2023-10-17 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 17 October 2023

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

BILLS 1 BILLS Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit and Other Measures) Bill 2023, Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Bill 2023, Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023, Identity Verification Services Bill 2023, Identity Verification Services (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 1

Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit and Other Measures) Bill 2023

Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Bill 2023

Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023

Identity Verification Services Bill 2023

Identity Verification Services (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023

Reference to Federation Chamber 1 12:01 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, the following bills stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration: (1) the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit and Other Measures) Bill 2023 at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of the bill; (2) the Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Bill 2023 and the Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Bill 2023; and (3) the Identity Verification Services Bill 2023 and the Identity Verification Services (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Identity Verification Services Bill 2023. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 1 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Israel 1 Reference to Federation Chamber 1 12:02 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond by leave—I move: That further statements on Hamas attacks on Israel and ongoing conflict be permitted in the Federation Chamber. Question agreed to. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 1 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Northern Australia 1 12:02 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro by leave—I rise to make the annual statement on northern Australia, on behalf of the Minister for Northern Australia, who is unwell today and unable to attend parliament. I send my sincere congratulations to Minister King for the amazing work that she has done over the last year, and I know she would be deeply saddened to miss this day today. I want to acknowledge the traditional owners of this meeting place, the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people. I pay my respects to elders, their customs and their connection to country. I extend this to traditional owners of the lands across our north and First Nations people in the chamber today. Our government is committed to working with First Nations people to ensure the north is fair, inclusive and prosperous for all of those who choose to call northern Australia home. I want to thank Linda Burney, the Minister for Indigenous Australians, for fostering meaningful engagement and all members and senators who represent electorates across northern Australia, in particular: In Queensland, the members for Leichhardt, Kennedy, Herbert, Dawson, Capricornia and Flynn, as well as, Senator Watt, Senator Chisholm and Senator Green; In Western Australia, the member for Durack as well as Senator Dodson and Senator Sterle; and In the Northern Territory, the members for Solomon and Lingiari, along with Senator McCarthy. Thank you for your commitment and contribution. Thanks also to Senator Susan McDonald, the shadow minister for northern Australia. I acknowledge the shared vision and spirit of state and territory ministerial colleagues who are working in the Northern Australia Ministerial Forum. To Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, I understand that the result at the weekend is for many of you a moment of great sadness and hurt. Australians have voted against constitutional change, but it is clear that there is consensus that more must be done to tackle disadvantage. This is not the end of reconciliation—we have heard clearly from many remote communities, including those in Australia's north, that there was a desire for this change, because communities want to be heard. We will continue to be a government that listens to and works with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We remain committed to closing the gap. As a nation, we will move forward and we will thrive, because we all agree we need better outcomes for First Nations people. Earlier this month in Cairns, the intergovernmental Northern Australia Ministerial Forum discussed the strategic importance of the north and the implementation of the Defence strategic review and the opportunities this offers for development in the north. Northern Australia is critically important to our national security. The Defence strategic review, outlines the need to improve the ability of the Australian Defence Force to operate from our network of bases, ports and barracks across the north from Cocos (Keeling) Islands in the northwest, through RAAF bases at Learmonth, Curtin, Darwin, Tindal, Scherger and Townsville. This is why we are investing $3.8 billion in bases in the north, with a focus on delivering long-term growth and liveability of the regional areas that support them. I would also like to acknowledge Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Chair Tracey Hayes, CEO Craig Doyle and officials, as well as the Chair of the Cooperative Research Centre for Developing Northern Australia, Sheridan Morris, and Chief Scientist Allan Dale for the important work they do driving policy to support communities in the north. Finally, let me thank members of the Northern Australia Indigenous Reference Group led by Chair Colin Saltmere, who have travelled far to be here. I'd also like to thank members of the IRG: Ms Tara Craigie, Mr Jerome Cubillo, Mr Troy Fraser, Mr Peter Jeffries and Ms Gillian Mailman. Thank you not only for your contribution but for your commitment to this. I know Minister King looks forward to continuing to work together with you. In this second annual statement about Northern Australia you will hear how the Albanese government is taking action to secure a fair and ambitious future for the north. This government recognises the importance the north plays in the prosperity and security of all Australians. Introduction Northern Australia is vast. Extending from the Tropic of Capricorn, it covers approximately three million square kilometres and it includes over 10,000 kilometres of coastline. Demographically, it is a young, it is multicultural and it is of great potential—potential we can make the most of if the federal government and the states work together. Over the past year, Minister King has visited many communities across the north, experiencing firsthand the resilience, the innovation and the energy of locals, and their deep connection to country. Our vision Last year, Minister King announced the refresh of our policy cornerstone, the Our north, our future: white paper on developing northern Australia, to better address contemporary challenges and opportunities. We will achieve this through the development of the five-year action plan to continue to make progress towards realising our vision outlined in the white paper to build a strong, prosperous economy and a safe, secure Australia. Things have changed since the last white paper was published. There are new challenges and opportunities ahead. This white paper refresh will ensure this important document is working for communities in the north, making sure it includes the work this government is doing to lay strong economic foundations for the future. Through the Northern Australia Ministerial Forum, three priority areas have been set for the next five-year Northern Australia Action Plan: human capital, enabling infrastructure, and economic development and diversification. This will provide the framework to help achieve our ambition, aligned to government priorities and a First Nations partnership approach. Engagement is currently underway and we are listening to a wide range of stakeholders across northern Australian communities, to make sure we get this next set of actions targeted right. Minister King would like to thank those from northern Australian businesses, industry, government and communities who have contributed through the engagement so far. Your valuable input is helping to shape the future of the north. Your feedback shows that the issues in northern Australia are complex and there is no simple, quick-fix solution but that you are also passionate about the potential of the north. I thank you for your hard work. The Albanese government is also working with Queensland, Western Australia and Northern Territory governments on a review of the Northern Australia Indigenous Development Accord to ensure First Nations' aspirations are central to the northern Australia agenda. The Northern Australia Indigenous Reference Group continues to be a strong voice for First Nations' aspirations in Northern Australia, providing valuable input to the white paper refresh, the accord review, and providing advice on priority areas for action in the north. Last November, Minister King delivered her first annual statement to parliament on northern Australia, outlining our agenda to drive diversified, sustainable growth. I can report to the chamber we are making good progress. We have demonstrated our commitment, and in the 2023-24 budget announced significant investments in the region of over $5 billion. The Albanese government is addressing cost-of-living pressures through investments in health, housing, childcare, skills, education and vocational training. We are investing in roads, regional infrastructure and essential services, delivering enabling infrastructure to help regions thrive and connect to markets and services. We are supporting an agile local workforce that can benefit from emerging and traditional industries, including agriculture, aquaculture, biosecurity and defence. We are working with partners to build a sustainable resources and energy industry. And we are working across government, with industry, community stakeholders and First Nations people. Our government is committed to the north because we know a strong north means a strong nation. A cleaner, more secure future The north is home to some of the world's most precious environments. Climate change is impacting these natural environments, economies and the liveability of our communities. The recent decision by UNESCO to not list the Great Barrier Reef as 'in danger' is testament to the serious action we are taking on climate change. The north is home to rich mineral earth deposits, natural resources and long sunny days. The world is seeking to partner with us as we transition to a low-carbon economy. Our government will not waste this opportunity. We need to make investment in the north easier and more attractive. Harnessing the globally significant critical mineral, rare earths and renewable energy supplies is key. Critical minerals are crucial components of low-emission technologies and global demand is growing. Our new Critical Minerals Strategy anticipates this, with a focus on creating local jobs, industries and secure supply chains. The strategy also sets aside $500 million for critical minerals projects through the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, which we all know as NAIF for short, which I will speak to later. As we position Australia as a renewable energy superpower, we are partnering with First Nations people through initiatives such as the First Nations Clean Energy Strategy. Our $1.5 billion investment in the Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct in Darwin is supporting the Northern Territory government to create a globally competitive precinct which will unlock new renewable energy industries. Our $565 million investment in the Pilbara ports upgrade at Lumsden Point (Port Hedland) and Dampier, and our $70 million investment in the Townsville hydrogen hub will promote clean, sustainable exports. Our government is committed to building resilient communities and transitioning the economy as we adapt for a stronger future. We are investing more than $1.5 billion in critical road infrastructure that services important industries, including beef and agriculture. When the Northern Australia Ministerial Forum met in Kununurra in June, on Miriuwung and Gajerrong country, they discussed ways to better mitigate and respond to the risks of increasing natural disasters. They also examined the importance of agriculture and biosecurity to national food security, and opportunities for collaboration and investment. Our government has committed more than $50 million to boost food security in remote First Nations communities and to continue the Indigenous Ranger Biosecurity Program. Investment in research and development is important in developing new industries in northern Australia. Industry-led research collaborations through the Cooperative Research Centre for Developing Northern Australia are supporting important industry sectors such as aquaculture, with more than 2,300 jobs forecast for the north over the next decade. Minister King saw this in Rockhampton when she visited Central Queensland University's Sesame Central National Research and Innovation Hub, which will provide much needed coordination for sesame research in Australia and help address challenges faced by growers. Aquaculture presents an exciting new opportunity for First Nations communities, and research on expanding the north's oyster, jewfish and rock lobster industries continues. Targeted investment in livability is a key priority, alongside recognising investment where it is needed most. To support the security and safety of Central Australians, we are funding close to $299 million for the Better, Safer Future for Central Australia Plan. Working with the local community, the focus is on youth services in Alice Springs and infrastructure funding for amenities, for water, for power and for housing. Financing our future: Nort hern Australia Infrastructure Facility I mentioned the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, which, since 2016, has financed transformational projects that support the economy, social outcomes, local jobs and businesses. NAIF is at the heart of our agenda to facilitate transformative growth across the north. We have increased NAIF financing by $2 billion, to a total of $7 billion, and extended the NAIF's remit to cover Australia's Indian Ocean Territories: Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Minister King intends to table an updated investment mandate for NAIF in the coming weeks. The new mandate will focus NAIF on policy priorities I have outlined today; keeping NAIF at the heart of our policy agenda for the north. To date, the NAIF has approved nearly $4 billion in loan investments across a range of sectors including critical minerals, energy, agriculture, aquaculture, universities and airports. This includes $655 million for critical minerals and rare-earth projects forecast to deliver $5.5 billion to the economy and 2½ thousand jobs. In 2022-23 alone, NAIF approved $491 million in new loans, supporting over a thousand new jobs in the north. This year also saw the opening of the new James Cook University student accommodation in Townsville, supported by a $46 million NAIF loan—and construction is well progressed on the new $250 million Education and Community Precinct at Charles Darwin University, backed by a $151½ million NAIF loan. I am tremendously excited about the difference NAIF is making in developing new economic activity across the north, creating local jobs and delivering much-needed services. Closing To those in the chamber, especially those who have travelled, and to fellow Australians—as I have outlined today, developing the north is critical to the sustained prosperity and security of our nation. Our government is delivering substantial and diversified investment to deliver a once in a generation transformation of our economy. And we are working together to create a fair, sustainable and secure north now, and for decades to come. I present a copy of my ministerial statement. 12:18 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I'm pleased to deliver this statement, on behalf of the federal coalition, because northern Australia is a powerhouse of this country. It's a powerhouse because the north has proudly pioneered and continues to drive our most important industries, like agriculture, mining, tourism and defence. Not only do these sectors generate enormous wealth for our communities, for our families and for Australia as a nation but they also feed us, employ us and protect us. None of us should ever take northern Australia for granted or underestimate its contribution to our standard of living. Up until Australians started feeling the shocks of the cost-of-living crisis under this government, our nation ranked equal fourth for the highest standard of living in the world. A strong economy, quality of life and access to education and health care are the main factors that contribute to this. It should be recognised that the economy in northern Australian forms the foundation of these essential pillars, mainly through the billions of dollars generated by resources, royalties, and company taxes which are used to fund the construction of new schools, hospitals, and infrastructure. These are the vital services that all Australians rely on. Anybody who has spent time in our nation's north can sense the opportunity and resourcefulness in the air, while at the same time marvelling at the ingenuity, resilience and courage of the very few people who live and work in this part of the country. It is these Australians who have converted the possibilities into a rewarding and unique lifestyle. Northern Australia is vast. It's remarkable that this region makes up 53 per cent of our landmass and yet is home to only five per cent of our people. However, on so many fronts this five per cent of the Australian population punches well above its weight. In agriculture, Northern Australia produces 12½ million beef cattle, which is 64 per cent of the national beef herd and 90 per cent of our live cattle export trade. Over generations of backbreaking work in the tropical heat, torrential rain and frequent cyclones, northern Australian canegrowers manage to produce more than 95 per cent of our sugar, while the fruit farmers grow 94 per cent of our bananas and 93 per cent of our mangoes. In Australia, every state and territory except the ACT produces minerals. The resource sector supply chain supports over 1.1 million direct and indirect jobs, or almost eight per cent of the entire national workforce. Try to imagine the $500 billion in the resources sector without Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory—particularly, the booming regions of the Pilbara, Bowen Basin and Groote Eylandt. The north produces the critical minerals that the entire world is demanding and which are crucial to Australia's defence. It has a geological catalogue of critical minerals like cobalt, lithium, magnesium, manganese, rare-earth elements, titanium, tungsten, vanadium and zirconium, which grow in potential for the last eight minerals to be declared critical. In terms of tourism, Northern Australia attracts enormous numbers of international visitors and domestic travellers, who are drawn to its spectacular scenery and breathtaking experiences. Combined, Kakadu National Park, Uluru and the Kimberley attract nearly a million tourists annually, while the Great Barrier Reef delivers a staggering $5.7 billion into the national economy each year. All this helps to form the narrative around the strategic geography of Northern Australia, and our northern frontier is also the main front line in protecting and defending our country. It's our national checkpoint for biosecurity, food security and defence. The essential industries of agriculture, mining, tourism and defence in our north deserve and require national investment because any positive or negative impacts that are felt there flow downstream and impact the entire country. That's why when we were in government the federal coalition made it a priority to harness the strategic geography and enormous potential of northern Australia. What we achieved in building the north remains one of our proudest achievements and strongest legacies. It was the coalition government that released the comprehensive white paper, Our north, our future in 2015. It was the coalition government that established and then expanded the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. It was the coalition government that established the Cooperative Research Centre for Northern Australia. These initiatives have improved the landscape and prospects of the north and have made a tremendous difference on the ground. The aim of our 2015 white paper was to stocktake the north's natural geographic and strategic assets so that we could create an effective launch pad to further develop the region's key industries and to mitigate against the risks and challenges of economic growth. The white paper also highlighted the essential need for infrastructure in the north. This was a development blueprint for nation-building projects: new roads, new dams, upgraded airstrips, rail freight options and updated land-use laws. When we look back, one of the most significant legacies that the coalition secured in government was the establishment of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility—the NAIF—in 2016. By the time we left office, the NAIF had supported more than 32 investments worth almost $3.5 billion and expected to generate an economic benefit of $25 billion and to create 13,000 new jobs. Importantly, last year our government announced that we would increase the NAIF appropriation from $5 billion to $7 billion to help the north grow into the future. Despite the swinging of the financial axe over many areas of the infrastructure portfolio, we welcome the government's decision to honour this coalition commitment. It's worth reflecting on what the NAIF achieved during our time in office. The coalition is proud of what it has delivered over the years. Major projects include the $150 million expansion upgrades to Darwin, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs airports; the $300 million expansion to Darwin Harbour, including the new ship lift facility; $175 million for the Olive Downs coking coal complex in the Bowen Basin; and $50 million to redevelop the Townsville Airport terminal. For the next generation, the NAIF has also provided vital support for our regional universities, such as $142 million to James Cook University to establish its Technology Innovation Complex and student accommodation; more than $150 million for the new Charles Darwin University city campus and upgrades for its Casuarina campus; and $76 million for upgrades to Central Queensland University's northern campus. Another initiative that we led in government was the creation of the Office of Northern Australia. It was tasked with delivering our ambitious agenda for the north, as set out in the white paper. However, the coalition notes that this office has now been absorbed into the department of infrastructure. We remain concerned that this move could threaten the office's strong northern independence and that its advocacy could be lost in the depths of the Canberra bureaucracy bubble. The Cooperative Research Centre for Developing Northern Australia was another core element for progressing the coalition's plan for this part of the nation. Since it was formed, the centre has initiated 96 cutting-edge projects with industry participants, to grow, harness and diversify opportunities and investments in the north. This is a 10-year program which runs its course in 2026. Is the government going to extend the invaluable work of the centre? We simply don't know. Another important coalition legacy in the north was setting up the master plan to accelerate regions of growth. These were designed to deliver a 20-year blueprint for strong economic development, with the first three regions of growth being Beetaloo basin to Katherine to Darwin, Mount Isa to Townsville, Broome to Kununurra to Darwin, and a final growth corridor from Cairns to Gladstone. On this side of the House, we'd like to know: how is the government progressing these corridors of growth and economic development? So far, it's been silence. It's unfortunate that this government has ripped away critical funding for the north in each of its federal budgets. Enormous amounts of infrastructure funding for northern Australia have been scrapped, including the Building Better Regions Fund, as well as crucial water security projects such as the $5.4 billion Hells Gates dam and the $483 million Urannah dam, while uncertainty hangs over the Hughenden Offstream Water Storage project and the Cairns water security project. All of these cuts and decisions will have consequences, because, as resilient and as resourceful as this part of the country is, it needs safe roads, capable bridges and reliable water security. Picture a single-lane, unmarked, dirt-edged national highway just north of Sydney. This is what we currently have located just west of the Great Barrier Reef tourism region, a region that deposits nearly $6 billion into the national coffers each year. Picture Geelong cut off from the rest of the country for five months each year, as Doomadgee Aboriginal Shire Council is during the wet season. Picture having a meal without the northern Australian beef herd and its crops of sugar, bananas and mangoes, because there's no guaranteed water supply. It's deeply concerning that, since being elected, this government has stuck its boot into regional, rural and remote Australia, and unfortunately the north is no exception. If Australia is to maintain our world-leading standard of living, if Australians are to keep appreciating the benefits of new schools, hospitals and roads, and if Australians are to retain high levels of employment and remain safe in our nation, then we must see this government commit fully to encourage, facilitate and support the ongoing development of northern Australia. Our nation has always been wealthy. Historically, we've had the privilege of adequate food, quality water and decent living conditions. But, for many Australians, this is now becoming a luxury, as rent, mortgage repayments, electricity, petrol, insurance and grocery bills surge beyond their ability to pay and stay afloat. We appreciate the cost of living has always been higher in the north due to the tyranny of distance and the freight costs for what isn't already grown or manufactured there. When a federal government deliberately cuts funding to infrastructure projects in northern Australia, it harms this region's capacity to keep doing the economic heavy lifting for the rest of the country. When this happens, every Australian can expect this spiralling cost-of-living crisis to get even worse. Each additional impost on and each opportunity removed from northern Australia drives up prices for every Australian, whether they live in Darwin or Hobart or anywhere in between. Whether it's mining, agriculture or tourism, our country owes so much to the north. The 1.3 million Australians who live in this unique, resilient and dynamic part of our nation can be assured that developing northern Australia remains front and centre of the federal coalition's plan to secure our nation's future, in stark contrast to Labor's cuts and neglect. COMMITTEES 6 COMMITTEES Public Works Joint Committee 6 Report 6 12:29 Mr HVP Moreton PERRETT () (): On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works I present the committee's report No. 7 of 2023: National CapitalAuthority—Commonwealth Avenue Bridge, Canberra, ACT,Renewal Project. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr PERRETT HVP by leave—This report considers a proposal referred in August from the National Capital Authority for the renewal of the Commonwealth Avenue Bridge in Canberra. It is a 310-metre bridge in the heart of Canberra that provides a strategically important arterial corridor and is one of two major crossings over Lake Burley Griffin. The total cost of the proposed project is $137.5 million. The Commonwealth Avenue Bridge was designed in the late 1950s to accommodate a 32-tonne weight. As the population of Canberra has grown, so has the number of vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians that cross the bridge daily. The average weight of vehicles has also increased, meaning the bridge now requires reinforcement. The renewal of the Commonwealth Avenue Bridge will ensure the bridge is safe and meets the current and future needs of all users, extending its life by 50 years. The proposed works to the Commonwealth Avenue Bridge will strengthen the bridge to hold a 44-tonne load and widen the shared pathways from 2.4 metres out to five metres. The works will also replace the traffic and shared safety barriers and upgrade the lighting on the bridge. The project will generate local industry employment opportunities and increase public access to Lake Burley Griffin. The construction works will have an impact on the local community, with disruptions to traffic flows leading to temporary congestion and delays on Commonwealth Avenue—it might extend that peak hour by a couple of minutes—and the surrounding road network. This does not include any construction related to the ACT light-rail system, which the ACT government plans to put across the lake at a later date, but the synergies of working on these were considered. The committee thanks personnel from the National Capital Authority for facilitating a private briefing and attending a public and in camera hearing in Canberra. The briefing gave members of the committee an opportunity to better understand the need and scope of the works to maintain the functionality of the bridge. The committee considers that this project represents value for money and is satisfactory in terms of need, scope and cost. The committee recommends that it is expedient that the proposed work be carried out. I commend the report to the House. BILLS 6 BILLS Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit and Other Measures) Bill 2023 6

Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit and Other Measures) Bill 2023

Second Reading 6 12:32 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks Many Australians like to have a bet, myself included. But we all know that, for some people, betting can lead to harm for themselves and can have terrible impacts on their families, careers and other relationships. It can destroy lives. This issue is particularly acute during the Albanese government's cost-of-living crisis. As policymakers we have a responsibility to adopt sensible policies that can reduce harm. It's why the coalition took positive steps earlier this year with a bill to ban gambling advertising during live sport. Those opposite voted against that bill. It's a policy that we know has strong support in the community, and it should be enacted, because gambling advertising shouldn't occur during live sporting events that are watched by millions of Australian families and kids. The bill we're talking about today, the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit and Other Measures) Bill 2023, stems in large part from an inquiry that was led by the member for Fisher, the former speaker—the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services report into the regulation of the use of financial services such as credit cards and digital wallets for online gambling Australia, which was published late in 2021. Its most important recommendation was to recommend a ban on the use of credit cards and digital wallets as payment methods for online gambling. Importantly, this recommendation would bring online gambling into line with offline gambling. You cannot currently use a credit card to gamble at a casino, at your local TAB or at other offline gambling venues, but you can use a credit card for online gambling. What the member's inquiry recommended was that the online world be brought into parity with the offline world. It also recommended that any changes that were made have no adverse consequences for lotteries, included the activities of not-for-profits, charities and newsagents. I think we all know of charities that benefit from activities such as housie, and this recommendation had no intention of negatively affecting those activities. The member for Fisher is to be congratulated for his very deep passion and drive on this issue. His committee's report came down just in the lead-up to the last election. In general, I welcome the government's action in picking up his recommendations and seeking to enact them in this bill. We know that people can get into problems when gambling with their own money, but obviously gambling using credit or debt can send people into a whole new world of financial distress. The Wallace inquiry's report cited total customer losses in Australia in 2018-19 of about $25 billion. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, that's the highest per capita loss from gambling in the world. In their submission to the Wallace inquiry, Responsible Wagering Australia said that about 20 per cent of customers were using credit cards with their online wagering accounts. It's important to differentiate between credit cards and debit cards. What this bill is about is not the use of a Visa card or a MasterCard in a debit sense for gambling; it's about when that card is in fact used for credit, so that the user is borrowing money. As I say, about 20 per cent of people, the institute said, were using credit cards. The inquiry report highlighted that the combination of online gambling and credit obviously exacerbated problem gambling and its associated financial and social harms. It said that this combination could lead to extreme financial hardship, loss of employment, bankruptcy and broader harms, including relationship breakdown, and could contribute to mental illness and homelessness, so it's a very serious matter. The inquiry identified two key reasons for the speed and severity of the harm that can be driven by the combination of online gambling and the use of credit. First, it is quicker and easier to lose large sums of money when gambling online in comparison with other forms of gambling. Secondly, the scale of financial hardship can obviously be magnified when credit cards are used. That occurs because of the detrimental compounding effects that we see when problem gamblers quickly spend their own savings and then use credit to fund their own gambling and, effectively, chase those losses. It doesn't take a gambling researcher to understand how quickly that can become a very big problem. That's why, for some people, gambling with credit cards can be a road to ruin. The inquiry findings were also backed up by the results of a recent review into this bill by the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee. As that inquiry noted and as others have noted, gambling using credit cards is already banned at land based sites. You can't walk into a casino or your local TAB and use a credit card, and the issue now is about the use of credit cards for online gambling. This bill would prohibit an operator of a regulated interactive gambling service that is a wagering service from accepting, or offering to accept, payments from a customer in Australia using a credit card, payments linked to a credit card including digital wallets, digital currency such as cryptocurrency or other methods determined by the minister. The bill would provide for a new criminal offence and civil penalties of up to $234,000. It would allow ACMA to accept and enforce undertakings relating to compliance with the provisions of the act. There would be a six-month transition period and a review of the ban after two years from commencement. As I mentioned before, the inquiry into the bill by the Senate Environment and Communications Legislations Committee recommended that the bill be passed. It's also worth noting the very broad stakeholder support for the key provisions of this bill. Responsible Wagering Australia, which is the peak body for the gambling industry, has itself said that it supports the bill. Sportsbet says that it backs the introduction of a ban on Australian licensed interactive gambling services accepting credit cards and digital currencies as payment methods, and it describes the proposed changes as the final element necessary to prevent access to credit and ensure customers can conduct their wagering activity with only their own cleared funds. It also supports the proposed prohibition on the use of cryptocurrency. The Alliance for Gambling Reform, which has raised many issues about the problematic aspects of gambling, says that it has advocated for this ban and that it supports it. Financial Counselling Australia has welcomed the plan, and the Australian Banking Association says that the changes will establish consistency across the gambling industry, bringing the rules for online gambling into line with the rules for offline gambling. The coalition, in principle, supports this bill. The government has picked up the findings of the Wallace inquiry recommendations from late in the last term of government and put them into the bill. In banning the use of credit cards for online gambling, the bill brings online gambling into line with offline gambling. But, as is often the case with Labor, as we've seen in many cases, such as their extraordinary and appalling misinformation bill, they can go too far. I want to flag that we do have some concerns regarding some of the detail in this bill, while supporting it in principle, and I'll have more to say about that when this bill goes into consideration in detail. Debate adjourned. Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Bill 2023, Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 8

Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Bill 2023

Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023

Second Reading 8 12:43 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer Today I rise to speak on a matter of significant importance to public health in Australia, the Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Bill 2023, a legislative proposal designed to streamline tobacco regulations in our country. I will make comment on the various aspects of the bill, its objectives, the accompanying Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 and the Labor government's recommendations. The primary purpose of the bill is to consolidate the various tobacco regulations into one legislative package, with the aim of improving the effectiveness and efficiency of our tobacco control framework. The bill seeks to regulate tobacco and e-cigarette advertising and sponsorships, prohibiting practices that may encourage consumption. This includes restrictions on advertising and promotion, to reduce the allure of these products. It mandates the requirements for plain packaging of tobacco products. This includes stringent regulations on the appearance, content and standards of tobacco products, to further discourage their consumption. Certain tobacco items like chewing tobacco and snuffs intended for oral use will face permanent bans, in line with existing bans on similar products. Reporting entities will be required to submit detailed reports on tobacco products, sold and supplied, on advertising, as well as on research and development activities. The bill establishes provisions for compliance and enforcement, including both the appointment of authorised officers and civil penalty provisions to ensure that the regulations are followed. The bill also includes various provisions related to delegations and constitutional matters to support the effective implementation of these regulations. It's crucial to acknowledge the historical context of tobacco regulation in Australia. In 2012 Australia became the first country to implement plain packaging laws, a significant step in the global fight against tobacco use. Both Labor and coalition governments have consistently raised tobacco excise taxes to reduce affordability and discourage smoking, further demonstrating our bipartisan commitment to addressing this critical public health issue. In addition to plain packaging, graphic health warnings have been introduced on tobacco products, discouraging consumption by highlighting the devastating effects of smoking related diseases. Australia also has stringent restrictions on tobacco advertising, sponsorship and promotion, ensuring that tobacco companies can't exploit loopholes for indirect promotion. Governments have been proactive in providing support for smoking cessation programs and services, including nicotine replacement therapy and support helplines. This multifaceted approach has been instrumental in reducing tobacco consumption. While the coalition supports the intention of this bill, it is essential to mention that a Senate committee inquiry has commenced, with a reporting date of 22 November. Any significant issues arising from this report should be taken into consideration. We understand that there are concerns about the costs associated with these measures. However, it's important to note that the government has proposed that the costs be met through existing resources of the Department of Health and Aged Care. Other costs due to the legislated changes will be borne by the industry. I strongly note that the coalition will have more to say about this bill when it comes before the Senate. However, it is with deep disappointment that we express our concerns regarding a crucial aspect that this bill does not address: the rampant and growing issue of the illegal tobacco trade in our country. The illegal tobacco trade in Australia is a matter of increasing concern. It poses a serious threat to public health, government revenue and the very objectives that the public health bill seeks to achieve. The illegal tobacco market not only undermines the effectiveness of existing tobacco control measures but also significantly impacts government revenue and encourages a thriving black market. One of our primary concerns is that the bill does not address this growing illegal trade. While the bill focuses on imposing penalties for non-compliance with legal tobacco regulations, it falls short when it comes to deterring and penalising those involved in the illicit tobacco trade. The penalties for engaging in this illegal activity remain largely unchanged, even in the face of the growing threat it presents. To effectively combat the illegal tobacco trade, a coordinated effort is essential. It requires not only strict penalties but also proactive measures aimed at dismantling the illegal tobacco networks that thrive in the shadows. These networks operate with relative impunity, undermining public health objectives and costing the government significant revenue. The illegal tobacco trade is a multifaceted issue that affects various aspects of society. The availability of cheaper, unregulated tobacco products encourages smokers to continue their habit or entices potential new users, defeating the purpose of public health measures. This illicit trade also results in significant revenue losses for the government—funds that could otherwise be directed towards essential public services. This figure from various sources is now in the billions. It continues to grow, and it is unacceptable. The existence of a thriving black market for tobacco products undermines the effectiveness of tobacco control measures such as excise taxes and plain packaging laws. The illegal tobacco trade often involves organised crime and money laundering, contributing to a broader range of criminal activities. The coalition strongly believes that addressing the illegal tobacco trade must be an integral part of any comprehensive tobacco control strategy. We consider that significantly increasing penalties associated with illegal tobacco trade should be given appropriate consideration. This not only serves as a deterrent but also allows for more effective legal action against those involved in this illicit activity. Coordinated efforts between law enforcement agencies, border control and other relevant authorities are essential to dismantle illegal tobacco networks actively. Educating the public about the risks and implications of illegal tobacco consumption is critical. This can reduce the demand for illegal products. Given the global nature of the illegal tobacco trade, international collaboration with countries where these products are manufactured or trafficked is also crucial. Importantly, comprehensive data and research on the scale of the illegal tobacco trade in Australia is needed to inform policy decisions effectively. The coalition cannot overlook the growing issue of the illegal tobacco trade in Australia. We're deeply disappointed that the bill does not adequately address this concern. To ensure the success of these public health measures, it is imperative that we also tackled the illegal tobacco trade with equal vigour. Without addressing the growing black market, this bill risks not being worth the paper it's written on. The bill's objectives can be fully achieved only through a coordinated, comprehensive and robust effort to combat this growing problem. It is our hope that these concerns will be taken into serious consideration to safeguard the health and wellbeing of Australians and the economic interests of our nation. We look forward to the findings of the upcoming Senate committee inquiry. Together, we can make important advances in protecting the health and wellbeing of all Australians. Debate adjourned. Identity Verification Services Bill 2023, Identity Verification Services (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 9

