation and oversight that I believe makes the storage of carbon underground a possibility. Indeed, the very provisions associated with this legislation—that is, the 2009 and 2013 amendments to the London protocol—are not simply words. Those amendments talk about the safety precautions that need to take place. If you adopt those amendments you adopt with them the safety that goes with the process.</para>
<para>I want to finish with this. There are already considerable amounts of carbon captured and stored underground and under seabeds in the form of coal, oil and gas. It's already there. Returning human-produced carbon dioxide back to where it effectively came from, if done safely, in scientifically proven locations, seems to be a fairly sensible thing to do. I am committed, and I know the Albanese Labor government is committed, to responsible but real action on climate change. Labor accepts the climate science. We did so when we came into office back in 2007 and are now doing it again under the Albanese Labor government.</para>
<para>We understand the global risks we face. We know that Australia must act in concert with other nations. We understand that in the real world that we live in, including here in Australia, most people still drive petrol cars and rely on coal and gas for their energy. We cannot change that overnight. It is as simple as that. But we can begin to take mitigation measures, such as carbon capture and storage, to reduce atmospheric carbon wherever it is safe to do so.</para>
<para>I'll conclude with a couple of comments from the committee's report. These two comments perhaps sum up where the committee came to at the end of its deliberations. By the way, the committee did recommend that this legislation go through the parliament. The committee states at point 2.72:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Committee recognises that the 2009 amendment and the 2013 amendment to the London Protocol provide a means for countries to respond to the real urgency of climate change.</para></quote>
<para>The other comment is at 2.74:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Committee considered that the evidence about the environmental benefits was convincing and that any impacts should be able to be addressed through the current and proposed regulatory environment.</para></quote>
<para>Again, the committee had the opportunity, which perhaps not all members of this place have had, to listen to some of what I believe are Australia's leading experts, both in government sectors and even across the private sector and our universities, who appeared before the committee, gave their evidence and effectively said, 'Yes, it's a process that needs to be managed properly, but it can be an effective way of reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide and helping with the challenge we all have in terms of minimising the effects of climate change.' With those comments, I commend the legislation to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr RYAN</name>
    <name.id>297660</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to register my distress and disgust at this bill and my disappointment in the government which seeks to pass it. The release of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, from human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, contributes to climate change. In signing the Paris Agreement, Australia committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. Our purpose in doing so was to contribute as a nation to global efforts to limit the progressive, scientifically documented increase in the average temperature of our planet as it approaches 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Doing so demands urgent action to limit the release of greenhouse gases.</para>
<para>While it is also appropriate to look at the rapid and extensive deployment of mitigation options to offset the activities of those industries where some release of greenhouse gases is at this point inevitable, the first and primary focus of our efforts must be to decrease the extent to which we pollute our planet, not to concentrate on unproven and effortful attempts to claw back the harm that we have inflicted on our lands, our atmosphere and our seas.</para>
<para>The latest synthesis report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change confirmed the urgent need for ambitious action to limit global warming. It confirmed, yet again, that this planet has no room for new fossil fuel projects and that significant and immediate cuts to emissions are required this decade if we are to have any chance of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Just this week, the UN chief has told us that the era of global boiling has arrived and that climate change is here, it's terrifying, and it's just the beginning.</para>
<para>Climate change is already having profound impacts across the globe. Every increment of warming will increase those hazards. Globally, those most affected will almost invariably be those who are least responsible. The hazards to human health include the physical effects of raised temperatures, the emotional trauma caused by extreme weather events and the cumulative effects of the loss of livelihoods, environments and cultures.</para>
<para>The oceans play a central role in regulating the earth's climate. They act as major heat and carbon sinks.</para>
<para>Climate change's impact on the oceans include temperature rise, ocean acidification, sea level rise and the expansion of oxygen minimum zones. These have downstream impacts on ecosystem services such as the provision of livelihoods and foods.</para>
<para>The Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 proposes to amend the existing sea dumping act to implement the 2009 and 2013 amendments to the London protocol. In short, it seeks to allow the issuing of permits for the export of carbon dioxide streams for the purpose of sequestration into subseabed geological formations. In other words, this bill permits carbon capture and storage under ocean seabeds. It also allows for marine geoengineering activities for the purpose, theoretically, of scientific research. But the impact and effectiveness of that geoengineering research is largely unclear, and its environmental risks are unknown.</para>
<para>Put simply, this bill is a key enabler of the gas industry's plans to significantly expand Australia's engagement with carbon capture and storage in Australia and its import and export of CO2 across international borders. CCS and the global trade of CO2 streams are crucial to the gas industry's global strategy to gain social licence by appearing to act on climate whilst simultaneously opening up new fossil fuel projects against the explicit advice of bodies such as the International Energy Agency and the IPCC. This bill aims to facilitate the greenwashing of fossil fuel expansion plans in Australia.</para>
<para>Let's review what subseabed geological sequestration of carbon dioxide streams would involve. Carbon capture and storage involves capturing, transporting and storing carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and other industrial processes. That CO2 is then transported via a ship and/or a pipeline—there are, of course, further emissions arising from that transport process—to a storage location. It is then injected into and stored within a subseabed geological formation, isolated from the atmosphere. The consequences of this process then have to be verified, monitored and mitigated. The IPCC observed in its 2005 special report on carbon capture and storage:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The widespread application of CCS would depend on technical maturity, costs, overall potential, diffusion and transfer of the technology to developing countries and their capacity to apply the technology, regulatory aspects, environmental issues and public perception.</para></quote>
<para>Almost 20 years later, carbon capture and storage remains an unproven technology which has never achieved target at scale.</para>
<para>Only one CCS project is active in Australia. Chevron's Gorgon carbon capture and storage project on Barrow Island in Western Australia has consistently failed to effectively sequester the required reservoir CO2 generated by the Gorgon LNG project. Gorgon is the latest operating carbon capture and storage project in the world. So far it has cost more than $3 billion, $60 million of which has come from federal government funding. It's currently sequestering about a third of its capacity five years after initiation. It is the biggest and best exemplar worldwide of an ineffective technology. But we have seen similar failures in Norwegian CCS projects as well. There are currently 30 operational CCS projects worldwide. None has demonstrated effect and safety at the scale required for carbon capture and storage to be used at the scale required for this bill.</para>
<para>The Australia Institute has estimated that the combined climate mitigation of all projects underway globally would cumulatively amount to approximately 6.2 million tons of greenhouse gases a year. That's roughly the equivalent of the emissions of one Port Kembla steelworks, or perhaps 0.2 per cent of global fossil fuel emissions each year. Even were it 100 per cent effective, which is far from the case, CCS continues to ignore the 85 per cent to 90 per cent of total emissions from the energy sector which represent scope 3 emissions from oil and gas burned by consumers. At this time, carbon capture and storage have no place in credible pathways to net zero.</para>
<para>Why are we talking now about exporting our carbon dioxide streams? We are doing it to pander to Santos and its plans to establish a carbon capture and storage project in its existing Bayu-Undan gas field.</para>
<para>Santos plans to channel carbon from the offshore Barossa project via the Middle Arm precinct in Darwin Harbour. Other future stores of CO2 for that field include the Beetaloo and Bonaparte basins, the Middle Arm petrochemicals facility, the Verus gas field, and international countries that currently lack CCS facilities, such as Japan, Singapore and Korea.</para>
<para>The unseemly haste with which this bill has been brought to this House appears to reflect the government's desire to assuage the anxiety of Santo and other investors that the Barossa project and other fossil fuel projects off our northern coastline can proceed posthaste, heedless of the potential handbrake effect of the safeguard mechanism. This is despite the absence of approvals and environmental impact statements for Bayu-Undan and for Middle Arm.</para>
<para>This is all without consideration of the direct and indirect environmental and health risks involved. Indirectly, the false proposition of CCS can be used as justification for locking in existing energy structures—that is, the continued and increasing extraction of fossil fuels. There are direct risks associated with transporting carbon dioxide and with potential leaks from undersea or underground stores.</para>
<para>Environmental risks of carbon capture and transport include the unintentional release of carbon dioxide streams into the environment during transport in ships and pipelines and from storage facilities. High carbon dioxide concentration in the air harm people and harm animals. It causes asphyxiation. This is a risk offshore and in onshore hubs, such as Middle Arm, which is adjacent to population centres in Darwin. In a sub-seabed setting, dissolved carbon dioxide acidifies the water. It affects organisms and can cause asphyxiation. Aquatic ecosystems are also threatened by the physical disturbance of drilling and laying pipelines and by seismic events, subsidence, and displacement of aquifers during carbon dioxide injection. Ocean acidity will affect our food systems by adversely affecting marine life. The geomechanical risks associated with carbon capture and storage include abnormal seismic activity, surface uplift and carbon dioxide leakage.</para>
<para>Large-scale shipping of carbon dioxide is a new technology that includes multiple technical and operational challenges. Each of these requires appropriate safety protocols and uses unquantified amounts of energy. Moisture-laden carbon dioxide, such as that transported in carbon capture and storage, is highly corrosive. The loss of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from ships during transport is between three and four per cent per 1,000 kilometres, which means that a loss of 20 per cent of the carbon dioxide load should be expected from export activities between countries such as Japan, Korea, Australia and Timor-Leste.</para>
<para>It is simplistic to think that a long 20-year-old pipeline designed for the transfer of natural gas can be easily retrofitted to a reverse transfer of highly pressurised corrosive carbon dioxide. The various safety and regulatory frameworks involved are not present in this bill. The bill fails to stipulate compliance requirements necessary for the minister to grant a carbon dioxide expert permit. It requires no environmental impact assessments to be undertaken for carbon dioxide import or export or for marine geoengineering. It includes no regulations around the circumstances of carbon dioxide transport. It sets no expectations regarding the regulatory capacity and readiness of destination countries to create and maintain adequate environmental protections.</para>
<para>I also note that both offshore gas projects and carbon capture and storage have implications for the cultural practices of traditional owners on sea country. These implications are also not addressed in this bill. This bill is not situated within a robust regulatory framework that engages and is consistent with the safeguard mechanism, the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and other emission reduction legislation. It does not specify which government department will have regulatory responsibility for sub-seabed sequestration if that occurs in Australian waters. It does not clarify who will be responsible and who will have transboundary liability in the event of accidents. It does not stipulate how the export of carbon dioxide will impact our Paris Agreement target compliance and our emissions inventory reporting. In seeking to help fossil fuel companies circumvent the safeguard mechanism and avoid responsibility for their greenhouse gas emissions, this bill is inconsistent with the global effort to achieve the Paris Agreement.</para>
<para>Carbon capture and storage is an unproven, costly technology. Promoting it and supporting it by legislation undermines our efforts to decarbonise by giving false credits to a false science, by diverting funding from proven technologies that could reduce emissions and by delaying out transmission to renewables. This bill will be a key enabler of gas expansion. It will grant social licence for new, highly polluting, greenwashed fossil-fuel projects. We must protect our oceans and our aquatic ecosystems from the threats of concentrated, liquefied carbon dioxide. Passage of this bill will kick a toxic carbonated can down the road to our international neighbours. In passing this bill, we would be signalling to the rest of the world our refusal to take responsibility for our own emissions and our willingness to dump them on our neighbours without due consideration of the physical or moral safety of that transfer. I cannot in any conscience commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr REPACHOLI</name>
    <name.id>298840</name.id>
    <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to contribute to the debate on the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023. Our oceans are precious. They're a vital part of our ecosystem and home to a vast range of sea life. We are an island nation. Our oceans surrounding us are important to all of us. The sea around our home is so important that it gets a mention in our national anthem: 'girt by sea'. We look to look after our waters better, and it starts with this bill targeting the loading and dumping of waste at sea.</para>
<para>Our oceans are not a garbage dump, but, sadly, too often they look like one. We have seen those photos of turtles caught up in plastic or other animals who live in the sea being impacted by our waste which ends up in their home. But what can sometimes go unnoticed is that it is not only the animals impacted by this. It has real impact on us as humans as well.</para>
<para>I know that those opposite are not particularly skilled in the area of international relations. I don't need to go into the detail of certain events like the deterioration of our relationship with our Pacific neighbours or a certain deal that was handled in a way that offended our friends in France. But the adults are here now—we on this side of the House, anyway. We know that it is important to build strong relations with countries all over the world. Climate and the environment are high on the list of priorities for many countries around the world, and it's hard for Australia to be taken seriously if we are not taking the issues important to them seriously too.</para>
<para>This bill implements Australia's international obligations under the 1996 protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter 1972, otherwise known at the London convention, by ratifying both the 2009 and the 2013 amendments. It has taken a while, but we will pass this bill. We will finally be doing our bit to prevent marine pollution.</para>
<para>The objective of this bill is simple: we'll protect our oceans and live up to what is rightfully expected of us at an international level. We will do this by regulating the loading, dumping and incineration of waste at sea and the placement of artificial reefs in Australian waters. We will also prohibit the disposal of harmful materials in the ocean.</para>
<para>We adopt the 2009 amendment to the London convention. This amendment is to permit the export of carbon dioxide streams from a contracting state party to another country for the purpose of carbon sequestration in geological formations below the seabed. We also adopted the 2013 amendment. The amendment was to allow the placement of waste and other matter for marine geoengineering activity such as ocean fertilisation for the purpose of scientific research.</para>
<para>Research is important. Without research, we cannot find a better way of protecting our water. These amendments make it easy for research to take place, which will help us understand what methods will work in reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide.</para>
<para>There are a range of ways in which science can be used to reduce carbon dioxide in our atmosphere by conducting research at sea. This could include microbubbles. This involves injection of very tiny bubbles into the ocean or into the sea foam, which will increase how much sunlight reflects off the ocean. Another strategy is to conduct marine cloud brightening or seeding, which means injecting sea salt into clouds to reflect sunlight back into space. Activities such as ocean alkalinisation are also being explored. This means adding alkaline substance to the seawater to enhance the ocean's natural carbon sink. There is also the possibility of micro-algae cultivation, which is the large-scale growth of algae that converts dissolved carbon dioxide into organic carbon through photosynthesis.</para>
<para>Science is incredible, and it is amazing to think how advanced we are as humans. Science will only continue to become more advanced but only if we allow activities like these to be tested so that we know what works and what doesn't work so that we can make improvements. Climate change is the biggest threat facing us as humans, and science is right at the forefront of fighting against it. It is important to reduce the emissions that we create, but we will get so much further in our battle against climate change if we develop ways to take out even more of the carbon dioxide that is in the atmosphere at the same time as reducing how much we put into it. These activities at sea need to happen so we know how we can best do this. They may sound like they are massive projects and difficult to understand, but the permits can only be granted after they have gone through the significant application assessment and approval process which makes sure that these kinds of activities are in accordance with the London protocol and have minimal impact on the marine environment in the Australian waters. It is also important to note that we as a country are bound by the London protocol, as we are a contracting party. This isn't new. It is already referenced in the sea dumping act. This means that any potential projects must go through extensive environmental impact assessment in accordance with the 2012 specific guidelines and the London protocol's risk assessment management framework. This bill will mean that Australia will be able to start to develop a domestic framework which will allow the government to give permits so that these kinds of scientific activities, which are emerging, are able to take place with legal certainty.</para>
<para>We won't know how far we can go when it comes to taking carbon out of the atmosphere if we don't have any way which allows us to regulate and allow these kinds of activities to happen. Both the 2009 and 2013 amendments to the London Convention were subject to a recent enquiry undertaken by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water. As a member of this standing committee, we recommended that these amendments be enacted in the Australian law for both environmental and regional foreign-policy reasons. It was also recommended in an independent policy insight paper from the Climate Change Authority in April 2023 that these amendments be introduced. That is what this bill is doing. This bill is good for the environment, and it is very good for our international reputation. It's a win all around.</para>
<para>Of course, this is not the only piece of legislation which looks at activities at sea. These laws would work alongside the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, the existing provisions under the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act and the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme as well as various state and territory laws. It's all about strengthening our current laws as well. It's important to point out that domestic offshore carbon capture utilisation and storage can currently occur under existing laws. No project has reached a final investment decision just yet, but it is likely that any offshore project would occur through these domestic mechanisms long before any transboundary project. The consequences of this bill not going through are concerning.</para>
<para>Researchers are very keen to do what they do best: conduct research. Some may look at the loopholes and create their own initiatives to undertake unregulated activities. This is no fantasy story because it's already happening with marine geo-engineering activities. More oversight will be beneficial when these activities increase in scale. Without the regulation that this bill will provide, we risk great harm to the marine environment from these activities. I want to see us move forward and make these amazing scientific and technological advances and I want to see this create an answer to climate change, but I don't want to see our attempts to fix one issue create a new issue. That is why this bill needs to pass.</para>
<para>We need an application, assessment and permitting system with monitoring and compliance processes. Carbon capture projects are only a small part of our efforts to reduce carbon emissions, but it is an important part. All of the advice says that carbon capture and storage will play a role in the path to net zero. This is the advice of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy, the International Energy Agency, Australia's independent Climate Change Authority and the CSIRO. And it fits in perfectly alongside what our government has already done in decarbonising our economy responsibly and in line with our international obligations. This bill is about ensuring that it's done in the most rigorous regulatory framework.</para>
<para>What we are not doing is what the former government did. Those opposite provided wasteful public subsidies for the commercial development of carbon capture and storage. What we have done is cut the $250 million of government subsidies for carbon capture programs. Our large resource companies have more than enough capital and expertise to accelerate commercial deployment of carbon capture and storage. These projects must stack up economically for the industry, without any government subsidies, and meet all domestic and international environment approvals.</para>
<para>But it is important to note before the House that carbon capture projects are, and should only be, a small part of our emissions reduction plan. Our government hasn't wasted any time in getting on with the job of decarbonising our economy responsibly and in line with international obligations—and it's a tough job. We are catching up on a wasted decade of climate inaction, but since the Labor government was elected we have legislated our emissions reduction target of 43 per cent by 2030, with a key path to net zero by 2050 set out in law. We have passed the safeguards mechanism to ensure that our heavy emitters fit within the pathway to net zero, but we have consulted far and wide and have done this with industry input.</para>
<para>We have doubled the rate of renewable energy approvals and we are just getting started. We have started the process of rewriting our environmental laws to put our environment on a nature-positive trajectory. We are investing $2 billion into green hydrogen, as part of the budget. We have committed $1.6 billion for homes and small businesses to electrify. We are supporting more EVs. We have committed $20 billion for Rewiring the Nation. We have started establishing new offshore wind projects around the country, including off the coast of the Hunter. We have now committed $3 billion to the National Reconstruction Fund for renewables and low-emission technology—something that those opposite voted against.</para>
<para>My electorate is home to the biggest saltwater lake in the southern hemisphere, which leads straight out to sea. This is the beautiful Lake Macquarie. Protecting our waters is important to many people in my electorate, especially those who call the towns and suburbs around the lake home. It's also something that's important to me. The Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 is a crucial step on our journey towards a more sustainable and resilient planet. Together, we can make a difference and safeguard the beauty and diversity of our oceans for generations to come. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr SCAMPS</name>
    <name.id>299623</name.id>
    <electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to continue doing one of the most important things the community of Mackellar elected me to do, and that's to fight for stronger action on climate change. This bill, the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023, is as confounding as its title suggests. Are we dumping carbon in the sea to protect the marine environment? Isn't carbon capture and storage an old and failed technology? Rather than fight climate change, won't this bill make it worse by enabling more gas mines to proceed?</para>
<para>The government says it is introducing the bill to give effect to Australia's obligations arising out of the 2009 amendment to the 1996 London protocol. 'London protocol' is shorthand for the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter. This is where it gets confusing. The 2009 amendment to the London protocol has never been ratified. It was introduced to create an exemption for the export of carbon dioxide streams to another country for carbon capture and storage, or CCS. The 2009 amendment is not in force. It has never been ratified and it won't come into force until two-thirds of the parties to the London protocol have accepted it, and so far only 10 out of the 53 contracting parties to the protocol have done so. So the government's first justification for this bill just does not stack up.</para>
<para>The purpose of the London protocol was to protect the marine environment. It expressly prohibits incineration at sea and the export of wastes and other matter for the purpose of ocean dumping. The unratified 2009 amendment allows for certain materials to be considered for dumping, including—and importantly for our purposes—carbon dioxide streams for sequestration in sub-seabed geological formations. In layman's terms, that means that the protocol permits, in certain circumstances, the dumping of carbon into sub-seabed geological formations, and it allows carbon to be exported for that purpose.</para>
<para>Why now? Why would the government seek to give effect to a 2009 amendment which is not even in force, and do it prior to reforming our flawed national environment laws, which could provide additional layers of protection for our marine environment? The answer is simple. A few months ago, as a result of pressure from the crossbenchers of both the House and the Senate, the government was forced to bring in amendments to improve the safeguard mechanism. One of those amendments dictates that all new gas facilities must be net zero from the start of operations and remain net zero for the life of the project. This had the climate-positive effect of putting a spanner in the works of upcoming but not yet approved gas projects, like Santos's Barossa project.</para>
<para>So let's talk about the Barossa gas project. This gas field is proposed to be developed in the pristine waters north of the Tiwi Islands in the Northern Territory. If developed, it will be one of the most polluting offshore gas projects in the world, releasing 15.6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions annually. That is because not only will it be a colossal project in size; Barossa's gas also has a very high level of carbon dioxide in it, far higher than any other gas project in the country, as much as 1.5 tonnes of carbon for every one tonne of gas. That's right, Mr Deputy Speaker: it may produce more carbon dioxide than the methane gas it is trying to extract.</para>
<para>On top of the climate impact, the pipeline connecting the Barossa gas field to the land poses a major threat to turtle hatchlings and nesting beaches, as it will involve extensive seabed disturbance, dredging, increased shipping and helicopter movements over the islands, and significant noise and light pollution.</para>
<para>But back to the safeguard mechanism. The amendments to the safeguard mechanism were introduced to be the major lever that would allow Australia to meet our 2030 climate targets. Being a new gas project, under the amended safeguard mechanism the Barossa gas field would be allowed to operate only if it were net zero for scope 1 emissions from initiation—that is, net zero for emissions that are created when the gas is being mined; it doesn't include those emissions that come from burning the gas overseas.</para>
<para>This amendment to the safeguard mechanism made Santos and other investors in the project understandably anxious, as it made Barossa's gas project far less viable. This new safeguard rule has unsettled investor countries such as Japan, which rely heavily on the importation of Australian gas—so much so that, just one month ago, the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Financial Review</inline> reported that Japan had requested the Barossa gas project be exempted from the safeguard mechanism.</para>
<para>So how does such a highly polluting gas project operate on a carbon neutral basis? Reducing its emissions is very difficult, so instead it needs to sequester them. In other words, it needs to capture the carbon and store it somewhere, such as under a seabed. Enter this bill, the sea-dumping amendment bill 2023. This bill will enable the export of gas for sequestration under the seabed of other countries. It will enable emissions from the Barossa gas project to be shipped away to Timor-Leste who will store the carbon dioxide under the seabed on our behalf. In other words, this bill enables the Barossa gas project to go ahead when, because of the safeguard mechanism, it may not have. It is the very exception to the safeguard mechanism that Japan was seeking—except it has happened by the back door. In essence, with the sea-dumping bill, the government is creating a pathway for new gas mines to proceed. This pathway relies upon flawed, unproven technology—carbon capture and storage—which has been shown time and again to fail.</para>
<para>As everyone with even a passing interest in climate change knows, carbon capture and storage is not new and, as everyone also knows, it does not work. Chevron's Gorgon gas project was approved on the basis of its carbon capture and storage technology, which Chevron promised would store 80 per cent of the carbon emissions released during the mining process. The Gorgon gas project has since become infamous for the repeated and unmitigated failure of its carbon capture and storage technology. It is universally recognised as a monumental failure. By mid-2020, Chevron had spent a staggering $3 billion on that CCS technology, making it one of the costliest CCS facilities in the world, and it didn't even work.</para>
<para>Norway's experience of carbon capture and storage also raises major alarm bells. In one of Norway's carbon capture and storage projects, the sequestered CO2 has already risen 220 metres up through the sedimentary rock of the seabed. Far from being captured, it's migrating. Secondly, a site that was touted to be able to store 18 years worth of carbon dioxide emissions looks like it'll run out of capacity after just two years. Carbon capture and storage is unproven and in many cases is a failed technology.</para>
<para>It is also alarming that, in tandem with this sea-dumping bill, the Minister for Industry and Science has been opening up huge areas of our ocean floor acreage for exploration for carbon capture and storage sites. This means two things at least. Firstly, our marine environments will be subjected to more seismic blasting, and secondly, it is yet another step enabling polluting gas mines to proceed. If all this isn't dire enough, none of what I've discussed so far deals with scope 3 emissions that result from the actual burning of the gas once we ship it overseas. And this represents the vast majority of emissions from gas—over 85 per cent.</para>
<para>So here we are on climate action, or inaction: one step forward, two steps back. This government has a foot in each camp, pretending to act on climate change and at the same time approving and enabling new fossil fuel projects and mines. This sea-dumping bill is a dangerous enabler. It is a dangerous enabler because it allows for polluting gas projects to proceed based on flawed and unproven carbon capture and storage technology, and it does not deal at all with scope 3 emissions.</para>
<para>All of this is occurring at a time when the UN Secretary-General has warned that we've entered an era of global boiling. Can you get any clearer than that? We have been warned, repeatedly, that there must be no new oil, gas or coal mines if we are to leave a liveable planet for our children and future generations. Rather than being beholden to the fossil fuel industry, this government needs to start taking these warnings seriously and stop enabling and approving new fossil fuel mines.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LAWRENCE</name>
    <name.id>299150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hasluck</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>For the first time in 10 years, Australia has a government prepared to make the necessary and sometimes difficult decisions to help combat climate change. There are many ways in which governments around the world can address climate change, and at last an Australian government has started to address it in serious, meaningful and many varied ways: legislating for emissions reduction targets, a safeguard mechanism with teeth, substantial investments across a swathe of renewable technologies and transmission as well as research and innovation. We are taking part in the COP meetings with pride again and, hopefully, will host COP in 2026. We've entered into many international agreements, such as the Global Methane Pledge and the Climate Club, and just a fortnight ago Minister Bowen visited India, Korea and Japan to collaborate on clean energy initiatives.</para>
<para>This amendment before the House is another step along the road to making Australia a leader on climate change. It needs to be understood in that context. It is one measure being adopted by a government that understands the need to take action on many fronts at the same time and one that understands its duty to enact evidence based policy. It's a refreshing situation. Will there be a growing international CCS market as a result of this legislation? Will there be much marine geoengineering as a result? We don't know. We are creating the necessary legislative environment. We are getting ahead of the game. We are taking the threat seriously and turning over every stone to ensure that we are in the best position we can be to regulate new technologies and industries.</para>
<para>What we are not doing is somehow waiting for the technology to be perfect or trying to point the finger at oil and gas companies that have supplied the energy that all of us use every day. It's okay to be critical, but it's also important to recognise that government and industry need to work together to overcome these challenges. Governments are bound to take heed of all emergent technologies that provide options for addressing climate change. Governments have a duty to form policy on the best available evidence.</para>
<para>Do Independents and minor parties need to do that? I would argue they should, even though they don't carry the same burden. The brave thing to do, for those opposing this legislation, would be to try to have the difficult conversation with their constituents and the supporters who are passionate and engaged on climate change and the environment—there are many in my own electorate and within the Labor Party membership—to have the difficult conversation that combating climate change is more than slogans. It's complex, nuanced and multifaceted. There are many stakeholders and interests, and the government is doing the work. In this instance, it requires us to create predictable legal frameworks that will be used to ensure a rigid and robust oversight over carbon capture, utilisation and storage technology that will certainly be part of the net zero mix.</para>
<para>The wrongheadedness of this opposition to the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 is underscored by the fact that CCS is legally regulated for domestic operations. The amendment will allow the development of an international market. To oppose it is simply to say, 'Well, we acknowledge that CCS is happening in Australia, which Geoscience Australia, after 20 years of study, tells us has good geology for this in many places, both on- and offshore, but we don't want to inject carbon from other countries whose geology may be unsuitable.' It's the international version of 'Not in my backyard'. The provisions of the amendment refer to both carbon export and marine geoengineering. In both cases, a strict regime with cumulative provisions restricts the granting of a permit by the minister. Opposing this bill is opposing robust regulation and limiting the opportunities we have to address climate change.</para>
<para>It is worth reiterating that once the legislation before us has gone through the parliament it will operate in concert with the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, the existing provisions of the sea dumping act and the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme. With that in mind, it is also worth reiterating that offshore carbon capture, utilisation and storage can already occur under these existing laws. Should this bill not be introduced, there would be no ability for the government to implement a robust regulatory framework, leaving the door wide open for operators to look for loopholes to undertake unregulated activities.</para>
<para>As it has been established that CCUS will play an important role in our journey to net zero, there is great risk in taking an unregulated approach, to allowing operations to exist outside of the oversight of our existing environmental and conservation acts. As a responsible government we want to ensure that we have in place a comprehensive and robust regulatory framework, including stringent application, assessment and permitting systems with strong oversight, monitoring and compliance processes.</para>
<para>It's also opposition to leadership in this space internationally. In many areas, thanks mainly to the denialism and hopelessness of the coalition on climate change policy over more than 10 years and partly to the failure of the Greens during the Rudd prime ministership, Australia is really playing catch-up. We will be the beneficiaries of technologies developed overseas—sometimes developed overseas by Australian companies.</para>
<para>These changes, together with further support for the London protocol, will encourage support from other countries and ensure that the international regulatory environment is secure. A secure and robust regulatory framework supports research and development. In every area I mentioned at the outset—from solar and wind power generation to EVs and energy storage and transmission systems—ongoing research and development is part and parcel of the future of that particular technology having its greatest impact in the fight to keep the temperature rise down. We need every tool on the table here. It is disingenuous for the Greens and some Independents to pretend that we don't or that winning this war is just a matter of planting more trees.</para>
<para>A strictly regulated international CCS market will enable this technology its best chance of attracting further investment, research and development. It doesn't mandate the tech or direct investment by private firms or governments, rather it allows for the technology to prove itself. Members of this place always need to be prepared to accept the evidence, even if it makes them uncomfortable. At the end of the day we need to be able to return to the science. Sometimes that means forgoing some of the political mileage that might be made from playing up to one constituency or another.</para>
<para>Geoscience Australia describes carbon capture, utilisation and storage as one of the technologies that can help to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere. Further, CSIRO state in their recent report <inline font-style="italic">Australia's carbon sequestration potential </inline>that the sequestration potential with geological storage is high and offers a very long-term option. They note that CCS projects have reached the operational stage in many places around the world. They describe the technology as 'well developed'. They do note that there have been problems in practice. But that should not be an obstacle to pass legislation that seeks to create a robust regulatory regime. In their article entitled 'Developing best practice monitoring methods for offshore carbon sequestration' CSIRO described CCS as an 'exciting and rapidly expanding area of opportunity'.</para>
<para>The House Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water considered that the evidence about the benefits of the import and export of CO2 was convincing. That committee was addressed by Geoscience Australia. I can think of no better source on this topic. Their evidence was that 'Australia is endowed richly with the right geology for the safe and secure underground storage of CO2' and 'CCS should be deployed in a reasonable manner alongside serious decarbonisation targets'. And in response to a direct query from the member for Warringah, Geoscience described CCS as a 'very mature technology'.</para>
<para>In submissions to the inquiry into Australia's transition to a green energy superpower by the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth, of which I am a member, many organisations have pushed us to be ambitious and to think beyond our shores.</para>
<para>The Clean Energy Council warned that current planning is centred on domestic needs rather than global opportunities. The University of Queensland suggested that it was increasingly important to think at the system level about enabling technologies and value chains. The University of Adelaide accentuated the importance of maintaining a technology-agnostic framework on the path to net zero. And the Heavy Industry Low-carbon Transition Cooperative Research Centre stated that one of the most important roles for government would be in the establishment of new regulatory frameworks. In a recent report the Climate Change Authority described sequestration as 'a necessary part of any rapid, urgent decarbonisation' and underlined the fact that global demand would present economic opportunities for Australia.</para>
<para>This legislation puts us in a position to progress these ambitions. As nations across the globe and particularly in our region look to drastically and rapidly decarbonise their economies, they are looking to Australia. They are looking to our vast capacity to produce cheap, reliable, green energy, and this government is here to ensure that we harness that opportunity to become the regional green energy superpower that we have the courage to imagine we can be. This amending bill is part of that picture. It foreshadows a way in which we might become a part of a partnership with our neighbours to decarbonise. The problem is global, and the solutions are global.</para>
<para>In Japan, Minister Bowen stated his view that the most important thing the government could do in the area of CCS would be to provide regulatory certainty. That's what this bill is directed to. We are no longer mere observers in this monumental shift. We are no longer a country stubbornly refusing to participate on accounts of vacuous, unscientific and outdated ideologies. We are at the table making investments, signing up to international efforts and making the legislative and regulatory amendments that are required to ensure a robust regulatory environment for all possible options to progress within. Not for the first time, I commend the Minister for the Environment and Water and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, and I am proud to support this bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Deputy Speaker:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The era of global warming has ended; the era of global boiling has arrived. The air is unbreathable.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The heat is unbearable. And the level of fossil fuel profits and climate inaction is unacceptable.</para></quote>
<para>Those are not my words. They are not the words of an environmental activist. They are not the words of someone who has let perfect be the enemy of good. They are the words of the UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, as he reacted to the climate chaos that has unfolded over the past few weeks—chaos that has seen July recorded as the hottest month ever; fire engulfing Greece, Canada, Portugal and Algeria; oceans warming at unprecedented levels; and floods devastating Spain and Pakistan.</para>
<para>On Monday I stood alongside my colleagues from the crossbench and asked the government to take this crisis seriously. I called on the government to respond publicly to the evidence of rapidly increasing global heating, to urgently update their policies to reflect the reality of Australia's contribution to the climate crisis, and to develop a national adaptation plan against the climate impacts that are already being felt. We have not had a comprehensive response, and we are not seeing a level of urgency and ambition that reflects the scale of the crisis we are facing.</para>
<para>Instead, we have heard Labor reiterate the commitment to an emissions reduction target that is not aligned with the science and reiterate their description of a set of policies that are not sufficient to meet it. Given this, it is imperative that new legislation is brought forward to ramp up our efforts to deal with the climate crisis. The priority for this government should be to urgently bring forward the proposed reforms to the EPBC Act and to use them to deal with the twin crises of climate and nature that are facing this country. I know the minister is committed to these important environmental law reforms and is working hard with the environmental and business communities to take them forward. But that important work needs to be accelerated.</para>
<para>This brings me to the legislation before the House today: the so-called Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023. The bill has an attractive title, but I am concerned that it does not primarily deal with new technologies and, in its current formation, it does not help us deal with climate change—in fact, it is quite the opposite. Without amendment, the primary consequence of this bill will be the continued extracting, burning and exporting of fossil fuels, but instead of taking responsibility for our actions this will allow Australian fossil fuel companies to send our carbon emissions overseas and claim that they're not our problem.</para>
<para>Schedule 1 of this bill allows for carbon dioxide from Australian gas projects to be exported and buried under the sea by someone else. The reason this legislation is necessary is to facilitate Santos's proposal to open a new carbon capture and storage facility in Timor-Leste, delaying the commissioning reliability of their existing gas field. But this bill is about more than one project. As indicated to the committee inquiry in submissions by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, this will enable Santos's exploitation of the Barossa gas field and the expansion of the Darwin LNG hub—a project that centres on fracking the Beetaloo basin to generate fossil fuel for export. These are fossil fuel projects that DFAT say will be supported by this legislation. This is not ambitious climate action.</para>
<para>The proponents of this bill argue that the expansion of new gas projects for export is not a climate concern because carbon capture and storage technology will mean the emissions generated can be buried under the sea. It's the government's faith in carbon capture and storage which is at the centre of this bill. I am not against carbon capture and storage in principle. We are going to need a range of technologies to fight climate change, and perhaps this is one of them. The problem is carbon capture and storage doesn't work yet, and if it doesn't yet work as it is intended, if it's failing to work even in Australia under the close supervision of the Australian government, then there are real risks of sending our carbon overseas to be processed in a process that we don't yet know actually works. That is the fundamental reason I am objecting to this bill.</para>
<para>CCS is not a new technology. It has been around since the 1970s and it has consistently failed to live up to the benefits that fossil fuel companies have claimed. For a start, CCS has the potential to capture only a small fraction—around 10 per cent—of the total life-cycle emissions from the export and use of fossil fuels. That's because most emissions are generated when the gas is burned. But even just looking at that small fraction, the performance of CCS globally has been very poor. Take Australia for example: we have only one commercial CCS facility operating in this country—Chevron's Gorgon facility—and it has been an expensive and abject failure. When the facility was created it was intended to bury 80 per cent of the emissions from the Gorgon gas fields. However, since being operational, independent estimates suggest it has captured as little as five per cent of the lifecycle emissions generated, and even Chevron admits it is operating at only one-third capacity. That's despite billions of dollars of investment, including $60 million from Australian taxpayers—the same Australian taxpayers who spent $790 million supporting CCS projects under the Morrison government and who are now forking out another $1.5 billion in subsidies to the Middle Arm petrochemical hub.</para>
<para>CCS is unproven technology in Australia, despite our long history of fossil fuel extraction and despite millions of dollars in government subsidies. And CCS is definitely an unproven technology in Timor-Leste, which does not have the same level of expertise in the resources sector, does not have the same strong environmental laws, does not have the same level of government capacity to regulate, and is also not a signatory to the London protocol. By passing this legislation, the government will be taking a significant risk, and that is the concern I have. We will be facilitating Santos's project in Timor-Leste, exploitation of the Barossa gas field and the fracking of the Beetaloo basin in the hope that CCS will work effectively in Timor-Leste when it has failed in Australia.</para>
<para>In the litany of measures that we could be taking to address the climate crisis, this should not be high up on our list.</para>
<para>Let me close by addressing the argument that ratifying the 2009 amendment to the London protocol, which this bill does, is vital to Australia's reputation on climate action. There are 53 contracting parties to the London protocol and, 14 years after this amendment was first proposed, only 10 states have ratified it. Those 10 don't include our partners in the Pacific, for whom climate change is an existential threat; don't include Greece, Croatia, Portugal, Italy, or Algeria, where wildfires are blazing; and certainly don't include Timor-Leste, the country we are hoping will bury our emissions for us. Australia's international reputation on climate will be restored when we take real action to address the climate crisis, not by facilitating the opening of more new gas projects.</para>
<para>So, as I said before, if the government is passionate about CCS, if the gas industry is passionate about CCS, make it work in Australia first and then consider whether it's appropriate to consider export. But it is not yet working in Australia, and there is significant risk if you export it overseas. I also want to raise the issue that some others have raised: that this prevents the development of CCS in Australia. Nothing in the current form stops Australia from developing effective CCS technology nor actually importing carbon from other places and burying it here. We still have the ability to grow the CCS industry in Australia, including importing gases that we bury, if we so desire and if the technology works. Those are not arguments to say that the bill should be passed.</para>
<para>There are conditions under which I would or may support this bill: if the legislation were amended such that it only applied to projects that generated negative emissions—that is, the removing of existing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere—if CCS were a successful, proven technology in removing carbon dioxide, if the legislation were amended to stop taxpayers' money being used to subsidise CCS projects, if the legislation were amended to guarantee proper safeguards that ensure the efficacy of the technology both in Australia and in Timor-Leste, if Timor-Leste were a signatory of the London Protocol and if the government first passed stronger environmental laws so that we had a guarantee that future proposals for new fossil fuel projects would be properly assessed for their climate and environmental impact. Many of these are crossbench amendments that are on the table—amendments that the government could accept—and, unless the government backs them, I cannot support this legislation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COKER</name>
    <name.id>263547</name.id>
    <electorate>Corangamite</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is a critical time for our environment. We are facing a climate crisis across the globe. The world is increasingly aware of this as we face harmful heatwaves, fires, floods and sea level rise. As the world becomes more aware of this global activity, we need to do more in terms of our climate change action. The world acknowledges this, and we see export of carbon dioxide streams potentially occurring between countries, carbon capture and sequestration, and research and development to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide. These activities are on the horizon, and we need to acknowledge that. We need to act now and introduce legislation and regulation to ensure that we protect our unique environment, our global environment, while we in Australia also capitalise on the opportunities that may arise.</para>
<para>Our government recognises this and is committed to protecting more of what's precious, repairing more of what's damaged, managing nature better for the future and, importantly, achieving net zero emissions by 2050. That's why I stand here today to support the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023.</para>
<para>To be clear, this bill is about making sure that our nation has the necessary frameworks to respond to the threat of climate change, bringing our laws into line with our international obligations under the London protocol and ensuring that, while we grasp opportunity, we protect our precious environment.</para>
<para>This bill will give effect to Australia's international obligations arising out of two amendments to the London protocol that were agreed to in 2009 and 2013. The 2009 amendment was adopted to permit the export of carbon dioxide streams from one country to another for the purpose of carbon sequestration in sub-seabed geological formations. The 2013 amendment was adopted to allow the placement of wastes or other matter into the sea for marine geoengineering activities, such as ocean fertilisation, for the purpose of scientific research. This will enable legitimate scientific research to be undertaken to determine the feasibility of methods that reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide.</para>
<para>Examples of these sorts of scientific activities include microbubbles—injecting tiny bubbles into the ocean surface or into sea foam to increase sunlight reflectivity; marine cloud brightening or seeding—injecting sea salt into cloud updrafts to reflect sunlight back into space; ocean alkalinisation—adding an alkaline substance into seawater to enhance the ocean's natural carbon sink; and macroalgae cultivation—large-scale growth of algae that convert dissolved carbon dioxide into organic carbon through photosynthesis.</para>
<para>The permits for both of those amendments can only be granted after a comprehensive, robust application, assessment and approval process which ensures that any activity is in accordance with the London protocol and has minimum impact on the marine environment in Australian waters. Passing the bill will ensure that Australia can begin to develop a robust regulatory framework domestically, which will enable the government to administer permits for these internationally emerging activities, ensure legal certainty and, above all, protect what we love about Australia—its beautiful natural environment.</para>
<para>Due to the international legal arrangements, following the passage of the legislation the 2009 amendment would operate once Australia deposits a provincial application to the International Maritime Organization. The 2013 amendment, however, would require enough countries to ratify the amendment before it entered into force. So, in Australia, we're getting ahead of the pack. We're acting now so that we're ready when these activities begin.</para>
<para>These amendments were the subject of a recent inquiry undertaken by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water, of which I am a member, which recommended that these amendments be enacted in Australian law for both environmental and regional foreign policy reasons. Our bipartisan committee, which includes members from government, the opposition and the crossbench, found that ratifying these amendments would place Australia in good stead regarding its regional foreign policy objectives, given the clear interest from traditional trading partners.</para>
<para>Throughout the inquiry, the committee heard from experts, such as Dr Yiallourides of Macquarie University's Centre for Environmental Law. Dr Yiallourides recommended that this be ratified from a global environmental law perspective, as it builds harmonisation across borders and foregrounds any of these activities and other requirements in the London protocol. He acknowledges that these are the most specialised provisions that we currently have. I'd like to thank my colleagues on the committee for their work. The enactment of these amendments was also recommended in an independent policy insight paper from the Climate Change Authority in April 2023.</para>
<para>These laws will operate in concert with the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, the existing provisions under the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act and the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting scheme, as well as various state and territory laws.</para>
<para>It should be noted that domestic offshore carbon capture utilisation and storage can currently occur under existing laws. No project has, to date, reached a final investment decision. It is likely that any offshore project would occur through these domestic mechanisms long before any country-to-country project. So they could happen in our own country first, and we need to have the right legislation.</para>
<para>Should this bill not be introduced, there would be no robust regulatory framework so that operators and researchers and any industry body are held accountable. This is particularly relevant for marine geoengineering activities, which are already occurring and for which greater oversight will be beneficial when they increase in scale. Any unregulated approach to these activities risks great harm to the marine environment, and so it is that we need comprehensive and robust regulations. This is what this bill is all about. It is crucial for the House to note that carbon capture projects are, and should only be, a small part of our emissions reduction architecture.</para>
<para>Our government is getting on with the job of responsibly decarbonising our economy in line with international obligations like the London protocol. This is a tough job—catching up on a wasted decade of climate inaction. But, since our Albanese Labor government's election, we have legislated an emissions reduction target of 43 per cent by 2030, with a clear path to net zero by 2050; passed the safeguards mechanism to ensure that our heavy emitters fit within that path to net zero; doubled the rate of renewable energy approvals; started the process of rewriting our environmental laws and put our environment onto a nature-positive trajectory; invested $2 billion in green hydrogen in the budget; provided $1.6 billion for home and small-business electrification; put $20 billion towards our Rewiring the Nation plan; started establishing massive new offshore wind projects around the country; and committed $3 billion to the National Reconstruction Fund for renewables and low-emissions technologies.</para>
<para>All reputable advice to government, globally and at home, says that carbon capture and storage will play a role in the path to net zero. This is the advice of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy, the International Energy Agency, Australia's independent Climate Change Authority and our much-trusted CSIRO. This bill is about ensuring it is done in the most rigorous regulatory framework. What we are not doing is what the former government did, which was to provide wasteful public subsidies for commercial deployment of carbon capture and storage. We have cut the $250 million of the former government's subsidies for carbon capture programs. Large resource companies have more than enough capital and expertise to accelerate commercial deployment of CCS, carbon capture and storage.</para>
<para>In closing, this bill is essential to ensure that, as the globe moves to embrace science in its efforts to reduce carbon emissions, we also protect our environment. Australia is doing its part, and this is why I ask everyone in this House to support this bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on this Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023. As is often the case, it's a fairly cute title, because, when you say that this is about new technologies to fight climate change, there should be a lot more detail and some protections actually in the legislation, and that is detail that's not there at this point—and I will get to that.</para>