Identity Verification Services Bill 2023

Identity Verification Services (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023

Second Reading 9 12:51 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I rise to speak on the Identification Verification Services Bill 2023 and the Identification Verification Services (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023. These bills seek to place a statutory footing underneath existing services that have been in operation for a number of years—services that allow government agencies to undertake basic identification verification checks, such as confirming whether or not the name and biographical detail on a government-issued document match the original record. The opposition does not object to the principles underpinning the legislation. Identity verification is a fundamental step that government and business entities rely on when transacting with Australians for a range of purposes. These processes are important to the health and overall productivity of the Australian economy and the efficient functioning of government. I do, however, want to signal at the outset that the opposition holds significant concerns about the way in which this legislation has come before this House, in a process led by the Attorney-General. We also have significant concerns about what these bills do not do. For the benefit of the House, I intend to: firstly, give an overview of what is meant by identity verification; secondly, to discuss the bills, what they do and what they don't do; and, thirdly, to put the bills into the broader context of identity policy by considering their interface with the digital economy and government services delivery. To those who are not familiar with it, identity verification is a concept that is fundamentally straightforward but that can be obscured by some of the complex language which is used. The first type of identity verification that the bill deals with is document verification. An important way that this is done in Australia is through the document verification service—or the DVS—which until recently was hosted by the Department of Home Affairs and has been operating since 2009. A typical example of how this operates is where an entity such as a bank wants to verify a person's identity. For example, the bank may wish to meet its know-your-customer obligations under the Anti- Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act. The entity receives the information from the person and, by using the DVS, can confirm whether the information provided matches existing government records. The DVS gives a simple yes or no answer. The service is accessible to government and industry bodies who meet specified criteria. It's also possible to verify a person's identity through face-matching. The face verification service, or FVS, is a service that compares your photo against the image used on your identity document to determine whether they match. For example, the image that you provide could be compared with your passport photo through the face verification service. If the two images match then you will gain access to the requested service. In short, the face verification service is a form of face-matching that allows Australians to access to a greater range of government services in a more secure and convenient way. There is another form of face-matching that's dealt with by the bill, the face identification service. It's important to be clear the face identification service is different to the face verification service. Face verification, as I've indicated, is essentially a process analogous to holding up a person's passport against the person's face to see if they match. You're checking one image against one document. By contrast, face identification is like taking an image of an individual and comparing it with every image in a book full of mugshots to find potential matches. You're checking one image against a whole database worth of images. It is one-to-many matching. Having explained those three related but distinct services, I want to turn to what the bills before the House seek to do. The Identity Services Verification Bill will authorise the Attorney-General's Department to develop and operate three identity verification services. The first is the DVS hub. This is the electronic hub through which an entity trying to verify a document is able to confirm whether that document matches as original record. It is important to note that the DVS, the document verification service, as I've said, exists already. But the bill would put it on a statutory footing and authorise the Attorney-General's Department to operate the hub. The second service which is a subject of this bill is the face-matching service hub. This is the hub that allows an image to be compared against photographs in a database. The face-matching service hub operates as a router by which requesting entities may request services via the Attorney-General's Department from the agencies holding the underlying data. The agency holding the underlying data responds to a request via a return through the face-matching service hub, and the bill would authorise the Attorney-General's Department to operate that hub. This facilitates both of the services I mentioned previously, the face-matching service and the face verification service. A third facility which the bill authorises the department to operate is the National Driver Licence Facial Recognition Solution. This is a facility that adds photos held by the states and territories for the purposes of operating their respective drivers licence systems to the library of images that may be used for face-matching. This is an endeavour jointly between the Commonwealth and state and territory governments that the former coalition government began work on in partnership with state and territory governments. The intention of the legislation is that images of an individual can be compared not just against passport photos in a database held by the Commonwealth but also against state and territory drivers licence photos. That would be for the purposes both of face-matching and of face identification. In seeking to put these services on a statutory footing, the bill provides for arrangements called participation agreements, the so-called NDLFRS hosting arrangement, and access policies. These arrangements, as the opposition understands them, are intended to ensure that various privacy protections apply to the various services even if the Privacy Act or equivalent protections would not normally apply according to their own terms. Importantly, the bill authorises the face identification service, involving, as I mentioned, one-to-many matching, to be used only for limited purposes. It can only, under the terms of the bill, be used for the purposes of allowing a person to adopt a lawfully assumed identity as in the case, for example, of undercover police or a person entering witness protection. In these cases using the face identification service would allow an agency to check whether the person was vulnerable to being identified from existing databases so that their identity can be scrubbed to ensure their safety. The bill otherwise contains provisions authorising the collection, use and disclosure of information; offence provision to protect information; and miscellaneous provisions dealing with the reporting and publication of information. The second piece of legislation before the House is the Identity Verification Services (Consequential Amendments) Bill. The bill amends the Australian Passports Act to provide a legal basis for the disclosure of personal information for the purposes of participating in the identity verification services. It enables automated disclosures of information via the DVS or the FVS. The legislation that is before the chamber today has come in a process that is characteristic, unfortunately, of the arrogance and presumption that all too often typify the operation of the Albanese Labor government. There was little notice that it was coming. There's been no regulatory impact analysis. It appears that there was no consultation with industry. Indeed, one of the largest users of the Document Verification Service in Australia has told the opposition that they did not even know the legislation was in the parliament. This particular organisation conducts millions of searches of the DVS every year to meet the customer due diligence requirements designed to prevent terrorism financing and money laundering, and this organisation did not know the bill existed. What operation impact would this bill have on their business? Will this bill disrupt the provision of ordinary financial services? These are all very good questions to which the answers, at this stage, are manifestly unclear. And there are more questions. What, if any, are the wider implications for the Australian economy? Do the participation agreements, the NDLFRS hosting agreement and access policy envisaged by the bill work in practice? Are they effective in protecting privacy? We do not know, and it seems the government chose not to ask. Further, the views of the state and territory governments are unclear, even though they are the ones that provide the driver license photos that so significantly enhance the effectiveness of the face matching services. The Senate committee inquiring into the legislation has just begun its work. Already some of the written submissions are starting to ring alarm bells. For example, in a quite remarkable submission, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner said that the assessment revisions at clause 40 are 'unusual' because they do not activate the OAIC's usual assessment regulatory powers. The OAIC went even so far as to state, 'The bill does not provide a clear framework for the OAIC to enforce these agreements.' As anybody who is a student of bureaucratic language would know, that is pretty strong criticism. In spite of these unresolved issues, we know the Attorney-General intends to press ahead with a vote in the House even before the Senate committee holds its first hearing. Regrettably, Australians will not get a chance to properly understand or consider the laws that their parliamentarians in this place are being asked to pass even though it is the personal information of Australians that is affected. Surely this reckless approach can only undermine trust in the operation of Australia's identity verification services and identity policy more broadly. Having explained what these bills are, it's important to recognise what they could have been. This is not the first time the parliament has been asked to deal with identity legislation. Like much of the legislation that we have seen from the Albanese Labor government, these bills draw on and are based on coalition legislation, at least in theory. In 2018, the coalition introduced the Identity-matching Services Bill and a related bill amending the Australian Passports Act. We referred them to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Together they lapsed at the 2019 election, and we reintroduced them. This government would have you believe that the bills currently before the House are successors to these original coalition bills, but scratch beneath the surface and much has changed—indeed, almost changed beyond recognition. The coalition bills were not solely about identity matching. The coalition bills aimed to give effect to commitments made by the Commonwealth government in an intergovernmental agreement with all of the states and territories. That agreement is called the Intergovernmental Agreement on Identity Matching Services, and the very first page describes it as: An Agreement to share and match identity information, with robust privacy safeguards, to prevent identity crime and promote law enforcement, national security, road safety, community safety and service delivery outcomes. The coalition's bills dealt with services to share and match identity information with robust privacy safeguards for the purposes of preventing identity crime and promoting law enforcement, national security, road safety, community safety and service delivery outcomes. None of these purposes are addressed by the bill which is now before the House. The only point at which national security is mentioned in a substantive way in either the main bill or the explanatory memorandum is in relation to a clause which allows the secretary to redact participation agreements. This is despite the states and territories having agreed to share photos and data for the express purposes of identity protection and community safety. This raises many questions. What gaps have been left by the Attorney-General's failure to follow through on the purposes of the intergovernmental agreement? Has he weakened our national security? Is he asking police to fight crime with their hands tied? Is he opening the door to fraudsters and identity thieves? Will our roads be more dangerous? We should know these things before we vote. The intergovernmental agreement dealt with a range of services, including the One Person One Licence Service and the Facial Recognition Analysis Utility Service. These services would have made it possible to detect unlicensed and disqualified drivers, as well as persons with multiple licences obtained fraudulently. These services were dealt with in the coalition bill; they are not even mentioned in Labor's legislation. In fact, the previous legislation is not mentioned in the bill or the explanatory memorandum at all. What is also not mentioned is the fact that the coalition bills were previously considered by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Why is that not mentioned? Perhaps it is because it shines a very unflattering light on the conduct of the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General sat on the PJCIS when in opposition and scrutinised these coalition bills. A review of the public hearing transcripts suggests he was very keen to avoid following through on the national security obligations. As the Attorney-General knows, the PJCIS recommended the bills be redrafted and then come back to the PJCIS. Instead, the Attorney-General has redrafted the bills and, in doing so, ensured that they do not include the safety and security functions that our state and territory partners might expect. He's graciously taken the view that, because of the way he redrafted them, it was not necessary for him to refer them back to the PJCIS, even though he, himself, sitting on that committee, contributed to the request that the bills come back to the PJCIS. This bill has serious implications for the delivery of government services and payments in Australia's digital economy. Identity verification services such as the DVS and FVS are well-established and well-understood mechanisms to support Australians who, for various reasons, need to prove who they are. The usage statistics bear this out. In 2022 the Document Verification Service was used over 140 million times by approximately 2,700 government agencies and industry organisations. In 2022-23, there were approximately 2.6 million Face Verification Service transactions. Both the DVS and the FVS are, in fact, the only national capability that can be used by both government and industry alike. The operation of these services, then, is of particular importance to the daily lives of millions of Australians. This is particularly the case for Australians who opt to use a myGovID, the government backed digital identity that is used by Australians every day to access over 130 federal, state and territory services. The myGovID is operated by the Australian Taxation Office with technical support provided by Services Australia. It's a proud coalition legacy. It was created by the coalition government and was a key component of our Digital economy strategy. It anchored the trusted digital identity framework we established to allow for whole-of-government and whole-of-economy participation in a safe and voluntary digital identity system. Australians are continuing to put their trust in myGovID. In late 2021 there were six million myGovID accounts; there are now 11.3 million myGovID accounts. Setting up the myGovID relies on the operation of the DVS and FVS. The myGovID has a three-tiered strength rating: basic, standard and strong. The government service Australians choose to access determines the minimum identity strength one needs. In order to increase the strength of a myGovID, a user must verify their identity against existing government records. For example, a user wanting to apply online for a tax file number would need to obtain a strong myGovID. This is achieved by verifying the validity of an Australian passport and other routine identity documents, such as a Medicare card, and undergoing a face verification check. The check is completed via the FVS and provides one-to-one matching to identify biometric information, with consent, against a Commonwealth credential, the Australian passport. Having established a strong myGovID, an Australian could choose, for example, to access Centrelink services online or apply entirely online for a tax file number. Very clearly then, the DVS and FVS undergird the entire operation of myGovID. It is appropriate, therefore, that this bill establishes a legislative basis for the continued operation of these vital services, with new and enhanced protections for users baked in and establishing new government and oversight mechanisms. This is a policy rationale the government has taken up and one that the former coalition government also supported. The economic case for digital identity is strong and persuasive. A 2019 research inquiry from the McKinsey Global Institute found that extending full digital identity coverage could unlock economic value equivalent to three to 13 per cent of GDP by 2030. This research was cited in the coalition's regulation impact statement, which accompanied our exposure draft of the trusted digital identity bill. The same statement cited World Economic Forum analysis, which estimated that 70 per cent of new value created in the economy over the next decade is expected to be delivered by digitally enabled platforms. The assumption in both of these reports is that digital identity systems extend across the economy and that they have been constructed by government and business to be interoperable or at least complementary to each other. Only by allowing for digital identity to be truly whole-of-economy in this way will we see the full range of benefits flow. This must be mission-critical for the government—to support the voluntary take-up of digital identity by businesses and consumers, not just by government. There is other research that has quantified the advantages of extending digital identity coverage. Australia Post's 2016 paper A frictionless future for identity management quoted a figure of $11 billion per annum in benefits. In recent months, the capacity of digital identity to address fraud and identity crime has attracted significant attention. The cyber breaches at Optus, Medibank and Latitude Financial amongst many others have highlighted some of the risks attached to today's common practice that businesses hold large amounts of customers' personally identifiable information. There is a challenge for businesses given the tension between the requirements that presently exist under, for example, the anti-money laundering arrangements and 'know your customer' legislation and the growing and well-based anxiety amongst Australians about companies holding large amounts of their personal data. Digital identity is a practical tool that can help de-risk businesses by reducing the volume of data that they hold and can also help customers to stay in control of their data. Given the importance of digital identity to Australia's economic prosperity, you would think that the Albanese Labor government would have shown great focus on setting up Australia for success in this vital area. Regrettably, the opposite has been the case. Digital identity policy has been treated as an afterthought by the Albanese Labor government. In the government services space, this government has shown enormous enthusiasm for the old-school paper based, union led, over-the-counter modes of work that characterised previous centuries and do not respond well to the clear preferences of Australians to engage with government digitally. You'd have to search very hard to find any reference at all being made to digital identity by those opposite when they were in opposition. You can, however, find many references to the centrality of the union movement, and we know they are no friends at all of digital transformation and of serving customers better. Regrettably, that lack of interest in the digital economy and in the efficiencies that digital identity can provide has carried over from opposition to government. There's no digital economy minister. There's no digital economy strategy under this government. The previous government had both. It's true that there's $24 million in the budget to progress the take-up and maturity of digital identity, but that pales in comparison to a commitment by the previous coalition government of over $600 million. It has taken the present government 18 months to even give the Australian people a glimpse of an exposure draft of digital ID legislation. The reason for this delay has been completely unexplained, given that there was exposure draft legislation released by the previous government. The current government was certainly not starting from nothing. But they've shown a lack of commitment, and responsibility for digital identity has been passed around between ministers and departments. In July, we learned that digital identity policy had been stripped away from the Digital Transformation Agency and handed over to the Attorney-General's Department. The Digital Transformation Agency has been completely nobbled by this government, and that is bad news for anybody who wants to see a meaningful plan for whole-of-government digital and data uplift. I conclude by making the point that there are too many unknowns for the opposition to support these bills as they stand. We will consider our position carefully, including through the committee process. Once the committee has completed its review and it has been possible to properly consider these questions and the answers that have been provided, it may be that the opposition will be in a position to support these bills at that time. I simply cannot make a commitment on that now. At their heart, these bills involve a good idea and follow a policy direction that was set down by the former government; but they also represent a missed opportunity, a failure to follow through on commitments and a botched process. These bills need proper scrutiny, and this opposition will not be waiving anything through until that proper scrutiny has occurred. I thank the House. Debate adjourned. Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 13

Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023

Second Reading 13 13:16 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence I rise, as every loyal South Australian member of this place should be doing, standing up for the future of the Murray-Darling Basin and standing up for South Australia. There are a few things that should come as no surprise to anyone participating in or viewing the unfolding debate on the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, one of those being the vigour of South Australian members to come to the defence of our state and of our river Murray. It should only be deemed as a natural response for us to stand up for a river that is not just the lifeblood to our townships that run along it across the regions but as a source of water for our state as a whole. Australia is the driest inhabited continent on the earth—drier even than my not-so-subtle attempts to force some humour into a subject that is deadly serious. With so much riding on this plan being reinvigorated under our government after it has been collecting cobwebs, at best, under the previous Abbot-Turnbull-Morrison governments, it is only natural that in the context of our climate we factor in what comes naturally and that we also prepare a strategy to mitigate the impacts of climate change. I regret deeply that I was not in the chamber on the first sitting evening when debate on this bill resumed. By all accounts I missed out on quite a show by three wise men. However, it is equally fitting, given the National Party's line and length on this debate—they are effectively being Ebeneezer Scrooge towards water flowing into South Australia—that we would have the ghosts of Nationals past, present and future, in no particular order. I'll leave it up to you to decide who's who. We had the member for Maranoa, the Leader of the Nationals and the member for Riverina, a former leader of the Nationals and a notable friend of the filibuster—and, quite arguably, a leading Mike-Pence-cosplay enthusiast. After we heard from the two co-chairs of a group that one would definitely not describe as the 'parliamentary friends of the member for New England', to put it mildly, we heard from the member for Nicholls. The member for Nicholls is someone who I feel is a member with big shoes to fill in this area of public policy. We can't be overly unfair to both tar and feather the member for Nicholls with the remarks and the actions of his forebears, but they are far too outlandish and far too obscene to omit mentioning them in this debate. Although this occurred before my time as a member of this place, at the time it was happening it certainly got quite the play in the media. The former member for Nicholls, Damian Drum, joined in on what can only be described as being basically a gunpowder plot. It was commenced in the other place by his National Senate colleagues against their own coalition partners to drive a stake through the heart of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The former member even went so far as to distribute talking points, stating that the science no longer supports South Australia needing fresh water. Frankly, 'the science' is such a weird and very ironic nickname for the National Party for so many reasons I don't quite have time to unpack. But equally he could have been using the word euphemistically for 'out of thin air'. The talking points further stated that rising sea levels will mean that the SA Lower Lakes system will not need environmental water. Ancient history? No, try 2021. From what I have gathered from watching footage from the chamber that night, it makes me lament reading page 163 of the House Practice, which states that refreshments, other than water, are not to be consumed in the chamber, because, if the subject matter wasn't so gravely vital to South Australia, this would have been perfect: you'd have got both dinner and a show. Though I'm glad the House Practice notes that we do not deprive members of water, I just wish the Nationals in this chamber would show the same courtesy for South Australia. I take particular note of a sterling performance put on by the member for Riverina, a state of affairs we have almost come to expect from the member. He even brought an antique book into the chamber to act as a prop. The contents of the book notwithstanding, it was that glint in his eyes as he brandished it. It reminded me of the many children at Playford College I visited recently for Book Week. With that part, along with much bluster, aside, I would like to take particular note of a number of his remarks in the chamber on this debate. The member for Riverina dived headfirst into the debate, something one should avoid doing along many parts of the Murray-Darling due to a lack of visibility and perhaps due to the salinity, too. Those opposite are salty enough as it is. The member for Riverina accused government members who participated in the debate at the time of coming in with talking points from the proverbial Labor 'dirt unit', accusing us of not having a stake in the game—though I find the use of the word 'game' to be rather unfortunate. More substantively, he said this all the while the Minister for Social Services and the member for Adelaide were to make contributions to the debate that evening. I was shocked that the member for Riverina would be at all surprised to hear that—at least on our side of the chamber—those of us hailing from South Australia are singing from the same hymn sheet and that we don't require some mystical Labor dirt unit to achieve this. Is it that the Nationals are just confused because the only special interest we are bringing into this debate as South Australians involves ensuring that our state continues to have clean drinking water from the Murray River for years to come? For that matter, I am pleased to be speaking in favour of the bill so that the Hansard can reflect that I join not just the Minister for Social Services and the member for Adelaide in doing so but also the member for Boothby and the member for Makin, who stood up for South Australia and the Murray River in this place too. Perhaps we should be updating our registers of interest to reflect the fact that we require water to drink on a regular basis, as without it we would die. I would certainly hate to think someone would consider it a conflict of interest on our part for wanting to continue doing this in South Australia for many long years to come. Speaking of the South Australian hymn sheet, I started preparing my remarks, hoping for something a bit better from the member for Grey and the member for Barker. But at least we can hold onto some quotes from the member for Sturt and Senator McLachlan, two South Australia Liberals. The member for Sturt told the Australian that South Australia should get the extra 450 gigalitres of environmental water delivered to it, even if it is by way of voluntary water purchases, although he somewhat equivocated on that when speaking on the bill; he strayed from the path. Senator McLachlan on the other hand said it was an imperative that we prioritise the welfare of our natural world and that the way we do so is through securing that water. When the senator has his chance to speak on this bill at some point in the future, we can only hope that this view remains constant. Now that we are passing around quotes, I'm hoping someone is good with their trivia and can tell me who this is. By the sound of it the author of the quote I'm about to discuss must have been a truly radical freethinker. A true environmentalist and progressive must said these words about the Basin Plan. I'll share the quote and I'm sure once I say it the identity of its source will be utterly obvious. He said: … the old way of managing the … Basin has reached its use-by date. …   …   … … we need to confront head on and in a comprehensive way, the over-allocation of water in the Murray-Darling … The name might not come to mind straightaway just from that, but I'm sure those opposite are narrowing down whether this person is a Greens left, a Marxist, a South Australian or all of the above. It was, in fact, John Winston Howard, former Prime Minister, who, as my South Australian colleague the member for Ramsey pointed out earlier in his contribution, started this journey by way of his government introducing this water bill in 2007, coupled with billions in funding—something relatively easier to do with banked-up political capital, an economy still enjoying the enormous sugar hit of the mining boom and the scruples of a fiscal conservative with an election fast approaching. Though the Howard government did not survive long after that, nor did John Howard's political career, I'm still happy to take note of significant developments like this by those belonging to the parties occupying the other side of the chamber, past or present. For many reasons, nobody can be surprised by the tone and content of the debate thus far from those opposite, but I'd contend that it has a bit to do with the exact point made by the member for Riverina. It's about what stake they have in the game. It is a commonly known fact that the National Party, at the present day, is effectively a nonentity in South Australia. The last elected member of parliament, federal or state, to hail from the National Party in South Australia was Karlene Maywald, who was the state member for Chaffey from 1997 until 2010, a seat located in South Australia's Riverland region. However, for roughly half of her parliamentary career, she served as a minister in Mike Rann's state Labor government—as the Minister for River Murray and the Minister for Water Security no less. For that matter, she was the last member of the National Party to hold portfolios in that policy space who did make everyday South Australians anxious to hear that they were a National Party member too. Even their coalition partners, when in government, have tried to avoid giving the Nationals the pick of the litter in those ministerial portfolios. Even from within their joint party room, the Liberals make efforts to keep portfolios like the environment and water away from the Nats' exclusive fiefdom, though, when this doesn't occur, it makes me wonder how the sausage gets made, with that coalition agreement of theirs and the cause of the weakness and capitulation by the Liberals. And we are close to it under the Leader of the Opposition. Let's examine their shadow ministry list for a moment. Agriculture has gone to the Nats. Environment has also gone to the Nats. And water? You can rest assured that that has also gone to the National Party. Climate change and energy? No, the Liberals kept that. They were close to the quinella, but not close enough. Mr Conaghan 279991 I raise a point of order on relevance. This debate is in relation to the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill, not the history of the National Party in other states. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 I thank the honourable member. Member for Spence, I reckon you are being relevant. You've put a lot of effort into this. It's an evocative speech. I'm interested to hear the end of it. Mr BURNELL 300129 Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Buchholz. Speaking of agriculture, the shadow minister for agriculture spoke just before the member for Riverina in this debate, and it was quite a scrappy and erratic display. It was almost as though he was auditioning for the voice role of the member for New England on some new take of the 1980s show Rubbery Figures. But we all know that the member for New England would like to play the part that the member for Maranoa currently holds. Time will tell. But on this bill the member for Maranoa yelled into the void, wondering where the Minister for the Environment and Water was to answer all of his rhetorical questions, of which there were many. However, since the introduction of this bill into the House last sitting, the minister has been in this place every single question time—every single one. And now for a rhetorical question of my own: did the member for Maranoa ask any of these questions directly of the Minister for the Environment and Water? Absolutely not. It was completely superfluous of me to fill you in on that tidbit of knowledge. However, did anyone ask questions of the minister about the bill and the Murray-Darling Basin Plan? Absolutely. They did so on three separate occasions during question time. None of those questions were asked by the member for Maranoa, of course. Two questions were asked by the member for Boothby and a third question was asked by the member for Makin during the previous sitting week, nothing since. But who's surprised? Would it be a shock to anyone to know that the member for Maranoa's first instinct when he doesn't know the answer to— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate will be continued at a later hour, and you will be granted permission to continue your speech. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 16 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS O'Connor Electorate: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 16 13:30 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor Today I rise to report the referendum result of 77 per cent no for my electorate of O'Connor and how this can be interpreted. First, I credit the volunteers manning O'Connor's 107 polling booths and commend their conviction and resilience. I thank the 120,000 electors of O'Connor and say emphatically that voting no does not make you racist, stupid, a dinosaur or—excuse the unparliamentary language—a dickhead. Most of you have witnessed Indigenous disadvantage in your regional communities and overwhelmingly want to see improvement in the lives— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 Please withdraw that comment. It is unparliamentary. Mr RICK WILSON 198084 I withdraw. But I was quoting directly from— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 It is unparliamentary, and I think you knew that. Mr RICK WILSON 198084 Most of you want to see improvement in the lives of the most marginalised, and Australia agrees with you. The Voice is not the way. I have been listening to many views of O'Connor's diverse Indigenous population over my tenure as an MP, and I've helped many Indigenous projects secure federal support. It was at the behest of some of the most respected elders of my northern Goldfields communities that I supported the introduction of the cashless debit card and secured an election commitment for the Leonora family violence centre. Sadly, these and many other life-changing Indigenous initiatives were scrapped by this Labor government without listening to people on the ground who were seeing real improvements in their quality of life and a reduction in social harm. Yes, we can do better. Going forward, Mr Albanese needs to listen to the voices of O'Connor's most disadvantaged and marginalised— (Time expired) Macquarie Electorate: Bushfires 16 13:31 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie Ten years ago today the Winmalee and Mount Victoria bushfires destroyed 200 homes in the Blue Mountains. In smoky late afternoon light some of us walked into our streets to find the smouldering rubble of everything that we owned. Those of us who managed to rebuild to new bushfire standards still miss our neighbours who, for very many reasons, didn't return, and we still notice smoke and hot winds. We take solace though that no-one died in our fires, unlike the tragedies that have occurred in so many others, including near Kempsey overnight. A decade on we celebrate our new neighbours and our once-new homes that now feel very lived in, and we remark on how quickly you collect clutter after such a brutal decluttering. Whether you lost a home or not on 17 of October 2013, it was a marker for our whole community, and I know many of us are thinking of people from that time. As a small group of residents, first respondents and recovery volunteers discussed how to mark this anniversary, one idea was to provide a commemorative book where people could write a memory or thanks for the generosity that was shown to them. I want to thank Blue Mountains Mayor Mark Greenhill and the council for making that book a reality. Empty pages will sit in Springwood and Blackheath libraries so anyone in the community can go in and write a few words that will capture those important memories forever. Cowper Electorate: Bushfires 16 13:33 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper Overnight in my electorate of Cowper we saw a large bushfire engulf Willi Willi, Warbro Brook, Willawarrin, Mungay Flat, Temagog and Toorooka, and it has now burned close to 11,000 hectares. This morning I received very sad news that a well-loved and respected local man lost his life attempting to protect his family home. I cannot imagine how his loved ones are feeling today, and my thoughts and prayers go to them. I will be flying back this afternoon to assist in any way I can and be present for the impending briefings and action plans. The next week will be critical for the season ahead. To my community, we've been there before. I know that after the 2019 fires many will be apprehensive and likely suffering the effects of PTSD, particularly those whose properties have only just begun to be revived. Please ask for help. Please ask how your friends, family and neighbours are. Please take heed of the instructions being provided by our incredible emergency services teams and do not—please do not—take any unnecessary risks. It's time to do what a community like ours does best: look out for each other, offer help to those in need and volunteer our time and our hands where they are needed most. We will once again get through this together. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I'm sure the House shares those condolences and concerns for your community. Robertson Electorate: Kincumber High School 17 13:35 Dr REID 300126 Robertson I rise to acknowledge the brilliant students and teachers that operate Kincumber Cafe at Kincumber High School. The Kincumber Cafe is an integral part of the transition post school for Kincumber High School's support unit. The cafe provides students who have a range of disabilities the opportunity to gain practical work skills in a supported environment. Students learn all the workings of a cafe business. This includes how to take orders; handle money; clean and deliver food; make delicious meals like sandwiches, burgers and pumpkin soup; and make drinks such as coffee, milkshakes and tea. The Kincumber Cafe is impressive, and I really enjoyed seeing all of the students busily working away when I recently visited. I wish to commend all of the students involved: Veronika Robertson, Mia Appleton, Taylah Rees, Jonny Milliss, Nellie Ulbritch, William-Beau Smidt and Joshua Moir. To the remarkable teachers and assistants that make the Kincumber Cafe happen—Lorraine Henri, Maddie Stevens and Megan Lawler—thank you so much for all of your tireless work and effort to make sure that the Kincumber Cafe is such a success at the Kincumber High School. To the head teacher of special education, Amy Regal, thank you for your leadership of this program and of this cafe, and thank you to the entire community of the Kincumber High School—the work that you do is remarkable. Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 17 13:36 Mr BATES 300246 Brisbane There was a clear 'yes' vote in Brisbane, and I want to pay tribute to all the elders, First Nations campaigners and allies who have worked so hard for a strong 'yes' vote in our community. The national referendum result was not the one we were hoping for, and I'd like to acknowledge that these results would have hurt and disappointed many. I encourage any First Nations people that need support to call 13YARN. This referendum campaign demonstrated the need for truth-telling. The harmful misinformation from, and politicisation by, conservative figures meant we could not have an honest conversation about First Nations justice. The Greens will continue to fight for truth and treaties, and I acknowledge that many state and territory jurisdictions are already making progress towards this. We can do it at the national level, too. This nation needs to have an honest and informed conversation about our history so that we can heal and move forward together. The Greens are committed to ongoing transformative change, self-determination and sovereignty, through truth-telling and treaties. We must continue to be led by First Nations communities, to listen, to act and to back them in at every turn. We will continue to fight for First Nations people. The fight for equality and justice did not start with this referendum, and it is not going to end with this referendum. Indigenous Health 17 13:37 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan The 13YARN service is an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander version of Lifeline, and 13YARN counsellors are there to listen. There's no shame, no judgement. It's a safe place to yarn. On 20 September I helped launch a partnership between AMCAP and 13YARN. AMCAP is a leading national auto distributer, which is based in Welshpool, in the heart of Swan. AMCAP realises that yarning's about mental health and openly taking a significant step towards breaking the stigma of talking about challenges. It's not about making Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders feel shame when they're struggling. All of AMCAP's maintenance facilities will, instead of displaying AMCAP logos, now be plastered with the 13YARN information and phone number. That'll be plastered all throughout regional communities. Trucks and containers which travel throughout parts of Australia will display this very important service information. It's a really simple concept, and, when AMCAP came up with this idea, they reached out to 13YARN and were so excited to create this partnership. It will reach so many people, especially in remote areas, to let them know that support is available. I commend AMCAP, 13YARN and Lifeline for thinking about this partnership. I also thank Barry Neale, Marjorie Anderson, Lorna Macgregor and Ernie Dingo for a wonderful launch. Indi Electorate: Health Care 17 13:39 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I will never stop fighting for better health care for my electorate of Indi, including for a new single-site hospital on the border. The Albury-Wodonga region is growing fast, and our current two-hospital situation is not meeting our needs. In recent weeks, elective surgeries have been cancelled once again due to capacity issues. Last year, the New South Wales and Victorian governments finally announced a new single-site hospital on the existing Albury hospital site, and I welcomed the announcement at the time. But the master plan was released yesterday by the two state governments, and it is grossly inadequate. The supposed master plan is just a series of pictures, four paragraphs and nine dot points; 11 months and $2 million later, that's all we get. Nothing on how many extra beds, nothing on how many extra theatres or car parks and no detail on exactly how it will meet the acute healthcare needs of our community in the decades to come. Once again, it feels like we've been let down by the New South Wales and Victorian governments; we're too far from Sydney or Melbourne for them to understand or care about the true health needs of our communities. Our community deserves world-class health care close to home. We deserve detail, transparency and genuine consultation. Without that, we are left to assume that we are being sold a lemon. Blair Electorate: Student Welfare 18 13:40 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair Last week I caught up with local school chaplains Rebecca Hewett and Peter Goltz and SU Australia's field development manager for Ipswich and the Somerset region, Kylie Osudu, to chat about their wonderful work. 'Chappies' and student welfare officers do an outstanding job supporting students in our local schools. They're valued by the schools in my community. Chaplains support young people in one of today's most high-pressure environments: the schoolyard. They provide a safe, positive influence for our children. Chaplains do things like run breakfast programs and help students deal with issues ranging from family breakdown, loneliness and friendships to mental health. I saw the benefits of chappies in the aftermath of the many floods that affected my community around Ipswich and the Somerset region. In September I attended the launch of the Parliamentary Friends of School Chaplaincy group, which is co-chaired by my friend, the member for Bean. I commend him for the work he has done. In April the federal Minister for Education announced that school students across Australia would benefit from a boost in funding for mental health and wellbeing projects, and this support is being delivered under the government's Student Wellbeing Boost program. The states, of course, are managing this and doing it in consultation with us. This includes the engagement of chaplains and student welfare officers. Good mental health and wellbeing have a significant impact and are important for our young people as they engage with education. I support the chappies in my community. Domestic and Family Violence 18 13:42 Mr E0F La Trobe WOOD () (): Today I acknowledge 12 amazing women who visited Parliament House and my office yesterday from the Afghan, Indian, Pakistani and Chinese communities. They have excelled in business, community leadership and volunteer roles—especially those in the NGO sector. I thank Seema Chauhan from the Federation of Indian Communities of Queensland; Ree Ali from the Multifaith Advisory Action Group Gold Coast; Mina Skandari and Marwa Skandari from the Skandari Foundation; Jessy Kaurah from the Global Organisation of People with Indian Origin; Kathryn Kaur from Rights Respect Independent Connect; and Anna Ruth from Freedom for Humanity. And there were the following from the Afghan Peace Foundation: Tahera Nassrat, Shukria Yari, Adela Omary, Nilofar Moslih and Marwiza Rahimi. I thank Taheri for arranging for those members to attend. I thank them for highlighting the need for preventative measures and support groups for women and children exposed to family violence. Sadly, this is an issue affecting far too many families right across Australia. Their support is greatly appreciated when it comes to the importance of multicultural centres, and I very much appreciate also coalition members who met with this group. It was a wonderful day, and I thank them very much again for their advocacy—especially when supporting women who may not have English as a first language. Thank you so much. Australian Defence Force 18 13:44 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I was proud recently to represent the parliament, along with Senator David Fawcett, at the NATO parliamentary gathering in Copenhagen. On the way home I stopped by the UK to visit our Australian soldiers who are working with the British military to train Ukrainian soldiers for the defence of their homeland against the illegal and immoral Russian invasion. I am very proud of these soldiers, who are from Darwin, in my electorate. They're from the 5th Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment and also from the Combat Health Battalion and the 1st Combat Engineer Regiment. It makes you so proud to see our soldiers in action. They truly are the world's best. Their mission is to train the Ukrainian soldiers so that they are able to go to the front line and defend against the Russians and push them out of their nation. They're imparting skills, knowledge and a good fighting attitude that the Ukrainian soldiers are going to need to survive on that battlefield. I'm also really proud of those young Ukrainians, and it was good to tell them that in person. Our soldiers are the best, they're doing a cracking job and they should be rewarded for that effort. Nicholls Electorate: Floods 18 13:45 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls It's been 12 months since parts of my electorate were devastated by floodwater. The Goulburn River catchment received significant rain along with the Broken River, and houses and properties were rapidly inundated in Seymour. Then it was a slower watch to see the water creep up on Shepparton and Mooroopna. There was great damage to properties across that area. Echuca received two threats from the Murray and the Campaspe River. The Campaspe River inundated 90 per cent of buildings in Rochester, and that community has suffered deeply. It was great to go for a run through Rochester with my friend the member for Wannon. He bought up big at the butcher that's trying to get back onto their feet, so thank you for that, Member for Wannon. Twelve months on, the communities are showing great resilience, but they're still struggling. They still need our support. The insurance companies have been too slow to act in many cases. The Insurance Council of Australia data shows that 60 per cent of claims in Rochester have been settled, but too many are still waiting and there are too many disputes still going on. On a positive note, we are looking at future efforts to mitigate against floods into the future, and I thank all of those in this place and in the other place for their constructive work on that. We hope we can help these communities into the future. National Skills Agreement 19 13:47 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore Today is a great day, with the announcement of the landmark National Skills Agreement. When I was a TAFE teacher, I helped some of the most vulnerable in my communities back into training and then on to work. It's one of the reasons I entered politics. One day my students—mums who had never worked outside the home before but, due to changed life circumstances, needed to—told me that they weren't getting the help they needed and they came to TAFE for help. I helped a lot of people when I worked at TAFE. Many went on to study in areas like community services or did their tertiary preparation course. But under the state and federal Liberal governments I saw TAFE decimated. There's one thing my communities fully understand, and that is the importance of TAFE. They know that rebuilding TAFE is essential to make sure we have people trained in essential jobs. It's why in New South Wales 100,000 people have enrolled with our fee-free TAFE, helping ease the cost of living. It's why we've committed over 300,000 fee-free TAFE places from 2024. Today we go further. I'm thrilled to be part of the Albanese government, which has today announced the National Skills Agreement, which will see TAFE back at the cornerstone where it belongs. I talk with local employers, and they tell me how hard it is to find workers. My message for employers is that this National Skills Agreement is about to turbocharge training and TAFE and lift workforce participation. That's great for individuals, employers and all our communities. Israel 19 13:48 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I was honoured to join Rabbi Adi Cohen and the congregants of Temple Shalom on the Gold Coast last Friday evening to celebrate the Sabbath with them after what has been an absolutely distressing week for our Jewish-Australian community. The news and the images that are coming out of Israel are absolutely shocking. The acts of Hamas can only be described as evil, and there can be absolutely no excuses made for these crimes. In November 2021, as the Minister for Home Affairs, I declared Hezbollah a terrorist organisation under Australian law. A few months later, in March 2022, I did the same for the entirety of Hamas. They were the right decisions at the time that they were made, and the events of the last week and a half have reinforced to me that they continue to be the right decisions. Australia's success as a multicultural country depends on every Australian, regardless of ethnic background, religious belief and cultural identity, feeling welcome and respected in the country, to feel absolutely safe in their community. Now more than ever Jewish Australians should feel safe to be part of the community where they live and should be embraced at this time of great pain and sorrow. To Rabbi Adi, Temple Shalom and the wider Gold Coast Jewish community, we stand by you and all Jewish Australians at this dark time, and we keep you in our thoughts. Victorian Afghan Students Association 19 13:50 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt Attending the Victorian Afghan Students Association's Afghanistan's Got Talent show was an experience like no other. The Victorian Afghan Students Association, known as VASA, is a not-for-profit student-led organisation that is committed to supporting both university and high school students from Afghan backgrounds across Victoria. Conducted as part of the Victorian Youth Fest 2023, Afghanistan's Got Talent was a spectacular night dedicated to supporting and showcasing the remarkable abilities of young upcoming Afghan Australian artists. As promised, it was a fascinating display of creativity through music, dance, poetry, comedy and even martial arts. Youth Organisations like VASA are essential to empowering our youth to take up leadership positions within their community and make a positive impact on society. In the past, VASA has organised several social, cultural and educational events, including career panels and workshops, iftar dinners, trivia nights, and Nowruz festivities. These events ensure a holistic support ecosystem for Afghan Australian youths, many of whom came to Australia fleeing the longstanding political turmoil in Afghanistan. I would like to commend the VASA executive, especially Shekofa Jafari, for their wonderful work, and I look forward to visiting. (Time expired) Sutherland Public School 20 13:51 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise to speak about Sutherland Public School, which I recently visited. Led by Principal Kate Drury, the school is at the heart of my electorate in Sutherland and has a long and proud heritage, having first opened in 1887. With opportunity classes in years 5 and 6, Sutherland Public School is proud of building a culture of stated high expectations, academic excellence and personal excellence. I certainly saw these attributes on display last week when I visited. I mention particularly the work of year 4 student Rayna Kaushal in geography. Students had to choose a man-made or natural structure for their geography project. Rayna chose Parliament House. Her work is an absolute stand-out. Rayna proudly showed me her canvas and large portfolio album that contained detailed research on Parliament House, its history, functions and many interesting facts. Rayna particularly made her project very personal. She obviously loved visiting Parliament House, both old and new, with her family, and she incorporated her family holiday and various photos into her project. This was an outstanding piece of work for any student, particularly one from year 4. I commend Rayna for her enthusiasm and also her tenacity in completing such a detailed project. Rayna, the principal and all the staff at Sutherland Public School are to be congratulations. Bennelong Electorate: Moon Festival 20 13:53 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong I'd love to take this opportunity to reflect on the wonderful moments I shared with locals in Bennelong during Moon Festival celebrations last month. The Moon Festival, also known as the Mid-Autumn Festival, or Chuseok in Korean, is a cherished tradition held on the 15th day of the eight lunar month each year. It serves as a time to express gratitude, enjoy delectable treats, illuminate the night with colourful lanterns, and most importantly it brings families, friends and communities closer together. This year I was honoured to attend several events that celebrated the Moon Festival but also showcased the incredible diversity in Bennelong. I attended the Feng Hua Chinese School Moon Festival and traditional Chinese clothing parade, the Eastwood Chinese Senior Citizens Club Moon Festival celebration and the CASS community services volunteer Moon Festival luncheon. I was delighted to welcome NSW premier, Chris Minns, to join local Korean and Chinese community leaders to celebrate together. Over a hundred locals were there, and we celebrated together, sharing food and connecting with one another. I extend my heartfelt gratitude to the premier; local counsellors Song, Purcell, Pedersen and O'Reilly; and my good friend Lyndal Howison, who joined us on the evening. Whilst Moon Festival celebrations are over, I would still like to take the opportunity to wish everyone in this place and back home in Bennelong good fortune and blessings. Thank you, Bennelong, for being a community that embraces diversity and celebrates unity. Tasmanian Hospitality Association Awards for Excellence 20 13:54 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass I rise today to celebrate the winners of the recent Tasmanian Hospitality Association 2023 Awards for Excellence. Once again, northern Tasmania featured heavily in the list of winners, including triple threat the Plough Inn, who got gold for best sports bar, best outdoor experience and metropolitan hotel pub tavern of the year. Manager Di Warren said the team were in shock when they took out the top honours: It took a few minutes to realise we had come away with the award. I'd also like to acknowledge the care and work the Plough Inn team puts into training and upskilling youth in our region. The fact that many staff have been with the business since the doors opened three years ago is a testament to a strong, positive workplace culture in an industry that has high turnover. Other winners include the very popular Cataract on Paterson winning gold in outstanding achievement in training and best marketed business and taking out silver for the hospitality, disability and inclusion award. Cataract recently celebrated its 10th anniversary, no small feat in the restaurant industry, and the awards are just recognition for the incredibly hard work of its owner, Karen Burbury. I'd also like to acknowledge young George Riley, from Cataract on Paterson, who won the hospitality industry rising star award. Congratulations also to the Metz, Alchemy Bar and Restaurant, the Tramsheds Function Centre, Sports Garden Hotel and Earthy Eats for their silver and bronze accolades in a number of competitive categories. My First Speech Competition 20 13:56 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby I'd like to congratulate the winners of the national My First Speech competition 2023, who are here in the gallery with us today. These students were selected from 240 entries across 97 electorates. The year 10 winner is Aled Stephens, with a speech about mental health services for young people. Aled is from the seat of Lindsay. The year 11 winner is Amy Forchert, from the Prime Minister's electorate of Grayndler, with a speech about inclusionary zoning for social housing. And the year 12 winner is Chelsea Adams, from St John's Grammar School in Boothby, with a speech about postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, or POTS, a condition that affects her younger sister. I had the pleasure of meeting with Chelsea last week and heard about the experiences of her sister and family. Chelsea's aim is to raise awareness of this very debilitating condition, which is often misdiagnosed as anxiety or chronic fatigue, and for it to be classified on the International Classification of Diseases. Many thanks to the mums who've accompanied them here today: Aled's mum, Julie; Amy's mum, Sharon; and Chelsea's mum, Narelle. Good luck for your year 12 exams, Chelsea, and best wishes to you all for the future. May this be the first of many entries in Hansard. Longman Volunteer Awards 21 13:57 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman Last week I was pleased to host the Longman Volunteer Awards. There were over 40 people and organisations nominated in the Longman electorate. Longman has a great history of people who volunteer and commit to the community. I think about people like Ross Palantine, from Bribie Little Athletics, and Fiona Lester, who runs the Dakabin State High School—my old high school—cattle team. They picked up a heap of awards at the Brisbane Ekka this year. I think about people like Daniel Scott, from Bribie Island Bulldogs in the AFL, and the time that he puts in. There were a couple of people from the Bribie Island and Beachmere men's sheds—terrific organisations. We've got Katrina Gilligan, from Wildlife Rescue, who takes care of those kangaroos who get hit on the side of the road. She takes them in and works with Australia Zoo, another tremendous organisation. But the star of the show this year was a little fellow—I don't reckon he'd be five foot tall—Kevie Williams, from Bribie Island Lions Club. Kevie's been volunteering for over 30 years in the Bribie Island community. He spent 10 years as a scout leader and he's also been the driving force of putting on community days for Camp Quality for the last 20 years, the Australia Day Big Breakfast and the seniors Christmas lunch. He assists with the memorial gardens and scouts lawn maintenance and has also organised many assistance projects for the elderly and the disabled over the years. Well done to Kevie and all the other volunteers who help make Longman the greatest community in Australia to live in. Spence Electorate: Crime 21 13:59 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence Earlier today—mere hours ago—back in my electorate of Spence, one of my staff was assaulted in a disturbing attack not too far from my office. Fortunately, that member of my staff is fine despite having taken multiple blows to the head and having been threatened with a knife. Nevertheless, such behaviour is not isolated in my community. I constantly read reports of crime happening in the north, and it's simply not good enough. My community deserves to feel safe. No-one in the north or anywhere else should have to worry about their safety simply because they live in our local area, and yet they do. Just off the top of my head, there have been two shootings reported in my electorate in the past four days. Further still, a molotov attack was reported in Craigmore last week. Unfortunately, when perpetrators of these offences are caught and convicted, they tend to remain in our community without rehabilitation or reprimand. For example, a man in Direk with a history of violent crime was recently convicted of possessing multiple explosives at his residence. He has since been returned to his home after receiving a suspended sentence, without any rehabilitation or punishment for his actions. I call on our state government, our Attorney-General and our police minister to work with the courts of South Australia and find ways to ensure the safety of my community. Currently, things are not simply not good enough up in the north. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. MINISTRY 21 MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements 21 14:00 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I inform the House that the Attorney-General will be absent from question time for the rest of the week, and the Minister for Communications will answer questions on his behalf. I think I can say on behalf of the parliament that we wish the Attorney-General well at what is a difficult time. The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for the Arts will be absent from question time today. The Minister for Skills and Training will answer questions on his behalf. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 22 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE First Nations Australians 22 14:01 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson on indulgence—We offer our best wishes to the Attorney-General. My question is to the Prime Minister. In committing to implementing the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full, the Prime Minister has previously claimed: There can be no real progress on Closing the Gap and there can be no Reconciliation without Treaty and Truth-Telling. Will the Prime Minister be honest and upfront with Australians and inform the House whether or not he remains committed to a treaty and truth-telling process? 