<para>For people listening or watching: the bill implements amendments to the international framework under the 2009 and 2013 amendments to the London protocol. The London protocol aims to promote the effective control of all sources of marine pollution and take practical steps to prevent pollution of the sea through the dumping of waste and other matter. I know for so many around Australia, but particularly in Warringah, the health of our oceans is incredibly important. We care a lot. We actually have the Sydney Institute of Marine Science locally, at Chowder Bay, doing amazing work in conservation and restoration. The health of the oceans is incredibly important. I note that there has in fact been a call for there to be a minister of oceans. We currently have the Minister for the Environment and Water, but we don't have a minister for oceans, noting the incredibly important role the ocean plays in our environment and in setting the climate around the world.</para>
<para>This bill provides for the amendment of Australian laws under the London protocol to allow for the issue of permits for the export of carbon dioxide streams. We've heard a lot of members from the government side talk about this really being about putting protections around marine geoengineering and all the other things that do come under this bill. But more important is the fact that it does permit the export of carbon dioxide streams and subsea-level carbon capture and storage. What we don't have in this, in fact, but there are a number of amendments put forward, is the provision of protections around that. If we want to be true to the title of this bill, to say that it is using new technologies to fight climate change, then those amendments should be included and the government should be accepting them.</para>
<para>At the moment, it allows for carbon dioxide streams from carbon capture processes to be exported for the purpose of sequestration into subseabed geological formations. The bill also allows the issue of permits for the placement of waste and other material for marine geoengineering activity for the purpose of scientific research. These would implement the 2009 and 2013 amendments to the London protocol. I should say for everyone's benefit that only 10 parties have ratified the 2009 amendment to the London protocol: Norway, the United Kingdom, Netherlands, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Finland, Estonia, Sweden, Denmark, the Republic of Korea and Belgium.</para>
<para>Despite the name of this bill and using all technologies to fight climate change, as I've said it is only with the amendments that it can actually do that. I have significant concerns that this bill will be used to enable prolonged use of fossil fuels. For the past two decades, Australian governments have been telling us that commercial-scale carbon capture and storage technology is a legitimate way to reduce emissions. That is a unicorn. It is a fallacy. It has failed. It is a myth peddled by the fossil fuel industry to justify their continued expansion. Despite tens of billions of dollars of investment, commercial scale CCS has been a complete failure. Its exponents tell us we can keep burning fossil fuels and simply pump the emissions underground—it's as easy as that! We know that commercial scale CCS is a lie told by the fossil fuel industry and their political representatives to justify new planet-wrecking coal, oil and gas projects.</para>
<para>Chevron used the lie of commercial-scale CCS to gain the social licence and approval for the massive Gorgon carbon bomb. Despite investing some $3.2 billion into what is now the largest CCS project in the world, recent reports show that the project's emissions have increased by more than 50 per cent, with a sharp drop in the amount of CO2 stored underground over the last three years. But has there been any consequence for that failure to deliver the sequestration that was a condition and a part of the approval? No. Chevron was allowed to build its $81 billion gas export hub, on the condition that it was capable of storing all the carbon dioxide from its offshore reservoirs and, as a minimum, implementing all practical means to bury at least 80 per cent of the greenhouse gas.</para>
<para>In the 12 months to June 2022, Chevron injected underground just 1.6 million tonnes of reservoir CO2 and vented into the atmosphere some 3.4 million tonnes. That is from their own report. In the six years since the export of liquified natural gas started from Gorgon, 20.4 million tonnes of CO2 has been extracted from the natural gas piped from offshore to Barrow Island but only 6.5 million tonnes is now stored under the island.</para>
<para>This project is a case study of the lie that is CCS and why I am concerned that this technology leads to greater emissions by enabling the approval of new fossil fuel projects. If this legislation is used to facilitate that to continue, this is not new technology to fight climate change; it is new technology to lie and increase the risk and the consequences of fossil fuel burning and climate change. Imagine the real impact that $3.2 billion could have had if it were spent on actual legitimate projects that get us off fossil fuels rather than this complex, failing concept that allows gas companies to pretend that they are actually tackling their emissions when they instead are throwing accelerating fuel on increased temperatures and global warming.</para>
<para>There is a great fear among many that the Middle Arm project in the Northern Territory is a driver of enabling the fracking of the Beetaloo basin, widely acknowledged as an absolute methane carbon bomb in the making, and Middle Arm underpins the claims by companies advocating to frack the Beetaloo basin that it will somehow get net zero gas. So this bill could further enable the dumping of carbon under the sea of carbon captured at Middle Arm from the processing of Beetaloo gas.</para>
<para>There are fears that this bill will enable the expansion of the Barossa gas field and the export of carbon dioxide to Timor-Leste to be dumped in the seabed in their waters. Santos is leading the development of Barossa, which has a high CO2 concentration of 18 per cent. Santos also has a depleted gas field in Bayu-Undan in Timor-Leste. If Santos, through this legislation, can claim to be net zero by exporting the carbon emissions from Barossa to Bauy-Undan, they believe they will have social licence to develop the Barossa field. Yet, as the Gorgon experience has proven, this type of technology is prohibitively costly, highly ineffective and does not deliver the carbon capture and storage that is promised. But it is continually used as a carrot and as justification for further approvals.</para>
<para>These fears don't come from nothing. The fears are the result of the language of members of the Labor Party continuing to enable and promote the expansion of fossil fuels. As the world burns, members of the Labor Party, including the Treasurer just recently, continue to peddle the dangerous lie that gas is somehow part of the energy transition. It was highly disturbing to hear the Northern Territory Chief Minister this week frame projects like the Middle Arm gas precinct as an 'opportunity for energy transition'. These are gas industry talking points coming out of the mouth of Labor Party politicians. Such language can only remind us all of Scott Morrison's gas led recovery and the coalition's obsession with gas. This kind of pro-gas language leads many people to conclude that, like Scott Morrison's coalition government, Anthony Albanese's Labor government has been completely captured by the fossil fuel industry.</para>
<para>It is deceptive and dangerous for politicians to continue telling the public that carbon capture and storage can offset new fossil fuel projects, especially its expansion of gas fracking and extraction. It is especially dangerous to continue these lies given recent global air and sea temperature data which appears to show that the world has entered a new phase of accelerated global warming. Using CCS to justify new gas projects at the same time as the UN Secretary-General says that we have entered the era of global boiling is utterly reckless and negligent.</para>
<para>Beyond the climate impacts, there are significant environmental concerns with this technology. The EDO submitted that the drilling and laying of pipelines in offshore locations may pose significant threats to offshore ecosystems. In the event of leaking carbon dioxide from CCS activities, the environmental impact on marine environments could be significant. This would be compounded if prolonged leaks occurred or were inadequately monitored or managed. Leaking CO2 risks causing acidification of the water around the CCS site.</para>
<para>CO2 leakages lead to CO2 dissolving into seawater and decreasing seawater pH, with the effect of acidifying the marine environment. Further, there are significant concerns about the lack of knowledge about geoengineering in a marine environment. Ocean fertilisation could have unintended consequences, such as ocean acidification, algae blooms and depletion of oxygen in deep waters. These are just some of the concerns that the now Leader of the House expressed in 2013 as the minister of the environment. He argued that it needed to be treated with great care, adding also that there was potential for damage to human health. The health of our oceans is vital to the health of our planet. The Ocean Decade leadership white paper that was recently released found:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The ocean is recognised as the new economic frontier, offering opportunities for economic growth, employment, and innovation. However, unlike previously untouched areas, the ocean has not been spared from human impact. Stressors including rising sea temperatures, pollution, resource overexploitation, biodiversity loss, sea-level rise, and extreme weather events have only recently been understood and experienced by humans.</para></quote>
<para>We need to build this understanding before further altering the ocean-climate nexus.</para>
<para>Australia has a long history of advocating for carbon capture and storage on the international stage, due largely to the influence of the fossil fuel industry in politics here. No-one can forget the Australian government stand, sponsored by a gas company, at the COP event. The 2013 London protocol amendment allowing this kind of experimentation was proposed by Australia and co-sponsored by Nigeria and the Republic of Korea on the premise that ocean fertilisation should occur for legitimate scientific research purposes only and should otherwise be prohibited. The government claims that this bill is necessary to assist Timor-Leste with their financial situation by enabling carbon dioxide to be stored in their waters as a future revenue source or for legitimate scientific research purposes, but no guardrails are included in this legislation as it currently stands. It's somewhat ironic that we're concerned about future revenue streams for Timor-Leste, in light of other allegations in this place.</para>
<para>There is significant pressure from our primary gas export markets, like Japan and the Republic of Korea, to permit carbon capture and storage and sub-seabed sequestration, as the geology surrounding their countries is not stable enough to support it, and they face pressures to reduce emissions. Norway has established a separate law for sub-seabed CO2 injection for storage regulations relating to the exploitation of sub-seabed reservoirs on the continental shelf. This legislation has enabled Norway's Northern Lights project, which the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water has referred to as an example of how CCS has been considered globally. But, specifically, it's seen as an enabler of blue hydrogen projects. It's something that I fundamentally object to, because it requires the continuation of the fossil fuel industry.</para>
<para>However, we are going to enter an era when we have to talk about carbon drawdown. The truth is that atmospheric carbon dioxide already far exceeds safe levels for human civilisation. The Australian Academy of Science says that the world will need to remove greenhouse gases directly from the atmosphere in order to avoid the worst-case scenarios of global warming. Scientists and entrepreneurs are continuing to work on solutions to directly capture carbon from the atmosphere through a wide range of methods, including direct air capture and electrochemical and biological approaches, to name a few. So the storage of carbon drawdown of existing emissions needs to be considered, and I believe that is where this legislation could have a role to play. We do need to start looking beyond net zero, and we should have on the agenda climate-positive outcomes. So we need to talk about greenhouse gas removal and negative emissions, but for that you need the government. If the government was legitimate in wanting to say this was about climate action, then the amendments proposed would ensure that these can be used only for greenhouse gas removal and negative emissions and not for an offset or to justify any future fossil fuel projects or expansion of fossil fuels. Then we would be able to believe the government.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MASCARENHAS</name>
    <name.id>298800</name.id>
    <electorate>Swan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I stand today to speak in support of the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023. I speak as an engineer and as someone who has consulted the mining and resource industry on their policies and practices to address climate change. As a scientist I could say that I understand that leadership in the area of climate change is urgently needed, but the truth is I recognise this as a human.</para>
<para>I also understand that only Labor can deliver this policy. The recent decision by UNESCO to hold off the placing of the Great Barrier Reef on its endangered list is evidence of that. It's a shift of climate change policy in Australia. The House should be reminded that UNESCO was recommending the opposite, and was seriously considering placing the Great Barrier Reef on its endangered list. This was directly related to the Liberal government's irresponsible and lazy approach to climate change and the environment. It was a policy of inaction and delay.</para>
<para>The bill I speak to today is yet another example of work that did not get done under the Liberals. It's an area of policy and legislation that matters, but it was ignored and forgotten. Australians wanted to change the nation, so they changed the parliament, and the government is now changing climate change policy. This government takes the environment seriously. This government is responsible and proactive. This government is taking action without delay.</para>
<para>The bill I'm speaking to today is an example of a government that takes this action seriously. We are taking action to clean up the decade of oversight and neglect that is the legacy of the coalition government. Acting on climate change means preserving our special places and the inhabitants of those special places. Our oceans are a special place. We know that the ocean is critical for the regulation of the planet's climate. Climate change has significant effects on the ocean and its inhabitants. Labor is also responding to change to shape our country for the future. We're working hard to deliver a sustainable future for all Australians. We need a livable planet, and there is no planet B. The Ocean Business Leaders Summit recognised the ocean as a new economic frontier that offers opportunities for economic growth, employment and innovation.</para>
<para>This legislation is responsible. This bill will tackle our immediate and long-term commitment to preserving our unique marine environment. This bill will implement Australia's international obligations in the control of waste in our ocean. Australia has obligations under the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972—also known as the London protocol. Australia, along with 86 other state parties, agreed to modernise the 1972 convention. It's committed to prohibiting all sea dumping except for acceptable wastes on the reserve list. The International Maritime Organization explains that materials on the reserve list, including dredged material; sewage sludge; fish wastes; inert, inorganic geological material, such as mining wastes; organic material of natural origin; and carbon dioxide streams from carbon dioxide capture processes, are all subject to strict regulatory assessment procedures. Groundbreaking steps by parties to the protocol establish the steps that would mitigate the impacts of increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by amendments that would regulate carbon capture and sequestration. It was a commitment by the international community to respond to new issues that impact the marine environment.</para>
<para>The 2009 amendments to the London protocol put in place regulatory responses to the risks that confront our marine environments. It will permit the export of carbon dioxide streams from a contracting state party to another country for the purpose of carbon sequestration in subsea geological formations. It was a commitment that Australia signed up to, and I take that commitment seriously.</para>
<para>In the same way, the bill will adopt the 2013 amendment to allow the placement of waste and other matter for marine geoengineering activity. This includes activities such as ocean fertilisation. This can be used for conducting scientific research, which is important to us for understanding the risks of damage to our ocean and what we need to put in place to protect its future.</para>
<para>It will enable scientific research that is legitimate. The research is necessary to determine the feasibility of methods to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide. Examples of this scientific research include microbubbles which inject tiny bubbles in the ocean surface or into sea foam. This enables the increase of sunlight reflectivity. It also includes marine cloud brightening or seeding; ocean alkalisation, which relating to the PH of oceans; and macro-algae cultivation.</para>
<para>I believe that Australia should take its international commitments seriously. They are not token gestures and an expression of commitment to join the international community in a matter of importance to the world. This matters to the world, and therefore it matters to the Labor government. My position is consistent with the conclusions drawn by the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, which I'm now a member of. The committee recommended that the amendments be enacted in the Australian legal framework not only for the obvious environmental reasons I've outlined but also for the reason of foreign policy. I do not want to be the odd one out in the international community when it comes to action on the marine environment. The world is watching what we do, so let's be the trailblazers, not the renegades.</para>
<para>Australia's oceans are some of the most spectacular oceans in the world. We need to make sure that we look at the regulatory environment and make sure that the marine environment is regulated and that we understand the impacts of our policies. The bill will ensure that Australia will develop a framework that is needed to administer permits for emerging international activities in marine engineering. The regulatory framework that is proposed by this bill is comprehensive. The assessment process is robust. That is why we need to ensure that activities are monitored with legal certainty. We know that the area of marine engineering is expanding, and its growth in activities demands a regulatory response from government. Our marine environment is a part of our heritage. It's a part of our identity and it has to be a part of our future.</para>
<para>Labor understands that we have a responsibility, and we need to ensure that we safeguard it, to ensure that oceans remain special places for future generations. Relying on an unregulated approach would risk long-term damage. And so I commend the Minister for the Environment and Water, Tanya Plibersek, for getting done the job that the Liberals did not do. I commend her for her tireless commitment to her portfolio and leadership on environmental policy. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHANEY</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government has told us that this bill, the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023, is non-controversial—and on the face of it, you could almost agree. The bill serves to ratify the 2009 and 2013 amendments to the London protocol of the London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter. The government has already committed to this ratification.</para>
<para>The London protocol, which has already been adopted into Australian law as the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act, bans the dumping of waste at sea except in specific instances. In 2006, the protocol was updated to provide for the storage of carbon dioxide beneath the seabed, where it is safe to do so. This was a response to the growing momentum for climate change mitigation technologies as part of the global movement to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change saw this as a short-term, technological option for reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere. The 2006 amendment has already been adopted into Australian law. However, and this is key, the 2006 amendment noted that 'ongoing regulation of the storage of carbon dioxide under the seabed was required to protect the marine environment'. The protocol urges an approach that's described as 'precautionary', with a focus on prevention where harm to the marine environment is likely. So, even in the establishment of carbon capture and storage as an exemption, the protocol made it clear that all parties agreed that ongoing regulation and a focus on prevention of harm were essential parts of any projects.</para>
<para>This takes us to the next amendments to the protocol, in 2009 and 2013, which this bill intends to ratify. The first amendment relates to the new ability to export carbon dioxide streams from Australia to another country for carbon capture and storage. The other amendment allows for the placement of waste or other matter in the sea for a marine geoengineering activity for the purpose of legitimate scientific research into options for climate change mitigation. Now, before I discuss the substance of this bill, I would like to reiterate that two-thirds of the 53 parties to the protocol must ratify any amendment for it to be successful. Currently, only 10 contracting parties have ratified the 2009 and 2013 amendments. So the amendments we're discussing are nowhere near being accepted by the contracting parties. Six of the 10 parties have agreed to a provisional step to make use of amendments before they enter into force. In effect, if this bill passes, Australia would have the ability to export carbon dioxide, despite this update not yet being accepted by most parties to the protocol, and the ability to export carbon dioxide to a country that isn't a party to the protocol.</para>
<para>Some are saying that the actual purpose of the bill is to allow Santos, as operator of the Bayu-Undan offshore facility in Timor-Leste, to receive carbon dioxide from gas projects in Australia. Others in this House have agreed that an intended consequence of this bill is a licence for companies to continue to expand fossil fuel projects in Australia because they can dump their carbon dioxide offshore. Irrespective of whether this is the actual purpose of the bill, the broader question is whether we should be able to export carbon dioxide to other countries for the purpose of carbon capture and storage.</para>
<para>I acknowledge that there are many sincere and genuine concerns and reservations relating to the science, processes and cost of carbon capture and storage as a way of mitigating emissions. Submissions to both the House and Senate committees have highlighted the risk of greenhouse gas leakage from exploration and transportation, and particularly the impact of acidification of surrounding marine environments and the subseabed, where leaks can occur. Environmental advocates point to the fact that carbon capture and storage trials on coal-fired power stations have never worked. The few projects that have got off the ground have grossly exceeded budget and schedule, massively underdelivered on carbon promised to be captured, and are now mostly shuttered.</para>
<para>So should we still be investing in carbon capture and storage, given all its problems? Well, climate change mitigation is a global imperative, and it's the firm consensus of many, both here in Australia and internationally, that we will fail to reach our emissions targets without new technologies. I know there have been, and remain, significant issues with carbon capture and storage projects and performance, but our pathway to decarbonisation requires us to persevere. Net Zero Australia reports:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The success of carbon capture depends on the industrial process to which it is applied, and the success of carbon storage is specific to the geological formation into which the CO2 is injected.</para></quote>
<para>We must maintain the pressure and expectations on existing energy projects and their partners to increase their commitment in both capital and expertise to carbon capture and storage, to address the issues and roadblocks they're facing, to require them to interrogate the processes and technology further.</para>
<para>But this is not an invitation to open more projects. Let me be clear about this. What we absolutely cannot allow is for carbon capture and storage to be used as a justification for the ongoing approval of new fossil fuel projects, perpetuating an endless cycle of emissions. In WA, the government is deciding whether or not to approve the extension of the Burrup Hub in our beautiful north-west to continue operating until 2070. That's 20 years after our aim for a net zero Australia. This extension will set the scene for the opening of the Browse Basin, which is a huge dirty gas basin that has the potential to emit more carbon in its extraction and use than Australia's entire emissions budget from 2030 onwards.</para>
<para>Carbon capture and storage is one part of the decarbonisation path, but it is no silver bullet. Any legislation that increases the role of carbon capture and storage must be approached with great caution. Past government decisions, like this one, have been made in the interests of gas companies rather than the planet and the country's long-term economic interests.</para>
<para>It seems highly likely that this ability to export carbon dioxide will be used to extend the life of the gas industry by placing huge faith in one questionable technology rather than mitigating the minimum possible emissions.</para>
<para>Aside from the issues surrounding the practice of carbon capture and storage, there are also significant issues with exporting carbon dioxide to other countries, as identified by many submissions to both committees. Many concerned parties have suggested that we should not assume that receiving countries will have the same safeguards, standards and expectations of environmental protection as Australia. If projects in Australia are struggling to make CCS work, why would this be any better in Timor-Leste?</para>
<para>I'd like to very briefly touch on the second amendment, which allows for the placement of waste or other matter in the sea for a marine geo-engineering activity. I am concerned about the lack of regulatory certainty at both domestic and global levels for the restriction and regulation of geo-engineering activity. Marine geo-engineering carries several risks, including the possibility of yet unknown consequences and detrimental effects such as damaging toxic algae blooms, increasing ocean acidification and depleting oxygen in deep waters. I don't feel confident in supporting a bill that carries this level of risk.</para>
<para>In conclusion, we're rocketing into a global climate crisis and we need a global response to decarbonisation, which means we can't completely ignore carbon capture and storage as one of the tools in our decarbonisation toolbox. But we can't blindly treat it as the ticket to perpetuating our fossil fuel export economy. This bill creates the ability to exploit a problem we are creating for the world. For this bill to be a good idea we would have to believe four things: firstly, that carbon dioxide can be captured, transported and stored without leaks or unintended consequences. I am not convinced. There have been mixed results at best, with plenty of large failures on carbon capture and storage. Secondly, we would have to believe that carbon capture and storage will be used to mitigate only unavoidable emissions, not to license fossil fuel expansion. I am not convinced. Gas companies seem to be relying very heavily on it in their expansion plans. Thirdly, we would have to believe that carbon dioxide storage would be managed at least as well in a receiving country such as Timor-Leste as it would in Australia. I am not convinced. We have a hard-earned reputation as a stable jurisdiction, and other countries like Timor-Leste may make compromises that we would consider unacceptable. Fourthly, we would have to believe that a precautionary approach would be taken and that a transparent regulatory framework would follow. Again, I am not convinced. The government's continued approval of not only gas projects based on existing fields but also new sites for exploration and future development makes me very sceptical about there being a precautionary approach taken to sea-dumping in Australia.</para>
<para>Exporting carbon dioxide to other jurisdictions is like our recent approach to offshore processing of asylum seekers—shifting the problem out of sight to a less-regulated jurisdiction and potentially turning a blind eye to the outcomes, ignoring our international obligation to take our fair share of responsibility for a global issue. It may be that in due course we can find a level of comfort on these risks—when carbon capture and storage is proven, when our regulatory environment stops carbon capture and storage being used as an excuse to expand fossil fuels, when all our neighbours have stable and transparent environmental regulatory frameworks, and when we have a track record of taking a precautionary approach to environmental protection. That will be the time to ratify these amendments to the London protocol, but that time has not yet come.</para>
<para>If this bill is to pass, I urge the minister to follow the requirements of the protocol and embed a clear and transparent regulatory framework that assesses risk and demands appropriate and consistent environmental standards apply from the domestic source right to the export destination. This framework should capture any agreements between Australia and other states as well as the project parties who seek the permit and maintain carriage of the export process. It should explicitly refer to the provisions of the risk assessment and management framework for carbon dioxide sequestration already prepared by the contracting parties to the London protocol.</para>
<para>If this bill goes ahead, the minister must also ensure that, in line with the requirements of the protocol, Australia explicitly applies a precautionary approach to protect and preserve the marine environment from pollution. This precautionary approach must be consistently applied to the whole process to which these amendments apply, from initial evaluation through to the minister's decision to grant a permit, the domestic loading, the transportation and export processes and the ongoing environmental monitoring of the marine environment. The same lens must also be consistently applied in any application for marine geoengineering activities for scientific purposes domestically in Australia.</para>
<para>I will be supporting a range of amendments that attempt to tighten the regulatory framework and apply a precautionary approach, but, ultimately, I don't think the time has come to ratify these amendments by passing this bill because of the fundamental issue of carbon capture and storage being used as a licence to continue to expand fossil fuels and because of the risks and moral implications of exporting carbon dioxide.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WATSON-BROWN</name>
    <name.id>300127</name.id>
    <electorate>Ryan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 seeks to regulate the carbon capture and storage industry. Once again, I find myself utterly gobsmacked at the priorities of this government. Here we are in a drastic climate crisis, and, instead of ending new fossil fuel projects—as the UN says we must—putting a climate trigger in our environmental laws, ending native forest logging nationwide or properly protecting the Great Barrier Reef and the Murray-Darling Basin—tragically, this list goes on and on—this government is instead enabling the expansion of fossil fuels by legitimising the extremely questionable carbon capture and storage technology.</para>
<para>This legislation appears to have been introduced to enable, to facilitate, the Santos Barossa project and related projects off Australia's northern coast. Santos claims that they require CCS technology in order to meet the targets under the government's safeguard mechanism. In other words, they're using CCS to justify the expansion of fossil fuel projects. It's well known that CCS is not a viable method of reducing emissions at scale.</para>
<para>Australia's largest CCS project is Chevron's Gorgon project, off the coast of Western Australia, which, despite receiving millions in taxpayer dollars and subsidies—our taxpayer dollars—is operating behind schedule and at only a third of its promised emissions reduction. Despite the fact that this promised reduction was part of the WA government's regulatory approval of the project, Chevron has so far not faced any monetary fines for this monumental failure. Even the promised emissions reduction is only a fraction of the total emissions this project is responsible for. CCS can only cover emissions involved in the production of gas before it is exported to its final destination, completely ignoring the majority of emissions that are produced when the energy is generated at the customer's end.</para>
<para>Gorgon is not the only CCS project that is underperforming so significantly. Projects all around the world are failing to meet their targets. There is no doubt, and it is understood widely, that this is an unreliable method of emissions reduction, but it's very popular with the fossil fuel industry as it actually allows their projects to keep being approved. To make things even worse, huge sums of Australians' taxpayer dollars have been going into the development of these projects—money that would have been better spent, obviously, investing in renewable energy, in green manufacturing and other initiatives and projects that will actually mitigate this climate crisis rather than fuel it.</para>
<para>It's clear now, more than ever, that climate change is not some distant threat. We're living it right now. We've all seen the reports from the Northern Hemisphere of devastating fires and heatwaves. Dozens of climate records are being smashed across the world. We've seen the hottest average temperatures ever recorded globally in this past month. Catastrophic climate change is right here, right now. It's here to stay, and it will get far, far worse unless we urgently stop opening new coal and gas projects. Is this really the future that we want? Is this really the choice that we are making?</para>
<para>Let's not downplay Australia's role in climate change either—another lie that the fossil fuel industry likes to propagate. We are still the world's third largest exporter of fossil fuels, behind Russia and Saudi Arabia.</para>
<para>Why? Why is this happening? What could possibly be the reason for this insane, irresponsible and actually economically irrational, head-in-the-sand positioning of our government? Why? Why?</para>
<para>This Labor government is refusing to stop new coal and gas because they are completely in the pocket of coal and gas interests—indeed, acting like the governmental arm of the fossil fuel industry. So you'd be forgiven for thinking that this legislation had simply been drafted by Santos and handed to the environment minister to be passed as soon as possible. Think of it this way: as a pretty good return on investment for Santos, who have donated a collective $1.5 million to the major parties over the last decade. They've donated about the same amount to both Labor and the coalition—hedging their bets, so they have support no matter who is in government.</para>
<para>And it's not just donations to political parties. The resources minister's register of interests is enlightening reading, if you can stand it. The Minerals Council generously gifts her luxury charter flights, along with accommodation and fancy bottles of alcohol. It's a cheap date, really, for what they get in return.</para>
<para>That's not to mention the revolving door of personnel between the major parties and fossil fuel corporations. Take, for instance, Queensland Labor Senator Anthony Chisholm, who worked for Santos until he was elected to the Senate in 2016. His actual job description was—believe it or not—'providing advice on maintaining mainstream political support for gas amid an ongoing campaign against the coal seam gas industry by environmental and landholder groups'. I wonder what Senator Chisholm has to say about this bill.</para>
<para>Perhaps even more concerning, the current head of the Climate Change Authority, upon whose advice the environment minister is relying for this bill, is Grant King, who was the managing director of Origin Energy for 17 years. To me, that's a textbook example of a conflict of interest.</para>
<para>The environment minister and the Labor Party need to stop doing the bidding of their fossil fuel mates and start doing what the Australian people elected them do: to meaningfully act on climate change. So, rather than doing favours for Santos, the vast majority of Australians want more action on climate change and they want an end to new coal and gas projects. If the government fails to deliver, there will be dire consequences for generations to come.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GILLESPIE</name>
    <name.id>72184</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This bill's title, the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023, explains an awful lot. This bill is all about enabling approval for engineering activities that will help reduce the effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide. This bill implements Australia's international obligations under the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, commonly known as the London protocol. There were two amendments to it, changing article 6 in 2009, which meant it would enable the export of carbon dioxide streams from one of the parties to the convention to another country for the sole purpose of sequestering that captured carbon dioxide in sub-seabed geological formations, commonly known as carbon capture and storage. The purpose of this bill is to give effect to our international obligations arising out of the amendments done in 2009 and 2013 to the London protocol. We in the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water have just done an inquiry into whether we should ratify those amendments to the protocol and we've decided, yes. A Senate inquiry that it was referred to has done the same thing.</para>
<para>The amendments in this bill will allow a permit to be granted for the export of carbon dioxide streams or carbon capture use and storage to sequester it into sub-seabed geological formations in accordance with that protocol. Separately, it will allow the minister to approve carbon capture and storage to cross international borders so that we can accept captured carbon dioxide and store it in geological reservoirs. Likewise, we can export it.</para>
<para>There is a country near and dear to us, Timor-Leste, that has a sub-seabed geological formation which can take millions of tonnes of captured CO2 every year. It's not going into a little empty vacuum, which most people think it is, which, like a balloon, will slowly deflate and have it all come bubbling out. It's going into a geological formation that looks like a rock but is like sandstone. You put it in under pressure. It binds with the minerals there, and it's permanent. It doesn't just stay there with the hope that the bubble doesn't burst and it all bubbles up again. It's really quite difficult and hard to do.</para>
<para>The second thing is that it will allow geoengineering, but only under certain circumstances—it's being analysed; it's academic, and they're seeing if it works. I'll elaborate a bit more about that, but it's basically fertilising the sea and, in near-coastal environments, getting the right seabed grasses and everything growing so that the ocean captures more CO2. There are some subsequent minor consequential amendments and technical amendments as well.</para>
<para>But, for people in this chamber and those listening on the radio as they're driving home back up to Wauchope or Port Macquarie or down to Newcastle: carbon capture and storage, contrary to what is popularly put out, is a newer technology with commercial-scale projects operating around the globe. Carbon capture and storage, or CCS, is defined by both the august organisation called the International Energy Agency and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, as an essential tool to meet emissions targets and climate goals.</para>
<para>Even with full electrification, utilising new clean technologies which are even cleaner than renewables, called nuclear energy, you can decarbonise a lot of industrial processes with the industrial heat that goes up to 1,200 degrees Centigrade that you can get out of a nuclear power plant, as well as running steam turbines with five grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt generated out of nuclear energy. But if you add carbon capture and storage to your suite of measures to try and abate the CO2—some industrial processes still require gas and coal; otherwise, they don't happen. There are some things that can't be abated by electrification. But this will allow us to do millions of tonnes out of essential fossil fuel feed stocks and abate things.</para>
<para>To put things in a historical context, this started in the mid-1990s. It's not experimental. And they have been watching for that eventuality that I mentioned—people, at first reading, thought: 'Oh, jeez. Well, that's just delaying the inevitable. It'll just deflate and go back up and away you go. You're back to square one.' But they've been watching for that since 2000 and before, and there haven't been any incidents of it. Potentially, it could happen. Some of the pipes and the piping, when you're pushing it down under pressure, could do that. But, everywhere that it's been done, they've been watching for it, and there's no significant evidence of that.</para>
<para>Globally, there are 35 commercial carbon capture, utilisation and storage projects that capture nearly 45 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year. Equivalently, if you were going to try and do it by revegetating productive agricultural land and turn it into eucalypt forests, you'd need to plant two billion trees every year. You'd have to cover the country in trees. In the International Energy Agency's net zero scenario, 1.6 billion tonnes of CO2 needs to be stored regularly. So, if we're going to not utilise this technology, we are crazy.</para>
<para>How can we help Australia provide energy and food for hundreds of millions, or, on an energy scale, billions of people? Our coal and natural gas have lifted billions of people out of poverty by providing them affordable, available electricity. But with this technology and Australia's potential sub-seabed and on-land geological formations we can pump captured CO2 out of industrial processes, like cement making and running gas and oil plants—all those things that the world still depends on. We can mitigate this. We have experience and we have really good regulation in this country; in fact, Australia often has too much regulation. In this case we have existing experience with the Gorgon project and the Bayu-Undan project in Timor-Leste. Once we've signed off on this we will have the legal framework to allow them to store millions of tonnes of CO2 for years to come. We'll also help that country get income out of the royalties from that.</para>
<para>We will become like Norway, which is at the leading edge of sub-seabed storage with its Longship Northern Lights project. They already are accepting captured CO2 not just for Norwegian fields but from all around Europe. Geoscience is at the cutting edge of all this evaluation, and that is another hidden gem of technology that we have in this country.</para>
<para>We also have all the legislation and regulation with NOPSEMA, the other bills and the EPBC Act, so this won't be happening willy-nilly.</para>
<para>The last thing I want to mention is the geoengineering part of what will be facilitated, with the powers deemed available for the minister to certify geoengineering. We have adopted the precautionary principle, but we reckon agreeing with the London protocol's amendment to article 6, with these laws now creating a legal framework to put it into, will allow geoengineering to be taken up in baby steps, in small, well-analysed and well-regulated projects. It involves a range of technologies that will allow a significant contribution to climate change mitigation. It involves ocean fertilisation, coastal carbon sequestration and a geoengineering technique that is totally different from CCUS or CCS. It refers to enhancement of blue carbon stocks in coastal and marine ecosystems, notably by the cultivation of macroalgae and microalgae in coastal mangroves and saltmarsh areas. We have to look at it and analyse it and see that it works, because we don't want to have unintended consequences, so the take-home message is: the geoengineering bit will only be under controlled research conditions.</para>
<para>There are plenty of countries in the world that don't have the sub-seabed or on-land deep geological repositories for this—places like Korea, that we supply with energy, or Japan. We have supplied energy to Japan and let them go through their industrialisation. The first export of energy to Japan from New South Wales was in 1864. We in fact empowered the industrialisation of Japan for over a hundred years. But there are many other neighbours nearby who depend on us; otherwise their society would crumble.</para>
<para>They wouldn't be able to survive. But with this London protocol amendment, it will allow them to do their carbon capture and storage, stick it in a boat, send it over and store it forever, in a one-way street fashion, 500 metres, 600 metres or a kilometre or two underground and permanently store it in porous rock formations, which have micro areas that the high-pressure product can go into and fix into the mineral base. Carbon capture, use and storage isn't marine geoengineering. That's a separate thing altogether.</para>
<para>This bill will put the legislation in place so that both those techniques can be done for the benefit of Korea, Singapore, Japan and all those places that don't have that geology. We're blessed in many ways and a lot of it is because we have provided them energy. In a way, it's quite fitting that we are managing the disposal of it.</para>
<para>I commend this bill to the House and I let everyone know that it's been analysed extensively, it's not experimental, it has huge commercial potential for all the countries that access it and it will be beneficial. If you're concerned about climate change, you should be advocating for carbon capture and storage.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BATES</name>
    <name.id>300246</name.id>
    <electorate>Brisbane</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 in front of us today attempts to legitimise carbon capture and storage as an effective climate solution. In reality this is little more than a public relations strategy for the coal and gas industry—to pretend they're doing something about the climate emergency. In Australia carbon capture and storage technology, or CCS, has been promised millions of dollars in public funding, despite incredibly poor results. It is a total flop.</para>
<para>A prime example of this is Chevron's Gorgon CCS project, which sits off the coast of Western Australia. This project was due to commence in 2016 but they didn't start their carbon capture until 2019. Despite being years behind schedule and only reaching one-third of their promised emissions reductions, Chevron still receives millions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies for their project. The Chevron example is just one of many CCS projects failing to meet their targets already. CCS is just not a viable method of reducing emissions at scale. It is a complete dud.</para>
<para>What I'm concerned about is that this legislation could well become an excuse to avoid genuinely effective climate action, serving the commercial interests of the multinational fossil fuel corporations that it should be targeting, not helping. I'm concerned that this bill lacks any form of essential guardrails for ministerial discretion and intervention in the permit-granting process. There is not even a requirement for basic environmental impact assessments to be undertaken when considering new carbon capture and storage projects.</para>
<para>Instead of drastic action on climate change, this government has, once again, spent valuable time and energy to bring forward a bill that appears to be written by the fossil fuel industry for the fossil fuel industry. Let's be clear: this bill is not about reducing emissions. This is about enabling the expansion of fossil fuels by trying to peddle extremely questionable CCS technology. As record temperatures heat the Northern Hemisphere and as the Atlantic and Antarctic regions experience dramatic departures from their standard temperatures, here comes the government paving the way for Santos to expand their Barossa Gas Project.</para>
<para>This government should be taking tangible, meaningful steps to fight climate change and the extinction crisis by putting an end to native forest logging and by ending the expansion of new fossil fuel projects. But here we are again, with the government prioritising legislation that facilitates the expansion of these very industries. The Greens are always willing to work productively with the government to improve legislation but, like the Nature Repair Market Bill proposal from the government earlier this year, this bill is completely ineffective. It is a show of smoke and mirrors.</para>
<para>We are in the middle of a climate emergency, and all we are getting is some tinkering here and some bandaid solutions there. What we need to do is to stop all new fossil fuel projects. This bill should not pass.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When I was elected as the member for Indi, I was given a clear mandate by the community to take meaningful action on climate change. I take this mandate very seriously. It is my responsibility, as a legislator and as an Independent member of parliament, to scrutinise each piece of legislation that comes before me on its individual merits. I ask what problem the law is aiming to solve. I seek briefings on the detail and do my best to understand the evidence underpinning the proposed law from a range of perspectives. I ask whether it's good for the nation, whether it's ethical and whether it demonstrates good governance. And I try to determine whether the people of Indi would support or oppose such a law.</para>
<para>I have deep concerns about the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill in its current form. The short title of the bill is 'Using new technologies to fight climate change', but I have genuine concerns that these proposed new technologies will do more harm than good for our climate and our environment. This bill will establish a regulatory system to support carbon dioxide export, allowing countries to reduce their emissions. This export is for the purpose of carbon dioxide sequestration into the seabed, known as carbon capture and storage, or CCS. The bill also allows the government to create a regulatory system to place waste into the sea for scientific research purposes—for example, research into ocean fertilisation, which aims to remove carbon dioxide from the ocean.</para>
<para>The government says that this bill will allow Australia to meet its international law obligations under the London protocol. The London protocol is an international agreement about protecting and preserving our marine environment. It was amended in 2009 and again in 2013 to allow countries, including Australia, to regulate new technologies to tackle climate change, like CCS and ocean fertilisation. But essentially it allows exceptions to prohibitions on dumping carbon dioxide into the ocean by allowing certain technologies to be used, and I have serious concerns about these technologies.</para>
<para>CCS has thus far proven to be an unreliable method for reducing carbon dioxide. It's already being used in Australia by fossil fuel companies that are seeking to sequester their carbon through the projects that generate it. But it has not been proven to actually work. For example, Chevron's Gorgon CCS project on Barrow Island in Western Australia has faced consistent challenges, resulting in a failure to come even close to meeting sequestration targets for the carbon dioxide generated by that project. Indeed, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—the United Nations body whose job it is to assess climate change related science—have said that CCS is expensive and there are risks of leaks from undersea storage of carbon. They emphasised that CCS must not be a substitute for decarbonisation.</para>
<para>I understand that the government have received advice that CCS will play a necessary role in reducing carbon emissions. I understand that this bill is about allowing CCS in a highly regulated environment so that it can be improved as technology and its risks are managed. I also understand that, despite what the minister for the environment might say, there are specific projects that will benefit from this bill. The Santos Barossa project off Darwin is very carbon intensive. Santos has stated that to comply with the Safeguard Mechanism it is developing the Bayu-Undan CCS project in East Timor's waters. The bill will allow Santos to export its carbon dioxide to East Timor for carbon capture and storage in that country's waters.</para>
<para>The Australia Institute says that there are just 30 operating CCS projects in the world, and 20 of those are dedicated to extracting more fossil fuels. But we need to be very careful about supporting a technology that is essentially unproven yet could allow fossil fuel mining and burning to continue. CCS doesn't actually work as promised, and we should be asking ourselves why fossil fuel companies continue to propose such projects.</para>
<para>I will be voting against the bill at this stage. I support the amendments of my crossbench colleagues and I urge the government to support them too. I also urge the government to consider further amendments in the Senate in line with the Greens dissenting report on the Senate inquiry into the bill, because there are clear ways to improve this bill so that CCS happens only in the rarest of circumstances and doesn't just allow fossil fuel projects to continue.</para>
<para>These amendments would (1) ensure there is no public funding of CCS projects, (2) require the country Australia is exporting carbon dioxide to, like Timor-Leste, to have environmental protections that are the same as or better than those in Australia, and (3) restrict the scope of ministerial discretion in deciding to issue a export permit. They would only allow export permits to be issued for negative emissions and they would require our environment laws to be strengthened before allowing export permits to be issued. I am talking in particular about the government's long-promised reforms to the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. These reforms are urgently needed to ensure future projects proceed only with the strongest environmental protections behind them.</para>
<para>I've met with the minister's office and, in line with these conversations, I've put forward an amendment in addition to those proposed by my crossbench colleagues. My amendment would prevent CO2 export permits being granted to future fossil fuel facilities, ensuring that CCS and exporting carbon dioxide cannot be used as justification for new fossil fuel projects. The adoption of amendments proposed by me and my crossbench colleagues, as well as by me, and further amendments in the Senate would give me some assurance that under the bill we are allowing CCS to happen only in the strictest and rarest of circumstances. If these amendments were passed, that would allow me to reconsider my position on this bill.</para>
<para>Fossil fuel projects must end. They must not continue to be offered pathways for survival. We must decarbonise if we have any hope of staying below two degrees of warming. According to the United Nations Secretary-General, the era of global warming has ended and the era of global boiling has arrived, and we've just experienced the warmest July on record. The government cannot pass legislation that clearly does not reflect the real urgency of acting on climate change. I urge the government to work with the crossbench and improve this bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WILLCOX</name>
    <name.id>286535</name.id>
    <electorate>Dawson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to say the coalition welcomes the introduction of this bill, the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023. This legislation is aimed at giving expression to two sets of amendments that were made several years ago to the London protocol. In our view, these are well-intended changes. If the bill is passed, it is likely to provide Australia with improved flexibility and opportunity in relation to the import and export of carbon dioxide streams and the rapidly emerging field of marine geoengineering. In turn, these changes would be likely to enhance Australia's capacity, and indeed the capacity of other nations, to reduce carbon emissions. Isn't that what we're all about? We're all trying to work out the most efficient ways of reducing carbon emissions, whether that be renewable energy, such as through solar or wind—as long as it's being put in the right place. I believe that solar panels should be put on rooftops within the cities, rather than knocking out new vegetation—vegetation that reduces carbon emissions through photosynthesis. Wind as well—let's use those technologies.</para>
<para>I also believe that this country should be investing in new, high-efficiency, low-emissions coal-fired power stations, because coal is the cheapest form of energy. Let's capture this carbon and then dispose of it appropriately. The current trajectory the Labor government is taking us on through this absolute renewable 'dream', at no real consideration to the environment, is absolutely ridiculous.</para>
<para>This is an ideal bill and it should definitely be passed.</para>
<para>Australia was a relatively early signatory to both instruments. We signed up to the London convention with effect from 1985, 10 years after it first came into international force. We became a party to the London protocol in the same year as it came into force globally, in 2006. Generally speaking, both instruments have worked effectively for us and for dozens of other countries that are signatories. However, it steadily became apparent that we needed to modernise the protocol in order to reflect the range of environmental issues and considerations in relation to the use of various emerging technology, such as carbon capture and storage; carbon capture, utilisation and storage, or CCUS; and marine engineering.</para>
<para>Once again, let's be very clear: coal is the cheapest form of energy. We have it abundantly available in this wonderful country of ours. We should not just be sending it overseas to let other people create the energy out of it. We should be using it within our own country through a high-efficiency, low-emission coal-fired power station, and then we could capture the carbon and dispose of it appropriately. As everyone can see at the present point in time, power prices are going through the roof. This is on the back of a promise from the Albanese Labor government—a promise made 97 times—of power being cheaper by $275. So we need to get rid of the renewable dream.</para>
<para>An honourable member interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WILLCOX</name>
    <name.id>286535</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Renewables are very good. Don't get me wrong. But they need to be done in the right place. But let's affirm that power because, when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine, you need to use nuclear technology, gas-fired power stations or coal-fired power stations to provide power 24/7. That's what we need to do. Don't worry about looking at the premium time for power, which is through the middle of the day, from 10 am to 2 pm. The cheapest power 24/7 is coal. So let's use it. Let's use our vast resources in this country and have a coal-fired power station—high-efficiency, low-emissions.</para>
<para>This agreement has led to the agreement on the development of two separate sets of amendments to the protocol—2009 and 2013, respectively. The 2009 amendments permit the international transfer of carbon dioxide streams between countries for the purpose of placing CCS or CCUS materials in a sub-seabed geological formation. The 2013 amendment, meanwhile, allows for certain waste and matter to be deposited into a marine environment in order to facilitate scientific research through marine geoengineering activities, such as ocean fertilisation.</para>
<para>It's very important that Australia takes part and embraces the new technologies for carbon storage. We should be at the cutting edge of this technology. Around the world, parties to the convention and/or the protocol have taken a considerable amount of time to assess their response to these amendments. It should be stressed that this has not been a reflection of widespread or deeply entrenched resistance to such changes. Instead, countries have wanted to consider all the many potential implications that affect them. Australia has also adopted this painstaking approach. It has been sensible and correct that both coalition and Labor governments have taken a considerable amount of time and care to endorse and prepare for such changes. There are many important issues at play here, including, as many environmental groups have pointed out, the need for vigilant management and regulation of activities related to CCS, CCUS and, in particular, marine geoengineering.</para>
<para>In truth, work continues to be needed on assessing how Australia can potentially extract the best value from each of these forms of this endeavour.</para>
<para>Debate interrupted.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>107</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Vietnam War</title>
          <page.no>107</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
    <electorate>Casey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It speaks to the strength of my community that we have nine local RSL clubs across the electorate. These clubs are pillars of our local townships, but first and foremost they are a second home to our brave veterans and their families. They offer a welcoming space, camaraderie, social connection and assistance with the difficult transition back into civilian life. They are a place to turn to and find understanding among peers, and support when it is needed, but they also play a role in binding our communities together.</para>