14:02 Mr ALBAN R36 Grayndler ESE (—) (): I've got a question about the Uluru Statement from the Heart from the Leader of the Opposition. What I have said very clearly is that I will give respect to Indigenous Australians, who have asked for a week to consider their position—I think that is pretty reasonable—and that we then have a process of consultation. One of the things that I've been committed to is the agency of First Australians, not making them just disappear from the process, and that's why I've found some of the rhetoric that was used during the referendum so concerning. The idea that the Uluru Statement from the Heart was created by the Labor Party or by any individual there wipes out from history the work that Indigenous Australians did themselves. They were asked by Prime Minister Abbott to work on the form of recognition that they wanted, and that is what they did in 2017, and my position is clear about that. It stands in stark contrast with the Leader of the Opposition. Now, it's not clear to me what his position is. It changes all the time. It changed between yesterday and today. In fact, it changed between Sunrise and today—more flip-flop than a thong factory, this bloke. After saying yesterday that the second referendum was off, this morning he said this: … I know that there's a lot of interpretation on this, but the Liberal Party's gone to elections—every election since John Howard was leader—with the same policy— they just never did it— I think it is a respectful thing to do, it remains our policy … That's what he had to say. And then he went on to say you could only do it when you've got support from Indigenous leaders. He just asked a question saying, 'Ignore Indigenous leaders; don't speak to them about what you're going to do.' The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister will pause. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The Minister for Indigenous Australians will cease interjecting, and so will the member for Barker, so I can hear from the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Dutton 00AKI The point of order is on relevance. We asked the Prime Minister just for one straight, honest answer— The SPEA 53517 Resume your seat. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The SPEAKER 53517 The minister for infrastructure will cease interjecting immediately. The Prime Minister will continue. Mr ALBANESE R36 More anger from the Leader of the Opposition! But he went on. He didn't just say it once; he said, 'And that remains our policy.' He went on to say, 'There's nothing new or tricky or changed here,' and then he changed it when he went on the Today show. He can't keep a straight line between Channel 7 and Channel 9. You flick the dial and you get a different answer. On one, you get two referendums; on the other one, you get just one. (Time expired) National Skills Agreement 22 14:06 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore My question is to the Prime Minister. Last night, National Cabinet met to agree to the new National Skills Agreement. Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 How will this agreement be good for Australians, good for the economy and good for our future? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Manager of Opposition Business is continually interjecting. I think he knows my policy about interjections during questions. I give the call to the Prime Minister. 14:06 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Gilmore for her question. Last night National Cabinet reached this landmark National Skills Agreement, and I pay tribute to the minister for working with state ministers for skills over the last year in order to deliver the agreement, which arose out of the Jobs and Skills Summit that we held here last year. This is a commitment with $12.5 billion over five years to transform and expand access to skills and training. It includes $214 million to close the gap in skills between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. The agreement delivers the skills people need to find a good job and the workforce that Australia needs to build a better future. I thank the premiers and chief ministers with whom I've met over the last fortnight in order to land this landmark deal. Indeed it's the first National Skills Agreement since 2012. It's like history disappeared and just stopped during 2013 and 2022. These investments will deliver skills in priority areas right across the country as well as meet local needs. We'll work together with the states to deliver TAFE centres of excellence because we know we need more collaboration between the universities and the VET sector. We will invest in skills because it's good for Australians and it's good for individuals. Students I met this morning who are working on EV maintenance and on electric vehicles will have good, secure jobs into the future, and it was fantastic to meet those Australians—young Australians or, in one case, someone reskilling in order to secure a good job for the future. Investing in skills is a national priority for us. The National Skills Agreement builds on the work we've done over the last 18 months. First of all, we promised 180,000 fee-free TAFE places, and we've delivered 215,000 of them. We will deliver another 300,000 fee-free TAFE places from January next year. We've established Jobs and Skills Australia. We're improving foundation skills delivery because we know that one in five adults have alarming gaps in literacy, numeracy and digital literacy. We're lifting apprenticeship completion rates. Our investments mean more workers in the care sector—in aged care, in child care—more workers in clean energy, more workers in construction and more workers in manufacturing, which is good for individuals and good for our economy. Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 23 14:09 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Prime Minister and concerns the reaction from Indigenous leaders to the Prime Minister's dismal response to his referendum failure. Allira Davis, an Uluru dialogue member, said: The PM is moving on tonight. He just wants to go to Washington and prepare for re-election. And we are just a blip. Sally Scales, a member of the First Nations Referendum Working Group, said: The PM was insulting & pathetic. How dare he. A cop out. Does the Prime Minister remain committed— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! There is far too much noise. There was no question there, but because I couldn't hear what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was saying because of the interjections from the member for McNamara and the member for Cooper, I'm going to ask the deputy leader to state her question again. She will be heard in silence, and I will make sure she is within the time limit. Ms LEY 00AMN My question is the Prime Minister and concerns the reaction from Indigenous leaders to the Prime Minister's dismal response to his referendum failure. Allira Davis, an Uluru dialogue member, said: The PM is moving on tonight. He just wants to go to Washington and prepare for re-election. And we are just a blip. Sally Scales, a member of the First Nations Referendum Working Group, said: The PM was insulting & pathetic. How dare he. A cop out. Does the Prime Minister remain committed to treaty and truth-telling? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, the Minister for the Environment and Water, the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs and the Minister for Home Affairs. 14:11 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler It is a quite extraordinary question even for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. But let me understand what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking for here. She is quoting people who put their heart and soul into the development of the Uluru Statement from the Heart— Ms Ley 00AMN They're criticising you, Prime Minister! The 53517 Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 from 2012 at least but going back to when John Howard promised in 2007 to hold a referendum within 18 months of his election, based upon Indigenous recognition. The Leader of the Opposition has on a number of occasions said that it has been the policy of the Liberal Party since 2007 to have a referendum. If only they had been in a position to do so. They won in 2013, they won in 2016, they won in 2019, and nothing happened. What I did was fulfil the commitment that I gave to Indigenous people but, most importantly, that I gave to the Australian people at the election in which we were elected in May 2022. Indigenous Australians asked for Australians to vote on Indigenous recognition in our Constitution through a voice. They invited us, in the words of the Uluru statement, to walk with them. They said, 'In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we want to be heard,'—that's what they said. We fulfilled that commitment, but the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would have you believe through asking that question that the people who have spent a lifetime campaigning for constitutional recognition of First Australians are understandably disappointed by the result. Honourable memb ers interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my left. Mr ALBANESE R36 What I have said is I respect the decision that was made by the Australian people. On that basis, some people who have campaigned very strongly for it are not happy with that response. But I made it very clear before the election that I would respect the outcome, and I have made it after as well. I will show respect to those people. The deputy leader shows none. (Time expired) Vocational Education and Training 24 14:14 Ms DOYLE 299962 Aston How will the landmark five-year National Skills Agreement give Australians the skills they need for the careers and opportunities of the future, after a wasted decade in skills and training? 14:15 Mr O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I thank the member for Aston for her question and for her strong advocacy for the VET sector. This is the first national skills agreement we've had in this country for more than a decade, and it's going to provide the opportunities to invest in the skills sector in a way that, for too long, hasn't happened. Upon election, we realised we had the largest skills crisis in this country that we'd seen for five decades. It didn't matter what area of the economy or labour market you looked at, you saw there were shortages. This approach to negotiating effectively—unlike those opposite—with state and territory governments started at the Jobs and Skills Summit. That tone meant that we then could, I believe, collaborate in good faith amongst all nine governments to deliver this agreement. It's really important that we do deliver this agreement, as the shortages are as deep as they are wide in our economy. Whether it's traditional trades or the care economy, we needed to do more. I think, for too long, we've seen the Commonwealth act more like a funding body than a strategic partner in the investment of skills in the VET sector. For that reason, you need an agreement to bring about the reforms to make sure the VET sector, along with the other tertiary sector that my friend the Minister for Education is working on, is fit for purpose. Without these reforms through this agreement, that would not happen. First and foremost, we need to have a VET sector which has TAFE at its heart—a public provider working with industry and the universities to provide the skills that are necessary. We also want to see centres of excellence that will bring together the two tertiary sectors, universities and VET, because it's increasingly the case that you need jobs for the future that have technical skills and conceptual knowledge. The idea that you delineate these two areas of expertise, skills and knowledge is a misnomer and outdated. Through these centres of excellence we will see a greater collaboration between universities, TAFEs and other VET providers, and I look forward to that. We also need to see different courses delivered, and higher apprenticeships, because we do understand that, for example, if you look at the changing nature of the energy sector—the transformation that's happening there—we need to see people that are acquiring a different set of skills along with the traditional skills and knowledge. That is what is needed and that's what we want to deliver under this agreement. We will also, of course, provide more opportunities for women in male dominated areas, opportunities for opening up access to First Nations people and people with disabilities, and investment in foundation skills. It is a frightening statistic to think that one in five adults in this country have foundational skills problems, and this will be a priority area, too—to provide opportunities for them. We've got a lot to do, but this is a very good day for the VET sector. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 25 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Prime Minister's Prizes for Science: Winners, My First Speech Competition: Winners 25 14:18 The SPEAKER 53517 I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today are this year's recipients of the Prime Minister's Prizes for Science. The prizes acknowledge scientists, innovators and educators who are doing excellent work in the field of science. Congratulations to all the winners and welcome to question time. I'm also very pleased to inform that House that present in the gallery today are the winners of the My First Speech competition. Welcome to question time, Chelsea Adams, Amy Forchert and Aled Stephens. These bright young students are from years 12, 11 and 10 in the electorates of Boothby, Grayndler and Lindsay and have all submitted speeches of the highest quality to this year's competition. Congratulations and well done. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 25 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Political Advertising 25 14:19 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah My question is to the Prime Minister. Consumers are protected from commercial conduct and advertising that is misleading and deceptive. This includes promotions or ads that contain false and inaccurate information, and statements that fail to disclose important information. But nothing protects voters from misleading and deceptive political advertising. Will you support my bill or introduce legislation without delay to provide voter protections in political advertising, consistent with existing consumer protections? 14:19 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Warringah for her question. I certainly understand her perspective, because it is a concern, with the changing media environment as well, that people can be subject to misinformation, which in some cases is just about politics but in some cases can be dangerous. Opposition members interjecting— Mr ALBANESE R36 Well, perhaps I wasn't going to give a specific example, but I will. During the recent campaign there was a photograph with the Star of David, a cross and the faces of eight Australians: Mark Leibler, Thomas Mayo, Anthony Pratt, Justice Stephen Rothman, Julian Leeser, Josh Burns, Kim Rubenstein and Mark Dreyfus. This is what it said: All of the major creators, financiers and supporters of the Voice to Parliament are Jewish. Ask yourself why .38% of Australia's population is using 3% as a battering ram against the rest of the country. Every single time. Before the ad, the account said this: Just a totally organic cohencidence— spelt C-O-H-E-N-C-I-D-E-N-C-E— for the betterment of Australia and totally not the latest chapter in the thousands year old hate and attempted destruction of white people. The question that has been asked by the member for Warringah goes to a serious question, and everyone in this parliament would find that totally abhorrent, which is— Opposition members interjecting— Mr ALBANESE R36 Why are you interjecting at this point in time? Mr Howarth 247742 We're asking who put it out. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Petrie! Mr ALBANESE R36 I'm not going to give a free ad to those people. I wasn't going to go through them; there are a number of them along those lines. Now, when it comes to the challenge which we have of dealing with this, it's complex. You don't want to interfere with any freedom of expression, but you also want to make sure that elections and democratic process can be held in an appropriate way. The minister is undertaking appropriate processes to deal with that, and I look forward to working with the member for Warringah— (Time expired) Employment 25 14:23 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle My question is to the Treasurer. Why are better skills and better pay such important parts of the Albanese Labor government's plans to help Australians with cost-of-living pressures, and why is urgent action needed? 14:23 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I thank the outstanding member for Newcastle for her question. The member for Newcastle understands that what unites the employment white paper of three weeks ago, the passage of the Housing Australia Future Fund and last night's skills agreement is that we have been working away and working for Australia to help with the cost-of-living pressures that we know so many people are facing. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume! Dr CHALMERS 37998 As the Prime Minister said a moment ago, we are investing in the skills people need to find a good job and in the workforce that Australia needs to build a better future. We are investing in skills because, if you are better trained, you are better paid. The white paper we released is focused on full employment, job security and wages, productivity, skills needs, and barriers to employment as well. Just today the Reserve Bank backed our approach to sustained and inclusive full employment— The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer will pause. The member for Hume is continuing to interject. He is now warned. If he interjects one more time, he will leave the chamber. The Treasurer will be heard in silence. Dr CHALMERS 37998 It's the closest he gets to a question, Mr Speaker! The Reserve Bank has said that our approach to full employment is consistent with theirs. They said: The white paper emphasised the importance of monitoring a broader set of indicators beyond the unemployment rate, which is also consistent with the Bank's existing approach … Unemployment has a three in front of it, and more than half a million jobs have been created under this Prime Minister, which is a record for a new government. But in order to create even more opportunities for more people we need to skill people up. That's why I pay tribute to the work of this skills minister and this Prime Minister and the National Cabinet for coming to that landmark skills agreement announced today. We know, as I said, that better training and better pay go hand in hand, and both of these things are central to our economic plan and central to the 10 ways that we are rolling out $23 billion to help ease cost-of-living pressures, while still delivering the first surplus in 15 years. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The members for Riverina and Gippsland will cease interjecting. Dr CHALMERS 37998 We've got electricity bill relief, cheaper child care, increased rent assistance, more Medicare bulk-billing, cheaper medicines. We're boosting income support payments, building more affordable homes, extending paid parental leave and fee-free TAFE, and we're getting wages moving again after a decade of deliberate wage stagnation. Those opposite oppose our plan because they want lower wages and higher prices. They're long on nasty negativity, but they're short on anything positive to say about the future. Australians have already paid too hefty a price for their failures on the economy. When Australians are doing it tough, we are providing cost-of-living help, we are skilling Australians up for great jobs, we are getting wages moving again, we are getting the budget in much better nick and, in the process, we are cleaning up the mess that those opposite left behind. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The members for Riverina and Gippsland are continuing to interject and are now both warned. Infrastructure 26 14:26 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson My question is to the Prime Minister. While the Prime Minister has been distracted with his divisive $450 million referendum, hundreds of lifesaving road projects have stalled at a time when the road toll is rising alarmingly. Why has the Prime Minister's 90-day review of infrastructure projects blown out to 170 days and counting. Opposition members interject ing— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my left. The Prime Minister has the call. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. It's far from helpful; it's the opposite. Can I call the Prime Minister, and I'd like him to be heard in silence, just as the member for Dawson was heard in silence. 14:27 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Thanks very much, Mr Speaker. The member for Dawson asked about the cost of the referendum. But in fact half of the cost of the referendum was in the forward estimates provisioned by the former government—by the former government! It was there in the Liberal Party's budget handed down by Josh Frydenberg, but they just forgot to do it! Election after election, they went to elections and said they would hold a referendum. They provided funding to hold a referendum. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my right! The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Fremantle will cease interjecting. I'll hear from the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Mr Dutton 00AKI On relevance: if the Prime Minister's point— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. The Leader of the Opposition has taken his one point of order on relevance. The Prime Minister is talking about the funding of the referendum, and I'll make sure he is relevant to the remainder of the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 In 2007 they went to an election promising a referendum. It's been the Liberal Party's policy ever since: 2010; 2013—they were elected; 2016—they were elected; 2019—they were elected. They went to the 2022 election having made provisions in the forward estimates for a referendum, but then, of course, they decided, no, to oppose it. Then they ask questions about the cost! The Leader of the Opposition in his interjection across the chamber spoke with the sort of arrogance that we're coming to see. He said, 'You'll find out how much it will cost when you're in opposition,' to those here. That's what he said, at the dispatch box as well—100 per cent. They want a 100 per cent increase in cost because they want to hold another one. He just confirmed that across the chamber. The member for Dawson asked about infrastructure because, there again, they didn't make provision to actually deliver what was needed to fund projects. They had a $33 billion blowout in their infrastructure, unlike the former Labor government, which promised and funded properly the Mackay Ring Road, for example, the Bruce Highway upgrades to the south and the Peak Downs Highway to the west. We funded those things properly. We funded them, we built them, we made a difference and we got it done. Those opposite, of course, were big on promises, but they didn't ever worry about providing the funding to build what they were promising. They just added it on and never did it. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Dawson! Mr ALBANESE R36 I've just named three in his electorate that we delivered. The fact is that we have had to clean up the mess, like in so many areas, that the incompetent former government left. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left! The Member for Dawson was continually interjecting after he'd asked the question. He will cease interjecting. Migration 27 14:31 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. What have recent reports found about the visa system over the last decade, and what is the Albanese Labor government doing to address these findings and clean up the mess? 14:31 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I thank the member for Hasluck for her question and for her brilliant advocacy of her local community. Yesterday I updated the House on the rapid review into the exploitation of Australia's visa system, which was led by former Victoria Police commissioner Christine Nixon. What Ms Nixon uncovered about our immigration system was absolutely shocking. She found that systemic, abhorrent networks of sexual exploitation, human trafficking and other organised crime were being facilitated by breakdowns in our migration system. In fact, Ms Nixon's report says that things got so bad that organised crime gangs around the world were actually looking to come to Australia and set up a practice because our immigration system made it easy for those gangs to abuse innocent people and traffic people into our country. That is why the actions of the Australian government in response to this have been so broad and sweeping and significant. We have reorganised part of the Department of Home Affairs to make sure that we are better managing this system. We've dedicated $50 million to establish this new division, which will bring together different parts of government that can help us properly run the migration system. We've set up a permanent strike force that will rove around different parts of the immigration system and address the integrity problems we see. We've also established Operation Inglenook, something which brings together Australian Border Force and other parts of government to fight abuses in the system. As part of our response to the Nixon review, we have embedded that in the department and made it permanent. As a result of all these efforts, quite significant action has been taken in the specifics of what Ms Nixon found. There have been deportations as a result of her work, and we've turned a number of people around at the border. Migration agents have been deregistered, and there have been other associated activities. I want to quickly provide the House with a case study which I think really well establishes how these problems in our migration system have worked together to establish this environment that Christine Nixon talked about. We had an individual who arrived in Australia on a student visa in 2014. He was found later to have not studied at all in Australia. Instead he set up a sprawling underground sex worker racket, which abused vulnerable people. What's outrageous is that this person actually committed similar crimes in the UK. The Australian government found out about that and did not do anything about it. One of the things that I find very upsetting about this, and I think Australians are angry about what they see here—they understand that there are risks involved in running a system like this. What they do not like is hypocrisy. What we saw was the opposition leader parade around the country saying that he was a tough guy on borders while organised criminals were coming in under his nose and exploiting people and abusing them. He is a fraud, he is a hypocrite and he should apologise to Australians for the mess that he created on our borders. Fuel 28 14:34 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's inability to give the price of petrol recently. The government excise makes up a significant part of the petrol price that Australians pay at the bowser. Prime Minister, what is the fuel excise rate? The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Bendigo will cease interjecting, or she will be warned. 14:35 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the shadow Treasurer for his question. The shadow Treasurer, who is incapable of asking a question of the Treasurer— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 When members on my left cease interjecting, I'll hear from the member for Hume, and he'll need to state a point of order. Mr Taylor 231027 Relevance. The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. Well, 15 seconds is a new record for relevance being raised, but we'll monitor that. Mr R36 The fact is that under those opposite—of course, this is typical of what those opposite do—they refused to take responsibility for any of their actions. What we saw with their budget was that, in 2022, they handed down a budget with a whole bunch of goodies that all ran out, and that is why they left a $78 billion deficit, one that we have turned around into a $22 billion dollar surplus. Those opposite brought forward, in that budget in March, a freeze to the fuel excise. They brought that forward, but they also put in an end date for it. It's now 48 cents, but what they did was bring forward changes which all ran out as soon as people had cast their vote. But they left a $78 billion blackhole, as well as of course contributing to a trillion dollars of debt. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Casey will leave the chamber under 94(a). There is far too much noise, and interjections are at an all-time high. The member for Casey then left the chamber. Mr ALBANESE R36 They of course had the largest ever inflation, of 2.1 per cent, in decades. That was on their watch in the March quarter. What we have done is turn that around with a policy aimed at tackling inflation while dealing with cost-of-living pressures, while at the same time dealing with supply chain issues— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker is warned. Mr ALBANESE R36 which is what our National Skills Agreement is about. Those opposite, who have nothing to offer—a shadow Treasurer who has taken a vow of silence when it comes to talking with the Treasurer. He may as well have a Trappist monk in charge! The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is now warned, alongside the member for Barker. Defence Procurement 29 14:39 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government ensuring our Navy has an appropriate surface fleet in light of the previous management of defence and the strategic circumstances Australia faces? 14:40 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I thank the member for her question. On 29 September the government received the independent analysis of Navy's surface combatant fleet. This was a short, sharp piece of work which was done in response to the Defence strategic review back in April by Willie Hilarides, Rosemary Huxtable and Stuart Mayer. I want to take this opportunity to thank each of these three for what is a really important piece of work. The government is now considering its recommendations, and it will respond to them in the early part of next year. What has already become very clear is the very difficult state of the Navy which this government has inherited after a lost decade from those opposite. One fact stands out above all others: our current fleet of major surface combatants—our destroyers and our frigates—is now the oldest fleet that the Navy has ever operated. And it gets worse: in the final year of the Gillard government, the number of available days from Navy's major combatants, including our submarines, was 3,915. In the last year of the former Liberal government, when the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Defence, that number had dropped to 2,749, a decline of 30 per cent. Their legacy is the oldest Navy our country has ever operated, with 30 per cent less availability. The offshore patrol program which they initiated was already running a year late by the time they left office. The Hunter class program when they left office was running four years late and billions of dollars over budget. This is the definition of incompetence from the worst national security government that our country has ever seen. But, while they were no good at defence policy, they were all over defence politics because they had the space and time during the worst bushfires in our country's history to use the Defence Force to cut an ad to raise money for the Liberal Party. Our government is very different. We are working on a surface fleet for our Navy which will meet the moment of the biggest challenge in strategic circumstances that our country has faced since the end of the Second World War. Those opposite were defence dilettantes; the Albanese Labor government is keeping Australians safe. First Nations Australians 29 14:43 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. On Sunday the Deputy Prime Minister declared: We have committed to implementing the Uluru Statement in full. That's what we have taken to the Australian people and been our articulated position for a long time. Does the Deputy Prime Minister stand by this statement? 14:43 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio After a process—which really began under the Howard government—of seeking to recognise our Indigenous Australians in the Constitution, it was actually the Abbott Liberal government which made the very wise call of saying to this nation that the way in which we should recognise Indigenous Australians in our Constitution is by asking Indigenous Australians how they want that to occur. Now, that is something we agreed with. As a result of that, we saw hundreds of meetings of Indigenous Australians around this country, involving thousands of people, which led to the meeting at Uluru in 2017, which gave rise to the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Now, at that point, that had been a process which had been bipartisan—bipartisan in the sense that, if you look at those people who held the portfolio for the Liberal Party, they were working on that. Ken Wyatt—no longer a member of the Liberal Party. Julian Leeser, the person appointed by the Leader of the Opposition— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order. Mr Fletcher L6B On relevance, it was a very specific question. Does the Deputy Prime Minister stand by their statement about implementing the Uluru statement in full? Treaty, truth, makarrata—is this government still committed to that? That's what the Australian people what to know, and you're refusing to answer. The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Prime Minister is giving context around the Uluru statement. I will remind him of the question and to be relevant to the question. Mr MARLES HWQ It led to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and those opposite, at that point, were working towards the implementation of that. The current Leader of the Opposition appointed Mr Leeser as his first spokesman for this issue. He was an architect of what ended up being placed to the Australian people in the referendum last weekend. Our government and the Labor Party, along with the Liberal Party, stood by that process and the Uluru Statement from the Heart. In light of what occurred over the course of the weekend we have made clear that we hear the voice of the Australian people and that the pursuit of reconciliation and the pursuit of Closing the Gap are no longer going to be achieved through constitutional reform. But we are completely committed to a process of reconciliation, and we are completely committed to a process of Closing the Gap. We are going to take what Indigenous Australians have said in the aftermath of last weekend, and that is, 'Allow time for the dust to settle.' We will work with them about how we can best, as a nation, achieve the object of Closing the Gap and pursue reconciliation in this nation. Albanese Government: Science 30 14:46 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide My question is to the Minister for Industry and Science. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to prioritise science, and how were last night's Prime Minister's science prizes part of this effort? 14:47 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley Thank you to the member for Adelaide for that question. Science tackles the toughest problems we face, drives economic growth and helps improve national wellbeing along the way. Our government committed to a future made in Australia, revitalising manufacturing, and it's important to note that manufacturing invests heavily in R&D. As the Prime Minister puts it, 'New discoveries are making way for new products that will be made right here in this country.' It was terrific to celebrate Australian scientific know-how and science teaching last night at the PM's Prizes for Science. I was particularly thrilled to see that the PM's Prize for Science went to Professor Michelle Simmons, celebrated for her trailblazing work in quantum technologies. Professor Glenn King's work with funnel-web spiders is being translated into new treatments for people following strokes and heart transplants. Professor Chris Greening discovered that microbes that live in the air can help us regulate climate change, a world first. Professor Yuerui Lu's contributions to superfluidity are paving the way for a new generation of lower-energy-consuming electronic devices, and Associate Professor Lara Herrero's experience contracting Ross River virus helped her create the world's first drug with the potential to beat viral arthritis. Behind every scientist is a science teacher who set them on their path, who nourished their passion and their curiosity about the way the world works. Without brilliant science teachers we wouldn't have brilliant scientists. Last night we celebrated Ms Judith Stutchbury from Kalkie State School, eight kilometres from the Great Barrier Reef, who is instilling in her primary school students a love of marine science, and we celebrated Ms Donna Buckley from John Curtin College of the Arts, in Perth, bringing cryptography and cybersecurity to the classroom, alongside highly commended teachers Matthew Dodds and Dr Gabrielle Oslington. These teachers are widening the pipeline of STEM talent. You've all been acknowledged earlier, but the House wants you to know how deeply grateful we are for your efforts. Science is absolutely central to unlocking the next generation of opportunities underpinning our ambitions in advanced manufacturing, agriculture and clean energy critical technologies, but the key will be investing in skills. That's why the National Skills Agreement is a big deal. I want to congratulate the Minister for Skills and Training. I'm particularly pleased to see the commitment to the Centres of Excellence which will bring together universities, industry and the VET sector to help lift skills. This will be key to driving future growth and improving the wellbeing of the country. 14:50 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler on indulgence—I want to join with the Minister for Industry and Science in congratulating the winners of the Prime Minister's Prizes for Science. It was a wonderful evening last night with Dr Cathy Foley and the stories that were told, the videos of the winners and what they are achieving in innovation and research—making a difference to people's lives but also, it must be said, making a difference to our economy as well. There are major commercial benefits to Australia commercialising opportunities. We've always been very good at science and breakthroughs. What we haven't always done is take advantage of that ourselves. The scientists and the science teachers who were celebrated last night—I join with Ed—were just inspirational. I've been to the Mon Repos Turtle Centre near Bargara and Bundy up in the electorate of Hinkler. It is a wonderful place. The Mon Repos Turtle Centre is a fantastic facility and a great tourist attraction, talking about protection of our turtles as part of our native wildlife that is so precious. I congratulate all the winners and also their families. One of the things that happened last night was that people who give so much—whilst people are doing the research and the time, often without much compensation in the early years, it's got to be said—were celebrated as well. Congratulations to all. 14:51 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield on indulgence—I want to associate the opposition with the comments of the Prime Minister and the minister in relation to the Prime Minister's Prizes for Science. I was certainly pleased to attend and represent the Leader of the Opposition. It was a very well-organised event and appropriately acknowledged the excellent work of the scientists and teachers who were recognised. I want to particularly acknowledge one of the highly commended science teachers, Dr Gabrielle Oslington, my constituent in Bradfield. I think it's fair to say that all of those who received awards were inspirational. It can be easy to be somewhat discouraged by the range of challenges we may face as a nation in the world. But, when you see what our extraordinary scientists are doing and the solutions they are coming up with on a daily basis, it is cause for hope, optimism and faith in the extraordinary capacity of human ingenuity. Energy 31 14:52 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi My question is to Minister for Climate Change and Energy. In the May budget you committed $1 billion to provide low-cost loans for household energy efficiency. I've long called for this to help reduce energy bills. Five months after your announcement we've heard nothing. With bills higher than ever people in my electorate are really struggling. When will these loans actually be available so my constituents can start saving money? Mr Katter HX4 Hot water systems! The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Kennedy will cease interjecting. 14:53 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable member for her question and her very real interest in this matter. I acknowledge that longstanding interest. She is right. She has been a very constructive interlocuter and a very constructive participant in the public debate. The honourable member is also right: in that in the budget we allocated $1 billion for the household energy savings program, which is part of a broader $1.7 billion program. I'm more than happy to give the honourable member a quick update on rolling that out. In relation to the $300 million for social housing—which is very important; people living in social housing have a right to investments in energy efficiency—we've already announced the first agreement with the Victorian government. We announced that several weeks ago. That allocation has been made and is being rolled out. Another part of the package is the small business tax concessions, which are available today. I'm sure the honourable member will join with the government in inviting small businesses in her community to ensure that they're making those investments and applying to the tax office for that concession. We also announced the $300 million local government package, which is very important. That will open for bids shortly. Again, I'm sure the honourable member will let all the local governments in her electorate know that they can apply for that funding. I expect it to be oversubscribed. It will be allocated on a merit basis, and that funding will certainly be open this year. In relation to the $1 billion for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, that money has been allocated, and the Minister for Finance and I have adjusted the Clean Energy Finance Corporation's investment mandate to allow those investments to be made, which was important. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation is now negotiating with banks, financial institutions and other providers of finance. These are done jointly. Just as there are many banks already offering green loans, the CEFC will partner with those financial institutions to ensure there are more green loans available right across the country. Up to 110,000 households will benefit. I am more than happy to advise the honourable member when the Clean Energy Finance Corporation has ceased those negotiations with the banks. Those negotiations are continuing, and I expect announcements quite soon. Education Workforce 31 14:55 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence My question is to the Minister for Education. How is the Albanese Labor government fixing the teacher shortage, and why is that important to supporting a skilled workforce? 14:56 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I thank the sensational member for Spence for his question. In the years ahead more jobs will require more skills. More jobs will require you to go to TAFE or to university, and that is why the— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Minister of Education will pause. The member for New England is continuing to interject through every answer. He was cease interjecting. He is warned, and if he interjects one more time he will leave the chamber. The Minister for Education will be heard in silence. Mr CLARE HWL As I was saying, more jobs will require you to go to TAFE or to uni, and that's why the National Skills Agreement announced today and the extra 300,000 fee-free TAFE places are so important. But before you go to TAFE or to university, you need the sorts of skills that only a schoolteacher can give you, and we don't have enough teachers. That is why in a few weeks time applications will open for new Commonwealth teacher scholarships worth up to $40,000 each. They're designed to encourage more young people who want to be a schoolteacher. But to get one you will also have to give something back. In return for the $40,000 scholarship you'll have to commit to teach for four years. We're improving teacher training. Ask most teachers and they will tell you that, when they started, they didn't feel ready for the classroom. That leads to a lot of teachers leaving in the first year or two. That is why education ministers have agreed to reforms to make sure that teaching students are taught the fundamentals at university about how to teach children to read and write and how to manage disruptive classrooms. Ask teachers, and a lot of them will also tell you that they don't feel valued by their community. Recent surveys show that most teachers don't think that what they do is valued by us, and we need to change that. We all remember that special teacher who changed our life, and that is what a national campaign that will kick off in a few weeks is all about. Mr Speaker, I want you to imagine a little boy called Mattias. He is five years old, he's in his first year at school at the moment in Queensland, and he's blind. At his school athletics carnival this year he wanted to run without a cane, just like everyone else, so his teacher takes his hand. He takes off, and all his mates start cheering. Who wouldn't want to be the teacher that made that possible? That teacher is Mrs Cantwell. She is one of eight teachers from every state and territory who will feature in this campaign when it kicks off in a few weeks time. It's a campaign you will see online, on bus stops, in shopping centres, on billboards, and it's designed to encourage more Aussies to want to be a teacher because the truth is there is no other profession like it. Everything that our teachers do helps our children to aim higher, to be kinder, to work harder, to be braver and to run faster. Because our teachers believe in our kids, they encourage our kids to believe in themselves, and that makes that the most important job in the world. Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 32 14:59 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom My questions to the Prime Minister and concerns his failure yesterday and today to stand by his previous commitments to voice, treaty and truth. Last time Labor was in power its then prime minister, a mentor to the current Prime Minister, described climate change as 'the greatest moral challenge of our time' and then walked away from his commitment. Is this Prime Minister doing the same thing on voice, treaty and truth? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! There is far too much noise. There was a question in there. 15:00 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Groom for his question which, if I understand it right, was asking about actions of the Rudd government in 2009-10, where the opposition opposed action on climate change and were against it. They voted against any action on climate change not once but twice, along with—I'm sorry to have to raise this, but you know it's coming—the Greens political party. I just had to throw that in there. I got asked about that—it's a matter of history that it occurred. If get this right, the criticism is about the referendum that we put to the Australian people, which those opposite promised to put to the Australian people at every election from 2007 on. Every leader of the Liberal Party, according to the Leader of the Opposition, said they would advance Constitutional recognition, but it didn't happen. They never put it to a referendum. So what we did was put it to a referendum The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Bowman is warned. Mr ALBANESE R36 They opposed it and now I'm not quite sure what they are trying to get at. But it follows that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking a question about the views of Indigenous Australians— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause so I can hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher L6B Mr Speaker, on relevance, it was a very direct question: is the Prime Minister walking away from his commitment to Voice, Treaty and Truth just as his mentor Kevin Rudd similarly did? He cannot answer a simple question. The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my right. Prime Minister, on the point of order. Mr Albanese R36 On the point of order, this was a question that went over decades—three of them. We are now in 2023 and the question went to what occurred in 2009. It was about Indigenous affairs, it was about climate change, it was about parliament, it was about referendums, and it was about Constitutional change. My point is I don't think it was very direct. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. Just to be clear, they were a number of moving parts to this question. The Prime Minister has one minute and 20 seconds remaining. The point of order on relevance has been made. I ask the Prime Minister to return to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 What we've had during this question time, incredibly, is that those opposite have sat in their tactics committee and said I know what we would do, we will ask questions about Kevin Rudd and we'll ask questions about the Indigenous Australians who supported a 'yes' campaign in the referendum—and who are disappointed that the referendum didn't get up—having opposed it and having spent months asking questions in here, some of which they knew were, quite frankly, absurd, about the Reserve Bank and other issues. Those opposite are now promising—depending on whether you watch the Sunrise or Today, depending on whether you tune into Channel 7 or Channel 9—they will have a second referendum during the next term, which the Leader of the Opposition says is their policy. But, then again, this is the Leader of the Opposition, who went into their party room and decided they wanted a local, regional and national Voice, and then came out and answered something different. I am a prime minister to who sticks to my commitments and says what I will do and then does it—which is why you don't recognise it. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Minister for International Development and the Pacific, the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister will cease interjecting. Aged Care 33 15:04 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting aged-care workers to upskill in order to overcome chronic workforce pressures and to lift the standard of aged care in Australia? 15:05 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley I thank the member for Fraser for his question. I know that he cares deeply about ensuring that we can do everything possible to support aged-care workers in the important work that they do in looking after our older Australians. The Albanese government recognises the immense value of aged-care workers. They are the beating heart of our aged-care sector and, as Australia's population continues to age, we need more of them. We are already growing the aged-care workforce, but we know that it is critically important to make sure workers are adequately skilled to make and provide high-quality, safe care. That's why we are supporting aged-care workers to upskill and to give them the tools that they need to work in the sectors where we need them to work. Thanks to the Albanese government's Fee-Free TAFE program, 7,869 Australians have now enrolled in a certificate III course in individual support to work in either aged care or disability care. And 8,453 Australians have enrolled in the Diploma of Nursing. And today, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Skills and Training have announced a landmark National Skills Agreement to unlock billions of dollars for our vocational education and training sector, and I congratulate them both. We have also partnered with the University of Tasmania and the Wicking Dementia Research and Education Centre to deliver free online training modules. And of course we have invested $5 million in the Maggie Beer Foundation to help train and educate our age-care cooks and chefs. Across the country I have met with providers who see the value in investing in our workers to upskill and pursue a career in aged care. Ningana aged care in Dalby has created a relationship with the University of Southern Queensland for workers to attend classes remotely. Zion Aged Care in Nundah in my electorate of Lilley takes on student nurses from the ACU campus at Banyo. The cumulative effect of these programs is that we are not just growing our age-care workforce but we are lifting the standard of care being provided to aged-care residents. Our September data for 24/7 nursing shows that coverage continues to increase across the country. Eighty-eight per cent of aged-care homes now have a registered nurse on site 24 hours a day, seven days a week. And over the past year older people in aged care have received an additional 1.8 million minutes of additional care every single day. That's what can be achieved when people elect a government that has purpose, a government that values workers and a government that wants to restore dignity to older Australians. Housing 33 15:08 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith My question is to the Prime Minister. Your government will give property investors like yourself $38 billion in tax concessions this year. But as a result of your decision to lock in unlimited rent increases at National Cabinet, renters will pay an extra $4.9 billion in rent increases. Can you explain to the millions of Australian renters why property investors should get billions but renters should cop unlimited rent increases every 12 months? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! There is far too much noise on my left and right. The Prime Minister has the call. 15:08 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I joined the Labor Party when I was at school because could never have afforded to join the Greens! Let me just make that point about those opposite there. I joined the party of working-class people who aspired to a better opportunity and a better life for their children, and that is what we do. We also want to make sure that we have serious housing policy. The policies put forward by those in the Greens political party have been considered by every single state and territory government, every economist and everyone in the property sector, that what they will do is make it harder for renters and not easier. Harder for renters, not easier, which is why we're working on the issue of supply. And that's why, eventually, the Greens saw the light, to your credit, and voted for the Housing Australia Future Fund. Having held up a fund— Mr Chandler-Mather 300121 After we got $3 billion! The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Griffith will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 I'll take the interjection because he said 'after we got more money'. The big complaint from the Greens party, after we announced the Social Housing Accelerator, was they didn't know about it. That was the complaint. 'Why didn't you tell us about it?' was what they said. What we will do, on this side of the House, is always take every single opportunity to put more money into public and social housing. That is what we will do, that is what we have done and that is why we work with states and territories as part of making sure that we get greater supply in housing. Already, can I say, there's the Social Housing Accelerator. I have been with the former premier Daniel Andrews, who announced a significant program there in Melbourne to help housing supply in Victoria. I have started the Social Housing Accelerator program in Sydney as well, with the New South Wales Premier, Chris Minns. We went to the electorate of Banks to announce a classic example of something that should happen, which is for three dilapidated homes that were uninhabitable to be knocked over and to build, in their place, 11 or 12 purpose built one- or two-bedroom homes which older Australians can have. That will boost housing supply. After the former coalition government in New South Wales left office there was less public housing than there was when they came into office 12 years earlier. The Labor Party has, in our DNA, support for housing. We will continue to do so. (Time expired) Health Care 34 15:11 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. How is the Albanese Labor government working for Australia to make medicines cheaper, and why is the government making Medicare stronger after a decade of attacks on Medicare? 15:12 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the member for Blair. He's part of the magnificent class of 2007 and a relentless advocate for better health and aged care for his electorate, which is centred on Ipswich, the fastest-growing city in the fastest-growing state of our wonderful Commonwealth. He promised, at the last election, a Medicare urgent care clinic for his city of Ipswich, and in August he was able to deliver on that promise. It's a clinic that is open seven days a week until 10 pm in the evening, making it easier to see a doctor and, importantly, taking much-needed pressure off the emergency department at the Ipswich hotel—and the Ipswich Hospital as well! Importantly, it's fully bulk billed. All you need is your Medicare card. Every consultation is completely free of charge—as I get back on track! We also know he's been a passionate advocate of the health and dignity of older Australians, which is why he is so delighted at our decision to, from 1 November, give five million Australians access to the latest cutting-edge vaccine for shingles completely free of charge. Right now they're paying $560 for that vaccine, but, from 1 November, they'll have access to the most comprehensive shingles vaccine program in the world. It's all part of our commitment on cheaper medicines. The House already knows that on 1 January we delivered the biggest cut to the price of medicines in the history of the PBS, cutting the cost of general scripts by $12 and saving patients right now around $20 million each and every single month. That's a world away from the approach of the Leader of the Opposition when he was the health minister because his policy of course was to make medicines dearer, not cheaper, by trying to hike the cost of general scripts by $5 every time you went to the pharmacy and telling Australians at the time that that was the fair thing to do. Well, he hasn't changed. He opposed our latest chapter of cheaper medicines, which was to allow six million Australians to secure a 60-day supply of common medicines for the cost of a single script, which is about making medicines even cheaper, allowing better medication compliance, improving the individual health of patients and freeing up millions and millions of much-needed GP consults. His constant opposition won't shake the commitment, I can tell you, of the member for Blair and of all of those on this side of the House to keep on with the job of strengthening Medicare and delivering cheaper medicines. Mr Albanese R36 Given there are no more questions, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. DOCUMENTS 35 DOCUMENTS Presentation 35 15:15 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh These documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 35 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 35 15:15 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable Manager of Opposition Business proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Prime Minister's incompetent and divisive management of the Voice referendum. I call upon those honourable members who approve of the discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having r isen in their places— 15:15 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield The incompetent and divisive management of the Voice referendum by this Prime Minister has resulted in a tragically missed opportunity for this nation. Around Australia, many Indigenous people are deeply disappointed in the result. We saw Allira Davis, chair of the Uluru Youth Dialogue, say on Saturday night: The Prime Minister is moving on tonight. He just wants to go to Washington and prepare for re-election. And we are just a blip. We saw Uluru dialogues campaigner Sally Scales say: This was a devastating result that keeps our people in the status quo. It is bleak. The PM was insulting & pathetic. Of course, around Australia, as well as Indigenous Australians, many other Australians of goodwill are deeply frustrated because there is wide support for constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians. Many Australians were ready to stand with that bipartisan support for constitutional recognition. They were ready to be part of what could have been a national unifying moment, much as the 1967 referendum was a national unifying moment. But because of this Prime Minister's incompetent and divisive management of this referendum, this opportunity for our nation has been missed, which is a tragic missed opportunity, and it is down to the poor management, the incompetent management of this Prime Minister—a prime minister who failed to do the work that was required to secure an outcome. He made his announcement on election night that his government was committed to implementing the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full—truth, treaty, voice—but he never did the detailed work to build genuine support across Australia and amongst Australians. It was all going to skate through on the vibe. He even tried to prevent the Australian Electoral Commission issuing a pamphlet to all Australian setting out the case for 'yes' and the case for 'no', even though this has been a standard requirement in referendums under the act for decades for very good reason. If you are going to ask Australians to vote on something, it is surely reasonable to explain to them what the issues are. But this government under this Prime Minister tried to prevent that normal practice from occurring. It only happened because this side of the House, the Liberal and National parties, insisted on Australians being fully informed before they came to make their decision. Of course we know there was a failure to provide funding for the two campaigns, as has normally been the practice in referendums, so the contrast between the result achieved under a coalition government in 1967, when a 90 per cent 'yes' vote was achieved, was because the coalition government of that time did the necessary work to get the result. But this Prime Minister was overconfident. He thought this was a lay-down mesire. He thought there was no work that needed to be done. We know he is hazy on the detail. We know he doesn't know the price of petrol. We know that all kinds of basics elude him—the unemployment rate and all the other details that most people would think a Prime Minister, or at that time a Leader of the Opposition, would be across. Similarly, he showed his laziness, his lack of focus on the detail, his lack of rigour in the approach that he took to this failed and divisive referendum. He failed to make the necessary decisions on how the Voice was actually going to operate. He failed to explain to Australians how it was going to work, even when it became clear that Australians were crying out for this detail. They wanted to know. Australians approached this in good faith. They approached this with an open mind, but they had questions that they wanted to know the answers to. How many people would be on the body? Would they be elected or appointed? What would be the powers of this body? Across what scope of issues could it make representations? What would be the consequences if the Voice was not consulted in relation to a decision made by a minister or made by a public servant? These were the questions that it was increasingly clear the Australian people wanted to know the answers to. On this side of the House we did everything we could to get answers to those questions in this place, but the Prime Minister stubbornly refused to do the work. He stubbornly refused to get across the detail and to share the detail with Australian people, and these characteristics of his personal operating style, which have been increasingly dismaying to Australians, are at the very basis of why this referendum was a failure and why this referendum has divided Australians. Of course, as the results on Saturday night make crystal clear, he failed to speak to Australians across the great sweep of suburban Australia. He failed to speak to Australians in regional and remote Australia. Who did he speak to? Don't ask me. Ask the Labor member for Macarthur. He was speaking to the inner-city elites. That is a failure of competence. If you are a politician seeking to put a proposition to the Australian people, seeking to make the case to them, seeking to persuade them, the first thing you've got to realise is that there are 17.6 million people who get a vote and they don't all live in Marrickville. But this is a failure of competence by this government and a failure of competence by a Prime Minister, a man who has been a professional politician since the 1990s and yet he failed to run a competent campaign. He failed to realise the basic political truth that you win campaigns not by speaking to the people who are already supporting you; you win campaigns by speaking to those who are unpersuaded, and that is what he manifestly failed to do. But the biggest failure of competence by this Prime Minister was because he was resolutely determined to make this issue a partisan issue when, for more than 10 years, it had been taken forward on a bipartisan basis. It is an accepted wisdom of Australian politics that you cannot get a referendum passed unless there is bipartisan support. And don't ask me for proof of that; ask the Prime Minister himself. On Saturday night, when he was asked why he thinks Australians voted no, he said: 'The truth is that no referendum has succeeded in this country without bipartisan support. None.' Well, he's right, but why did he do nothing to get bipartisan support? Why did he make absolutely no effort to engage with this side of the House, to engage with the Leader of the Opposition? This had been a process which was bipartisan going back to 2007. In 2012, both the Liberal and Labor parties in this place voted for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Act. It had bipartisan support. Under the previous coalition government there was a bipartisan committee, chaired by the Liberal member for Berowra and Labor Senator Pat Dodson. They were co-chairs. There was bipartisan support. The two parties of government worked together on this important issue. Why? Because there was recognition across the political system that, if you are to win the confidence of the Australian people on this issue, if you are to achieve a national unifying moment of the same scale and magnitude as was achieved in 1967, it absolutely has to be bipartisan. That has been recognised by everybody for more than a decade. Yet it was this Prime Minister who turned his back on bipartisanship, who refused to engage with this side of the House, who treated the parliamentary committee, frankly, with contempt. Liberal members on that committee, such as the member for Menzies, put forward several reasonable suggestions, all of which were ignored. On any test of basic political competence you would have to say from day one the critical success factor in getting this referendum up was to make it bipartisan. This would not have been too hard for this Prime Minister to do, but he failed that test of basic political competence. Of course there was a deal to be done here, but the Prime Minister never made any effort to do a deal. He failed to consult with the opposition on the wording. This turned into the Prime Minister's own vanity project. He failed to manage this in a way which would bring the Australian people with him. He lifted up then cruelly dashed the hopes of Indigenous people around Australia. This has been an unedifying and disappointing outcome, and the responsibility for it sits at the feet of one man, the Prime Minister of Australia. 15:26 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland Australians voted no to the Voice, but they didn't vote no to Closing the Gap. This MPI talks about division. The real division in this country isn't between Australians who voted yes and Australians who voted no. It's a division between the life and opportunities of black Australians and white Australians. The hard truth, if we're willing to accept it, is that both sides of politics have failed here over decades. My friend the member for New England questions that. But if we're honest with ourselves the gap targets prove that. I'm not blaming you. I'm not blaming our side of politics. I'm blaming all of us. The fact that if you are an Indigenous Australian you're more likely to die at childbirth is evidence of that. If you're more likely to suffer chronic disease, that is evidence of that. If you're more likely to die earlier than other Australians, that is evidence of that as well. The same is true in education. I believe in my heart about the power of education. I talk about it ad nauseam. I believe in it because I have seen it with my own eyes. I grew up in a community where education changed the lives of people who came here looking for a better life in the western suburbs of Sydney—people who were migrants and refugees. I believe in the power of education because I've lived it. I'm the first person in my family to go to university; but not just that: I'm the first person in my family to finish school. I'm the first person in my family to finish year 10. Education has changed my life. As in this job, with this responsibility, I think I see more clearly than ever before that that opportunity, powerful as it is, hasn't reached into every corner of this country, into every home and into every life. When you look at the education statistics for Indigenous Australians, they hit you in the face. If you're a young indigenous person today, you're less likely to go to preschool and other kids. We know how important early education is. Not just that, if you're a young Indigenous person today you're more likely to fall behind at primary school than other kids. The natural consequence of that is that if you're a young Indigenous person today who falls behind at primary school, you're less likely to finish high school than all the other kids. And that means that at the end of the day you're less likely to go to university than other children. Colleagues here have heard me talk about this before: about 45 per cent of young adults today have a university degree, but only seven per cent of Indigenous young people do. Think about that gap. Of all the gaps, that's the biggest: 45 per cent of young adults have a university degree, but only seven per cent of young Indigenous adults do. If you are a young bloke of an Indigenous background today you're more likely to go to jail than to university. I've talked about what that means in terms of the cost that we all pay for that. We pay $11,000— Mr Katter HX4 You're the government. What are you doing about it? Mr CLARE HWL I'll talk about that in a minute. The member says 'What are you doing about it?' That's an important question. Let me answer that in a moment. But let me talk about the costs, too. $11,000 a year we pay to send somebody to university. $148,000 is what we pay to send someone to prison. That's the cost of this divide—the real division in this country, not the political division that we want to fabricate here or that we want to create for political benefit, the real divide-in-life opportunities that all of us in our hearts want to close. Mr Katter HX4 You're the government; what are you doing about it? Mr CLARE HWL The member for Kennedy asked, 'What are you doing about it?' What we're doing about it is the legislation that's in the parliament that the member for Kennedy rightly—and I thank him for it—voted for a couple of weeks ago. At the moment if you're a young Indigenous person and you get the marks and you live in the member for Kennedy's electorate, the demand-driven system means the university will be guaranteed to get the funding to get that young bloke or that young woman to university, but not if they live in Brisbane or Sydney or Melbourne. It applies to Indigenous kids in the bush but not in the city. We're fixing that. The legislation that this House has voted for, which is now before the Senate, is about extending that system to all Indigenous kids. We're told, if it works, that it will double the number of young Indigenous people with a university degree in the next 10 years. That's good. That's pretty good. It doesn't really close the gap, because remember what I said: 45 per cent of young people in their 20s and 30s have a uni degree today; seven per cent of Indigenous young people do at the moment. If this legislation works, in 10 years time that will be 12 per cent. Mr Katter HX4 No disrespect, Minister, but we'd prefer a job to a degree. Mr CLARE HWL Well, degrees create jobs too. Mr Katter HX4 No, they don't. Mr CLARE HWL No, they do. If you want to be a doctor working in an Indigenous community, if you want to be a teacher teaching kids in Indigenous community, if you want to be a nurse helping people in Indigenous communities then things like uni are important. We need to make sure that more young Indigenous people—not just Indigenous people but more young people from electorates like Spence, where barely more than seven per cent have got a uni degree—get a crack at TAFE and uni, so fee-free TAFE places are important. The legislation in the parliament is important too. But, if we're really going to fix this, we've got to go back before university; we've got go back to school, because this is where the problem is at its most obvious. NAPLAN results tell us that one in 10 young people at the moment fall behind the minimum standard. But it's not one in 10 Indigenous kids that fall behind the minimum standard; it's one in three. The NAPLAN data also tells us that if you fall behind at primary school when you're eight then you're more likely than not to still be behind when you're 15 at high school. Believe it or not, only one in five kids who are behind when they're eight have caught up by the time they're 15. I still believe in the power of education, but that number shocks me. Think about this, colleagues: only 20 per cent of kids who fall behind when they're little have caught up by the time they're 15—one in five—and it's only one in 17 Indigenous kids. They're basically locked out of the system. One in 17 Indigenous kids who fall behind when they're little have caught up by the time they're older at high school. That explains why so many kids aren't finishing high school, that explains why we're now seeing a drop in the number of kids finishing high school and that explains why there are so few Indigenous young people at university getting a university degree. What a waste. This is what we've got to fix. This is what all Australians want us to fix. I've said many times that I don't want us to be a country where your chances in life depend on who your mum and dad are or where you live or the colour of your skin. No Australian does. But if we are honest with ourselves they are today. Again, the hard facts show us that, and fixing that is what the Universities Accord is all about. It's also what the next National School Reform Agreement will be all about—closing the funding gap for our schools but also this education gap, this gap in opportunity. At the moment non-government schools are funded at about 100 per cent of the Gonski level of schooling resource standard. Some are above and some below. They'll all be at 100 per cent by the end of the decade. No public schools are, except in the ACT. Over the course of the next decade they'll top out, unless action is taken, at about 95 per cent. So what we do here working with the states and territories is important, but so is what that money is spent on, and nowhere is that more important than in places like the Northern Territory and in particular Central Australia. It is hard to find a place where there is greater disadvantage or a bigger education gap than there. That's why we're investing $40 million in 40 schools in Central Australia next year, allocated to get all of them to 100 per cent of the schooling resource standard. That means the most underfunded schools in Central Australia will get the most funding. At the moment, non-government schools in the Northern Territory receive on average about 97 per cent of that core funding level. Government schools, by contrast, are at 80 per cent. So if we talk about gaps, that is a massive gap. And, unless action is taken, that gap won't close until 2050. This investment in schools, both public and private schools in Central Australia, mean that those 46 schools will get to that full funding level next year—in other words, 26 years early. I think that's a good thing, but it isn't just that: it's making sure that it's tied to the sorts of things that are going to work. These are things like early intervention in literacy and numeracy support for the sorts of kids I've spoken about today, who fall behind. There are three big pieces of work happening in my portfolio: the Universities Accord; the O'Brien review into school education funding and what it's tied to; and the early education work that we need to do before a child even starts at school. More work is needed there. The three of those will come together next year to form a blueprint for us about education for the next decade and beyond. This is for all of us to work together on to build a better and fairer education system for Australia—in particular, for Indigenous kids. 15:36 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I acknowledge his contribution and what the minister just said. All his statistics are correct, but all that his statistics mean is that in this country we have a lot of work to do. But I will actually bring it back to what this MPI is about: the process that this government followed with the referendum. It was a flawed process and the flaws in the Prime Minister that got us into this situation we were, and are, in. What this is all about is the arrogance and bad judgement of the Prime Minister personally. As he says now, after the event, we needed bipartisan support. He didn't display a lot of behaviour and judgement before the referendum that encouraged that. There was no Constitutional convention and there was no process that encouraged bipartisan support. This was even down to the 15 questions about the referendum that the Leader of the Opposition gave him and asked him to come back to us on. He didn't even pay us the respect to respond to those questions. There wasn't even a response to the 15 questions that we had. He ignored lots of advice. There was lots of advice about having two questions. We know that the Australian people are generous and we know that 85 to 90 per cent of Australians, I believe, would have supported constitutional recognition without blinking. But, no, he ignored advice on that. He ignored advice from strong 'yes' supporters, like Father Frank Brennan and like, in fact, the previous Labor leader, Bill Shorten, who was on record as saying, 'We need to legislate a Voice before we try to put a Voice in the Constitution.' That's because there were too many unanswered questions about the Voice. There were too many unanswered questions about putting the Voice into the Constitution—questions like, 'How will the power of the Voice work compared with the parliament, if it were in the Constitution?' A lot of people have respect for Father Brennan and the fact that he wanted to support the 'yes' case. But, again, the Prime Minister was arrogant and showed his bad judgement by ignoring people like that. Instead, he went for the vibe—he went for the feel-good. He liked the T-shirt and he likes hanging out with the corporate elites, like the Alan Joyces. He likes hanging out with the celebrities, the jingles and everything else. He just went for the vibe and no detail. Again, it shows his arrogance on this, how he had no judgement on this and how out of touch he was with the Australian people. The Australian people—and, indeed, this chamber—wanted detail and we weren't given it. Again, there was a lot of confusion. As the Prime Minister said when he won the election, his first promise was that the Uluru Statement from the Heart would be in full. 'In full' meant not just the Voice but treaty and truth-telling as well. So where is he about truth-telling? Where was he about that? When questions were asked about that, about what the ramifications of the Voice were in relation to the Uluru statement, it was, 'Nothing to see here'. In fact, he tried to crab walk away from some of the things that he said. This made it more confusing. The result—and I say this really, really humbly—has been a really sad result for this country, with this Prime Minister's flawed process and judgement on this whole thing. He has divided families, he has divided communities and on Saturday night he divided this nation. And he's divided Indigenous communities. He speaks generically—as did, might I say, a lot of commentators on Saturday night and Sunday—about the Indigenous community. The Indigenous community were divided on this. You had one group with Lidia Thorpe and people who supported her point of view and what she thought of the voice, and you had Indigenous leaders like Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and Warren Mundine at the other end. They were divided. The Indigenous community was divided on this, and that's what this Prime Minister did with his lack of judgement and his arrogance about this. Before I go on, I want to acknowledge my parliamentary colleague Jacinta Nampijinpa Price. I thought her tone and her demeanour through this whole debate were to be congratulated. We do now have to move on from this. We now have to get back to practical outcomes. We as an opposition—again, the shadow Indigenous minister has said we need in audit straight away; the one thing we need is an audit into the current spending. A lot of people on the ground don't see this money or don't feel it's hitting where it should. We also need a royal commission into sexual abuse. When we talk about closing the gap, that is most prevalent in rural and remote communities, and there needs to be a royal commission into the abuse, sexual abuse and assault in those communities. (Time expired) 15:41 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser This is an extremely important topic and this is an extremely important time to discuss this topic; but, unfortunately, what we have today is a petty motion in which to frame this discussion. I want to start by saying that I was saddened by the result on Saturday night but I acknowledge that result, I accept that result and I think, in time, after we've had a time to reflect and after the Indigenous community has had a time to reflect, this chamber, this community talking with the Indigenous community, will figure out a way to move forward. I want to start with that acknowledgement. I also want to say that I fully support all of the observations made by the Minister for Education. We had a result on Saturday, but we're all in here two days later and we are left facing a set of extremely troubling issues that this nation has been facing for a very long time. They haven't gone away. All of the issues that he talked about in relation to unequal access to education, all of the issues in relation to unequal access to health, all of the issues in our justice system—notwithstanding the fact we had the royal commission into deaths in custody, some decades later, on many metrics, the situation is worse. As the Minister for Education said, that's across governments of both stripes, but it is nonetheless a fact. In my own electorate we have far, far too many children in out-of-home care. There is issue after issue which this chamber, this parliament and this country are faced with regardless of the result on Saturday night, and that needs to be our focus moving forward. It's in that context that what we have today is the most cynical, disingenuous and, frankly, juvenile of motions and set of contributions. It's a pointscoring set of contributions to a motion that is trying to take advantage of a situation in the basest way. I almost feel as though I'm listening to a set of observations on election night from a set of members of a panel trying to make observations about why this or that trend occurred or this or that suburb voted this way. What we're actually faced with now is a set of endemic, long-term problems, and we need to figure out a way forward. If we had an opposition that was committed to its core function, which is to put up an alternative vision, we wouldn't be faced with this motion and we wouldn't be faced with a set of contributions that would have been well in place on election night with pundits trying to guess why the politics were playing out a certain way or going through the entrails of the mistakes this or that campaign made. If we had an opposition that was genuinely committed to trying to find solutions to these issues, they would have come here with an alternative. We already have a set of policies in place and we will develop more policies, but, when we come into this chamber, we talk about a positive vision in this space going forward. The point that I'm making is that this motion and the contributions to date have been entirely focused on the politics, on the tactics and on base pointscoring. Those opposites say there was the opportunity for bipartisanship. Well, they had a decade in parliament and there was zero action. That was the opportunity for bipartisanship. There was the Statement from the Heart in 2017. Six years later, those opposite didn't embrace any of it; it was rejected. We had the Voice described as a third chamber by those opposite. When those opposite were in government, they didn't accept any of it substantively. Where was the genuine opportunity for bipartisanship? It's a completely disingenuous argument. They come in here with phrases like our side didn't do the work. In our first term we are doing exactly what we said we would do; we took this to a referendum. They said we're not doing the work. They were in power for 10 years. Since 2017, when the Uluru Statement from the Heart was handed down—when they were in government—nothing had happened. Those opposite come in here with all of these very disingenuous arguments, hand-wringing. It is absolutely ridiculous. Then they come in here with their alternative vision: an audit, an accountant's version—the accountant dog whistling, saying by implication that there's waste everywhere and trying to invalidate the money that's been spent and invested in our Indigenous communities. It's absolutely pathetic, and this motion shows that this opposition is not serious about coming up with sensible, long-term, meaningful policies. 15:46 Mr JOYCE e5d New England Do you remember the start of this? Do you remember Shaquille O'Neal? Shaquille O'Neal, an African American basketball player, was rolled out to start the process of this referendum. What a joke. It just goes to show you the kind of competency that was going to be rolled through the whole program of this referendum. Remember when we found out that the Prime Minister, by his own admission, hadn't read the whole Uluru Statement from the Heart document? He hadn't read it all. What a debacle. The final one is that we had a referendum which could have had two questions: one on recognition, yes or no, and one on the Voice, yes or no. And I'll tell you what the Australian people would have done. The first one would have been a massive yes. The second one would have been a massive no—as we saw. But this hubristic, divisive debacle that was inflicted upon the Australian people had to be seen through, even though the Prime Minister's own Attorney-General was seen in the paper suggesting guardrails and amendments. Oh no, he knew better. He wasn't even going to listen to his own Attorney-General. So why did people vote against what we had? Because it is a racial clause. I'm Caucasian, I'm a whitefella—I can't be part of the Voice. Chinese people can't be part of the Voice. Indians can't. It's determined by the colour of your skin and your DNA. In our areas, that's so offensive, because we find that the problems are determined by intergenerational poverty, regardless of the colour of your skin. Whether you're white, whether you're black, whether you're brindle, it doesn't matter. If the problem is in a regional village, like in my electorate, or in the outback, poverty is indiscriminate. Poverty doesn't care about the colour of your skin. That's how things should be addressed. Of course, the Voice never had a right of veto; we all knew that. But it did have a right to go to the High Court, because that's why it's in the Constitution, and question the process of consultation. The Scarborough gas deal, $16 billion, 170 kilometres off the coast of Western Australia, is currently held up because the consultation process was apparently flawed. It was permanent. We couldn't get rid of it. Once it's there, it's there for good. But they never gave it a trial run. They never actually put it in legislation and gave it trial run. Another thing was that 80 per cent of Aboriginal people supported the Voice. No, they didn't. That is not the truth. Let's look at my own electorate. The biggest Indigenous community—in my area they call themselves Aboriginal. The biggest Aboriginal community is Tingha. Do you know what the 'yes' vote was in Tingha? It was 13.5 per cent. At Tamworth High, it was 39 per cent; Oxley Vale, 28 per cent—and these are the ones with a strong Aboriginal component. Armidale south got 59 per cent, probably the best. In Werris Creek—I used to live in Werris Creek; we used to call it 'where it's crook'—it was 24 per cent. Inverell, 19 per cent; Glen Innes, 25 per cent—not even close. So stop the mythology and stop with this misleading idea that this was something supported by Aboriginal people as a whole. It wasn't. It wasn't 80 per cent. In my area it wasn't even half. It wasn't even close. Why? I'll tell you why: because they weren't consulted. When you talked to them—I would go to former mission areas, and I went to NAIDOC Week—they didn't know what it was about. And you divided us up. So I'd go to NAIDOC Week and say 'Look, mate, you know I'm a no.' They would say, 'Yeah, Barnaby, I've kind of picked that up.' But if there was a different question this would have sailed through. You could have got it. You could have stopped this discussion. It was like discussing how your marriage is going. It was so hard for us in regional areas. We wanted to park this. But things move on. And what they weren't discussing was the other issues out there. Other issues that are burning up. I tell you what the next one is going to be: it's going to be the transmission lines, the wind factories, the solar factories. It's going to be people in the seats of Cunningham, Whitlam, Paterson, Ballarat, Hunter, Shortland. Watch: this is the next issue. You took a massive hit. You lost a lot of paint with that referendum. You really did. You trained people how not to vote for you. But if you get the next one— An honourable memb er interjecting— Mr JOYCE e5d You can laugh, mate, but if you get next one wrong you're going to be remarkable. You're going to be the second one-term government in the history of Australia. 