<para>On the weekend I visited Lilydale RSL to celebrate the Cowey-Selman Kokoda Scholarship, run by local RSLs to enable a local student to visit and trek the Kokoda Trail. While scholarship recipient Cameron couldn't make it, we heard from year 11 student Riley, who also went on the trip thanks to a GoFundMe campaign by the local community. It was fantastic to hear Riley's appreciation for the courage and sacrifice of our veterans after experiencing the reality of Kokoda firsthand. Next week there will be a Kokoda Day commemorative service at One Tree Hill in Tremont, and on 18 August we as a nation will say a deep 'thank you' to the 60,000 Australians who served in the Vietnam War.</para>
<para>On 13 August I'll be speaking at the Yarra Valley RSL memorial service in Healesville for the Vietnam War and the Battle of Long Tan. I'll be laying a wreath and speaking about the extraordinary courage of our soldiers and the sacrifice they made for our country. This year marks the 50th anniversary since the end of the Vietnam War. To all the RSLs in Casey—Lilydale, Mount Evelyn, Monbulk, Healesville, Yarra Glen, Upper Yarra, Warburton, Dandenong Ranges, and Upwey Belgrave—thank you, firstly, for your service, and now for all the work you do supporting our veterans and for your involvement in our community.</para>
<para>While speaking about the strength of our local RSLs, I pay tribute to Roger Boness, a giant of the Mount Evelyn community and past president of the Mount Evelyn RSL. I was saddened to hear of Roger's passing recently, but I had the honour of attending his funeral. The crowd of hundreds was a testament to the love and respect our community had for him. At just 22, Roger served in Vietnam at Nui Dat, where he patrolled the jungle, but this wasn't the only enemy that he had to contend with. On one occasion, Roger was bitten by a snake on the rear end—a story told at his funeral and one that has delighted a generation of Mount Evelyn Primary School students, whom he regularly visited. When Roger returned to Australia in 1968, he struggled. He openly said: 'I think we were all mentally disturbed by it. In fact, it took me a while—years, at least—to start to be normal again.' Soon after returning, he married his beloved wife, Julie, moved to Mount Evelyn and raised two children, Stuart and Alice. Roger immersed himself in the Mount Evelyn community, joining the footy team, the tennis team and, of course, the RSL. He became president in 2011 and got to work fostering connections with local schools, businesses and clubs. He organised students to write to active members serving in Afghanistan and made a group of local teens custodians of the war memorial, which inspired them to paint an Anzac mural on their building. He oversaw the complete makeover of the local war memorial park to make it more accessible for the growing crowds at services, and a reflective space for the community to enjoy. He installed the howitzer, the lighting, the honour roll plaque and the 18 individual World War I plaques there as well.</para>
<para>Under Roger's leadership, membership increased, poppy and Anzac token sales grew and attendance at services skyrocketed, from 150 to now being one of the largest services in the area, with over 3,000 attendees. His effort gained him the nickname 'Front Page Roger' for all the media attention he brought to the RSL and Mount Evelyn township.</para>
<para>The Mount Evelyn community owes a great debt to Roger, and we will miss him deeply. He leaves it a stronger community and a better place. Vale, Roger Boness.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Chisholm Electorate: Community Events</title>
          <page.no>108</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GARLAND</name>
    <name.id>295588</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This past Sunday, July 30, was the International Day of Friendship, a day dedicated to fostering bonds of camaraderie, understanding and mutual respect amongst people of different backgrounds. This day is a day the United Nations proclaimed in 2011, with the idea that friendship between peoples, countries, cultures and individuals can inspire peace efforts and build bridges between communities.</para>
<para>I'm filled with pride and gratitude as I reflect on some remarkable events I had the privilege to attend in our vibrant and diverse community of Chisholm over the last few weeks. These are events that exemplify how diversity is really our greatest strength, the power of multiculturalism and the unity it brings to our society. This International Day of Friendship serves as a timely reminder of the value of cultural exchange and the role it plays in promoting peace and harmony in our communities.</para>
<para>I have recently had the pleasure of attending numerous events for celebrations during the Dragon Boat Festival. The Dragon Boat Festival events were hosted by a range of organisations: the Chinese Health Foundation, who actively promote healthy lifestyles and spread mental health awareness within our community; and Asian Australian Volunteers, who look after members of our community with accessibility needs by delivering groceries, driving them to the pharmacy or GP and helping people to access essential services. I attended events hosted by the Chinese Seniors Education and Skill Development Association, a group that assists seniors and migrants to develop skills and assist them with working their way through our local communities, understanding and navigating their way through the area in Glen Waverley and Mount Waverley.</para>
<para>I also had the opportunity to attend the Melbourne Spring Arts Multicultural Seniors Association, who bring seniors together in our community with a love of music, art and dancing that also helps to promote healthy living and active lifestyles. I was treated to a really wonderful concert by the Melbourne Spring Arts Multicultural Seniors Association. These organisations and the contribution they make to Chisholm symbolise not only the rich cultural heritage of the Chinese community in my electorate but also the strength and unity that transcends boundaries of origin. I'm really grateful to have been invited to share in such special events.</para>
<para>The Dragon Boat Festival, also known as Duanwu Jie, is an ancient tradition celebrated in many East Asian countries. It holds deep historical and cultural significance dating back over 2,000 years. The festival falls on the fifth day of the fifth month in the lunar calendar, a time when we witness the beauty of the Chinese community coming together to honour their ancestors, promote harmony and celebrate the spirit of teamwork. Around 29 per cent of people in my electorate have Chinese ancestry, and you can be sure that it was a terrific time of celebration throughout our communities of people coming together. On this side of the House we've always been champions of multiculturalism, and these festivities really allow us to witness the true essence of that, where people from different backgrounds are able to unite to share traditions and experience food, music, dance and culture.</para>
<para>In this spirit of inclusivity, diversity and multiculturalism, I also want to talk about the recent Monash and Whitehorse council citizenship ceremonies, which are always some of my absolute favourite events to attend. It is always an honour to be there as a local representative as people take that very significant step to become an Australian citizen. These ceremonies mark the beginning of a new chapter in the lives of so many people who choose to call Australia their home. I love having the opportunity to meet new citizens at these special events, to learn about their journey—some very long and some very difficult journeys—to make this country their home.</para>
<para>In Australia, we welcome people from every corner of the world, embracing the many different cultures that make our community so strong.</para>
<para>When we engage with one another's customs, language and heritage, we nurture a sense of interconnectedness, which is the sort of thing that the International Day of Friendship was implemented to help us do. It was implemented to help us foster a sense of peace and harmony in our communities. We know that when we embrace diversity, our communities are stronger and safer. I'm so proud to represent one of the most multicultural electorates in Australia. It's a real pleasure to be able to share some of those events with the House today. and it is a real pleasure to be able to share with you some of those events with the House today.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fisher Electorate: Housing and Rail Transport</title>
          <page.no>109</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
    <electorate>Fisher</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am confused, and I'll tell you why I'm confused. This federal government wants to bring 1½ million immigrants into this country in the next five years. I'm confused because the Queensland state government wants to increase the number of houses on the Sunshine Coast by 80,600. I'm confused because, at the same time, this federal government has announced a 90-day review of all of the infrastructure projects in this country. If they haven't started, then they're up on the chopping block. I'm confused because the Labor state government will not commit to important projects on the Sunshine Coast, like the development of passenger rail into the Sunshine Coast. I'm confused because, even though passenger rail is 100 per cent the responsibility of the state government, Ted O'Brien and I were responsible for securing $1.6 billion—billion with a 'B'—for the state government to contribute passenger rail on the Sunshine Coast, and yet the Labor state government will not commit to it.</para>
<para>I'm confused because they want to introduce another 80,600 homes to my patch but don't want to commit to infrastructure. How can that be? How can they want to increase, between the state and federal Labor governments, such huge numbers of people to Australia and the Sunshine Coast, but they don't want to commit to infrastructure? How can it be that this federal government wants to undertake a cut-cut-cut approach? Because the infrastructure minister has a razor gang in place. They said it was going to be a 90-day review. That 90 days is over, and yet there's no outcome. We have, on the chopping block, on the Sunshine Coast, a $3.2 billion project that was going to employ 10,000 locals over an eight- or nine-year period. There is a huge pall of a question mark now over that project.</para>
<para>I'll tell you another project that is really worrying me: the Mooloolah River Interchange. When we were in government, we committed to pay half the cost of the first stage of the Mooloolah River Interchange. This government is banging on about housing. They have just put bulldozers through the houses of over 300 Sunshine Coast locals to build the Mooloolah River Interchange. Because of this infrastructure 90-day review, we now have that project under a question mark. More than 300 Sunshine Coast locals have just lost their homes. We committed $160 million to this project. The state government has just gone and bulldozed homes, seeing the eviction of more than 300 locals, and now this project, courtesy of this federal government, may not even get the go-ahead. And yet they stand in this place and lecture us about the importance of homes for Australians when potentially all of these homes could have been bulldozed for naught.</para>
<para>Those homes were bulldozed after this federal government announced its 90-day review. We've seen just recently—in fact, yesterday—Mark Bailey fudge some figures and mislead Queenslanders about the value of the building of rail and trains, and yet he won't resign. The transport minister in Queensland must resign for misleading Queenslanders about the value of the cost of trains. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Mental Health</title>
          <page.no>109</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEORGANAS</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
    <electorate>Adelaide</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise tonight to speak about a great organisation in my electorate, the Adelaide Footy League, which basically covers the Amateur Football League in South Australia. Over the last year I have had the absolute pleasure to be in contact with their community liaison Officer, Dee Shepard, from the Adelaide Footy League. Dee came to my office to inform me about the Adelaide Footy League's pilot Mental Health First Aid program, which aims to address the problems their clubs face around this growing issue. If you think of amateur footy teams in and around the electorate, it is a great opportunity where young men are gathered together. Sometimes men, unlike other people in our community, are less likely to speak out if they are feeling depressed or facing problems. Dee came to me with a great concept which I thought was fantastic—that is, the Adelaide Footy League's Mental Health First Aid program, which would incorporate a mental health first-aid course that mirrors other successful and longstanding first aid programs.</para>
<para>The organisation believes, as I do, that it will give its participants of the program real-life tools to use to identify, consult and, most importantly, follow through on mental health in their sporting clubs, families and friends. The idea is to have one or two people in each club, whether they are trainers or volunteers, to be identified as mental health first-aid offices. They'll pick up on the signs of mental health or depression—all those things that cause mental health among the players. For a long time I, too, have been concerned about mental health growing at the rate it has. As such, I have taken a very keen interest in the Adelaide Footy League's proposal. Dee Shepard from the Adelaide Footy League had a very well-thought-out and specific plan to address mental health issues in their clubs, whose members range from young players right through to club members, volunteers and their family members. That's why I was extremely pleased I was able to secure $20,000 through the Stronger Communities grants for the Adelaide Footy League, who with this money will be able to fund approximately 60 club members to participate in the Mental Health First Aid program. These club members will be from every club associated with the Adelaide Footy League. The 60 club members who will participate in this program will become mental health first-aiders and leaders in mental health, where they can deliver social benefits to the broader community and assist in removing the stigma surrounding mental health. It's programs like these that will empower communities and equip trained mental health first-aiders with the knowledge and confidence to recognise, connect with and respond to someone experiencing a mental health problem, or who may be in crisis but may not wish to speak to anyone unless someone approaches them.</para>
<para>Mental health, suicide and suicide prevention are topics we need to get better at talking about. Despite increasing expenditure on mental health services, Australia has yet to see a meaningful decrease in the number of lives lost to suicide in over two decades. I am proud to be part of a government committed to actively shifting their approach to mental health and suicide prevention to one of proactive prevention through fostering and protecting wellbeing and strengthening communities. This is a program that does exactly that. I am proud to be a part of a government who are not scared to discuss and identify the changes that need to be made in this space. We are talking about a whole-of-life approach to suicide prevention and a whole-of-government approach to suicide prevention policy.</para>
<para>As I said, it's a great concept. Every club will have a couple of people trained up who will be able to identify the signs of mental health issues and will be able to approach the players, volunteers or trainers to have a discussion with them and then lead them onto different services that may assist them.</para>
<para>That's why I was very pleased to write to our Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention explaining this program to her as well. I'm hoping that we may be able to get the minister to come down to Adelaide and visit the Adelaide Footy League and hear more about this concept, because it is a great idea.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Community Pharmacies</title>
          <page.no>110</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WARE</name>
    <name.id>300123</name.id>
    <electorate>Hughes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in support of community pharmacists, particularly in my electorate of Hughes. I also rise to advocate on their behalf in relation to the government's proposed 60-day dispensing policy. The community pharmacy sector is a large and important industry within Australia. It has repeatedly been recognised by successive Australian governments as an integral part of Australia's world-class healthcare delivery system and enjoys a very high level of confidence from consumers.</para>
<para>Pharmacists are uniquely qualified and skilled to provide primary healthcare in many areas, alleviating the burden on our public hospitals and under-resourced GPs as well as providing medical advice and services to many Australians. It is estimated that almost 75,000 Australians work in the community pharmacy sector. There is a community pharmacy in almost every single town in Australia. Many of these towns do not have a GP.</para>
<para>The community pharmacy model is predicated upon its agreement with the federal government, known as 7CPA, which is to expire in June 2025. This provides remuneration guarantees to the community pharmacy sector in return for what amounts to a community services obligation, whereby community pharmacists provide a broad range of health services to the Australian community, either for free or at very low cost. We all know these services. Most of us have availed ourselves of these services. These include delivery of medications, free blood pressure checks, postnatal services—such as baby weighing, advice on feeding and sleeping—the packing and delivery of aged-care packages, the packaging of patient discharge medications from hospitals, and diabetes and methadone education and advice clinics.</para>
<para>Following inundation from my local pharmacists and many from further afield, I held a roundtable discussion to better understand the pharmacists' concerns around the proposed changes to the dispensing regime. I appreciated the attendance by pharmacists within the Hughes electorate as well as briefings from the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia and the Pharmacy Guild. Pharmacists advised me that the government's proposed policy change to the dispensing regime to 60 days for some medicines fundamentally alters the proposed structure, incentives and balance of the community pharmacy model. This puts the future viability of many community pharmacies at great risk.</para>
<para>While hailed by the government as providing cheaper medicines, the pharmacists advised me that the policy will, potentially, benefit only one group of Australians—the consumers of the 325 medicines subject to the policy change. The change imposes a much greater net cost on the Australian community overall. On this side, we want cheaper medicines. We want cheaper medicines for all Australians. However, there are unintended consequences of this change to government policy. It's a change that involved almost no consultation, from the minister, with the stakeholders most affected.</para>
<para>Potential consequences are the withdrawal of free pharmacy services to our most vulnerable Australians. It may also involve the closure and reduction in trading hours of pharmacies, increased costs for patients accessing primary healthcare services, job losses, medicine wastage and potential overdoses by patients now able to stockpile much larger quantities of medications than previously.</para>
<para>It is also, based on independent modelling, likely to lead to the closure of at least 200 community pharmacies, and potentially up to 600 community pharmacies throughout our country. The pharmacists wish to work with the federal government. They have asked that the policy's implementation be suspended to enable an evidence based independent review of the potential consequences of this policy. They've also asked that there be broad engagement with their sector.</para>
<para>To conclude: I want cheaper medicines. Those on my side want cheaper medicines for Australians. However, disregarding an existing arrangement with our community pharmacists, many of whom have relied upon that contract to make financial decisions and plan for their futures, is simply unfair practice. I therefore call upon government health minister Butler to properly engage, consult and review this decision.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Yerbury, Professor Justin, AM</title>
          <page.no>111</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BYRNES</name>
    <name.id>299145</name.id>
    <electorate>Cunningham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise tonight to pay tribute to a friend and local Illawarra hero, Professor Justin Yerbury AM, who passed away peacefully at home last Friday surrounded by his beloved wife, Rachel; and daughters, Talia and Maddison.</para>
<para>Over the past 30 years of working in our community and in our parliament, I have had the great privilege of meeting many accomplished and inspiring people, so I don't say this lightly: Justin and Rachel are two of the most inspiring people I have ever met. Twenty-five years ago, Justin's uncle and cousin developed motor neurone disease, MND. A few years later, he lost his grandmother, mother and aunt to MND within a matter of weeks. This immense loss amongst his own family inspired him to radically change his career, from pro basketballer with the Illawarra Hawks to a world-renowned medical and biology scientist.</para>
<para>Justin began studying in 2001, completed his PhD in 2008 and went on to become an esteemed professor of neurodegenerative diseases at the University of Wollongong. Justin's career was astounding, and he received numerous awards and commendations for his groundbreaking research and advocacy. In 2016 Justin was himself diagnosed with MND. In 2020 he was awarded a Member of the Order of Australia, AM, for his contribution to MND research.</para>
<para>Justin and his wife, Dr Rachel Yerbury, an accomplished academic in her own right, often collaborated at the intersection of psychology and biology. The 2021 paper <inline font-style="italic">Disabled </inline><inline font-style="italic">in academia</inline><inline font-style="italic">:</inline><inline font-style="italic"> to be </inline><inline font-style="italic">or </inline><inline font-style="italic">not to be</inline><inline font-style="italic">,</inline><inline font-style="italic"> that is the question</inline> explored the real-life issue of diversity disclosure within academia. They found that, while some institutions are supportive, the culture of ableism, stigmatism and the disabling barriers make disclosing disability a complex and difficult decision. Whilst they were writing this paper they even prompted changes to the National Health and Medical Research Council's grant application policy to ensure people with disability were afforded equal access to funding. In an interview with ABC Illawarra in December 2020 about the NHMRC policy battle, Justin said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… I would like to be remembered as a person with resilience who worked hard to make a difference by being the best I could be.</para></quote>
<para>Justin, you have definitely achieved this.</para>
<para>The University of Wollongong were quick to honour Justin's significant contribution to MND research and continue his legacy by establishing the Justin Yerbury Chair in Neurodegenerative Diseases. This fund will allow his research to continue and hopefully one day find a cure for MND, something Justin worked towards for most of his life. In 2022, Justin was awarded the prestigious University of New South Wales Eureka Prize for Scientific Research, the New South Wales Premier's Prize for Science and Engineering, and the keys to the City of Wollongong for his significant achievements in the research of MND and for his inspiration and determination while living with a disability.</para>
<para>Justin and Rachel were an unstoppable force. They were fierce advocates for people with disabilities and, through their own battles and profile, tried to ensure that others did not have to go through the same thing, all while both achieving so much in their personal and professional lives. I fought alongside them on their journey many times through battles they should never have had to have, and I will be forever inspired by their tenacity and courage. In 2019 the family booked a cruise with family and friends. They completed the medical forms, hired two care workers to come along and paid thousands of dollars to courier medical equipment to the ship, only to be turned away on the wharf. I saw Justin shortly after, and he mentioned that he had been invited to present at a medical symposium in Perth. I told him to let me know the details and I would make sure that never happened again. He emailed me a week or so later.</para>
<para>One of the things I loved about working for Labor members of parliament was the compassionate and hard-working people you meet that then go on to work in so many different areas. I rang my good friend Moksha Watts, who was then at Qantas; explained Justin's experience and his plans for Perth; and asked her, 'How do we make this happen?' Moksha cares deeply about helping people. She's tenacious and solutions driven, and she said, 'Leave it with me.' Over the following months, Qantas aviation health doctors worked with Justin's specialist and conducted several trials with Justin and his physio and nurse. Qantas went to great lengths to ensure that Justin was able to present at the symposium in Perth and finally have a holiday with his family. This isn't just important in the context of getting Justin Yerbury to Perth; this was an investment in accessibility. Because of Justin and Rachel's determination for Justin to be able to live his life to the fullest and for our society to benefit from his research, Qantas now has the expertise and experience to assist other passengers with complex needs to be able to access flights in the future.</para>
<para>Justin, I will miss you. Our community will miss you. My heart is breaking for your beautiful family, many friends and colleagues, who I know will miss you deeply. Thank you. Rest in peace.</para>
<para>House adjourned at 20:01</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>112</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>112</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
  <fedchamb.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-MCJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-MCJobDate">
            <a href="Federation Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 2 August 2023</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">DEPUTY SPEAKER </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">(</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Mrs Archer</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">)</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>took the chair at 09:29.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>114</page.no>
        <type>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Plastic Recycling</title>
          <page.no>114</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>With challenge frequently comes opportunity. I want to talk about some of the thinking and work taking place across my electorate of North Sydney as we seek to address our continued overreliance on lazy, excessive plastic packaging. Australians generate more plastic waste per person per year than the citizens of any other country in the world except Singapore, using over 70 billion pieces of soft plastic every year. The unfortunate reality is that, from production to disposal, these plastics are incredibly emissions intensive. In one year alone, Australia's emissions from plastics create more than 16 million metric tons of greenhouse gas. This is the equivalent of the emissions produced by a quarter of all cars on our roads during the same period. To respond in a way that matches the scale of this challenge, we need federal policies to drive reform around the amount, type and disposal of plastics in Australia. In the words of Plastic Free July's Pete Seeger:</para>
<quote><para class="block">If it can't be reduced, reused, repaired, rebuilt, refurbished, refinished, resold, recycled or composted then it should be restricted, redesigned or removed from production.</para></quote>
<para>This must be our bottom line.</para>
<para>Australia has attempted to nationally coordinate a plastics policy, but we remain a long way from achieving the circularity needed. To date we've tended to focus heavily on improving recycling solutions, but recycling alone is not going to work. We must shift our focus upstream to prevent plastics from entering the market in the first place. In this context, my community is urging me to call on the minister to mandate national packaging targets and product stewardship and to shift the onus from the consumer to the creator. The environment minister has signalled her readiness to impose obligations if industry is unable to act, but my community says we are well beyond that point. Furthermore, we need greater government support for innovation readily available to get these commitments moving.</para>
<para>There are several startups in my electorate that are doing incredible work, but they need the government to step up and be clear on the policy, financial and economic measures it plans to take. They include Samsara Eco, who has developed a revolutionary tech that can infinitely recycle plastics and textiles. Working in this way, this tech, which has been developed in collaboration with the Australian National University, will mean that plastics will no longer need to be made from fossil fuels. By ensuring they are the feedstock for future production, the tech will keep these emissions-intensive plastics out of our landfills and our oceans. But to succeed they need our government to set a clear course of action. The time for waiting for those that create to accept responsibility has passed. The science is clear, the evidence is in our faces and the solutions could be in our hands if we're willing to invest in them.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Russo, Mr Phillip (Phil), OAM</title>
          <page.no>114</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHARLTON</name>
    <name.id>I8M</name.id>
    <electorate>Parramatta</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to celebrate and honour local legend Phil Russo. Phil Russo is a name most locals in Parramatta would know. He's a passionate advocate for preserving Parramatta's unique and significant heritage, and he's been a parishioner at St Patrick's Cathedral for over 50 years. Phil was also a Parramatta city councillor and a deputy mayor, and he used his public office to support every community right across our local area. It was in this role that Phil delivered the first apology to the stolen generations in 1997, a full 11 years before Prime Minister Kevin Rudd did so in this House.</para>
<para>In a recent conversation I had with Phil, he told me why he decided to make the apology in his capacity as a local councillor. The decision, he told me, was driven in part by his values. Phil grew up in the 1930s and 1940s during a time when migrant families like his faced discrimination on a regular basis. At shops, in school and even at work, Phil saw the effects discrimination had on families firsthand. As a young man, Phil travelled in the merchant navy and sailed around the Pacific. He saw how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders were treated differently. They were explicitly excluded, segregated and barred from so many of the opportunities afforded to non-Indigenous families. Phil even remembers a time when Indigenous Australians were only allowed to sit in the worst seats at the cinema. He remembers telling off the cinema owner for this when he was just a 17-year-old.</para>
<para>Phil also credits his decision to make the apology to the stolen generations to his experiences at the conference where the <inline font-style="italic">Bringing them </inline><inline font-style="italic">home</inline> report was launched. Phil, then on council, went as part of a delegation to the national reconciliation conference. He described it as 'the most harrowing four days I had ever experienced'.</para>
<para>He told me that, on the last day, all the delegates expected then Prime Minister John Howard to make an apology to the Stolen Generations and, when he didn't, they were shocked. Phil was crushed personally. When he got back to Parramatta, he decided to make that apology himself. I quote Phil: 'I knew the Prime Minister wasn't going to apologise, so I did.'</para>
<para>In 2009, the then Liberal mayor of the Parramatta city council, Tony Issa, unveiled a plaque to commemorate this apology as a milestone in Parramatta's history. In 2013, Phil even received an Order of Australia medal for his advocacy and community service. I share Phil's story today not just to appreciate the many achievements of this local legend but to remind us of how proud we all feel when we look back on the actions and times that moved Australia forward. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Labor Government: Rural and Regional Australia</title>
          <page.no>115</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
    <electorate>New England</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Hasn't the Labor Party been a wonderful adornment of regional Australia? Especially in my electorate, New England. Since they've arrived there, they've come up with a fantastic excuse to kick the Inland Rail into the high grass! Basically, now, rather than one Inland Rail, we've got two Inland Rails. We've got one that goes from Melbourne to Parkes, and we've got another one that goes from Newcastle to North Star. The problem is that they've decided they don't want to go to Brisbane anymore and they don't want to go to Gladstone anymore. People are getting retrenched, people are getting laid off, and one of the great investment projects of Australia has hit the deck. After that, they took away the money for Dungowan Dam. They don't believe in building dams. All the dams—they've taken away all the money for all the dams. They don't believe in building them. Now they've turned up to Armadale and are talking about moving the APVMA back to Canberra. They just don't believe in decentralisation. They believe in the citadel of Canberra and that every asset from the taxpayer should reside here. But I'll tell you what they have given us: transmission lines. They have given us transmission lines. They've given us wind factories and solar factories littered all over the landscape. People's lives are being run over because the government are saying, 'A transmission line is going to go through the middle of your life, through the middle of your farm, and if you don't let it happen we're just going to compulsorily acquire it.' People are fed up with it. They're fed up with being kicked to pieces by this government.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister is going to Tamworth for the Bush Summit on 11 August. I suspect that a lot of people are really looking forward to him turning up because they've got a few things to say. They'll be polite, and they'll be law-abiding, but they'll also be furious. People are over being walked on. Everywhere you go, they just say, 'How does this happen to us? How does the government apparently have more rights over my life than I do? How can they just completely smash the value of my asset? Why is it that this landscape I live in is now littered—an industrial landscape, where a town such as Walcha will have more structures over 260 metres high all around it than the CBD of Sydney?' This is not what they were planning when they changed the government. What has happened to regional Australia is that they have been absolutely and utterly exploited and they have been treated as some bumpkins that can be bashed up. Prime Minister, you're going to have a very interesting time in Tamworth. I look forward to you arriving.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Early Childhood Education</title>
          <page.no>115</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHESTERS</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
    <electorate>Bendigo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This week is Early Learning Matters Week. I begin my remarks by giving a shout-out to all of our amazing early childhood educators and teachers and the extraordinary work that they do in giving our younger generation the best start in life. The science is in. We know that ages nought to five are the most critical years for all of us in terms of our development. That is when we learn the foundation skills to set us up for primary school and beyond. Unfortunately, at the moment, in early childhood education, there is a slight staffing crisis. So, in the lead-up to the week, I reached out to all of our centres just to find out how challenging it has been. We also need more spaces, more centres. I had a few parents reach out to me to say, 'We're really keen for our children to start early childhood education, but we simply can't find a space.' In my electorate, there are 32 long-daycare providers. Of those, two are local government, nine are not for profit—mainly Goodstart—and the rest are for profit.</para>
<para>Of the 28 centres that responded to us, 27 said that they had waitlists—that they could take more children but they just didn't have the space. The staff shortage was the greatest issue when it came to occupancy and capacity. In other words, they had the physical room, but not enough educators or teachers to be able to open more rooms. If we could solve this staffing shortage just imagine how many more children would have an opportunity to access early childhood education. One centre said that, whilst they couldn't employ kindergarten teachers, they actually had enough children to fill their three-to-five room and still have a waitlist. On the days these children didn't go to formal kinder they went to long day care and accessed the program at this centre.</para>
<para>The biggest reason that came through for why they had staffing shortages was wages. We must do more to lift the wages of our early childhood educators. All of them are excited to know that this government is acting. This is the first sector to engage in multi-employer bargaining. They are looking forward to the outcome of that case.</para>
<para>Our early childhood educators, like our aged-care workers and our disability support staff, are the salt of our earth. They do an amazing job. Like them, our early childhood educators deserve a decent pay rise. It is one way we can help fix the capacity issues we are all currently experiencing in our centres. I thank the early childhood educators. This is a week to recognise the great work that you do.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Northern Suburbs Football Association</title>
          <page.no>116</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last Thursday night I joined a couple of hundred constituents at the live site at the St Ives Village Green to watch the Matildas and Nigeria match on the big screen. That was obviously an opportunity to express my support for the Matildas. The result last Thursday night was disappointing, but of course there has been a most terrific outcome in the most recent match against Canada. We are all very excited for what the future might hold. We hope they go even further.</para>
<para>This is also an opportunity for me to express my appreciation of the Northern Suburbs Football Association, which initiated this live site. In this case they worked with the Ku-ring-gai Council. There have been a number of other such sites in my electorate and in surrounding areas. That is just one small part of the extraordinary work done by the Northern Suburbs Football Association, which since 1957 has played a pivotal role in developing participation in the world game across the northern suburbs of Sydney.</para>
<para>From Asquith at the northern end of my electorate to Gordon and points much further south, the association organises football competitions for men, women, mixed teams, boys and girls for some 30 member clubs. There's a very strong focus on community inclusion. For example, they have established monthly frame football events. This is an inclusive game where children who use a walker or frame can participate and enjoy football. I think one of the reasons there is such strong support for the Matildas is that it reflects the very high levels of community participation in football, and that has been growing strongly in my electorate of Bradfield, as it has all around Australia.</para>
<para>On 15 July I attended a Stewart Close Cup match held at Auluba Oval in South Turramurra. The local derby match was hard-fought between Kissing Point Football Club and West Pymble Football Club. There was great support there and great community spirit, as is the case for all of the matches held under the auspices of the Northern Suburbs Football Association.</para>
<para>I acknowledge the President, Ian Plant, and other committee members. Ian, along with board member Dimitrios Gongolidis, hosted me at the visit to the live site. I also acknowledge the recently appointed chief executive Kevin Johnson. Most importantly, I acknowledge the thousands of my constituents, families and others involved in playing football on the North Shore of Sydney. I also acknowledge the volunteers, the referees, the administrators and the parents who get their kids to and from matches. Football has very strong community support across Australia, and that is certainly the case in my electorate of Bradfield.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Corangamite Electorate: Youth Roundtable</title>
          <page.no>116</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COKER</name>
    <name.id>263547</name.id>
    <electorate>Corangamite</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Young people have great ideas. They often surprise us with how they see the world and what they are truly experiencing. But it's not often that young people get the opportunity to speak truthfully and from the heart about what matters to them. That's why it was a great privilege for the Minister for Youth and me to host a youth roundtable in my electorate of Corangamite over the winter break. Together we spoke with 12 remarkable young leaders, from the Surf Coast to the Bellarine, the Golden Plains and the wider region. It was a revealing discussion about life after COVID, social media, and how young people interact with their peers and determine their goals.</para>
<para>Guided by these young leaders, the pillars of our discussion emerged: education and mental health, two critical aspects that shape the lives of so many young Australians. What became clear through our discussion was that the pandemic's impact on our education system and the wellbeing of our youth has been profound. They told us they feel less confident to socialise and communicate face to face. This was a revelation to me. It's something that our Minister for Education and the Minister for Youth and our Albanese government are grappling with, and it is now the key focus of two reviews currently underway, one focusing on schools and the other focusing on universities. We certainly recognise that mental health is also so important, and I'll soon be announcing the site for a new headspace in the growing suburb of Armstrong Creek.</para>
<para>Earlier this year, the minister launched the national youth survey, an initiative that invited young people aged from 12 to 25 to share their thoughts, experiences and aspirations. The input we received from our young Australians is invaluable in informing a comprehensive youth engagement strategy. Through consultation like the surveys and our roundtables, our government is determined to create meaningful opportunities for young people to do well, to achieve in their lives and, importantly, to be well, to be happy and to feel that they are contributing.</para>
<para>In closing, I extend my heartfelt appreciation to the Minister for Youth and the Minister for Education for their commitment to listen to and act on the voices of young people. In particular, I thank the 12 young citizens who took time during their holidays to share with me their aspirations and their insights. This does make a difference. We need to find ways for young people to speak up to say what matters to them.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Barker Electorate: Head to Health, Barker Electorate: Roads</title>
          <page.no>117</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PASIN</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
    <electorate>Barker</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am incredibly proud to inform the House that Head to Health Mount Gambier has officially begun offering services to the people of the Limestone Coast. I have stood in this place many times speaking about the importance of improved mental health support for Australians. As I am a big supporter of the headspace model, the Head to Health rollout under the former coalition government had my full support. With a service model much like headspace's, Head to Health offers a welcoming no-wrong-door approach for adults seeking access to mental health information services and support, and I am incredibly proud that Mount Gambier is home to one of the very first Head to Health facilities in South Australia. A successful grassroots campaign in 2021, which included a petition signed by thousands of locals, has resulted in another important link in the mental health network for the Limestone Coast.</para>
<para>The Mount Gambier based service is being run by Focus One Health, who have an existing footprint in the Limestone Coast and are familiar with the community. The Head to Health team is being led by highly respected mental health advocate Tracey Wanganeen and includes two peer support workers, two mental health clinicians and a dedicated AOD worker. I wish Tracey and her team all the very best in delivering this important service for the Limestone Coast community. On a final note, to all those who signed the to help me advocate for this service here in Canberra: thank you. This is a fantastic example of a grassroots campaign and its outcome.</para>
<para>Running through my electorate of Barker is the Sturt Highway, the major freight route for vehicles between South Australia and New South Wales. I've been advocating for a duplication of the Sturt Highway forever, and I began lobbying for the duplication after funding was committed to the Truro freight route, because upgrading the Sturt Highway at Truro is a key piece of the infrastructure puzzle that must come first. This is because more than 600 B-doubles and road trains currently travel through the main street of Truro each day.</para>
<para>It's why the former Liberal coalition government committed funding to design and construct the Truro freight route to divert heavy vehicle traffic along the Sturt Highway, out of Truro's main street, improving the safety and amenity of the town and, of course, freight efficiency. The project is also a key component of the Greater Adelaide freight bypass that would also see heavy vehicles diverted from Adelaide and the South Eastern Freeway.</para>
<para>The Labor government's 90-day review is yet to be completed, despite it now being 90 days since it was announced, which means that the future of this project is uncertain. I've been spending time in the Riverland, in Barossa, in Truro and in Adelaide, hearing loud and clear what I already know: the people of South Australia want this project to proceed. Whilst the minister is infatuated with a yes for the Voice, what the people of South Australia want is a yes to this freight route.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Kong, Professor Kelvin, OzHarvest</title>
          <page.no>117</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLAYDON</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate>Newcastle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm honoured to rise in the Australian parliament to congratulate and pay tribute to a very proud Warrimay doctor, Professor Kelvin Kong, who has been awarded the 2023 National NAIDOC Person of the Year Award. Professor Kong has dedicated his career to early intervention on middle ear disease, known as otitis media. Indigenous children experience the highest levels of middle ear disease in the world, affecting up to 70 per cent of children in remote communities. This contributes to poor educational and social outcomes and, consequently, limited employment opportunities. Professor Kong is committed to changing these statistics, focusing on the diagnosis and treatment of children under three.</para>
<para>While based in Newcastle, he spends time each year travelling to remote Aboriginal communities to ensure that children can access high-quality ear health care that would otherwise be limited or absolutely unavailable in the regions that they live in. By treating those children at an early age, Professor Kong has a direct impact on children's ability to learn and develop, to laugh and interact with their friends and to thrive in life. Professor Kong is a strong advocate also for a national strategy now to support hearing health that provides equitable access to culturally safe ear health everywhere in Australia.</para>
<para>He was Australia's first Aboriginal surgeon and is one of only three Indigenous surgeons in Australia. He also mentors high-school students to encourage more Indigenous students to embark on a career in medicine and surgery. A well-loved and respected leader in the Newcastle community, Professor Kong is a thoroughly deserving recipient of this award. Congratulations.</para>
<para>If anyone knows me, they know I am not a great early morning person. But, when OzHarvest asked me to join their early morning food rescue run, I jumped at the chance. OzHarvest do fantastic work in reducing food waste by delivering surplus food to people who actually need it. Launched in 2010, OzHarvest Newcastle has five vans, which rescue food from Raymond Terrace to Maitland and up to Port Macquarie and Coffs Harbour. Their yellow vans are out and about every day, collecting quality surplus food from supermarkets, cafes, delis and restaurants and delivering them to local charities. OzHarvest Newcastle alone delivers more than 140,000 meals every month. That is food that would otherwise end up in landfill, contributing to our carbon footprint. In fact, reducing food waste is the third most effective way to address climate change.</para>
<para>Their goal is to halve food waste by 2030 in Australia, something we can all strive to achieve in our own homes. I congratulate OzHarvest Newcastle on their fantastic work, and I encourage all MPs in this House to get involved with their local OzHarvest operations.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tasmania: Manufacturing Industry</title>
          <page.no>118</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PEARCE</name>
    <name.id>282306</name.id>
    <electorate>Braddon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I never tire of standing in this place talking about the achievements and the potential of King Island and the north-west coast of the great state of Tasmania. Today it's with great pride that I advise this House that our region continues to punch well above its weight.</para>
<para>Last week it was announced that Burnie-based advanced manufacturing company Elphinstone will partner with Hanwha Defense Australia to build Australia's next generation of infantry fighting vehicles for the Defence Force. This project will see Elphinstone manufacture the hull for 129 Redback IFAs, infantry fighting assemblages, which form part of Land 400 phase 3.</para>
<para>Elphinstone are doing the heavy lifting, and all our other advanced manufacturers right along the coast, such as Delta Hydraulics, Penguin Composites, Direct Edge, Jayben and others, are playing a very important part in transforming the region into a manufacturing centre of excellence.</para>
<para>These businesses are laying the foundations for economic prosperity by building a global reputation in advanced manufacturing, particularly in defence.</para>
<para>As we know, confidence breeds confidence. On the back of this success, Elphinstone is now investing in a new facility which will allow it to vie for other subsequent defence projects. They'll get stronger and stronger. This will create new jobs and increase investment right throughout the supply chain.</para>
<para>I got into politics because I want to play my part in making our region the very best it can be. I've always said, 'If you look down, you'll trip over.' So I want our manufacturers and our younger generations to look up, to look over the horizon and to see the potential that they have as a region. And that's what these projects do.</para>
<para>The stone age didn't finish because we ran out of rocks; it was simply because we found greater technologies. And that's what we're talking about here in the north-west of Tasmania. We're changing from an underground earthmoving machinery manufacturing process to a defence manufacturing process, and that will create the IP and the necessary skills, knowledge and attitudes to build that next form and help that next generation into that new way forward. So I see many advantages, not only for that business, not only for the state and not only for the revenue for the state, but for our IP and the future of manufacturing in the great state of Tasmania.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Eden-Monaro Electorate: Volunteers</title>
          <page.no>118</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
    <electorate>Eden-Monaro</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to talk about volunteers, who make such a valuable contribution across Eden-Monaro. I see so many people across Eden-Monaro giving up their time, and their money, in so many circumstances, to contribute back to the community. What is consistent across Eden-Monaro is that it is something that people love to do. In Eden-Monaro, nearly 20 per cent of our population volunteer in some capacity, which is far above the state average of 14 per cent, and we can see the real, positive impacts that that has on community groups across our electorate. On average, volunteers contribute about 180 hours a year. Twenty per cent of our volunteers contribute more than 250 hours a year, which is extraordinary.</para>
<para>Recently, I had the great honour and pleasure of distributing some volunteer grants to organisations across Eden-Monaro. They included—to name just a few—Adelong Preschool, Jerra Joeys Netball Club, the Merimbula Knights Cricket Club, Binalong Swimming Club, Cobargo Community Access Centre, Monaro Art Group, Dalgety Show Society, Narooma Surf Life Saving Club, Meals on Wheels Queanbeyan, the AMA motorbike Bombala branch, CWA Yass and Cycle Tumbarumba.</para>
<para>I wanted to highlight some of the extraordinary contributions that people make. We know people don't volunteer for recognition, but I would note that the Centre for Volunteering does do awards every year. Even though nominations for 2023 are closed, please think about nominating a volunteer in the future.</para>
<para>In 2022, Daryl Dobson was named the Senior Volunteer of the Year for the South Coast. He has worked with Pambula Rotary Club for 20 years. He has built walkways, access points and amenity blocks and did so much work during the bushfires.</para>
<para>In 2022, Jake Mason was the Young Volunteer of the Year for the southern inland. He has volunteered over 600 hours for St John Ambulance Cooma Division. He has a bright future, and I know how proud of him his branch are.</para>
<para>I also want to congratulate former editor and custodian of the <inline font-style="italic">Gundaroo </inline><inline font-style="italic">Gazette</inline> Alan Cummine, who recently received a good citizen award. He has put countless hours and extraordinary effort into the local paper. As his good citizen citation reads, in part: 'In that role, he has provided much of the glue so necessary to bind a vibrant community together, by keeping it informed of what is happening and what should be happening in and around the village of Gundaroo.' Can I express my personal acknowledgement of his achievements, which have helped to enrich the Gundaroo community. He was one of the first people I met in the Queanbeyan office after I became the member for Eden-Monaro, and I was so impressed with his commitment to the community.</para>
<para>I also want to acknowledge our service clubs. Lions and Rotary clubs across Eden-Monaro do such a fantastic job. In June, I had the pleasure of attending the Lions Club's annual changeover dinner in Queanbeyan and the Rotary annual changeover dinners in Narooma and Cooma. Keep up the good work. Thank you for what you do for our community. I look forward to continuing to collaborate with you.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>119</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>119</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>119</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAE</name>
    <name.id>300122</name.id>
    <electorate>Hawke</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit into the Commonwealth grants administration contains an absolutely damning truth for those opposite, although, sadly, it's not one that the Australian people have come to be surprised by when it comes to the former Liberal government. The former Liberal government rorted billions of dollars to serve their political purposes. They threw grant rules and guidelines as well as program guidelines out the window as they sought to allocate funds to serve their own needs. The scale of the evidence presented to the committee was absolutely staggering, and it was clear that the former government was simply treating public money like it was Liberal Party money. Indeed, their sense of entitlement had clearly come to a point that it was stifling their sense of morality. In disappointingly characteristic fashion, the former Liberal government had no regard for transparency or due process, instead pursuing industrial-scale rorting to serve their craven political interests.</para>
<para>While the contents of the report are incredibly disappointing, they are, sadly, not surprising. The former Liberal government's record of rorting is well known right across this country, particularly for those organisations who found themselves on the wrong side of these improper grant processes. Many of these organisations are in my electorate of Hawke, many of them in communities that face structural disadvantage and socioeconomic challenges. They are those that the former Liberal government was so willing to leave behind and excluded from these public interest considerations.</para>
<para>The committee heard that in some grant programs local councils simply stopped applying after establishing an evidence based belief that, due to factors entirely outside the grant guidelines or principles, they would never be successful. It was so blatantly obvious that the grants were not being fairly awarded that people—the Australian people, our communities—simply lost trust in the Liberal government's interest in serving their needs.</para>
<para>While the evidence was as clear as it was damning, some members of the committee produced a dissenting report. However, this report doesn't actually disagree with the recommendations. It just doesn't acknowledge—it entirely fails to acknowledge—the egregious politicisation of the grant process under the former Liberal government. It is staggering that, despite the enormous volume of evidence that the public trust was breached and public funds were unfairly and immorally allocated, the Liberals still can't concede that what they did with billions of dollars of taxpayer money was simply wrong. This is particularly staggering for coalition member of the committee, who were presented with evidence of rorting across the multibillion-dollar Urban Congestion Fund, which included the infamous commuter car parks, various regional grants programs, the regional grants fund—hello, Sydney pool—and the Safer Communities Fund.</para>
<para>The committee acknowledges the important role that ministerial discretion can and, indeed, should play in government decision-making. There are no doubt instances where this discretion can be appropriately exercised to ensure an outcome that is in the public interest. However, it is also appropriate that these decisions are examined and that ministers aren't left to freely throw money around without scrutiny—in this case, to serve their craven political interests with zero transparency or accountability to taxpayers and the Australian people.</para>
<para>With this report, the committee is making six recommendations designed to strengthen processes around the awarding of public grants. These include making the merit-based, competitive process the default, as well as including in program guidelines how advocacy from stakeholders—including MPs, who importantly play the role of representation here in this place—will be considered in that broader process. The committee is also recommending that when grants are awarded against the recommendation of the relevant agency—sometimes with very good reason—the decision is clearly recorded, reported to the finance minister and published online. As I said, it's often necessary—and many times has been—but there must be transparency and accountability when this occurs. There must be an explanation for the Australian people about how and why a minister has made a decision in contrast to the advice coming up from their department.</para>
<para>The committee is further recommending that the criteria against which grant applications are assessed be fully transparent. As the Liberal rorting was exposed, the former Liberal government used to cite unspecified 'other factors' in a poor attempt to legitimise their politicisation of these grants processes. This recommendation would prevent this deceptive trick from being used again.</para>
<para>While it is incredibly disappointing that this report has not received bipartisan support from committee members, I don't think it should be a matter of partisanship that we expect the highest standards of accountability and transparency when it comes to decision-making and the dispensing of public funds. I again note that they aren't actually disagreeing with the recommendations; they're simply using it as a vehicle to make pathetic excuses for their poor governance and, frankly, for their politicised decision-making that had such detrimental impacts on communities such as mine. I hope that the recommendations receive bipartisan support and that that goes some way to rebuilding public trust in Commonwealth grants administration.</para>
<para>I'd particularly like to think the chair of the committee, the member for Bruce, whose leadership and hard work in delivering this report and all of the work that went behind it has been a hallmark of the Albanese government—that we would strive every day in this place to restore public trust and confidence in the institutions of government, whether that be in the public sector around our Public Service employees and the critical institution that that represents or that be in the decision-making that happens at the very highest levels of executive government. While I again note that those opposite have chosen to provide their dissenting report—weak and pathetic as that report might be—I know that there are members opposite, individuals, who do believe in strengthening the institutions of government and in upholding the moral obligations that we as individuals have when we're elected to this place.</para>