15:51 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle The Albanese government is going to continue working for the shared wellbeing of the Australian people, and we're going to continue to keep our commitments. That's what we have done so far and what we're going to continue to do. I'm sorry that Australia didn't vote yes, because that's the outcome I personally supported. I know how strongly it was supported by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. We put the referendum in the terms that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people asked for through the most comprehensive referendum constitutional process that has ever occurred. That's what we said we would do and that's what we did. I accept the outcome with good grace. In my electorate people turned out and voted in good spirit, with respect for one another and with respect for our democratic process. That's not what we're seeing with the motion that has been brought today, and it's not what we're seeing with some of the ridiculous questions that have been put in the first two days of this parliamentary week. The opposition has settled upon a method that it intends to prosecute, not that different from what we saw the last time we were in government: basically negativity at every turn, chaos at every turn and division at every turn. Create division and then blame division, practice negativity then seek to profit from negativity. That's not what Australians want to see from this parliament. That's not what they should expect from their government. If you want a judgement on competence, just when it comes to the referendum that we held, you could look at Ken Wyatt, the cabinet minister responsible for advancing constitutional recognition under the previous government. He utterly rejected and repudiated the approach that those opposite have taken to this process. You could look to the member for Berowra, the shadow Attorney-General and the shadow minister for Indigenous Australians. He resigned his position in discussed at the approach taken by those opposite. Irrespective of whether Australia chose yes or no, the work of reconciliation and the work of closing the gap had to continue. If Australia had voted yes on Saturday that work had to continue. The fact that Australia voted no on Saturday means that that work has to continue. It wasn't going to be done with a yes vote and it's not finished with a no vote. That's something that we should apply ourselves to hear. We should stop having these kinds of finger-pointing exercises. We should stop confecting division then blaming division. We should apply ourselves to the task that I think all Australians want to see their government apply themselves to, which is closing the gap and ending the disadvantage that afflicts too many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Fremantle voted no relatively narrowly. We ran a big positive campaign, and the way that the 500 volunteers were received in the community was always respectful, even though on many occasions they were having conversations with people who had decided to vote no. That's the nature of our democracy. People coming along and trying to suggest that the process that we just had, which is a legitimate and necessary part of a democratic process, is somehow a bad thing or inherently a divisive thing, are just bananas. They are bananas. At the last election, this government was elected, pretty clearly, on a two-party-preferred outcome of 52-48. Is that divisive? That's democracy. People who come along and claim that those processes are inherently divisive and bad are doing harm to our democracy, the kind of harm that we've seen in other places, like the United States, which we should utterly reject here and which we should repudiate at every turn. Last Thursday, the Prime Minister came to Fremantle. He came with me to the site of what will be a new urgent care clinic in Beeliar, in the south-east of my electorate, the fourth in metropolitan Perth. I think we're going to go on to deliver 58—after we promised 50—urgent care clinics, where people can go and get health care for those things that can't wait but don't need the resources of an emergency department. Forty per cent of presentations at Fiona Stanley Hospital Emergency Department are exactly those kinds of issues. Because of these urgent care clinics, people will go there with their Medicare card and get fully bulk-billed health care. Immediately after that, we went to a rally and spoke to some 'yes' campaigners. That's what this government is about—advancing the shared wellbeing of this nation in critical areas, like our public health system, and keeping our promise to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to hold a referendum that they asked for. That's what the Prime Minister did with me last Thursday. That is Anthony Albanese in a nutshell—a leader who keeps his promises. 15:56 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I'm glad that the member for Fremantle mentioned public health in this matter of public importance, because public health is important. Indeed, we heard the minister for health today talking about urgent GP clinics, Medicare clinics and the Ipswich hospital-hotel. It's not Happy Hour for pharmacists, let me tell you. I know it was a slip of the tongue, but it is not Happy Hour for our pharmacists. In Trundle, with just a little community of 400, the pharmacist there, Sam Lee, who came to Australia from South Korea in 2005 and said he always wanted to own his own pharmacy, is now facing the prospect of having to leave town, of having to pack up shop because of the 60-day dispensing rules. This is an abomination. I say that because the government has talked about nothing other than the Voice in recent weeks, in recent months, indeed, since being elected to office. Shame on them for that. At the same time, they've brought in rules which are going to make it so hard for those frontline chemists. Those people are doing so much good, particularly in regional and remote Australia and particularly for our Indigenous Australians. But they now face the prospect of having their bottom lines halved and their profit margins taken away because of this nonsensical rule that the government has put in place without care or consideration for our pharmacists. Again, I say shame on them. They said that life imitates art. In Warren Brown's excellent cartoon in the Daily Telegraph today, he depicts the Prime Minister flushing some notes down the toilet, saying, 'Oh, well. It was only $450 million.' At the same time, there's this chap behind him, saying, 'So, about my $275 saving on electricity, where exactly is that?' Indeed, one might ask the question. On no less than 97 occasions, the Prime Minister, as the opposition leader, prior to the May 2022 election, promised that there would be a $275 saving on power bills for households. There was no disclaimer. There was no saying, 'Well, it'll be in 2025 or into the Never Never.' He said it would happen under his watch when he came to government. Power prices, which had fallen eight per cent in the last 12 months of the coalition government, have just gone up and up and up. And yet all we heard about was a divisive, unnecessary referendum. As the member for New England quite correctly pointed out, had there been two questions, had there been a question about including Indigenous history et cetera, as a preamble, into the Constitution, just acknowledging the fact that they have been here for 65,000 years, Australians would have said yes. There is no question: Australians would have adopted constitutional recognition. Then, if there had been a separate question, such as the one Australians were asked, regarding the Voice to Parliament—we all know what happened on Saturday. Unfortunately, there has been a lot said and written about the result on Saturday, and regional Australians particularly have been knocked and mocked by inner-city elites, by metropolitan media and by activists for the shame that they have supposedly brought on our nation for voting no. Australians don't get it wrong. They might have got it a little bit wrong in May 2022, but they don't generally get it wrong when it comes to having the choice. Aren't we lucky that we have a democracy and that we can have that choice? On the War Memorial, there are 103,000 names of Australians who served and who sacrificed their lives so that we could have that vote. Now we've had the vote. Let's move on. Let's put in place the practical measures to close the gap. Let's do what Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and the opposition leader have said that we need to do. Let's make sure that we have a royal commission into child sexual abuse, particularly in vulnerable Indigenous remote communities. Let's have a royal commission whose terms of reference include where and how the $33 billion that we are spending on Indigenous programs is being spent. And let's do something else: reinstate the cashless welfare debit card which was taken away without thought or consideration for those Aboriginal women particularly and which was making such a practical difference to the lives and livelihoods of children and families in Indigenous communities. (Time expired) 16:01 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra The result on Saturday was not what many of us wanted to see. I am really deeply disappointed to have seen it, but we absolutely respect the decision. This is a democratic process, and I am pleased that we live in a democracy where we can have these discussions and where people can peacefully turn up somewhere and vote and have their say. Obviously we accept the result on this referendum, but I do want to acknowledge that many in our community are devastated by this result. My heart is particularly with the First Nations people who put their heart and soul into the 'yes' campaign and the process that led up to it over many, many years. I'm talking about the Uluru dialogues, the Uluru statement, the 'yes' campaign and even, of course, the many years before that that had been put into seeking constitutional recognition and the fights for Indigenous rights over many, many years. I respect very much that the Indigenous community has asked for a time of silence—a week of quiet to let the dust settle—before we start picking apart this result. I respect that very much. I want to acknowledge that I'm proud that the majority of people in my community voted yes and that the majority of people in Indigenous communities around the country voted yes. There are people really feeling this at the moment, and I think we need to be very respectful of that. I want to thank all the people—nearly a thousand volunteers—in Canberra who came together to ask people to vote yes. Many of them had never volunteered on a political campaign before, and I was very proud to campaign alongside them. I acknowledge every conversation that they had and the many hours that they spent making phone calls and door-knocking, on street stalls, on pre poll and on polling day. I want to acknowledge our Prime Minister. I am incredibly proud that he took this referendum to the Australian people, that he respected the agency of First Nations Australians and that he showed leadership when the oldest continuing culture on earth gave an incredibly gracious and generous invitation to Australians through the Uluru statement. I'm proud that he took that outstretched hand and that he had the guts and the determination to put the question after the many years that this process has been going on. I also I want to acknowledge the Minister for Indigenous Australians, the member for Barton, Linda Burney, who, through this whole process, has shown such leadership, such grace and such strength. This has been a long process. It started under the Abbott government and it was the biggest-ever consultation with First Nations Australians from every corner of this vast country. They came together, with the culmination being the Uluru Statement. They said, 'In 1967 we asked to be counted and now we ask to be heard.' That was the question. When I was first elected as a new MP in 2019, there was a lot of excitement here because there seemed to be the prospect that this parliament was going to work together to progress that Uluru statement. This was back when Ken Wyatt was the Indigenous affairs minister. At that time, I had the great privilege to be involved in our caucus First Nations committee and to work with wonderful people there as we progressed that discussion. I want to acknowledge in particular—as well as Linda Burney—my friends Senator McCarthy and Senator Pat Dodson, and the conversations we had there as this came to fruition. I also want to acknowledge the newer Indigenous members of our caucus, Senator Stewart, the member for Lingiari and the member for Robertson, and the work that they have put into this. And I want to acknowledge our local Indigenous leaders here in Canberra: Auntie Violet Sheridan and her grandson Noah Allen; and Auntie Matilda and Paul House. I want to say that although this vote didn't get up, our government remains completely committed to listening to you and to walking with you in reconciliation, and for the better future for all Australians that comes when we come together and we continue to listen. 16:06 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies Thank you to all the speakers who have come before me. We may never again in this parliament, certainly, and however long we're here, have an MPI after a referendum. I think we can agree that it's going to be a long time before we have one again. So it's right and proper that we discuss it in this place. Those opposite may not like the words of the motion, but I thought that maybe in their party room or in other places within this building they would be having these conversations. If they're not then I suggest that they do, because four out of five of their own seats had a different view to theirs. That's fine; that's okay. I remember when I expressed my view quite early on that many of them and their supporters said, 'Be careful, Wolahan, be careful; you're out of touch with your electorate.' That's not a fair thing to say to anyone and I won't say it to them. All of us owe three things to our constituencies: we owe our best efforts, our selfless judgement and our honest belief. And if our honest belief is different to that of others, particularly on a referendum, then that is okay. What are people asking us to do? To be dishonest? To be a follower and not lead? I'm sure that those opposite passionately believed in this, and I commend them for it. People on our side, like my friend the member for Bass, passionately believed in it, and I commend her for it. That's all we owe our electorates. But we have to ask: 'How, when the idea was presented, did the goodwill of this nation go from close to 70 per cent in the polls to 38? How did that happen?' If you have not taken the Australian people on this issue, we need you to take them on important issues of national security and economics. Of course we want to hold you to account and of course we want to be over there one day. But we also need you to succeed in the national interest. You embrace the moments when people on our side cross the floor or speak out against our own party; there are politics and theatre in that. None of you do that, and if you did you'd be kicked out. Maybe that extreme discipline you have within your own party doesn't help you all the time. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 You may wish to direct your comments through the Chair. Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Yes, I acknowledge that, Deputy Speaker Claydon. Maybe that discipline doesn't help all the time, and perhaps this is the time for some honest reflection about what went wrong. We've heard commentators give the various reasons why people voted as they did. They're pretty clear, and there are four of them. The first was about division. There is value in our common humanity and dignity, and those were expressed in various different ways, like, 'Don't divide us on ancestry,' or, 'Don't divide us on race'. None of us likes the word 'race'; it's an outdated term. But that make sense to people. It makes sense to people that no-one is inferior and no-one is superior. The argument that there was a difference between race, indigeneity and an ancestry—it was a distinction without a difference. It just was. That wasn't misinformation or disinformation. It was a distinction without a difference. On detail: the detail mattered, and there's a good comparison. You can go to the 1999 referendum and say, 'For tactical reasons, don't put a bill before people because they'll split.' But you could also go to the same-sex marriage plebiscite, where a bill was on offer and where people looked at it and said, 'I actually like what I see.' If there was a bill sitting somewhere in this building on a G drive, it would have been constructive for the Australian people to have seen it and it would have been constructive for the joint select committee to have compared it to the model that was on offer. Maybe it wasn't going to match. Maybe it wasn't fit for purpose. That would have been helpful. In terms of legal risk, all of the legal experts agreed that the scope was extremely broad. They disagreed on the likelihood of risk, but they agreed on the consequences of risk. I think maybe that was a key turning point where, in the joint select committee, we could have properly sought to address that risk where there was disagreement, instead of having a ticking exercise where you say, 'It's good to go.' That's not how the law works. That's why the High Court has seven positions. They often split four to three. Former chief justice French and former justice Hayne have often been in the minority and been just as passionate with their view. I think it was a mistake to have sat in the committee and to just have accepted that as a given. That's why we have courts of appeal. Law is about disagreeing and getting to the truth. Finally, I'll say this: our Constitution is a structure of our democracy. It's not where we solve problems. We can still solve these problems here and in other places, and let's do it. 16:11 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga I must say that today it does feel like a big reach for those opposite, including for the previous speaker and the member who brought this motion, to be accusing those on this side of incompetence and division. If we look at the conduct during this referendum debate, I think that, for those on the other side, looking in the mirror when it comes to incompetence and division might be more to the truth of what's happened over the past few months. I want to particularly reflect on one part of this referendum debate and the actions of those opposite that I find particularly concerning, and that is some public statements from those opposite that seem to be aimed at undermining the integrity of the AEC, our independent electoral body. The AEC is a world-leading electoral commission. It is an important democratic institution, it is independent and it is in none of our interests to undermine the independence and integrity of that institution. So we should not, and cannot, let anyone get away with Trump-like statements that are aimed at undermining the integrity and independence of the AEC. This type of behaviour does nothing but diminish trust in our elections and the processes of our elections. I do ask those opposite, including the Leader of the Opposition, to reflect on their behaviour and their public statements that seem to go to undermining trust in the AEC. All of us in this place and our entire country benefit from having strong democratic institutions and having a strong independent electoral watchdog, and that is what the AEC is. I do spend a lot of time, in my role as chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, reflecting on our democratic institutions and particularly the role of the AEC. So I thought, in this context, it was particularly important for me to raise that today and talk about some of the broader implications of some of the debate that we had in the referendum. I will note as well that our committee has recommended that, for future elections, we do have truth in political advertising laws in place. I think it is important that Australians can vote in an environment whereby they feel like they go to vote armed with the facts. Again, I would ask all, particularly those opposite, to reflect on their behaviour during this referendum and to reflect on the information they put out and on whether it would meet the test of truth in political advertising. These are questions for all of us. They are questions that go to the heart of how we conduct ourselves, and they're questions that go to the heart of how we do elections in this country. I'm proud to say that on our side of the House we do respect democracy and democratic institutions. We put this question to the Australian people, as we should have, and as Aboriginal people asked the Prime Minister to do. They came to him and said, 'We have been working on this for decades. Please put this question to the Australian people.' He had the courage to take that forward. Australians were asked to have their say. Are we disappointed with that result? Yes, we are. Do we respect that result? Do we respect the processes that led to that result? Absolutely, we do; that is what democracy is about. While the country didn't say yes on Saturday night, my community in Jagajaga did say yes. More than 450 volunteers worked across my community to have the conversations at a local level, knocking on doors, standing at train stations, hosting conversations with neighbours, handing out at polling booths. I'm really proud of the work they did. I'm proud of the conversations they had to explain this concept and to convince people to vote yes. While we didn't see the result we had hoped for beyond Jagajaga, I know that those people of goodwill will continue to work to close the gap, will continue to do all they can to build on what is a really positive community movement and carry that forward. I know that they will continue to stay engaged in the work that we all know we must do to support First Nations people and to support the change we need to see more broadly. Again, I thank them. It was a real privilege to stand alongside them and to campaign locally, and I am proud of the result that we did achieve in Jagajaga. Once again, I will just ask the opposition to think about whether these types of discussions serve any purpose apart from trying to make them feel better about their behaviour over the past few months. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The discussion has now concluded. MOTIONS 44 MOTIONS Great Barrier Reef 44 16:16 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Kennedy from moving the following motion—That the House: (1) notes the Minister for the Environment may have sent a letter "in camera", on 25 May 2023, to the Director General of UNESCO, without public scrutiny; (2) notes that this letter sets out in detail Reef and Gulf runoff regulatory impositions that will result in the closure of agriculture on Queensland's Gulf and east coast; (3) notes that if the proposals detailed in the letter received Governor in Council assent, they would shut down the commercial fishing, severely damage tourism, much of which is based upon recreational fishing and tourist access to the reef; (4) notes that this mortal blow might also extend to the Northern cattle, sugar and banana industries; (5) notes that the 2021-2022 annual report of coral reef condition, prepared by the Australian Institute of Marine Science, demonstrated that the Northern and Central regions of the Great Barrier Reef have the highest coral cover measured in 36 years of monitoring, the Southern section only declined slightly due to crown of thorns outbreaks; (6) notes that given the excellent health of the reef there is no evidence that agricultural run off is affecting the reef and as such there is no justification for arbitrary regulatory impositions that will detrimentally affect the agriculture sector and broader community; and (7) calls on the Minister for the Environment to: (a) confirm the letter's authenticity; (b) provide advice as to who provided the authorization for the commitment given in the letter; (c) specifically advise if the Cabinet was made aware of this letter and authorized its release; (d) advise whether the Premier of Queensland was made aware of this letter and, if the Premier was not advised, acknowledge the serious breach of proper protocol; and (e) acknowledge that the communication and commitments given were an unprecedented breach of Australian constitutional conventions. The previous speech was about the vote on the Voice referendum, and the burning question for First Australians, if any of you have ever listened to First Australians— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Sorry; is this related to the suspension of standing orders? Mr KATTER HX4 It's very much related because we're talking about land ownership. There's no value in land ownership if you take away our rights to use the land. Now, they've already been taken away from the First Australians. They're about to be taken away from everyone on the east coast of Queensland, so it's very much to the heart of what we are talking about. Those of you who read history books—and I hope that we all do—will know that the American War of Independence was precipitated by James II declaring that he owned the land in the United States. The people of America said: 'Hey, wait a minute. I own my farm, not you, Mr King of England. You don't own my farm.' Of course, the ultimate result of that was half a million people dying in the American War of Independence—and, of course, Britain losing the colony which would become the great country which is the United States today. At very few times in history have people sat down and written a document of such great consequence as the Magna Carta. Still, joyfully I can say that in our Queensland the Magna Carta is taught to every single schoolchild, as should be the case. The Magna Carta lays down clearly that my land is my land, not the government's. The government has no right to set foot on my land. The great Chief Justice Coke, in his famous statement, said, 'Even though the wind may blow through the broken windows and the door flap in the breeze, even though the rain may torrentially poor into the house, even the King of England himself cannot set foot on its portals without the permission of the law.' Now, here we have our land ownership being degraded to nothing. Some lady here in this parliament thinks she owns my land—'my' being the million people that live along the North Queensland coastline from Bundaberg north. In this area is seven per cent of Australia's fruit and vegetable manufacturing. We already import 12 per cent from overseas, so now we're going to import one-fifth of our fruit and vegetables from overseas, are we? Is this a good outcome for Australia? Let us turn to the Barrier Reef. Unlike people in this House—I doubt there are too many who have scuba dived on the Barrier Reef—most of my family have scuba dived there, some of them regularly. Most North Queenslanders scuba dive. We know the reef. We live by the reef. We love the reef, or we wouldn't be living there. So who knows all about the reef? Who loves the reef? Who protects the reef? It is the people that live there, of course. I'm pleased that the minister is here to hear what I'm saying. If you say that there is a problem with the runoff, unlike other people in this place, I asked around and found a person who was described to me as the best reef scientist in the world. We share different views politically—we share most certainly different views on the environment! She would be regarded as a very, very strong environment. Two years ago, at our last long meeting, I said, 'Are you reasonably comfortable with everything as it is now?' and she said, 'I would have to say yes, and I would say I'd like nitrogen to be a little bit less, but I wouldn't like to have to defend that in the public arena.' The minister is proposing—well, I don't know if she is. A letter has been given to us. This is about what I moved in this resolution. Did it come from the minister? Is it a concocted letter? Did it have the authority of cabinet? Did it have the approval of cabinet or the party room when the letter was sent? These are questions that must be answered by the minister in this place. I want to zero in on nitrogen. This scientist said: 'The levels are acceptable, but I'd be a bit more comfortable if they were a little tiny bit less, but I couldn't argue that point. If you're asking me if I'm comfortable—yes, I'm comfortable with the current regime.' What people in this place don't understand, and what you must understand, is how nature works. You've got to be very careful here. If you stop the nitrogen run-off from going out onto the barrier reef and its environs, there is a result. It's been going out for 200 years now, and if you stop it from going out then there are ramifications. Suddenly you've changed what's going on with the barrier reef and its environments. Let me be very specific. They did research on whether dugong numbers were going up or down, and the environmental movement came out and said, 'There you go. The dugong numbers have dropped clean in half. Everything in North Queensland and everything in Central Queensland has got to be stopped because the dugong are dying.' Well, no-one read the report. I'm one of these foolish people who read reports. I read the report and, of course, the environmental movement had, once again, flagrantly lied, as they lie again and again and again and again. What had happened was that they quoted the dugong numbers in the southern half of the reef but not those in the northern half of the reef. In the southern half of the reef the dugong numbers had dropped in half and in the northern part of the reef the dugong numbers had doubled. Why did it occur? Because there'd been a huge drought in Central Queensland, there was no nitrogen run-off and the seagrass wasn't being replenished by nitrogen, so the dugong had a choice of staying there and dying or moving north to where they could get a good feed. If you take the nitrogen away, it'll be goodbye dugong, and it'll be goodbye to a hell of a lot of other things as well, because, whether you like it or not, for 200 years that has been the way that nature has worked. We are very, very disappointed. I've had very great respect for the minister, and I've said this on many occasions in this place. I greatly admire her very, very great depth of knowledge and understanding, but if that letter is authentic then this is very, very bad indeed not only for this place but for Australia. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Member for Kennedy, just to assist the House, I will take your two contributions as you having spoken in continuation. So that's a 10-minute allocation. Now that your speaking time has been completed, I will ask the member for Mayo to second the motion. 16:27 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I second the motion. I second it because I know that the member for Kennedy cares very deeply about his electorate and that, if this letter is indeed authentic, he's very concerned about what it will mean for his cattle and his cane farmers in particular, as well as for the sea environment. Of course, my electorate is a very long way away from the Great Barrier Reef, but I'm pleased, as a fellow— Mr Katter HX4 You visit regularly, though. Ms SHARKIE 265980 Not as regularly as some people do, Bob, and I'm not there as much as you are, certainly. But I'm here as a fellow crossbencher, providing support by seconding the motion. 16:28 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I want to thank the member for Kennedy for raising this issue and I note his very strong interest. He's mentioned cattle and cane farmers in particular and his great love of the reef, including the time that he has spent snorkelling and diving on the reef, and I don't doubt for a moment that his interest is very sincere, but I think he's got the wrong end of the stick on this one. The letter that he's referring to is indeed a letter that I wrote. It's not secret. I tabled it in the Senate in July. I'm proud that our government has backed strong action to protect the Great Barrier Reef. We've worked very closely with the Queensland government to do that, and because we've been able to work very closely with the Queensland government—and with farmers, including cane farmers and cattle farmers, and with local government right up along the coast of the Great Barrier Reef, and with tourism operators, and with fishers, and with a range of other stakeholders—and because of the investments we're making, we actually managed to prevent the Great Barrier Reef being listed as in danger by UNESCO. The member for Kennedy might say, 'Who cares what UNESCO thinks about our Great Barrier Reef?' In one respect, I know what he's saying is that no-one loves the Great Barrier Reef and no-one cares about the Great Barrier Reef more than Australians. Mr Katter HX4 And the people who live there. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M And the people who live there: I completely agree with him. However, having an endangered listing from UNESCO does have serious consequences for the people who live there, including putting at risk the 64,000 jobs and the $6.4 billion a year tourism industry that depend on the Great Barrier Reef's status as one of the natural wonders of the world—the way that we love and appreciate and see it. The fact that we have invested $1.2 billion in the reef has actually meant that the international community sees that we are serious about protecting the reef, and we have managed to prevent the Great Barrier Reef being inscribed on the endangered list. The outcome was not inevitable. In fact, before the change of government, the Great Barrier Reef was headed for an endangered listing, which would have had very serious consequences for tourism. Sources close to UNESCO told the French newspaper Le Monde that on climate change and the environment 'the approach has changed completely between the new government and the old one; it's a bit like night and day.' What have we done? We've invested a record $1.2 billion in the reef. We've legislated to reach net zero carbon emissions—43 emissions reduction target by 2030 and 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030. We've invested—and this is the thing I think is troubling the member for Kennedy—$150 million to improve water quality, but the projects that we're talking about are revegetation, grazing management and engineering work like gully stabilisation. The member for Kennedy and I have had excellent talks about the problem of gullies eroding because of the impact of feral pigs, in particularly, and feral goats and other animals like that. So we're working with farmers to do that gully bank stabilisation, including, most particularly by managing some of these are feral animals that are eroding the banks. I did also reject a proposal for a coalmine that would have potentially impacted the water quality of the reef. It was eight kilometres away from the reef and it had water courses going down onto the reef. I've withdrawn federal funding for dams that would have had a detrimental impact on reef water quality. The member for Kennedy might not like that part of it. In the budget in May I invested an extra $163.4 million to guarantee the future of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, effectively doubling funding for marine science on the Great Barrier Reef. The member for Kennedy knows what trouble AIMS were in before that. They actually had laboratories they couldn't use because they were in such a degraded state due to a lack of investment. I know the member for Kennedy supports AIMS's investigation into how we repopulate some of those areas where we've had coral bleaching events and how we deal with crown-of-thorns starfish. This is world-leading science. People come from around the world to learn from our reef scientists, and we have to back the work that they're doing. Of course, we're also working to engage more Indigenous rangers—for example, to do some of that work on crown-of-thorns starfish. I know the member for Kennedy is a great supporter of job creation in those areas right up and down the coast that faces the Great Barrier Reef and having Indigenous rangers doing work managing crown-of-thorns starfish. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M I'm struggling to both inform the member for Kennedy and listen to his interjections. We might have to have this conversation offline a little bit later. Those Indigenous rangers are doing great work in the water with crown-of-thorns starfish. They're also doing great work on these scattered islands right through the Great Barrier Reef that are affected by feral animal and weed incursions. They're doing great work both in the sea and on the land. Marine plastics and ghost nets are another great example of the work that's being done particularly by Indigenous ranges but more broadly by people working to protect the Great Barrier Reef. Of course we're working with the Queensland government on better management of fisheries, as well. We know that there is still a great deal of work to do to protect the Great Barrier Reef, but Australia is not unique in this. Climate change has potential impacts on every coral reef around the world. The Great Barrier Reef is not the only World Heritage property in Australia that is at risk from climate change. We're worried about, for example, salt water incursions in the Kakadu National Park, from rising sea levels. Of course we need to deal with that underlying issue of climate change, as well as these reef-specific issues. Senator Nita Green, who is the Special Envoy for the Great Barrier Reef, is doing fantastic work to advocate for the reef, including going to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, where the meeting was being held to decide whether the Great Barrier Reef would be listed as 'in danger'. I think, in the fantastic work that Senator Green is doing as the special envoy for the reef, she would be the first to tell you that more of that work is actually on the land than in the sea, because she is working directly with farmers, tourism operators and other stakeholders to protect the reef. I'm tabling the report to me, the Minister for the Environment and Water, by Senator Green, the Special Envoy for the Great Barrier Reef, which details some of her excellent work. Finally, I also want to table a copy of the letter that the member for Kennedy is referring to. The letter, indeed, is directed to the Director-General of UNESCO. It very briefly details some of the work that we're doing to protect the Great Barrier Reef and it includes a list of commitments that we have made. I have to reassure the member for Kennedy: these commitments, by and large, have appeared in our budgets in recent years, and there's no mystery to them. They are commitments that we are absolutely proud of and absolutely determined to stand behind. In fact, I'm really pleased that the member for Kennedy has brought this debate on today because it gives me a chance to reassure him that we are, just as he is, committed to ensuring that Queensland has a viable agricultural industry and, just as he is, committed to ensuring that Queensland has a viable tourism industry there on the reef and jobs in fisheries and all of the areas that he has mentioned today. We absolutely support that. But we also know, as he does, that we have a commitment and a determination to protect and preserve this jewel of natural wonder for generations to come. I'm tabling the letter to the UNESCO director-general, as well. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 There being no further speakers, I put the question that the motion be agreed to. Question negatived. COMMITTEES 48 COMMITTEES Trade and Investment Growth Joint Committee 48 Report 48 16:38 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth, I present the committee's report, incorporating dissenting reports, entitled: Australia's trade and investment opportunities in a global green economy. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr GEORGA DZY by leave—Australia is well on its way to becoming a green energy superpower. The world is changing. Global decarbonisation efforts are having a profoundly transformative effect on the way the world engages in trade and investment. Australia stands at a unique crossroads, with an opportunity to lead the world in the green energy revolution. Our nation's strengths, like abundant renewable resources and a skilled workforce, put us in a prime position. In our inquiry we uncovered a multitude of opportunities, particularly in value-added manufacturing, offering economic growth and jobs. The mission of the committee was clear. The Australian government must bolster existing structures, invest in the emerging green industries and streamline regulations. However, this transition is not without its challenges. There were 16 recommendations in our report serving as a road map to strengthen Australia's position in the green economy. What we saw was that we're at the cusp of something great, shaping the future—a future fuelled by a global green economy. Throughout the inquiry, the committee heard about all the current and emerging opportunities for Australia. We heard about developing new export led industries, driving economic growth and creating jobs—for example, in the extraction and processing of critical minerals and rare earths, in the production of green hydrogen and in manufacturing across the battery value chain. The committee was particularly impressed by its firsthand experience of the work being done by industry leaders such as Fortescue Future Industries in Perth, Western Australia, which we visited, and Alpha HPA in Gladstone, Queensland. As well as emissions reduction and economic benefits, Australia's green energy superpower transition will ensure greater sovereign manufacturing capability and reduce exposure to global supply chain constraints as well as supporting Australia's interests in the Asia-Pacific region. The 16 recommendations made in this report focus on ensuring that Australia is positioned to realise its green energy superpower potential. Australia is ready to accelerate opportunities and address challenges, including by leveraging Australia's existing trade and investment architecture to maximise opportunities in the global green economy; supporting value-added manufacturing and export opportunities; developing a national green energy superpower strategy; aligning trade and investment promotions and awareness-building functions with Australia's green energy superpower ambitions; and enhancing sovereign manufacturing capability in industries subject to supply chain constraints. I thank all the businesses, organisations, government agencies, community groups and individuals that provided written submissions and appeared as witnesses at the public hearings for this inquiry. I would also like to thank the committee secretariat for their work. I thank the deputy chair, the member for Wright. And, of course, I thank fellow committee members for their participation and valuable contributions during this inquiry. I commend the report to the House. BILLS 48 BILLS Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 48

Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023

Second Reading 48 16:43 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence When the debate on this bill was adjourned, I was talking about the member for Riverina and his constant insistence on being perceived as the elder statesman of debates like this. I'm sure he longs for the National Party of old, whatever that means. Right now, could there be a 're-Joyce'? It's always possible. Either way there's 'Little-to-be-proud' of and they're stuck in a 'Pitt of despair'. The member for Riverina rightly mentioned that the member for Watson was indeed the minister responsible for the plan a bit over a decade ago now. The member for Watson was the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities in the Gillard Labor government. In researching the plan, I came across comments the member for Watson made regarding cooperative federalism in Australia with river systems, and they really struck a chord with me. The member for Watson noted that, for a number of decades, policymakers had allowed the Murray-Darling Basin to be governed as though rivers would respect state boundaries, but in the end we must have this legislation pass as a means to hit reset and return the system to something that is a bit closer to the vision the member for Watson and the Gillard government had for the basin all those years ago. It's a bit cliched to use this line: the best-laid plans do not survive contact with the enemy. But what if the enemy were part of a government which allowed it carte blanche to dismantle that policy almost entirely over nine long years? You'd make some alterations to that policy to allow more time for it to work. You'd allow more options through which to achieve the aims of that policy. You'd allocate additional sources of funding towards achieving those aims and you'd certainly put more accountability in the system. This bill does all of those things. In closing, especially with water, we stand up for ourselves quite vocally, as we aren't particularly used to those others stepping in to stand up for South Australia. When we just want to be included in the conversation at times, to be remembered, we have a government that wants to stand up for Australia. I commend this bill to the House. 16:45 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest I rise to speak on the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023. As an irrigation dairy farmer I understand the importance of the irrigation sector, not just to farmers but also to food processors, our food security and affordable food for Australians—quality food. More importantly, I know exactly what happens to communities and food production when water—water which is the lifeblood of the region—is removed. At the heart of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan has been the need to balance the needs of the various water users, including the environment, in the basin, as well as the water quality, and to balance the critical social and economic factors. It's this very balance that the government is directly legislating against. The social and economic testing must be retained, and the 1,500-gigalitre cap on water buybacks should not be removed. If the Labor government progresses these amendments regional communities will be devastated, with direct impacts on the communities, on local workers and on jobs, as well as on small and larger businesses and food processors. We will also see people leaving smaller communities, and the whole community will be affected. What really concerns me is that these smaller communities, the farmers, the processors and the local businesses will simply become collateral damage of this Labor government decision, which is clearly described by the government, in the explanatory memorandum, as 'removing necessary impediments'. As someone who has farmed and lived in a small community dependent on irrigation, I'm appalled that the government would describe the impacts and cost to communities this way. It also demonstrates a complete ignorance of the importance of water and the potential increased costs of living and shortages of food for Australian consumers, as we see in WA with the superficial approach to shutting down live sheep exports. This process is the same. It's simply the Labor government's contemptuous tick-and-flick approach to achieve what they have already decided to do, along the way just paying lip-service to the affected local communities, businesses and local people. If the government is in any doubt about the impacts of water buybacks, the minister needs to have a look at the devastating effects on the Owens Valley in California for an example of what happens when governments destroy irrigated agriculture in a region. A rough estimate puts the potential losses from the proposed 450-gigalitre buybacks at around $2 billion per annum as an initial cost. That's an ongoing annual cost, as food production is severely reduced or lost entirely. And why? Because an enormous amount of water will be taken away from those communities. Four hundred and fifty gigalitres is around the equivalent of the water in Sydney Harbour, which is around 500 gigs. It's an enormous amount of water to take away from the community. However, there will be an additional ongoing cost at the check-out for consumers of fruit, vegetables, milk and dairy products, and beef. The Water Act of 2007, as originally legislated, aimed to balance social, economic and environmental factors for water management in the Murray-Darling Basin, and to act in the national interest of Australia. There has been no feasibility assessment of the consequences of that, or the Basin Plan impacts of removing the impediments to trade or enacting the constraints management strategy to achieve higher Basin Plan flow volume targets for the Murray River measured at the Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth in South Australia. There's been concentration on physical water recovery for the environment in the southern basin, primarily in the Murray system, the Goulburn River and the Lower Darling. Social and economic impacts of buybacks are not just confined to a reduction in irrigation entitlements used for regional agriculture. Buybacks impact pricing and supply of water entitlements, reducing supply and forcing prices higher by creating shortages and stranding critical irrigation assets, and encouraging third-party profiteering at the expense of the productive use of water. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority regulatory impact statement severely underestimated the social and economic consequence of the Basin Plan. Buybacks produce economic inequities in geographical areas and, as I said, aggravate the social and economic impacts for affected regions. The advice to Minister Plibersek on the Basin Plan's implementation briefly acknowledges these impacts when it stated: Through water recovery under Bridging the Gap, 98% of the surface water target has been transferred to entitlements with the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder (CEWH). We acknowledge that this water recovery has predominantly occurred in irrigation dependent communities, and these communities have been impacted by water reform. Concerns about the Commonwealth buyback include the lack of a strategic approach, causing what we term the 'Swiss cheese' effect; that sellers are not necessarily willing sellers but under pressure due to drought or financial situations; that there will potentially be insufficient sellers, creating shortages and forcing up prices; and the tender process, which historically has been too slow and not transparent. For those who don't understand irrigated agriculture, perhaps the Swiss cheese effect can be a challenge to understand. Ill-considered buybacks create a Swiss cheese effect in irrigation districts where the Commonwealth purchases water entitlements, when buybacks once again focus on the southern Murray-Darling Basin. The term refers to what happens when some entitlement holders along an irrigation channel sell their water entitlements, cease irrigating and dry off their land. That creates 'holes' in an irrigation area, increasing losses, reducing the efficiency of delivering water down that channel, stranding assets and increasing the maintenance costs and delivery fees for the entitlement holders who remain. As irrigators know, irrigation pipes and channels operate on a water ordering system. To supply an irrigator at the end of a pipe or standard channel, the pipe or channel must be filled so the water reaches the end of the pipe or channel. The total water entitlements in any irrigation scheme consists of irrigator owned water entitlements and those required to deliver the water to the irrigators. Most, but not all, irrigation schemes separately hold water delivery entitlements to deliver this allocation to their irrigators. Harvey Water, in my part of the world, was the first irrigation scheme in Australia in 1996 to hold separate delivery entitlements independent of irrigator owned water entitlements. Water efficiency is focused on reducing the amount of delivery entitlements required to deliver water. If a number of irrigators, partway down the channel, sell their water entitlements and dry off their land, the losses to supply the irrigator at the very end of the channel may well result in the need to close the end of the channel as it's no longer sustainable. Even if the irrigation scheme has automated channel control that allows the water to be filled and emptied through a series of gates, the water losses and cost of supplying an irrigator at the end of the channel, if their neighbours dry off their land, may become prohibitive. There were examples of this given to the Senate standing committee in 2014. The Murray Shire gave an example of the effect in their area: … within Murray Shire, there is a scheme in Mathoura which formerly had 14 members and now has seven. This reduction in members is already having severe economic impacts on the remaining members of the scheme. The whole issue is affecting, and will continue to affect, business confidence, which will in turn affect property values. Coleambally Irrigation referred to the Swiss cheese effect as hindering planning efforts within irrigation districts. It didn't allow them to plan. It didn't allow the board to plan. They did not know where the next dry farm was going to come from. They couldn't plan ahead for bridges or other infrastructure. Irrigation Australia also noted some of the social effects. A fourth-generation farmer who is told that they are at the end of a spur channel that is being abandoned is going to be really upset about that decision because all of their friends and family are in, and their whole lifestyle revolves around, that little community district. They're being told to pick up and move to somewhere else completely out of the way from where they live. It's important that social costs and social issues get included in those decisions. A separate effect is that the Commonwealth and states have spent billions of dollars upgrading irrigation systems and schemes in the Murray-Darling Basin. If the buyback is not strategically managed—and there is no indication that it will be—millions of dollars spent over the last 15 years will have been wasted as newly upgraded channels and pipes are forced to close due to the latest proposed round of ill-considered buybacks. Make no mistake: the government will remove water from between 50,000 and 70,000 hectares of vital food-producing irrigated farming land. I'm particularly concerned about the dairy industry in the basin, which underpins Australia's food security. Dairy farmers have been—and are—keen innovators in adapting to climate change. They've invested in irrigation technologies. They've improved their infrastructure and water use efficiency. They supply, in that area, their milk to 42 milk processing plants. The very viability of those local processing plants is critical to dairy farmers and consumers. Milk is a perishable product. It has to be collected and manufactured seven days a week as soon as you can after the cows are milked. Along with the previous water buybacks in the Murray-Darling Basin, we've seen milk volumes in Australia reduce from 11 billion litres a year to eight billion litres a year. These reduced volumes threaten the viability of milk processors and the industry. Both dairy farming businesses and processors are the backbone of their local economies and communities, something that's frequently underestimated. There are other options available to the government besides water buybacks, through infrastructure, water use efficiencies and water delivery system efficiencies. There are plenty of examples in the millions of investments already committed to for the Murray-Darling Basin infrastructure to date. Water for the environment needs to be managed so it doesn't damage food supply or further damage the farmers and their communities. Since 2008, Murray-Darling Basin farming communities have lived with the stress, the heartbreak and the uncertainties of the ever changing demands of government on their livelihoods and the viability of their business and townships. The river system is the lifeblood of these communities, and that very lifeblood feeds Australia and many people in the international community. As my own irrigation co-op, Harvey Water, says, 'Where water flows, food grows.' But I see that the bill delivers on the water market reform final roadmap, a process initiated by the former coalition government to restore transparency, integrity and confidence in water markets and water management in the basin, a process that finally addresses the need to regulate the water broker intermediaries. Concerns have been raised since the introduction of water trading that there needed to be monitoring and regulation to prevent potential insider trading and that proper provisions requiring a trust account to be held and monitored needed to be included. Whilst early reports from the ACCC denied that this regulation of intermediaries was necessary, it's actually a relief that it's being done after it was first raised. Concerning, however, are matters subject to regulation and not actually detailed in the bill itself. The government's track record of a lack of consultation means that people are rightly nervous about what the government will do with these regulations. There is a genuine need for more time to meet the requirements of this plan. Murray-Darling Basin communities should not be the ongoing victims of arbitrary deadlines. Meeting planned goals is important, but so is the wellbeing of local communities, the wider Australian public and the people—the farmers themselves. They actually matter. The reintroduction of buybacks from willing sellers is a cause of deep concern. Unmanaged buybacks create the risk, as I said, of stranded irrigation assets, assets in some cases that may have recently been maintained or built with millions of dollars of Commonwealth and state funding support. It needs to be seriously considered. Most of the use occurs in the three large southern valleys of the Murray, Murrumbidgee and Goulburn-Broken rivers, made possible by the many wonderful large dams that facilitate the regulated releases of water downstream and divert them into those irrigation canal systems. So I am very concerned about what the government is proposing here. Anyone who doesn't understand the value of irrigated agriculture, where the food is produced in Australia and the impacts on the people who actually matter is of great concern to me. 17:00 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga The Water Amendment (Restoring our Rivers) Bill 2023 is critically important to the water security of basin communities. It will rescue the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and that plan and the river itself are in need of rescuing. Our country is facing an environmental emergency, and, if we don't act now to preserve the Murray-Darling, we know that our basin towns will be unprepared for drought, our native animals will face the threat of extinction, our river ecosystems will risk environmental collapse and our food and fibre production will be insecure and unsustainable. A healthy basin means healthy communities. It is really vital that a river that provides clean drinking water to three million Australians every day is in the healthiest possible condition it can be in. This is an important moment for basin communities and for any Australian who cares about the health of our environment. In the context of the health of our environment and the health of our rivers, I want to reflect more broadly on the work our government is doing across water, waterways and the environments that they are connected to—because it is all interconnected. It's demonstrative of the approach our government is taking on water and environmental issues, led by the Minister for the Environment and Water, that we are looking at these issues in a holistic way. We're not taking it piece by piece. We know that there is so much work to be done across the country to protect and restore waterways and to protect and restore our environment. We have a strong agenda for supporting rivers and waterways throughout Australia, including in my local community. I have spoken in this place before about how my community of Jagajaga is home to many waterways. The south-eastern boundary of Jagajaga is, of course, the mighty Yarra River, or the Birrarrung. The Darebin Creek is in the south-west of the electorate, and the Kurrum, or the Plenty River, and the Diamond Creek cross through the electorate. On the far north-eastern edge of Jagajaga, we have Watsons Creek. These are all very important waterways in my community. Across Australia, the population growth that we've seen in decades past can be traced along these rivers and these waterways and seen in the use of them and the importance of them to those communities. The Yarra River in Melbourne can sometimes be regarded as a dividing line—we joke in Melbourne about whether you're from the north or the south side of the river and what that means for you culturally—but it is also a connector. In my community, any day of the week, you can see people drawn to the river, walking, canoeing, spotting wildlife and spending time together. Our waterways are important for so many reasons. So those initiatives, as I said, that our government is taking to look at waterways across our country, including the Murray-Darling Basin, are really important for communities like mine. It's initiatives like the Urban Rivers and Catchments Program, with dedicated funding for waterways and supporting the environment in my community. In fact, in Jagajaga, we have three projects underway under this program: at the Yarra Flats Park alongside the Yarra River, along Darebin Creek and in Eltham North along the Diamond Creek. These waterways are, I will acknowledge, a bit smaller than the Murray-Darling Basin, but again I highlight that they are interconnected. Our commitment to protect waterways across our country extends from the mighty Murray-Darling all the way to these waterways in my electorate of Jagajaga in the City of Melbourne. This is really important, and our government is not afraid to take up the challenge that is before us—to take up this work that has been neglected for far too long and to do the work that is needed to try and restore and protect waterways across this country. At last year's federal election our government did make a promise to deliver the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full, as it was designed, and in line with the science, and with this legislation we are fulfilling that promise to the river system and to every community and every Australian who depends on it. The agreement that Minister Plibersek recently struck with New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and the ACT is historic. It is an agreement that will deliver the plan in full after a decade of sabotage and delay by the Liberals and Nationals, another issue that those who were formerly in government failed to land, another issue that they put in the too-hard basket and let lapse. We are suffering from the consequences of that, and the Murray-Darling Basin and the communities along it are suffering from the consequences of that. This new agreement is a balanced and reasonable agreement. It took more than a year of detailed consultation to put it together. It includes 450 gigalitres of water for the environment, and our government worked with the states and territories, with farmers and irrigators, with scientists and experts, with environmentalists and with First Nations groups as we put this plan together because we do know that we all need to work together to make the plan work as it should. The measures contained in this bill offer more time, more options, more money and more accountability around how we do this work. It offers more time to deliver the remaining water, again based on expert advice. This includes the recovery of the 450 gigalitres of water for the environment by December 2027 and the delivery of water infrastructure projects by December 2026. It offers more options to deliver the remaining water, including water infrastructure projects and a voluntary water buybacks. It offers more funding to deliver the remaining water and to support communities where voluntary water buybacks have flow-on impacts. It offers more accountability for Murray-Darling Basin governments on delivering the remaining water on time. For this aspect, federal funding will be based on achieving water recovery targets within deadlines, and that is important. We know that across our country since the time of Federation we have had issues with resources being shared across states and territories, and it is important that all of us are accountable: all levels of government for their roles in delivery on this plan for protecting the Murray-Darling and supporting the communities along the Murray-Darling Basin. This plan does deliver more water for the environment, more certainty for farmers and industry, more financial support for affected communities, more protection for native plants and animals and more hope for Australia's most important river system. We shouldn't lose sight of why Australian governments designed the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in the first place. Without a plan in place, we know where we would end up. The next drought is most likely just around the corner. We have seen the devastating impact of drought in our country all too often, and we know how devastating a drought is for those communities that rely on the Murray-Darling Basin, so we need a plan in place to get all those levels of government working together to support communities along the river in the basin, to help us through what we know will be dry years and to make sure that there is enough water flowing through those systems at what could be the basin's lowest moments. It is a challenge that our government has taken on to help rescue the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, a return to common sense. We're not interested in trying to score political points here. We're not interested in trying to play communities or groups off against each other. We recognise there are a myriad of interests that come together to rely on the Murray-Darling, and we are interested in trying to work with all of those groups, all of those people who have a stake in this most important river system so as to put the plan back on track. For too many years it was of course off track. For too many years it was in the too-hard basket. For too many years we had politics happening around the plan, trying to play communities and interest groups off each other. That is not the approach of this government. We have come back to the basics, to the point of view of remembering what the point of having this plan is: to ensure that we have a healthy and sustainable basin for the future. We are working to get it back on track, and I am really pleased that that is something this government has brought such focus to here with the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. As I said, we have also brought focus to it with our support for rivers and waterways across the country and for the environment more broadly. We are once again trying to make up for a decade of denial, a decade of not doing the work that should have been done to protect some of the most iconic and important environments in our country, by protecting areas that are habitat for endangered species and making sure that we protect what is left—to both restore and enhance it. The original deadline for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was set for June 2024. In the early years of the plan we were in fact on track to meet those deadlines. But during their nine years of government the Liberals and Nationals spent their time sabotaging the plan. We've seen this time and time again from those opposite in their approach to government—not delivering, just politicking, and not doing the work that our country needs for the long term. They tied projects up in impossible rules so that they couldn't deliver water savings. They blocked water recovery programs. They tried to cut the final recovery targets to keep them below scientific recommendations. As a result, progress slowed to a dribble under those opposite. It is a great shame that because of this it is now impossible to deliver the plan on the original time line. In the nine years of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government they delivered just two gigalitres of the 450 gigalitres. Their efforts in fact put the plan on track to be completed sometime around the year 4000. It sounds very sci-fi, doesn't it? I can't really comprehend what life might be like around the year 4000, but I think it's safe to say that the Murray-Darling Basin probably wouldn't be surviving under the trajectory put in place by those opposite. As I said, it is very important that our government is now getting on with this, has put this plan in place and is doing what those opposite could not do during their nine long years in government. This plan will deliver more water. The 450-gigalitre target has its own funding mechanism, the Water for the Environment Special Account. The coalition were told during their time in government that this wasn't working. They were told that in the first Water for the Environment Special Account report and they were told that in the second Water for the Environment Special Account report. They knew this program had stalled completely, but for nine years they kept a pause on water recovery. This legislation removes that pause so that we can finally deliver the water, giving this account more flexibility in line with the Water Act's objectives. With these changes, we are opening up the full suite of water recovery options. We will be able to invest in on-farm water infrastructure, in land and water purchases and in other novel water recovery mechanisms where it is sensible to do so. We will be able to purchase water from willing sellers where it's needed to deliver the plan. We do know that water purchase is never the only tool in the box. It is not the first tool at hand, but it does need to be one of them. This is critical nation-building work. As I've said, the Murray-Darling Basin is vitally important to all the communities along it, and it is also important to our entire country. It is an iconic piece of our natural landscape, and we all have an interest in making sure that it is protected and that it is healthy into the future in a climate that we know is changing. In an environment where we know it is likely that we will face more droughts and challenging weather, it is so important that we have in place a plan that is deliverable and a government that is willing to do the work to deliver that plan: a government that is prepared to work with state and territory governments—that shared accountability that we all have for the Murray-Darling Basin to achieve the aims of the plan; a government that knows that we have to get on with this, rather than focusing on the politics of this; and a government that does all of this work in the broader space of trying to restore and protect our environment around the country after too long, almost a decade of denial, with critical pieces of our nation's natural infrastructure being lost to us through the incompetence and the denial of those opposite. I'm very pleased to be supporting this legislation. It is very important to our country. 17:15 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I rise to speak on the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023, which unfortunately the coalition cannot support. It is a very badly designed bill, masking a misunderstanding of the original Murray-Darling Basin Plan. In the original plan in 2012, after community dissent and unrest, with threats of violence and people's livelihoods potentially vanishing, it was settled that 2,750 gigalitres would be the sustainable diversion limit. The 450 gigalitres was not in the original plan by the honourable Craig Knowles, who worked up the plan back in 2012, which Minister Burke eventually tabled. There are agreements on the socioeconomic neutrality test around this last-minute additional 450 gigalitres. At five minutes to midnight, back in 2012, wrangling with the Greens added 450 gigalitres. But the socioeconomic neutrality test that the Liberals and Nationals nutted out with the current government back in 2018 meant that there had to be social and economic neutrality in any further buybacks that use the Water for the Environment Special Account to use buybacks to get 450 gigalitres. It was meant to be using efficiency and on-farm and off-farm infrastructure to achieve that. The process for this bill has been incredibly disappointing. There was no inquiry. There was a webinar, and that was it—a webinar. People in the Murray-Darling Basin were ropeable. The coalition decided to do the work that the government should have done, and, over four days, the coalition backbench policy committee went out to these affected regions. Four days of meetings were held in Shepparton and Mildura in Victoria, Renmark in South Australia, Griffith and Moree. We heard in Renmark from an organisation representing the irrigators at the bottom of the basin, while in Moree we had representatives from Queensland shires at the very top of the basin. We heard from three members in separate locations and from a committee legislated by the government, called the Basin Community Committee—that is set up by legislation—which had not been consulted on this bill. The bill in itself is not compliant with its own existing legislation. The government has effectively torn up the bipartisan agreement about the use of water in the Murray-Darling Basin. Just so that listeners have no misunderstanding: the Murray-Darling Basin Plan had a nominal value of around 13,000 gigalitres when full. It has, courtesy of a La Nina period, had healthy flows. But, since records commenced, the Murray-Darling Basin, during drought periods, has very low flows. It's not like the Mississippi, the Danube or any of these major great rivers in other countries and continents that have huge mountainous snowfields, glacier feed-in et cetera. It winds its way across thousands of kilometres of flat land, without any major feed-in mountain ranges. The first explorers recorded the Darling as a chain of ponds. Things dry out. People think that when you see the Murray-Darling Basin with low water levels it's because everything has been sucked out by farming, but that is not the case. Many of the water rights that exist aren't necessarily guaranteed extraction rights. They're water access rights. Depending on which state you're in, there are amounts that are only delivered pro rata to the amount of water in the river. During the millennium drought allocations were sometimes zero per cent, not the nominated face value of their water rights. But often for years in these severe droughts the farmers may only get three, five or 10 per cent of what is put on their water licence, depending on what state they're in and whether it's high-security permanent water or whatever. But this legislation is doing multiple things that will totally set back that process. The impatience of the minister is quite obvious. It takes a lot of time to implement these efficiency measures on the river. It takes time, with the amount of regulation there is to go through, to get water saving infrastructure on-farm and off-farm. All the approvals take time. The critical thing in this legislation is that it aims to add the 450 back and facilitated by buybacks. We know that no-one wants buybacks because they ruin not just the agricultural production but the communities around it. An individual seller of a water right may be compensated, but the whole community—the whole agricultural output—goes down. In towns like Griffith, Coleambally and down in Renmark, if there's no water for agriculture, there is no agriculture. You can have the best farm and the best soils, but, unless you have water to add to it, you don't have agriculture. And that's the wonder of the Murray-Darling Basin. It is one of the most engineered waterways. It is a working river. It's not a national park. It supplies water for communities and also for agriculture. Forty per cent of the farms in Australia exist in the Murray-Darling Basin. It contributes $22 billion to our agricultural output. It is a matter of food security, for the nation and for countries that receive our food exports, that it flourishes. Communities that don't have farms that are active and producing will shrivel up and die. That is where we put in the socioeconomic neutrality test. By bipartisan agreement it has been working well. The 450 gigalitres can be achieved over time with those efficiency infrastructure gains. But the bill is going to facilitate open slather buybacks. The money's there. Historically, last time they did buybacks, they paid way over top dollar for a lot of licences that didn't even provide permanent or high-security water. They were actually buying thin air—water that only occurred when there was a flood—and it was paid for by the former minister back in the last Labor government. This is really going to remove the cap on buybacks for a start. The current Murray-Darling Basin Plan, with the 1,500 gigalitre cap on buybacks, hasn't even achieved what the plan outlined. There are still 225 gigalitres that the minister can buy back as part of the plan, before they go opening up another 450 gigalitres. There's potentially 760 gigalitres of water that could be bought back and flushed out to sea. That will be devastating for all those river and irrigation economy towns as well as cause a paucity of produce. In August 2022 the Victorian government looked at what the costs would be in its report on the social and economic impacts of the basin plan in Victoria. If the buybacks were used to recover the long-term average of 450 gigalitres of water, this would mean 200 gigalitres of Victorian high-security water and would be expected to reduce annual water in northern Victoria by 216 gigalitres. That would devastate places like Shepparton and all those towns along rivers that feed into the Murray-Darling. The reduction in irrigation area would be 50,000 hectares. That's a staggering amount of productive land. Not having water in agriculture is like trying to drive an internal combustion car without petrol or diesel. Farms don't work without water, and that's the beauty of irrigation. The Egyptians and people living on the Tigris and Euphrates realised that, for their civilisations to make enough food, you need water. Dams happened in Ethiopia 3,000 years ago. The Egyptians were building dams thousands of years ago. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan is a solid plan, but to throw it all out with impatience and go hell for leather to start buybacks again will end badly. Say there's a millennium drought mark 2 coming down the line. It may not happen because historically, following La Nina patterns, we generally don't have super El Ninos. The meteorologists I've sourced that information from are all professionally trained, so it's not likely that we're getting one now, although we're in an El Nino pattern now. The Victorian government worked out the economic impact in those areas would be a decrease of $500 million annually in the gross value of irrigated product. We need to think about those farmers and all the people that work on their farms. There was one farmer who had 15 employees at work, producing milk and products from irrigated pastures. If his water becomes too expensive, which it will when you take up to 760 gigalitres out, it's not economic to produce dairy as the inputs go through the roof. If there's no absolute water, well, for this 500-hectare farm—I haven't mentioned his name for privacy reasons—he'll be flat-out supporting just himself and his family. The northern Victoria gross value of agricultural production would be $270 million down per year, and agricultural employment down 900 farm jobs. But that's just an estimate for the agricultural jobs. All the town jobs that feed off agriculture would mean that number would multiply: the hairdressers, the shops, the retailers. Upstream and downstream there would be bad effects. The other thing that's in this bill is the water market reform section. Reading through the explanatory memorandum there are fairly scary things for people involved in agriculture, and other documents coming from New South Wales, fed by this desire, show that they are changing the water access rights. They will be able to reclassify them as Commonwealth-held environmental water. That is a major change. It's not just irrigators that may have their water limited, but stock and domestic water in the basin may be affected state by state. What is also changing is that, rather than the Murray-Darling Basin Authority running the water trading, it would go to the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission and the Bureau of Meteorology. We know the ACCC is capable, and market transparency is good in any market, but it talks about fixing up insider trading and implies a lot of things are happening that shouldn't be happening. It's not a feature that I had heard of because it's a pretty transparent market. Knowing a lot of people down on the Murrumbidgee and people I visited in these irrigation towns when I was in the health portfolio, water is life. Water is the economy in these areas. The Inspector-General will remain, but all of the hard regulations will come out of the ACCC. I move: That all words after "whilst" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House: (1) is concerned that the legislation represents the worst solution on national water reform; (2) notes that the following is needed for national water reforms in the Basin to be successful: (a) a cooperative and constructive approach with all Basin State Governments to assist water reform and investment in urban and rural water infrastructure; (b) bipartisan support; (c) proper face to face consultation with key stakeholders in the Murray Darling Basin, including all water users, farmers, water scientists, environment groups and the broader community to ensure the adoption of a Basin Plan which has at its heart a triple bottom line approach which optimises social, economic, and environmental outcomes. (3) criticises the Government for failing to consult the Basin Communities Committee which is the legislated voice for people living in the Murray Darling Basin, on the Water Amendment (Restoring our Rivers) Bill 2023". The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Is the amendment seconded? Mr Rick Wilson 198084 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 17:31 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore I rise to lend my support to the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023. As someone that has grown up on a dairy farm, I know how important water is for our farmers, our communities and of course our environment. My electorate is home to many great rivers, like the Shoalhaven River, the Clyde River, the Moruya River and many more, and I know we really appreciate our rivers. They sustain our towns, and businesses rely on them. We utilise them for recreation and tourism as well. Around the Batemans Bay, Moruya and Tuross Head region, you will find the best oysters, which of course rely on clean, clear water. At Greenwell Point you will also find the best oysters and champion oyster shuckers. These oysters get sold locally, domestically and sometimes internationally as well. What do these oyster farmers want? They want clean good-quality water. There's a common theme there—rivers, rivers, rivers. Everyone loves our rivers. River health is of great importance—and not a truer word could be said—and so we have Shoalhaven Riverwatch. The late Charlie Weir was the founder of Shoalhaven Riverwatch. Charlie had a deep love of the Shoalhaven River, having grown up at Riversdale and fished the river throughout his working life. During this time he witnessed the deterioration of the river, so in his retirement he worked tirelessly to restore the river to good health. Charlie was a founder of Shoalhaven Riverwatch in the early 1980s and was a passionate advocate for the next 40 years. Although I was only about 10 at the time, I am told that Charlie was a thorn in the side of many politicians and bureaucrats, fighting numerous battles to protect the river. Some of the things he championed were pollution of the river through industrial discharge into the river, an issue Riverwatch took to the Land and Environment Court in 1992; erosion caused by bad agricultural practices, such as allowing cattle to graze the riverbanks; riverbank erosion caused by wake boats; and re-establishing mangroves along the river, which are the nursery for fish. Charlie, together with Riverwatch, worked with people and groups to plant trees, planting in excess of 100,000 mangroves and 25,000 Casuarina trees, most of which were propagated in his backyard. Charlie was named the 2003 winner of the New South Wales individual land carer of the year, the 2004 runner-up national individual land carer of the year and more. I'm pleased to say that Charlie's legacy lives on through the Shoalhaven Riverwatch team. Their goal is to improve the health of the Shoalhaven River by working in partnership with government and the community—and that they do. They have many projects, including working bees to clean up the river, bank restoration projects as well as support for signage and small infrastructure such as fishing platforms. They are a very social group, with a barbecue after their working bees. I tell this story because our rivers are the lifeblood of our communities—healthy river, healthy town. That's why I'm happy to support this bill, which I know is a welcome relief to constituents who have raised this issue with me. I'm really proud that our government recently announced that we had reached an agreement with basin governments to deliver the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full, including 450 gigalitres of water for the environment. This legislation will rescue the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and we know that, just like for my communities, this legislation is really important for basin communities and for every Australian who cares about the environment. What this legislation will do is give basin governments more time to deliver the remaining water based on expert advice. This includes the recovery of 450 gigalitres of water for the environment by 31 December 2027 and the delivery of water infrastructure projects by 31 December 2026. There will be more options to deliver the remaining water, including water infrastructure projects and voluntary water buybacks. There will be more funding to deliver the remaining water and to support communities where voluntary water buybacks have flow-on impacts. There will be more accountability from Murray-Darling Basin governments to deliver the remaining water on time. Federal government funding will be contingent on achieving water recovery targets within deadlines. This is about a return to common sense. It's about remembering what the point is: to ensure a healthy and sustainable basin for the future, just like Charlie Weir role-modelled so well with the Shoalhaven River. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan is a complex plan with a simple objective: to set the river up better for the future. We know that this plan has been off track for many, many years. This comes after a decade of delay and, frankly, sabotage by the Liberals and Nationals. In fact, of the water recovered towards the plan so far, more than 80 per cent has been done under Labor governments. Put simply, we want more options, not more restrictions, and it's urgent. If this bill doesn't pass this year, the current legislation requires states to withdraw their unfinished projects. That's about half of them. This means a major part of the plan will fall over, incurring substantial costs and delays. Delivering the plan is good for the environment, good for jobs and good for communities. Our government made a commitment to deliver the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full, and that's exactly what we are doing. I'm proud to be part of a government that is tackling the difficult issues, like the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and making the health of our rivers a priority. I have also been proud to work with Shoalhaven City Council in my community and with many great local groups, like Shoalhaven Riverwatch and Shoalhaven Landcare, to provide $1.5 million in federal funding from the Urban Rivers and Catchments Program for the connecting community to Shoalhaven waterways project. This is a multifaceted approach to connecting community with waterways through school aged education and activities, linkages to waterway heritage and providing volunteers with a helping hand. This will increase the likelihood of sustainable environmental management pertaining to waterways in the Shoalhaven. Activities will include pollution reduction, water-quality management, bush care and revegetation, and sediment and erosion control. Similarly, in the Batemans Bay region, I secured $20,000 in federal funding for the clean up the Clyde River project, which was all about helping restore the Clyde River, involving local schoolchildren and raising community awareness about the impact of litter and weeds on the environment and Snapper Island's little penguin colony. I want to conclude today by sending a shout-out to everyone who volunteers their time and/or works to improve river health. Just like we're proud to be delivering the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full, we can be proud that we are working to keep our local rivers healthy, which is good for everyone in our communities. 