<para>I strongly encourage those opposite, despite the institutional pressures of their party to defend the former prime minister Morrison, his cabinet and the decisions that they made—I know that that has some very awkward consequences for the current opposition leader, and we've seen that aired in public spaces over the last number of days. But it should not be a partisan issue. The restoration of public confidence in government and of accountability and transparency around decision-making and the dispensing of public funds should not be matters of partisanship. These should be issues, values and principles that all members of this place can get behind. I strongly encourage those members who know better and believe in a better sense of government to put the partisanship aside and get on board with supporting the recommendations in this report so that we can get on with doing the work required.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I first acknowledge the work of the member for Bruce on the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit.</para>
<para>What is it to be an adult? For those of us who have worked with children and young people most of our lives, it's a really simple thing: you demonstrate that you're an adult when you're prepared to admit mistakes, take responsibility for them and change your behaviour. What is it to be an adult government? Being an adult government is when you can admit your mistakes, take responsibility for them, and change your behaviours.</para>
<para>This report demonstrates to us clearly, once again, that the former government are still not capable of taking those adult steps either individually or collectively. The report goes through a damning litany of what's colloquially known as pork-barrelling that occurred under their watch. We saw the headlines. We read about it every day. We spoke about it from the opposition benches every day, because there wasn't just the joy that some communities had because there was an announcement of a grant that was made, as strange as that grant process might have seemed to people, or people having questions about whether the recipient of that grant process was worthy in a competitive environment. The other side to that coin was the hundreds of thousands of Australians in communities who received nothing, who were locked out of grant programs by reason of geography, not by need.</para>
<para>In my community, this was felt deeply, as it was in a community like the member for Hawke's, where growth is happening every day. When I first came to this place in 2013, I represented the entire city of Wyndham, and I now represent about half of the city of Wyndham, because we are now at 300,000 people. This is a city that struggles to get young people to play sport because we are battling to get the playing fields, courts and pitches rolled out in time for new housing development. Imagine what the people in my community thought about the Stronger Regions Fund, from which we were locked out, granting $10 million to the inner-city North Sydney pool. You can imagine how that was felt in my community. As the chair's foreword in the report articulates, that didn't just result in disappointment; that resulted in a loss of faith in government, a loss of faith in democracy and a loss of faith in the institutions that keep our democracy strong.</para>
<para>This isn't the only case that we have found since we took government when we have looked back. We've seen it with the robodebt. Time and time again, I rose in this place to outline the unfair impacts that was having in my community. Yesterday and the day before, what have we seen from the opposition, the former government? A denial of responsibility for that program. Similarly, here we have a denial of responsibility for the programs that saw, quite bluntly, an absolute travesty of justice.</para>
<para>In my community, the former Gillard and Rudd Labor governments introduced the Regional Rail Link, at great expense to the federal government. In my community, where new train stations are and where an extra 100,000 people now live, was there money for a car park? Was there money for car parks at either Tarneit station, Wyndham Vale station, Williams Landing station, Werribee station, or Hoppers Crossing Station? No, there was not. Yet, as the audit found, there were car parks committed in Victoria, in the seat of Kooyong. They were never built, strangely enough. They never came to be.</para>
<para>Imagine you're in voter land and you live in Wyndham Vale. There they are on the television screen saying: 'We're going to more commuter car parks in Kooyong, where most residents already live 800 metres from a train station, a bus stop or a tram stop. We'll give them some commuter car parks because they might need to drive the 800 metres and park their cars for the day.' Meanwhile, in my patch, people live five kilometres from a train station and they can live up to three kilometres from the closest bus stop.</para>
<para>Imagine the disrespect they now hold for this place.</para>
<para>Our first job as government is to make sure that the Australian public understand that we will clean this up and that we will take the recommendations from this committee report and enact them to ensure that the public can have faith that there has been due diligence in these processes and that there has been a demonstrated need—not just a demonstrated need because I want it—against other needs in other communities. The worst of this is that we had 10 years where my community missed out because need wasn't taken into consideration. When analysis was done, as was reported at the time, decisions were made not based on need or demand or how you might best enhance someone's life but based on how you might win an election. They were based on partisan decisions around marginal seats and safe seats that did not take into consideration the needs in seats like mine that were Labor seats across the last decade.</para>
<para>Every day now I work in my community to make sure that people understand that this government will not behave that way and that this government will ensure that growth areas like ours are at the table—hence the meetings that we've had up here in government where my local council have been present. The mayor has been in meetings with ministers, and the Treasurer visited our electorate quite recently so that they were given the time to actually lay out the things that are so desperately needed after 10 years of a government that didn't look at us sideways.</para>
<para>The now opposition, the Liberal-National coalition, have a duty of care in this space now too. For the Australian public to believe and to rebuild their faith in the Australian government—in the Commonwealth—they need those opposite to take responsibility, to do the mea culpa and to do what we ask people to do every day. They did the wrong thing. In secondary schools, we say it all the time: 'Are you sorry, or are you sorry you got caught?' Tell me what the difference is when a young person actually sits with you and says, 'I'm really sorry because I understand the impact of what I did,' rather than, 'I'm sorry because I got caught.' The opposition now need to look us in the eye across the chamber and tell us, yes, they're sorry they got caught, but they're also sorry that they did this—they're sorry that they denigrated the public's faith in this institution, not just now, but time and time again.</para>
<para>We can start with the Leader of the Opposition. He can start by stopping backing former prime minister Morrison, saying that robodebt had nothing to do with him. He can start by calling that out. He can come to the dispatch box today at any point during the day and, on indulgence, say, 'These are the things that I'll do differently from my predecessors. These are the things that I will do differently as a leader.' It starts with, 'We made mistakes.' It starts with, 'We did the wrong thing.' It starts with, 'I will take responsibility for the actions that were put in place by a cabinet that I was a member of.' Let's start there. Those opposite can choose to join us in rebuilding the public's faith in our institutions and in our programs, particularly around our spending, or they can choose to go down in history and be left behind and called out for leaving vulnerable people behind, targeting vulnerable people and leaving communities like mine to be adrift for a decade.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONDOLENCES</title>
        <page.no>122</page.no>
        <type>CONDOLENCES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Crean, Hon. Simon Findlay</title>
          <page.no>122</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very pleased to speak in continuation. Having heard some terrific stories about Simon Crean and his relationships with people on both sides of this parliament through his many years as a minister, I want to focus on the role that Simon Crean had in the arts. He really helped redefine how we talk about the arts and how we value creativity. He believed in the value of art for art's sake, but he also understood the need to recognise the contribution that the arts can make to other areas of public policy, like education, health, innovation and employment. He made that argument with eloquence, rigor and passion. He spoke persuasively of the social and economic dividends that creativity pays to us, arguing that investing in the arts helped cement 'the values of inclusion and the values of respect' that are so essential to social harmony. He said that a creative nation is a productive nation, recognising that support for creative endeavour is an investment in our economic development and our capacity for innovation.</para>
<para>As Minister for the Arts, Simon brought not only thoughtful leadership but substantial new investment to the arts. His policy introduced new support for digital gaming and live music. The Australia Council for the Arts was modernised and given expanded responsibilities—and you can see there the things that we have built on in our own cultural policy, Revive. We've taken the base that he set and we've progressed it further, given the passage of time.</para>
<para>Simon Crean's tireless advocacy earned him the deep respect of the arts community. Nicholas Pickard of APRA AMCOS recently reflected:</para>
<quote><para class="block">His mind, knowledge and energy was always ready to help, lean in and serve Australia's cultural future.</para></quote>
<para>Australia's cultural future has been shaped in no small way by the intellect and dedication of Simon Findlay Crean. I extend my deepest sympathies to his wife and family, to the many who loved him and to those who admired him as a union leader, a Labor leader, an arts leader and a man who leaves an extraordinary legacy of public service.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>124514</name.id>
    <electorate>Flinders</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Simon Crean was a great warrior of the labour movement. He was also a titan of Australian business and the union movement itself. He was excellent company and he was a lot of fun. One of the first generation of parliamentarians to inhabit this building from 1990, Simon's impact lives long and is fondly remembered along its corridors and on all sides of the aisles. When he left it 23 years later, he left both this parliament and the Australian Labor Party, which he led from 2001 to 2003, in a manifestly better place. I observed Simon's leadership through my friendship with many of those who served him: Simon, Sam and Hernan. There is nothing harder than changing your own party's power-sharing matrix, and in this Simon was somewhere between crazy-brave and utterly fearless.</para>
<para>Simon took his relish for progress and progressivism into life after politics. A polymath in public policy, Simon remained active in education, trade, arts and culture, meat and livestock, regional development and, indeed, national disaster recovery. This is where I got to know Simon—through our mutual involvement in Australian trade, export and trade agreements, and in our shared love of Australian arts and culture. Of course, Simon and I usually disagreed on how to get to where we both believed Australia could go—Simon always more multicultural, me more bilateral or regional; Simon more about national arts policy, me more focused on the invitation to all Australians so that they knew they were welcome and wanted in the world of both elite and local arts and culture. But the banter, the disagreement, the challenge: that was half the fun. And, as I said to Carole Crean on Monday, Simon was always so much fun.</para>
<para>In the condolence speeches in the main chamber on Monday, the member for Hotham referred to Simon's industrious support of women in the Labor Party. Perhaps less well known is his support and encouragement of women in the other side too.</para>
<para>Before the 2019 election I put my hand up and failed, as so many I look up to in this building did before me. I picked myself up, put on my boots and got back on the horse. It was a few days after that defeat that I saw Simon. In Melbourne circles you always saw Simon somewhere. I was brave-faced at the time but as flat as a tack. Simon was the first to put the wind back in my sails—'You're a great Liberal warrior, Zoe. You'll be back.' I didn't believe him at the time.</para>
<para>My main interaction with Simon over the last decade was through the amazing family of business leaders who gather around the table of the European Australian Business Council, where he served as chair, following in the shoes of another great Australian politician Nick Greiner. Simon became Chair of the European Australian Business Council, or EABC, in 2019. It was a role he seemed to relish, driving greater trade and investment, sharing of know-how and research, as well as cultural collaboration. Indeed, this was a role that gave free reign to all of Simon's passions, and he executed it spectacularly well.</para>
<para>I attended some of the EABC missions with Simon and many of their local discussions on our European business, investment, trade and cultural links as a member of the EABC's Corporate Council before I came to this place. It was on the eve of the 2023 mission that Simon was lost to us. After years of frustrating disruption through COVID and on the precipice of signing a trade deal with the European Union, I can imagine Simon in his usual let-me-at-them, bounding-enthusiasm disposition.</para>
<para>His loss quite simply devastated his European business family. I'm grateful to Jason Collins, the CEO of the EABC, for allowing me to add some of their words into this condolence motion today. They said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The EABC is devastated by the loss of our Chair Simon Crean who tragically passed on the eve of leading our Business Mission to Europe.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australian business and industry leaders with us here in Berlin, and our wider community at home, shocked by the sudden loss of a great Australian who has always led with conviction, wisdom and warmth.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Our deepest condolences to Carole and the Crean family, and to the so many close friends and family who are profoundly saddened by Simon's passing.</para></quote>
<para>The sense of family around the EABC should not be underestimated. Indeed, some of them were here in the parliament on Monday for the remarks by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and many attended the state funeral for Simon last week in Melbourne.</para>
<para>On the evening of 25 June the EABC team, led by Jason Collins and Jo Johns, wrote to its broader business community:</para>
<quote><para class="block">A brutal day is drawing to a close here in Berlin where it was with profound sadness that our Chair, Simon Crean, passed away during his morning walk, just an hour or so before we were to commence our 2023 EABC Business Mission to Europe.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">For those of us already in Berlin we had a lovely evening last night with Simon and Carole, where with high spirits and sense of purpose we discussed all the meetings to come in Berlin, Brussels, Stockholm, Paris and London.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It's still a shock, but today our focus has been to provide all the support we possibly can to Carole, whilst at the same time she has urged us to 'get on with the job' as Simon would have expected us to do by continuing with the mission at this critical time in EU-Australia relations. We'll do so with a heavy heart, and with great sensitivity and remembrance of the enormous contribution Simon made as our Chair, as part of an extraordinary lifelong record of public service.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In every endeavour, Simon led with conviction, wisdom and warmth.</para></quote>
<para>It fell to the EABC's deputy chairs Vicki Thomson, who leads the Group of Eight, and Jeff Connolly, who leads Thales Australia, to put on the boots and make a brave face. Vicki said about Simon:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Simon Crean was a remarkable Australian, respected and admired by all who knew him. His passing is absolutely devastating and will be felt deeply by people at home and around the world. He was a great leader in politics, business and in life, dedicated to making peoples' lives better, whether it be through the trade union movement, as a political leader serving in the Cabinets of four Labor Prime Ministers, as Chair of the EABC or Deputy Chancellor of Monash University. As EABC Chair, Simon has made an invaluable contribution to deepening and modernising ties between Europe and Australia to build a more sustainable and prosperous future for both regions. He had a deep and lasting commitment to community and the greater good. This is an extremely sad day for Australia. We extend our deepest sympathy to his family.</para></quote>
<para>Jeff Connolly added:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The European Australian Business Council has had the honour of experiencing Simon Crean's remarkable leadership in pursuit of closer ties with the European Union and its Member States. Simon was a unique Australian whose deep understanding of international trade and intercultural sensitivities enabled him to bring differences of opinion to respectful and meaningful compromise. We mourn his loss but add our voice of gratitude for his profound contribution to a better Australia.</para></quote>
<para>The mission and its delegates, as well as the Crean family, were helped by the extraordinary ambassador, Philip Green, and the embassy team in Berlin. We are so lucky to be served by such extraordinary teams in our missions overseas, especially in Europe.</para>
<para>There are times when this building stops. It stops to recognise and celebrate its great men and, let's hope, increasingly in the future its great women—men whose grace, good humour, determination and courage have made parliamentary service honourable, worthy and admired. Simon was one of those men, and moments like this reflection are precious. I thank the House for the opportunity to contribute to it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
    <electorate>Macnamara</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I acknowledge the very nice words of the member for Flinders. About six months after the last election, I was on my way to the Albert Park branch of the Labor Party to give a report of what the new Albanese Labor government was up to and to have a discussion about the upcoming Victorian state election. It was an ordinary branch meeting, of course. No branch meeting in Macnamara is ordinary, but the Albert Park branch is a great branch in Macnamara. Attending just like any other branch member was the former leader of the Australian Labor Party, Simon Crean. That was Simon. He loved the Labor Party. Every Labor member mattered to him, and he felt that, in and of itself, being a part of the Labor Party and doing his duty as an ordinary Labor member was something that he held very dear to himself. We were very lucky in Macnamara to have Simon Crean there with us in our local campaigns. I'm grateful for this opportunity to speak on the motion on the passing of the Hon. Simon Crean, Labor member for Hotham for 23 years, cabinet minister under four Labor prime ministers and Leader of the Opposition from 2001 to 2003.</para>
<para>Simon's unexpected death in Berlin was devastating not only to his family but to the whole Labor family. Simon devoted his whole life and his enormous talents and enthusiasm to the great Labor cause. He was born into a Labor family and campaigned for Labor from boyhood, and he was still campaigning for Labor at the last election. I know this because Simon was campaigning for me. He stood on a booth for about six hours and handed out cards on election day, and then, in those 10 days where Macnamara was still not called, Simon Crean scrutineered for me day in and day out in a cold Port Melbourne hall.</para>
<para>It was a massive, cold hall in the middle of May, and I remember there was some Greens scrutineer who was there. It was one of their first times scrutineering, and they had to come up against the might and the experience of the former leader of the Labor Party. But that was Simon. He just was happy to be part of the team and happy to do his bit.</para>
<para>Simon was a constituent, and on one day in Middle Park I was on a bit of a roll door-knocking and I door-knocked a home. Carole Crean answered the door. I hadn't met Carole before. She said: 'Josh, we're fine. This is the home of Simon Crean, but, if you'd like to stay for a few minutes, Simon will be home any minute.' I stayed, and Carole gave me a bit of food and some drinks, and then Simon and I kicked off our friendship that day. He was always interested in our campaign. He was always interested in what was going on. From the moment I became the candidate, he often had one or two asks as well: things and causes that were important to him—never things that had any benefit to him at all, only things that mattered to our local community.</para>
<para>Simon was born into Labor royalty, and that Labor royalty was central to my local electorate and my community. The Crean family has been central to our Labor history in Macnamara ever since Frank Crean, Simon's father, was elected for Albert Park in 1945. Frank went on to represent Melbourne Ports, now known as Macnamara, for 26 years and was Treasurer and Deputy Prime Minister in the Whitlam government. He was a much-loved figure in our community. I am proud to be one of the six members for Melbourne Ports or Macnamara, and Frank was one of the others. Simon's brother David was the Labor Treasurer of Tasmania as well.</para>
<para>Simon served as the national secretary of the storemen and packers union before becoming the ACTU president in 1985. He was one of the architects of both the Labor Unity faction and the accord between the ACTU and the Hawke government, which has delivered enormous benefits for Australian workers. Elected for Hotham in 1990, he entered Bob Hawke's ministry immediately and held senior portfolios under four Labor prime ministers.</para>
<para>As I said before, Simon loved our local community and he loved the organisations within it. One of the first calls I got from Simon when I became the candidate for Macnamara was advocating on behalf of the Australian National Academy of Music. It's a great organisation that not only builds some of the best musicians in Australia but creates some of the best musicians in the world. Many graduates of ANAM go on to play for orchestras such as the London Philharmonic Orchestra, the London Symphony Orchestra, the Berlin Philharmonic and, of course, our great orchestras here in Australia. They are extraordinary musicians. They require extreme discipline. Simon understood this in his work as minister for the arts and, I think, as someone who just appreciated the importance of harbouring Australian talent.</para>
<para>There is a big project going on with ANAM at the moment about how they set themselves up for the next 30 years, and Simon was integral in all of that. Upon hearing the news of Simon's passing, I got a call from the Australian National Academy of Music saying they would be honoured, if the family was open to it, to play at Simon's funeral. There were two performances by musicians from the Australian National Academy of Music at the extraordinary sendoff for Simon. I thank the Crean family and those musicians who paid tribute to Simon. Simon would have absolutely loved it. He would have been extremely chuffed that they did that. There was no bigger fan of the Australian National Academy of Music than Simon, and I thank the ANAM for that kind sendoff.</para>
<para>Simon was the minister for primary industry, energy, trade, science, education, industrial relations and the arts. He was a versatile and hardworking minister, the kind a long-serving Labor government needs. But he had no luck as Labor leader, coming to the position at a very difficult time for our party. He made brave decisions, such as one we've all talked about: opposing the war in Iraq. But in 2003 he willingly stepped aside. Not everyone in politics gets the rewards their talents merit.</para>
<para>Simon Crean was not just a Labor warrior, although he certainly was that. To me, above all, he was a friend. He was one of my favourite constituents. He was a giant of the Labor movement. My last memory of him will be of a chilly election day in 2022, seeing a former Labor leader in a red T-shirt cheerfully working as a booth captain for our local campaign.</para>
<para>I send my deepest condolences to Carole and the whole Crean family. I thank them for lending Simon to public life. They can be proud that he made enormous contribution not only to our party but to our nation, and we miss him dearly.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GARLAND</name>
    <name.id>295588</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is with great sadness that I deliver this condolence speech for Simon Crean, who was the first person I voted for in any election and my first boss in politics. I'm thinking of his wife, Carole, his daughters, Emma and Sarah, his brother, David, the extended Crean family, and all who knew and loved Simon, at this time. He will be terribly missed, as both a giant of the Labor movement and as a good man—a decent human being who has left an incredible legacy for this nation, a country he loved dearly. He will be deeply mourned but always remembered for the positive change he made to Australia and the lives transformed for the better during his life of service.</para>
<para>When Simon entered the parliament in 1990, he was already an incredibly important national figure through his work in the Labor movement and his role in significant industrial relations reforms. Simon entered the ministry immediately. That was unusual indeed, but it was fitting that someone of his proven talents was able to serve the Labor government as a minister so early in his parliamentary career. In many ways, Simon's parliamentary career was not typical.</para>
<para>Simon gave many speeches to parliament before he issued his address-in-reply speech, finding himself:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… in an unusual position today in seeking the indulgence of the House to make a speech in accordance with the conventions attached to a maiden speech having … previously made a number of other speeches in the House associated with my ministerial responsibilities.</para></quote>
<para>In that maiden speech, Simon said that a strong, proactive and independent trade union movement is 'a bellwether of a strong democracy'. This is of course something that remains the case today.</para>
<para>Simon's strong association with the union movement began through the storemen and packers union, which then became the National Union of Workers and is now the United Workers Union. The latter two unions are ones which I also had the opportunity to work for. Simon's contributions were legendary in the union. The fight to win superannuation for warehouse workers and the fight for women workers were visionary and demonstrated Simon's deep dedication to social justice and improving the lives of all Australians, especially those who lived on the margins or were overlooked.</para>
<para>At the United Workers Union office in the Docklands in Melbourne, there is a small historical display. Of course, Simon features heavily in this. His photos and campaigns sit in glass cases. These are positioned just outside the training rooms, and thousands of union delegates and members have viewed these over the years and been encouraged by the struggles and sacrifices of the generations of unionists who have come before them—Simon a significant figure among them. Simon's legacy in the union is also remembered in more quotidian ways. Of all the items on display, my favourite is a typed memo from Mary Landeryou to Simon Crean sent on 16 July 1975. It reads: 'Where is the sandwich toaster?'</para>
<para>Simon proved to be visionary in so many ways. In his first speech, he clearly articulated the need to invest in environmental protection, to invest in technology and science, so they could play a role in a sustainable future for our nation. This was over 30 years ago, and his words are as relevant now as they were then. He could see where the future might take us, and, as always, was able to join the dots to tackle the challenge that was presented to the nation.</para>
<para>As well as being a leader of the trade union movement in Australia through his role as President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Simon of course ascended to the leadership of the Australian Labor Party and distinguished himself at the time as courageous and compassionate when he spoke out against the Iraq war, against then Prime Minister Howard's decision, whilst still supporting our troops and their bravery and sacrifice. I will never forget watching Simon's speech in the House of Representatives when George W Bush visited Australia and he told the President of the United States of America he disagreed with the war. It showed his character: unflinching, principled, with ideas deeply considered. I have no doubt at all that I would not be standing in this House today if it weren't for Simon Crean.</para>
<para>Over 10 years ago now, I was at a crossroads in my life. I was on a path to an academic career, something I'd worked hard towards; living and working in Sydney, away from my family. I enjoyed my job but was contemplating a way to combine my love of ideas and research with work that might make a different sort of impact in a different way. A friend let me know that Simon was looking for someone to work for him; he'd be up in Sydney and wondered, would I like to meet up with him and have a chat? I said yes.</para>
<para>I remember that day, and I remember being so nervous to meet the politician who, for most of my childhood, had been my local MP. I remember how proud the local community was when our representative, the member for Hotham, became the leader of the Labor Party. Simon was a significant figure, and—even though I was so anxious on my way to meet him I got off at the wrong bus stop on a route I knew well, and had to run the last 500 metres to make the meeting on time—Simon put me at ease immediately and offered me a job on the spot. This set a new path for me in my life.</para>
<para>That was in 2013, and I started in a week in March, here in Canberra, at a time that was particularly difficult for the government and for Simon. But Simon ultimately did not let the turmoil of that period get in the way of championing the issues he cared about: the regions; the arts; industry policy; trade; opportunity and prosperity for all in Australia.</para>
<para>Simon was unrelenting and fierce, kind and thoughtful. He could weather the political storms, the highs and the lows inevitable in this life, with good humour and a steely focus on outcomes that would be good for our country. Simon was not easily driven to distraction and had the remarkable ability to see both the big picture and all the fine details. He always believed working people deserved bread and roses: bread—fair wages, decent conditions and good jobs with a secure safety net; roses—arts, time for creative pursuits, to learn and the opportunity to enjoy and share in the many cultures that make our community so vibrant. This was reflected in the cultural policy he launched 10 years ago. Simon's wife, Carole, noted at his funeral that he would want Australia to vote yes for the Voice. Simon was also a staunch advocate for reconciliation and First Peoples' rights. The cultural policy he oversaw in 2013 placed First Nations people at the heart of the government's work.</para>
<para>Simon was a remarkable person who served with distinction and integrity. He was a generous boss who took the time to develop my interests and support me in my own career, first in the trade union movement and then here in parliament. Simon's seat of Hotham joins Chisholm, and the boundary movements over the years have meant we have shared representation of many of the wonderful communities in the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne, a place he loved. Simon was Deputy Chancellor of Monash University, the place where he studied as an undergraduate, and was engaged in so many important local initiatives and advocacy, including in technology, manufacturing and infrastructure for the area. I was so grateful for all of Simon's support. His advice throughout my election campaign and once I made it to this place is advice I will cherish forever.</para>
<para>I last spoke to Simon a few months ago. He gave me good guidance as always. I'll miss Simon. I know this is a sentiment shared with so many. Simon's family were the most important people in the world to him. Again, my condolences are with Carole, Emma, Sarah, David and all those close to Simon at this painful time. Vale, Simon, and thank you for everything.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STANLEY</name>
    <name.id>265990</name.id>
    <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Many knew Simon Crean far better than me. But I knew him just enough to know that he was one of life's gentlemen, a man of principle and a man of honour. His record of achievement over a lifetime, both within this place and out of it, will surely stand the test of time. Son of Whitlam minister and deputy prime minister Frank Crean, he was perhaps destined to be a Labor luminary. I can only speculate, but I suspect his decency was a gift of his parents and upbringing. Mr Crean's achievements were legendary: leader of the ACTU for five years, frontbencher under four Labor prime ministers, and opposition leader for two years. The portfolios he covered were incredible: regional development, local government, arts, education, employment, workplace relations, social inclusion, trade, primary industry, energy, science and technology. There is barely an inch of the public landscape that his life did not cover.</para>
<para>Perhaps more importantly though, Mr Crean was the member for his beloved Hotham for over 23 years. He was a Victorian through and through and a rusted-on North Melbourne supporter. Simon Crean did it all. Sadly, fate would ensure that he never did get to offer himself at an election for the position of Prime Minister. But, in reality, that didn't matter. His place in Australian history, especially Labor history, is secure regardless. In all reality, Mr Crean was not only a Labor champion but a champion for all Australians. That he was a member of Labor royalty is beyond doubt, and this in no way made him feel entitled or special. He was a friend for all and an enemy of none.</para>
<para>Several years ago, I had the absolute honour to sit next to Mr Crean at a fundraising function for the former member for Werriwa Laurie Ferguson. I was the president of the FEC at the time and a very newly elected councillor, and it fell to me to MC the event. I was nervous at the prospect of meeting someone of Mr Crean's stature in the Labor Party. He was someone I had admired for many years. But, instantly, upon our introduction and sensing my nervousness, Mr Crean put me at ease. He was naturally warm and extremely approachable.</para>
<para>On that evening, Mr Crean was engaging. He asked questions and truly listened to what I had to say. He offered helpful advice. He made you feel like you were important, not the other way around. He was encouraging in his speech about the party and its prospects. His speech was a real call to action for all true believers. I saw his speech when he took the Labor Party through the reasons why we should not join the war. It was a time when I was really, truly proud to be a Labor person, because he said what so many of us in the party were thinking.</para>
<para>Since his passing, I have read and had the privilege to see so many wonderful tributes by those who knew Mr Crean so well, but what has been particularly encouraging is that those words have been spoken by not only members on our side of parliament but former members on both sides of the Treasury benches. I think we can all agree that Australia is better for his contribution and life, and we can all affirm our belief in his core belief that being better for all comes through everyone.</para>
<para>It is entirely appropriate that this great Australian was afforded a state funeral. The one regret, of course, was that the offer had to be made so early and that Mr Crean's life was cut short so early. It's not lost on anyone that he passed away promoting Australian interests on a trade trip overseas—always at work, always achieving, always doing good and always determined to the very end.</para>
<para>I offer my sincere condolences to his family and friends, especially his wife, Carole, and daughters, Sarah and Emma. We all wrap our love around you at this difficult time. I also offer my condolences to the current members for Hotham and Chisholm and the member for Macnamara. Their words after Mr Crean's loss were beautiful and heartfelt, and I know how much so many of us here will miss him. Mr Crean's family has lost a husband, father and grandfather. Labor lost a champion, Hotham a friend and the nation a role model and example. It was a sad day, but so much that he left behind means that we will go on and do the best that we can for Australia and its people.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MADELEINE KING</name>
    <name.id>102376</name.id>
    <electorate>Brand</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I too rise today to offer my condolences to the family and friends of the Hon. Simon Crean on his passing. Simon was a true hero of the Labor Party and the wider labour movement. He was a great champion of Australian workers and those who needed a helping hand in life. Simon Crean spent his entire career working to ensure all Australians could share the benefits of our international trade and economic development. He followed his father into parliament, with Frank Crean having served as the member for Melbourne Ports for 26 years and also having served as Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer in the Whitlam government. So it's no surprise that Simon grew up with strong Labor values and a love for the labour movement, with Labor greats such as Gough Whitlam and Doc Evatt visiting his family home when Simon was a child.</para>
<para>While studying law and economics, he started his career with the union movement, working as a part-time researcher with the former Federated Storemen and Packers Union, now known as the National Union of Workers. By 1979, he had become general secretary of the union. Simon achieved extraordinary things during his life in the union, most notably leading a successful campaign for better working conditions for workers who performed heavy manual labour. As Vice-President of the ACTU, Simon played a crucial role in bringing about the Hawke government's accord between unions and employers in 1983. The accord, as we all know, was an extraordinary success, leading to industrial disputes dropping dramatically and employment growing strongly. Simon Crean would go on to become President of the ACTU from 1985 to 1990, and in 1990 he was elected as the Labor MP for the seat of Hotham, which started an extraordinary 23-year career in federal politics.</para>
<para>His time in parliament saw him rise to become the leader of the federal Labor Party, and he served as a cabinet minister in the Hawke, Keating, Rudd and Gillard governments. When he first came to parliament, Simon immediately entered the Hawke ministry as Minister for Science and Technology and Minister Assisting the Treasurer. He would hold the portfolios of primary industries and energy and employment, education and training under the Hawke and Keating governments before leading the federal Labor Party from 2001 to 2003.</para>
<para>As leader of the Labor Party, Simon showed incredible courage in opposing the deployment of Australian soldiers to Iraq. Though he opposed the deployment, he made very clear at the time that he had the deepest respect for Australia's military and would take every opportunity to address ADF personnel when they were deployed. In farewelling the service women and men from the HMAS <inline font-style="italic">Kanimbla</inline>, which was deploying to the Persian Gulf from HMAS <inline font-style="italic">Stirling </inline>in my electorate of Brand, Simon said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">My argument is not with you but with the Government.</para></quote>
<para>Following the 2007 election, Simon returned to cabinet as Minister for Trade, where he played a key role in negotiating several international trade agreements, including the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand free trade agreement and Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement. He also commenced the free trade negotiations with China, Korea, Japan and our near neighbour Indonesia. He would go on to become minister for employment, workplace relations, social inclusion, regional Australia, regional development and local government before his retirement from parliament in 2013.</para>
<para>Even after his political career, Mr Crean continued to promote free trade as a pathway to economic prosperity as chair of the European Australian Business Council and chair of the Australia-Korea Business Council. I entered parliament after Simon retired, but I had the pleasure of engaging with him extensively in my role as shadow minister for trade. I was struck by his warmth, intelligence and generosity and saw firsthand his dedication to our country and his deep understanding of the importance and benefits of international trade and, critically, how the benefits from that trade must flow to the wider community. He will be missed by the European Australian Business Council; the advocacy he did for the Australian-European Union Free Trade Agreement is the stuff of legends.</para>
<para>Simon left a remarkable legacy. His entire adult life was committed to helping improve the lives of Australia's workers and for the benefit of the nation. He was a lion of the labour movement and he will be sorely missed. Many MPs here in this place knew him much better than I did, and I extend my condolences to them and, of course, his many friends. I also want to extend my most sincere condolences to his wife, Carole, and to his whole family. The loss of a loved one so suddenly is heartbreaking. Nothing can take that heartbreak away. Only happy memories make the pain bearable, and I trust his family and friends will continue to think of those happy memories and remarkable legacy for a long time to come.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPPIA</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
    <electorate>Makin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can I firstly say that I was not able to get to the funeral service of Simon Crean, which is something that I was hoping to do, but I understand that it was indeed a fitting farewell and a fitting tribute to what I believe was one of Australia's great statesmen of recent decades. I first met Simon over 20 years ago—perhaps closer to 25 years ago. Simon was then deputy leader of the Labor Party and in opposition, and I was the mayor of the city of Salisbury. I invited Simon to visit our city because he was someone from Canberra I respected as having a really good understanding of regional affairs and local government. He came out and we met with the CEO at the time—Stephen Hains, myself and Simon—and discussed a whole range of matters with him. I was immediately struck by his breadth of knowledge, understanding of issues and his honesty. Simon from then on became someone I considered I could talk to about matters regardless of whether they were to do with local government or politics more broadly. Even though he was in Canberra and I was in Salisbury, I considered him someone that I could contact if I needed to get some knowledge about a matter I thought affected our city or the country more broadly.</para>
<para>Simon subsequently became Labor leader and, because of my early connection with him, I watched with interest how he conducted himself. Others have spoken about his honesty, particularly with respect to the Iraq war, but there were also a number of other matters he led the way on with respect to Labor policy. It was the way he was able to bring people together and his sense of inclusivity that I think made him the person that he was and supported and admired by so many.</para>
<para>As history shows, Simon was a very loyal Labor person who always put the party's interests ahead of his own. Indeed, in December 2003, when he stepped down as Labor leader, he did so again in the interests of the Australian Labor Party because he believed that a new leader might have a better chance of winning the 2004 election for the Labor Party. I cannot recall too many political leaders in the decades I have been watching politics willingly step down from a leadership position because they believed it was in the interests of their party to do so, but Simon did. I think that was, indeed, a measure of the man.</para>
<para>In 2006 he faced a preselection contest in his own seat of Hotham. I can recall that very well as well. I called Simon to wish him well in his efforts there. It was interesting that Simon, because of his own personal standing among the people he represented, easily prevailed in the local branch election that ensured that he was to continue as the member for Hotham. He did that without any support from any other senior Labor figure at the time. He did that truly by himself. Again, I think it speaks so much of the person that he was prepared to not only take a stand when there was little help from others around him but also take a stand because he believed it was the right thing to do, and the stand that he took was supported by the people he represented.</para>
<para>In 2007, when I was preselected to run for the seat of Makin, Simon in turn supported my campaign. His support was invaluable. He came out to the electorate on a couple of occasions and we visited different places. Again I felt so much confidence because of the fact I had Simon Crean backing me and standing by my side as I contested the election in 2007. Ultimately I was elected, in no small part to the support that Simon gave me. His support was, indeed, invaluable.</para>
<para>In 2010 Simon asked me to be a member of a committee that looked into the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. As a South Australian he knew I had interest in the River Murray. An inquiry took place that was headed by Tony Windsor, the member for New England at the time. That inquiry effectively became the foundation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan we have today. Simon wanted South Australia to be represented on that committee and asked if I would be a member of that committee, and I was.</para>
<para>It was, in fact, one of the most interesting inquiries I have been a part of during all my time in this place. It was a very in-depth and extensive inquiry. We went right throughout the basin. We listened to communities in each and every town that would have been affected. I can recall that at the time we wrote the report we literally went through the report line by line, which is not often the case with parliamentary committee work.</para>
<para>I felt honoured that Simon had asked me to be a part of that committee. To this day I feel most proud of having been part of the committee that worked on a plan that to this day continues to be debated and is so significant to the national interest. The fact that Simon had confidence in me to be a member of that committee is something I have never forgotten.</para>
<para>During the Rudd-Gillard leadership years, when I was here in this place as well, I also noted that Simon continued to always put the party's best interests first. He never took a position because it was in the personal interest of an individual member; he took a position because he thought it was in the party's best interests. I had discussions with him on the very day that Kevin Rudd lost his leadership. Simon called me and we had a chat about that.</para>
<para>But I had ongoing and continuous discussions with him throughout that whole period, which was tumultuous; I don't pretend it wasn't. Again, I always respected his advice and respected him for putting the party first. Indeed, towards the end of all those leadership battles, Simon took a personal stance, again, and only did so because he thought it would be in the party's interest for him to do that.</para>
<para>I didn't see much of Simon when he left this place, but we did cross paths on a couple of occasions, and nothing had changed with respect to the character of the man that I always knew. His passing was completely unexpected, and I have to say it truly saddened me. It saddened me not just because it was unexpected but because I felt that I had lost someone that I could always rely on to talk to or get advice from and that I had a great deal of respect for. It saddened me because, quite frankly, I still think he had so much more to contribute to both our nation and global politics. As everybody knows and as others have said, he was actually still continuing to do that at the time he passed away.</para>
<para>I believe that Australia is indeed a much better place because of Simon Crean's contribution over many decades to Australian public policy. Whether it was through his own personal work in his early days in the union movement or, later on, it was through the diverse portfolios that he held in this place, his contribution to Australian politics is indeed immense. Today I remember and thank a thoroughly decent man for both his friendship and service to our nation, and I extend my sincere condolences to his wife, Carole, his children, his extended family and his many friends.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MURPHY</name>
    <name.id>133646</name.id>
    <electorate>Dunkley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My husband, Rod Glover, and I both first met Simon Crean when we were what seems now to be very young federal Labor staffers from 1999 to 2001. That was the first time that I got to see what sort of person Simon was. I was a junior staffer who didn't work for Simon and had some but not a huge amount of interaction with him. Every time he saw me, including after 2001, he remembered my name, he knew why he knew me, he asked me how I was going and he asked me how Rod was because we had started our relationship by then. He didn't need to do that, and, every single time, I thought to myself, 'Wow, Simon Crean knows who I am.'</para>
<para>Rod went on to be one of many people, like the member for Chisholm, who spoke earlier today, who worked for Simon Crean. Of course, that's how we got to know Simon quite well over the last 25 years. As Rod has said to me, when you talk to people who have worked for Simon, many of whom Rod and I count as very close friends, you realise that you become part of the Crean family, a family with a rich Labor tradition, with its Middle Park base over many decades. Simon's passion and generosity invoked in his staff a fierce sense of loyalty, and I've also seen the love that it invoked from his staff to him.</para>
<para>This is what Rod remembers: that Simon worked hard and loved life. He was a champion of Australia's soft-power engagement with our region, where he saw the transformative power of international education and cultural and sporting exchange. He valued relationships with our region and beyond. He was also passionate about these things at home, as those at Monash University, the Tamworth Country Music Festival or his beloved North Melbourne Football Club would attest. Can I say, that going to the Tamworth Country Music Festival with Simon Crean would have to be, I think, one of the highlights of Rod's life. Were you to ask him to list the favourite things that he has done in his life, I'm pretty confident that Tamworth with Simon would come before our wedding! I'm pretty confident!</para>
<para>Rod is now a professor of political leadership, and one of the things he does is talk and lecture about different styles of leaders—the difference between leaders who think and act incrementally and those who think bigger and bolder. And Rod is the first to say that Simon's instincts were very rarely, if ever, incremental. He was always hungry to debate the biggest ideas and tackle the hardest issues. He was always prepared to hear a different view and respect it, and I know that Simon and Rod had some ding-dong battles and conversations in Simon's office—because that's what he wanted: he wanted a robust contest of ideas. He was also prepared to take a position, as many have talked about, even when it was not popular.</para>
<para>My great friend Dr Pradeep Philip, who is also one of Simon Crean's alumni, says this about Simon:</para>
<quote><para class="block">His moral courage is a real lesson for us in leadership roles in both public and private sectors. It goes to duty of public life and the living of a good and ethic life as an individual. But moral stance is not abstract it is real and tangible and this is why his Iraq war position is so resounding—the position was moral and how he conveyed it was practical. That's a great exemplar of public life.</para></quote>
<para>Pradeep remembers in particular two things about Simon that he wanted mentioned. One was attitude, and we've heard people talk about this: every problem has a solution. That was Simon's attitude. You just have to work hard at it, and you need to get the right people around the table to pick it apart and then to solve it. The second thing was Simon Crean's approach: if you aren't at the table, you can't negotiate an outcome, so find a way to get yourself at the table.</para>
<para>As a boss he always let everyone have their say, because if you are heard then you feel included, even if the final decision is not what you had advocated. As Pradeep has said, this is why Simon attracted people around him who stuck with him for a long time, people who worked for him but also well after—because they were part of the Crean family. These were his enduring human and leadership characteristics.</para>
<para>Simon didn't represent Dunkley, as we know. But, after he left politics, he joined my community as the chair of the McClelland Sculpture Park and Gallery, which is in Langwarrin. It's hard to remember exactly when, because, as Carole said to me when I spoke to her on Monday, time has changed shape with everything to do with Simon since his sudden passing. But I think it was this weekend or certainly not long, in the weeks to come, that Rod and I were supposed to be having lunch with Simon to talk about McClelland Sculpture Park and Gallery—to talk about its future and its sustainability, and to join the dots, to strategise, about how we could make sure that this jewel in my community's crown remains.</para>
<para>The board and the staff of McClelland gallery want to express their great sadness at the passing of Simon Crean. He joined the board in May 2021 and assumed the chairmanship in April 2022. He made an enormous contribution during his service to McClelland through his wisdom, energy and experience. He was a leading figure in the political, industrial and cultural life of Australia for many decades, and as a former federal arts minister be brought to the McClelland board an unparalleled mix of expertise in industry, politics and the arts. I know as the local member I quite enjoyed being able to say to the board, 'You've got the expert as your chair. I don't know if I've got the solution for you, but I'm sure Simon Crean will.'</para>
<para>He was instrumental in the development of the Creative Nation policy, which informed the new Creative Australia policy, and, in his own words:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I've long held a passion for the arts. It's not just the enjoyment they bring, I see the artist as central to us a nation and to securing its future.</para></quote>
<para>The board and staff of McClelland and the people of Dunkley extend deepest condolences to Carole, family and friends, and mourn the loss of Simon Crean. And, on behalf of Rod and Pradeep and all of our friends who admired and loved and worked with Simon, I know that we're going to miss that crinkled smile and the twinkle in his eye, and the 'let's talk about how we can get this done' conversation; and feel truly privileged to have shared a small part of the life of the legend and the man that was Simon Crean. Vale.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>290544</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you for those heartfelt words. I give the call to the member for Chifley.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUSIC</name>
    <name.id>91219</name.id>
    <electorate>Chifley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As has been evidenced by many contributions during this condolence motion—it seems now a bit obvious to make this statement, but I think it's important to say it—Simon Crean was a man of courage and conviction. It is, frankly, an honour to have the opportunity to stand in this place today to remember a life well lived—a life lived in service to a country that he, and we, love deeply and a life lived in service to the working men and women of our nation.</para>
<para>Simon Crean, you could safely say, was born into the Labor Party, and he was one of our party's great stalwarts. He was a trade union leader, a member of parliament, a community advocate, a minister and a leader. Simon Crean spent his working life bettering the lives of other working Australians. He also spent a great deal of time bettering the country to ensure our nation would reach its full potential. Nowhere was this more evident than in the work he did in the portfolios he held. As Minister for Industry and Science, it would be remiss of me not to reflect on the fact that Simon Crean's first ministerial appointment was as the minister for science and technology. In that role, Simon was a great champion not just of Australian science in general but particularly of Australian research and of ensuring that Australian research could be harnessed in the national interest.</para>
<para>On 14 March 1991, Simon announced one of the most enduring legacies of the desire to fuse our research know-how with Australia's economic success. On that date he announced the first tranche of the Cooperative Research Centres program. For over 30 years, the CRC program has been a critical part of Australia's innovation architecture. It's a proven model that suited Simon Crean because it uses industry-led collaborative research to solve problems by working together to deliver real outcomes. It spans industries as diverse as manufacturing, agriculture, recycling, artificial intelligence, aerospace, energy, health and mining, to name but a few, translating homegrown research into commercially viable products and services that will generate new businesses and new jobs.</para>
<para>The numbers speak for themselves. Since Simon Crean launched the first CRCs back in 1991 the program has committed over $5 billion of grant funding to support the establishment of 236 CRCs and over 200 shorter-term CRC projects. Collaborative partners from industry, research, government and community organisations have all matched this funding, with commitments of close to $17 billion in cash and in-kind contributions. On announcing the first group of CRCs, Simon said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Australia must match the technology push provided by its strong research base with the demand pull of industry and other research users …</para></quote>
<para>He said the CRCs:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… reflect the balance between longer-term strategic research and short-term, market-oriented projects that is essential to forging the links we need between science and industry.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The centres will also play an important role in training in science and engineering research, providing the skilled people we need to be internationally competitive into the next century.</para></quote>
<para>That's the task Simon Crean set for the CRCs, and they've delivered on it many times over.</para>
<para>The CRC program is a great example of what is possible when we back Australian know-how. When we get industry-research collaboration and cooperation, we get things right. It's a task that still faces us as policymakers today. It's a task that this Labor government is keen to continue. We are keen to build upon the work that Simon Crean started.</para>
<para>On another matter, a lot has been mentioned in this place about Simon Crean's courage and humanity, especially in disagreeing with the Iraq War. That was a particularly difficult stand to take at that point in time, considering the pressures that he would have faced in making that very big call. Today I want to mention another little-known example of Simon Crean's courage.</para>
<para>On September 11 2002, the first anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Simon was invited to speak at the service to honour victims. However, for whatever reason, the government of the day decided and determined that the readings would be made from one holy book at the commemorative service, despite the fact that many different people of many different faiths were victims in that horrific attack. Simon Crean decided we could be bigger than that. So, first, he read a message from the Bible that he'd been asked to read by the organisers, and then he did something that reflected his utter humanity. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">And if I may add a further brief text.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"Oh, mankind, we created from you a pair of a male and female and made you into nations and tribes that ye may know each other, not that ye may despise each other."</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That too is from a Holy Book, The Koran. Chapter 49, verse 13.</para></quote>
<para>As one of his former staffers and someone I'm proud to call a friend, Kirsten Andrews, wrote years later:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Despite the political risk for modern politicians in pointing out the obvious - that Islam is a religion of peace, he—</para></quote>
<para>Simon—</para>
<quote><para class="block">decided he couldn't let the opportunity pass him by. It was a small, underreported moment in the life of a politician, yet it was also a moment of true leadership.</para></quote>
<para>That innate goodness, that ability to recognise the humanity of others, was a manifest part of the Simon Crean I knew and worked with in this place.</para>
<para>Post politics, he continued to serve. He made the case for Australian science and research and know-how, through his work with Monash University, as its Deputy Chancellor; the Korean Australian business chamber; and, most recently, the European Australian Business Council.</para>
<para>He wasn't just a great Labor stalwart. He was a great Australian who served his country and his community with deep passion. If all of us in this place could serve our country half as well as Simon Crean did, we would achieve a great deal.</para>
<para>My condolences and wishes go out to his wife, Carole, their daughters and wider family. May you rest in peace. Thank you for your contribution.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>290544</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you for those beautiful words.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
<para>Federation Chamber adjourned at 11:22</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
  </fedchamb.xscript>
</hansard>