17:39 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi The Murray-Darling Basin system is the lifeblood of a vast area of regional Australia, with almost all of the 29,000 square kilometres of my electorate of Indi falling within the basin. I want to start by declaring my own interest in the Murray-Darling: I live on the banks of the King and Ovens rivers within the Murray-Darling Basin, and I have a water use licence of 56 megalitres per year on the King River. The health of the Murray-Darling river system is not an abstract concept for me nor for my constituents. As a regional independent member of parliament I make my decisions based on what is best for Indi, what is evidence based and whether the legislation demonstrates good governance and sets up rural and regional Australia to thrive. Despite three years of higher than average rainfall and near full water storages, we know dry years are on the horizon and farmers are facing significant economic headwinds, and the impacts of climate change and water mismanagement on the basin ecosystem health are more apparent than ever. We need a Murray-Darling Basin Plan that puts us on the front foot of these challenges, with a healthy river system that delivers for basin communities, for farmers, for First Nations people and for the environment, and is resilient in the face of a changing climate. Without this bill, the current Water Act 2007 and Basin Plan 2012 will not achieve these outcomes. In July, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority advised that full implementation of the Basin Plan would not be possible by the legislated deadline of 30 June 2024, leaving a shortfall in water recovery for the environment of around 750 gigalitres per year. The Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill presents an opportunity to get the Basin Plan back on track towards meeting the agreed targets. The bill amends the Water Act 2007 and Basin Plan 2012 to achieve many outcomes, and I will list some of them: to extend the deadline for basin states to deliver the sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism projects; to expand options available to deliver the 450 gigalitres per year of additional environmental water, including through the use of water buybacks; to repeal the 1,500-gigalitre cap on Commonwealth water buybacks; to allow the funds from the Water for the Environment Special Account, or WESA, to be used to enhance environmental outcomes in the basin through a broader range of measures, including community assistance funds; to provide a road map for the delivery of constraints relaxation projects across the southern basin; and to enable the Inspector-General of Water Compliance to determine whether a basin state has met its commitments and whether it has a reasonable excuse for a failure to do so. I've met numerous stakeholders from across Indi and from across the basin more broadly. Water policy is complex and contested. I've had several meetings with the minister's office and discussed how this bill could be improved so that I could support its passage. I strongly believe it can be improved to better serve both the people whose life and livelihood depend on the water, and the environment. The two, of course, are critically interrelated. This bill is so important to me because my electorate of Indi is the link between the headwaters of the Murray and the wide-open plains of the basin. In fact, 'Indi' is the Indigenous name for the upper reaches of the Murray. It holds a special place in the story of the Murray-Darling Basin. The magnificent alpine areas and foothills of Indi receive high rainfall and winter snowfall, feeding streams that transform into some of the basin's most important rivers. The Kiewa, Ovens, King, Broken and Goulburn rivers all begin their journey in Indi, and, with the Murray and the Mitta Mitta, these rivers grow as they traverse the valleys and plains of our electorate. All together, water catchments across Indi supply more than 50 per cent of the surface water to the whole Murray-Darling Basin. Indi also contains the basin's largest water storages, the Dartmouth and Hume dams and Lake Eildon. Along with some smaller dams in the electorate, these dams and lakes amount to 63 per cent of the storage capacity in the southern basin and 45 per cent of the total storage for the whole Murray-Darling Basin. So you see, Deputy Speaker Vasta, the rivers and infrastructure of Indi are central to efforts to achieve a healthy river system. Delivering water for the often competing needs of agriculture, river communities and the environment inevitably comes with challenges, and I've spent time listening, to understand these different experiences and perspectives. I've met with farmers on the Goulburn; irrigators on the Murray; wine grape growers; catchment management authorities; scientists, including from the Wentworth group; Landcare and other environmental groups; businesspeople; and many, many local water experts. Among those I consulted, I'm particularly fortunate to be able to call upon Water For Indi, a voluntary community group that I set up in 2019 with local experts, including Dr Anna Roberts and Patten Bridge, with experience all across impacted sectors. I also acknowledge valuable contributions from other individuals who live and work in the basin, particularly Rob Priestly, Suzanna Sheed, Lee Baumgartner and John Pettigrew. I thank everyone who shared their valuable perspectives and expertise with me. In addition to consultation, I've carefully read submissions to the Senate inquiry and other documents which predate this bill. I've sought frank discussion and constructive suggestions on how to improve it. In particular, I heard from scientists and farmers alike about the most controversial part of this bill—the Commonwealth's new power to purchase water to return 450 gigalitres to the basin. Many basin communities are experiencing hardship with increasing cost of production, economic pressures and flow-on social impacts. This hardship is a reality, and water buybacks are one of the several factors that are having real impacts on those communities. We do need more examination of the specific impacts of buybacks and where other factors are at play. Analysis by Professor Sarah Wheeler published by the MDBA shows that many studies indicating large job losses from buybacks have low scientific reliability. However, what is absolutely clear is that many communities are suffering, and we need to adequately address impacts with far-reaching, genuine regional development. I consistently heard that, when the Commonwealth purchase water entitlements, they must also consider the physical realities of actually being able to deliver this water to where it's needed and intended. In many cases, we simply can't deliver the desired environmental flows from Lake Eildon or Hume Dam without causing more environmental, economic and social damage along the way. In Indi, the negative economic and environmental impacts of increased water flows are a real concern. Just last week, I was down on the Goulburn River near Alexandra with local farmers Jock Blakeny and Jan Beer, who showed me the impacts of the flooding from recent high flows from Eildon Weir. Jock, Jan and other farmers along the Goulburn and below Hume Dam stand to be significantly impacted by increased environmental flows. The message from these farmers in my electorate is clear: the impacts on them and their farms and the health of the rivers need to be considered when planning the volumes and the timing of environmental flows. Many farmers and other stakeholders across Indi and across Victoria feel that the southern basin is shouldering an unfair share of the burden when it comes to purchasing water entitlements by government. They say water recovery in the northern basin would have a bigger environmental payoff and less negative impact than delivering this water from the southern basin. These sentiments are compounded by stories of water mismanagement in the northern basin, delays in submitting water resource plans across the northern basin and fish kills resulting from insufficient environmental water flows. Local land and water management organisations hold grave concerns for river health if additional environmental water is to be purchased from the southern basin. If water is stored in Indi, there is almost no way of getting it to South Australia without significant further river bank erosion from high flows close to the source. These organisations are certainly not against improving environmental outcomes downstream. Far from it. They're just asking that the government consider the impacts on our upstream river systems, like the impacts I saw on the Jock's and Jan's farms. To make sure we're returning the right amount of water to the right basin locations, stakeholders I spoke to also want to see greater accountability and transparency around water use and water recovery projects—notably, around the Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment Mechanism projects, or SDLAM projects, and their actual impact. SDLAM projects aim to improve environmental outcomes in the basin while keeping water in productive use. My constituents are calling for consistent, independent and publicly available accounting processes to ensure that the actual water savings for these projects match the promises. To adequately assess progress towards meeting the targets of SDLAM projects and the targets of the Basin Plan in general, we need better modelling and we need more data. In Indi, water experts spoke to me of the need to have whole-of-basin modelling that is annually validated and publicly available to overcome the discrepancies between what current basin state models are reporting and the reality. Farmers spoke to me of their requests to have additional gauges installed to provide real-time information on flow volumes in certain sections of the rivers. They were told that the $20,000 to $30,000 cost per gauge was too much. Many would argue, and I would too, that this is money well spent if it means local farmers have sufficient warning of floods and can act before stock are lost. And water authorities and the Bureau of Meteorology would have better data to model flows and improve management of our river systems. It's critical that the minister listens to these concerns and solutions so her department can act on them. A final theme that emerged in almost all discussions I've had on this bill was the need for improved community engagement. Basin communities need to be involved in decision-making and adequately compensated when they're negatively impacted by buybacks. I'm not just talking about money for playgrounds or a new piece of silo art but long-term commitments that allow communities to invest in their future and for them to decide how they do it. As for my position on this bill, I support the extension of the deadlines for delivering the SDLAM projects. I want to see these projects have a another chance to deliver promised environmental gains for the basin. But we must be realistic on where projects still won't meet the extended deadline, and I support the expansion of the powers of the Inspector-General of Water Compliance to pursue accountability. I note that only three per cent of the 450-gigalitre target for additional water for the environment has been sourced, and that changes are needed to deliver the full amount. I support broadening the scope of measures that can be used to meet this target, noting that water purchases should be seen as a last resort. I acknowledge the removal of the cap on Commonwealth water purchase. This is highly contested by the irrigated agriculture communities, and I stress the importance of supporting impacted communities with transition funds. I therefore support enlarging the scope of measures that can be funded by the Water for the Environment Special Account. I also support efforts to reduce the risk of manipulation of water markets for financial gain. Expanded regulation of water markets, informed by regulation of financial markets, is a much needed step. Water markets should exist for the benefit of farmers, not for the benefit of financiers. While the bill proposes much needed progress, I nonetheless believe the bill can be further improved and I will move amendments to further strengthen the independent auditing powers of the Inspector-General of Water Compliance to improve accountability and transparency when it comes to meeting Basin Plan targets and delivering projects as promised. Further, I will move an amendment to review the Water for the Environment Special Account's new ability to make payments to address detrimental social or economic impacts on communities from the purchase of water. It is my hope that the special account will also be used to provide First Nations groups with meaningful opportunities to protect and enhance cultural values associated with environmental flows. I will move amendments that would place basin communities at the centre of reforms, requiring improved consultation with communities impacted by constraint projects—notably communities that will experience flooding as a result of the increased environmental flows. I will also move amendments that ensure the purchasing of water is strategic, particularly so that water from the northern basin is appropriately considered, improving environmental outcomes in rivers like the Darling—the Baaka. I want this bill to be the best bill it can be, because I want a healthy and resilient river system and a basin plan that is fair, transparent and pragmatic—one that ensures our critical food production is maintained at maximum efficiency and, importantly, where we give genuine voice to the basin communities of Indi and of regional Australia, who are directly impacted. 17:53 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong Given how vital water is for our country, communities, ecosystems, farms and planet, I am proud to speak in favour of this Water Amendment (Restoring our Rivers) Bill 2023. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan is not just an environmental issue; it's a matter of national significance. A healthy basin ensures healthy communities and countless benefits for Australians. It allows families to enjoy the river for recreation and tourism, it provides clean drinking water to three million Australians daily and it supports important food and fibre production. The basin is deeply entwined with the cultural fabric of Australia. Beyond its environmental importance, this iconic region holds profound cultural links for Australians, including significant connections to Indigenous culture. It transcends generations with deep-rooted connections to the communities around it. It's more than just a physical landscape. For many, it holds a spiritual connection to land, ancestors and traditions. The basin has been a source of food, water and shelter, and these resources are deeply intertwined with cultural practices. From the Barkandji people in the Menindee Lakes region to the Ngarrindjeri people in South Australia, each community has its unique ties to the Murray-Darling. Its cultural, social and economic ties to Australia underscore the importance of this bill. This legislation is not just about restoring the basin's ecological balance. It's also about preserving the deep cultural connections it holds for Indigenous communities and for those who use the basin for recreational spaces, and it ensures the continued prosperity of the nation. The Basin Plan was born out of the work of the 1994 Council of Australian Governments, which recognised that the degradation and unrestricted appropriation of our water system could not continue. That was over 28 years ago. Then, over a decade ago, in line with the National Water Initiative, a bipartisan agreement was reached to create water targets for the Murray-Darling Basin that would support the sustainability of life throughout the river system. To the detriment and devastation of so many communities and ecosystems, this plan has been a failure for many years because of the actions, or lack of action, of those opposite. The coalition were told again and again that the Basin Plan wasn't working. They were told that in the first Water for the Environment Special Account report. Then they were told that in the second Water for the Environment Special Account report which, naturally, was kept secret by the member for Hume before the last election. Thanks to the actual transparency provided by the current minister, Minister Plibersek, we know that official scientific advice indicates that their plan simply can't be delivered on time. In nine years, the coalition delivered just two gigalitres of a 450-gigalitre target. That puts them on track to complete the Murray-Darling Basin plan sometime around the year 4000. The original deadlines were set for June 2024, and in the early years the former government was well on track to meet those deadlines. Of course, the Liberals and Nationals spent a decade sabotaging the plan. They tied up projects in impossible rules so that they couldn't deliver water savings. They blocked water recovery programs. They tried to cut the final recovery targets to keep them below scientific recommendations and, as a result, progress slowed to a dribble under the previous government. Because of their deliberate choices, it is now impossible to deliver the plan on the original time line. Thankfully, this bill addresses three key areas of urgent reform. Firstly, we're committed to actually delivering more water to the 450-gigalitres target through a dedicated funding mechanism: the Water for the Environment Special Account. With these new changes, we'll be able to invest in on-farm water infrastructure, land and water purchases and other ways to recover water. We will then be able to purchase water from willing sellers where it's needed to deliver the plan. Water purchasing is never the only tool in the box. It's also never the first tool at hand. Frankly, it's delusional to suggest that we can take it off the table for good. I, for one, would struggle to explain to locals why overseas funds would still be allowed to be used to purchase water but Australian elected governments' funds couldn't be used. Of course, we'll provide significant transitional assistance if voluntary water purchases have secondary impacts on communities. The second key area this bill addresses is the piecemeal nature of water infrastructure projects left by those opposite. Currently, 16 of the 36 projects initiated by the former government are not forecast to be ready or operational by July next year. If we are going to achieve this plan in full, we need to give the states more time to deliver viable projects, and this bill gives them that extension until 31 December 2026. Should this bill pass, the onus would be on basin states to finish projects that they have started. Thirdly, this bill will tackle much-needed water market reform. Water markets play an essential role in our agriculture system, serving as the lifeblood of many farming communities. They facilitate the allocation of water resources and support economic activities that contribute significantly to our nation's prosperity. However, we cannot ignore the critical shortcomings that currently plague our water market system. Australia has the largest water trading system in the world; some may argue that it is also one of the least transparent. For a $3 billion market, there are no laws against market manipulation, the insider trading prohibition is too narrow and the legal requirement to maintain proper records is too weak. Changes are needed to help secure Australia's water future through the next series of droughts and beyond. One does not need to look very far in the past to see why oversight is urgently needed to protect the environment, basin communities and Australian farming families from an unregulated private market for one of our most precious resources. The value of high-security titles increased from $1,693 per megalitre in June 2014 to $4,211 per megalitre in June 2017. In the six months of water trading in the 2018 drought investor Duxton Water reported an increased revenue of 348 per cent, and after-tax profit increased over 20 per cent in that quarter alone. The lack of laws against market manipulation, the narrow scope of insider trading prohibitions and the weak legal requirements for maintaining proper records have left the system vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. This bill seeks to rectify that. It seeks to introduce a framework to enforce a mandatory code for water market intermediaries, holding them accountable for their actions. Civil penalties for market manipulation will be introduced, with insider trading penalties doubled to deter illicit practices. In essence, we aim to bring the water market in line with the standards observed in other markets, ensuring fairness, transparency, and accountability. As the code of conduct regulator, it will allow the ACCC to monitor water prices and investigate misconduct allegations. This will bring water markets in line with the standards in other markets. These changes will not only penalise bad behaviour but also increase public trust in the system, fostering that trust and confidence in such an important marketplace. This bill will also require the Commonwealth basin states and irrigation infrastructure operators to make water market decisions available publicly. There will be new obligations on basin state governments, infrastructure operators and water exchanges to generate, record, collect and report water market information. The Bureau of Meteorology will collate this information from across the basin and make it publicly available via a water data hub with live market updates on a new water markets website. We simply need to improve water regulation in this country, and that is exactly what this legislation will do. It will make the sector more transparent, more open and more accountable. Australia is in the middle of and facing an environmental emergency. If we don't act now to preserve the Murray-Darling, our basin towns will be unprepared for drought, our native animals will face the threat of extinction, our river ecosystems will risk environmental collapse, and our food and fibre production will be insecure and unsustainable. This bill is therefore about a return to common sense, a complex plan with a simple objective: to set up the Murray-Darling Basin for a better future. Our government has worked with the states and territories, with farmers and irrigators, with scientists and experts, with environmentalists and with First Nations groups. It is about remembering that the point is to ensure a healthy and sustainable basin for the future. This means there will be more time to deliver the remaining water based on expert advice. It means there will be more options to deliver the remaining water, including water infrastructure projects and voluntary water buybacks. It will mean more funding to deliver the remaining water and to support communities where voluntary water buybacks have flow-on impacts. More accountability from Murray-Darling Basin governments on delivering the remaining water on time also forms part of this bill. Federal government funding will be contingent on achieving water recovery targets within deadlines. Put simply, the government wants more options, not more restrictions. If the bill doesn't pass this year, the current legislation requires states to withdraw their unfinished projects. As I mentioned earlier, that's about half of them. This means that a major part of the plan will fall over, incurring substantial costs and delays. Of the water recovered towards the plan so far, more than 80 per cent has been done under Labor governments. So inaction is not an option. Failure to act will jeopardise the future of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, putting our environment, native animals, river ecosystems and food production at risk. Those opposite knew the program had stalled completely, but, for nine years, they kept the handbrake on water recovery. What this legislation does is remove that handbrake so we can finally deliver the water to the basin. That means giving the account more flexibility, in line with the Water Act's objectives. With these changes, we are opening up the full suite of water recovery options to get water back into the basin. The water amendment is not just about fulfilling our promises; it's about safeguarding the future of the Murray-Darling Basin. It's about ensuring that the basin towns are prepared for drought, that native wildlife faces a lesser threat of extinction and that river ecosystems remain robust and healthy. More importantly, it's about securing a reliable and sustainable source of clean drinking water for millions of Australians. This legislation marks an important moment in history for basin communities and for all Australians who care deeply about the health of our environment. It symbolises a collective effort to put the Basin Plan back on track and ensure that its objectives are met. This bill champions environmental preservation, it acknowledges the profound cultural ties we all have to the basin, and it paves the way for the reformation of our water markets. These changes are pivotal for Australia's future, ensuring the availability of clean water, supporting our agricultural sector and enhancing transparency and accountability of how our water markets work. Australia is facing an environmental emergency, and this bill is the response we urgently need. 18:07 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer It's really important that I speak for the second time on this bill. My first remarks were in a five-minute statement, but today the bill itself is before the House. As I've listened to Labor members talk about this legislation, I've been somewhere between laughter and tears—laughter because it's so ridiculous to hear the comments they make; tears because I know that their way is likely to prevail in a part of the world that is precious and important to me and to whom water matters more than anything else. I've heard the member for Bennelong, I think, I've heard the member for Gilmore, and I've heard the member for Jagajaga talk about their parts of the world. The Yarra River mangroves on the south coast are obviously nowhere near the basin. Labor members have carefully read their talking points and talked about the environmental catastrophe, but they haven't actually visited my electorate. We would welcome them. They haven't actually visited the Murray-Darling Basin. They haven't actually seen what happens to the water that they want to take away right now or what it does in that part of the world. We often descend, as my colleagues say, into giga-babble, where we talk about the complexities of water in a way that makes it difficult for average Australians to understand what we are going on about. I understand that. So I'm going to address this issue for the perspective of someone like so many of my colleagues opposite, who don't understand the detail of the Murray-Darling Basin. I don't mean that in a way that is dismissive of them; I'm distressed by their contributions because I realise how ill-informed they are. But that doesn't mean I don't want them to actually understand what's going on here. Effectively, what this government is doing is taking the bipartisan Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which was hard fought between states and different sides of politics in the Commonwealth and across the regions in Australia and so many groups, and completely rewriting it. It's completely rewriting it and changing it up to say: 'It doesn't matter, regional communities, what you think. It doesn't matter, farmers, what you think. It doesn't matter, irrigated agriculture, what you think. And the truth doesn't really matter either because we made an election promise to do a certain thing and we're going to go ahead and do it, and that certain thing can come at the cost of all of you.' That's not good enough and we're going to fight back on this. We expect people to get angry. We expect people to get very angry, because when I talk to my communities they are genuinely bewildered by what this means. They can't understand what is happening. They can't understand why a government would break the bipartisanship that I spoke of and break a commitment to have a balance between the environment and communities in the Murray-Darling Basin that does looks after the environment and does respect and value communities, because if you don't respect and value communities you will lose them. Everywhere in all of these seats that the Labor members occupy, they have that balance in their own backyards. They have that balance between housing and native vegetation. They have that balance between waterways and buildings. They have a complete and demonstrated balance all around them. But they don't want to see that balance in rural and regional Australia. They don't want to see our communities—my communities—thrive. I want to give, as an example, the community of Griffith in the Riverina. Griffith is the place where they burnt the first Basin Plan, and it has taken a long time, quite rightly, for the people of Griffith to get on board with the bipartisan plan. We had a meeting of the coalition backbench in Griffith recently. We went to Griffith as a backbench group because the government, in putting forward this bill, refused to actually come into the Murray-Darling Basin itself and consult. Senator Matt Canavan in the other place, well-supported by Senator Davey, our shadow spokesperson on water, came to Griffith and the community of 150 people gathered. Many were busy on their farms, busy with their crops and busy with their lives, but those who did come and listen couldn't believe what they heard. They couldn't believe that they were facing something as desperate as the very future of their town and region. The general manager of the Griffith City Council, Brett Stonestreet, said something that resonated with all of us. Back in 2010, community confidence was rocked by the basin reform process. The Office of Local Government reduced growth projections for Griffith by 20 per cent. That dried up public sector investment, which then impacted private sector investment. My point there is that the original Murray-Darling Basin Plan was received objectively as reducing the growth of the city by 20 per cent, and that's why the reaction in those years was so strong and so angry. What this is effectively doing is going back to the community of Griffith and saying: 'We might have to take up to 30 per cent of your water because 450 gigalitres is a lot of water and, unfortunately, the place that it can come from is the southern Murray-Darling Basin.' If you take it from anywhere, you affect everywhere in the southern basin. If you take it from the community of Griffith in Murrumbidgee Irrigation, if you take it from Murray Irrigation on the Murray, if you take it from the Goulburn-Murray irrigation district in Victoria, they're all interconnected, and if you reduce the pool by up to 30 per cent, then everyone is affected. Imagine any business losing 30 per cent of its capital or asset base. How can it possibly go ahead to the same level of prosperity? Michael Pisasale from Murray Irrigation also said in that meeting, 'We have a government which is prepared to spend a billion dollars on buyback'—that's what this is, a billion dollars to buy back the water—'but it will cost our communities that every year.' I think there is $1.2 billion sitting in the government's special account to buy water, and I think that that will be exhausted fairly quickly. It won't buy 450 gigalitres, clearly. Billions and billions of dollars more will be required. So the bitter irony of this is that, while billions of dollars will be spent to buy water to close down huge areas of irrigated agriculture in our country, there has been some loose language from the government about compensation for those communities, which is the insult that really rocks us to the core. What if a government were to say, 'We're removing your productive capacity and we're shrinking your economic base by up to 30 per cent, but we'll give you a little bit of money to make you feel better'? What would that money do? Maybe it would do something for the supporting infrastructure; that's always a popular thing for governments. But maybe you've got no footy team because you have no young people, or you have no childcare centre because the employees of so much of this value-added agriculture have left town. They will; we have seen this before. So where and what is the point? We are going to fight this every step of the way. I call this a 'dog act' by the government. It's a cowardly act. It's an act of cowardice by a minister who has not looked any irrigator, farmer or community member in the eye during the course of this debate and actually said: 'This is my proposal. I'm going to lift the cap on buyback,' which is what we put in place and which prevents the act of buying water back. Let me make this very clear: when you recover water for the environment you can do it in two ways. You can simply purchase it—a very lazy way, and that's what the Labor Party did before. Or you can put infrastructure, works and measures in to use what you have more efficiently; as I said, to improve the delivery of water both for agriculture and for the environment—to make it more efficient. Most of that work has already been done, so there's no easy work to be done to make irrigation more efficient. Come and have a look—see how we actually are the best in the world. We have the latest technology in the world in our irrigation systems. But if you overlook infrastructure measures completely, which is what a lazy buyback does, effectively you miss out on the opportunity that has been presented to the government by Murray Irrigation. To our and this government's credit, they haven't snatched the money back off the table. It uses existing irrigation channels to send water to areas that are sensitive in the environment—to wetlands. It's a perfect win-win because it's using the same delivery system. You can imagine one conveyance body of water carrying water for the environment on top of it, so it's actually saving water for both the environment and for farmers. But it's about getting that balance right. That's one example. But a buyback is something completely different. To their credit, we saw the state of Victoria saying, 'We don't want any part of this.' When the minister made the announcement about the new Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the new water act, she had to say, 'Everyone isn't on board yet; Victoria isn't on board.' All credit to Victoria for not coming on board; the Victorian state government understands what this would do to their farmers, their regions and the Goulburn-Murray Irrigation District. They understand that enough water has been taken from their regions already. Sadly, the new New South Wales government didn't have a clue about this and they made some general statements that they would prefer not to have buyback. But they signed on the dotted line, took money from this government and didn't even fight for their irrigation districts. They didn't fight for their communities. I can tell you, Deputy Speaker Vasta, that the old country Labor that was in western New South Wales when I first became a member of parliament would never have done this. But the government of Chris Minns has done this, aided and abetted by the local Independent member, the member for Murray, Helen Dalton. Really, she could have said to the Premier, with whom she claims to have a good relationship, 'If you come into my communities and take my water I won't give you confidence and supply as an Independent member of the New South Wales parliament.' The Independent member for Murray didn't say that. But I'm still calling on her to say that, because right now New South Wales could pass an amendment to their own water act that could prevent water trading. That's a tool they have at their disposal, and it could mean that water would not leave our region. Water would not be sold and water would not be taken away from productive agriculture. The sad thing is that having been the environment minister and represented irrigation communities, I think I have a fair idea of the balance. It was always important to me; I think we all, as a community and as parliaments here and across the basin states, got that right. So for this government to come in here and rip up that promise at all was that good work is really, really extraordinary. Ever since the Basin Plan was introduced, farmers and irrigators have been striving to use their precious resource better and smarter, doing more with less in a bid to balance the use of water for food and for the environment. And we were nearly there! The second awful irony of this is that this will have an effect on the cost of living for all Australians. Irrigation isn't just some abstract concept that happens which you may choose to like or dislike; it's actually the transformation of inland regions with relatively low rainfall into farmland—into areas which bloom. People who came out, post war, dug irrigation ditches with their hands, and with carts and horses, and slaved for years to build a future for their families and communities, and they built the production of food for the nation and the world. Irrigation feeds the nation, and it feeds the world. When you go shopping you might look for apples and pears from the Goulburn Valley. You might look for the amazing citrus that comes from my region and also from the Riverland and the Mallee. You might even look for sustainable cotton, because it's a sustainable fibre that's grown organically in the basin. You might look for our pecan nuts. You might have our almonds, when you have almond milk in your morning coffee. You might have our wine grapes and table grapes and a whole range of beautiful products which I look forward to showcasing in this parliament. We are going to fight this hard and we are going to demonstrate how awful it is to do this to our farmers and our food producers. But it does come back to a cost-of-living issue. Dry and economic though that might sound to some it matters a great deal to people who live a long way from the basin but who have come to value, respect and love our Australian-grown produce. That is all under threat. Do not mistake this. It is all under threat. If you take away the ability to produce up to 30 per cent of your food and fibre, you won't have enough left in many cases. People are always asking, 'What's the tipping point,' as if somehow we have to push our communities right to the edge until they fall over. I think the tipping point was reached the last time the Labor Party was in government and the last time the Labor Party pursued this hideous agenda. This is a water minister who has no idea. This is a government that has no idea, that has no conviction and that continues to leave Australians behind, particularly, and so sadly, the communities of the Murray-Darling Basin. 18:21 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I'm so grateful, as I'm sure most of my constituents are, to have access to the beautiful Murrumbidgee River which runs through the ACT and into the Murray-Darling system. In fact, Lake Burley Griffin, just a short walk from here, runs into the Molonglo River and into the broader Murrumbidgee. Over the entirety of the Murray-Darling Basin, my home town of Canberra is the largest population catchment. Canberrans love nature, and they love our local natural environment. Our urban wetlands are stunning places to spend time outdoors in, and our continued access to the water is just one of the reasons that Canberra is such a great place to live. Beyond Canberra, the Murray-Darling Basin keeps all Australians fed. The agricultural industries, the river communities, our national environmental sustainability all rely on this great river system to be healthy. So it's of vital importance to my constituents that the future of the river system is secured. I want to thank the Minister for the Environment and Water for introducing the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 and for the work that has gone into it. I also want to thank the minister for coming with me to the Jerrabomberra Wetlands, again, just down the road from this place, to talk with local Landcare groups and the Woodlands and Wetlands Trust about how this government is investing in our local urban rivers. It was a fantastic morning to be outside with some really passionate environmentalists to announce much-needed funding for these beautiful wetlands and all the wildlife that call them home. In 1889, the great Australian writer Henry Lawson wrote the poem The Song of the Darling River: The skies are brass and the plains are bare, Death and ruin are everywhere — And all that is left of the last year's flood Is a sickly stream on the grey-black mud; The salt-springs bubble and the quagmires quiver, And—this is the dirge of the Darling River: These lines demonstrate to us how this debate, this issue has been ever present since before Federation. Indeed, debates over water and water use were so intense, largely pitting the eastern states against South Australia, that when the Constitution was written section 100 was written. It reads: The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade or commerce, abridge the right of a State or of the residents therein to the reasonable use of the waters of rivers for conservation or irrigation. The key words 'reasonable use' in that section are part of what brings us here today in this debate. What is reasonable use? Drought has always been a feature of the Australian landscape—something we've always dealt with. But there is a broader context that has since arisen in this debate: the dual challenges of climate change and of industrial scale irrigation and irresponsible water use, which I will talk about a bit later in this speech. Australia has seen the consequences of climate change already. The drought we went through from January 2017 to December 2019 was the driest three years on record. And the Murray-Darling experienced its lowest water level on record in 2019. Our government is committed to the Murray Darling Basin plan. This government is committed to restoring our rivers. This government is committed to protecting the Australian environment and leaving it in a better state than when we came to government. Our government is committed to strong action on climate change, and this bill is part of that. If you filter out the hysteria from those opposite about what this bill does, you will see it's simple. It will deliver the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which they agreed to in full, including the recovery of 450 gigalitres of environmental water, which was promised under their government but not even attempted to be achieved. This bill acts to protect, repair and manage our environment so that it grows stronger. Responsibly managing the water resources of the Murray Darling Basin is vital; it is so that, when climate change challenges us with longer droughts, more frequent floods and bushfires, and everything else, the basin can survive. It's worth remembering why the basin plan exists in the first place. The plan was established in 2012, agreed to by the federal, ACT, New South Wales, Queensland, Victorian and South Australian governments. It responded to the devastation of the basin following the millennium drought. The catastrophe of the millennium drought was at that time so unprecedented—environmentally catastrophic, economically catastrophic and socially catastrophic for basin communities. The plan was a promise to the Australian people that we could work together as one to protect what was precious to us all. Now, I've been listening to some of the speeches from those opposite, and the amount of misinformation is extraordinary, but one claim really sticks out to me, and that's the claim that this bill is the end of bipartisanship on the plan. Bipartisanship on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan ended when those opposite tried to sabotage the plan over the last 10 years. It was only when we got into government that this sabotage was fully uncovered. The plan is supposed to be fully implemented by next year. It won't be. It won't even be close. That is entirely due to the damage done to the plan by those opposite. The advice to the government from the Murray-Darling Basin Authority was unequivocal. Implementing the plan on time is impossible because of the vandals sitting on the opposition benches. We are now at a critical juncture. Implementation of the plan takes action. The government received 131 submissions from groups and individuals right across the basin, and overwhelmingly those submissions supported the plan. The government heard calls for greater flexibility in achieving water recovery targets, calls to extend time frames and calls for investment in measures that deliver tangible environmental outcomes. We heard those calls and, when the environment and water minister met with her colleagues from the basin states, she worked hard and in good faith on this package of measures. It is a package that provides more money, more options and more accountability; a package that extends the timelines to achieve water recovery targets and timelines for states to deliver water infrastructure projects that keep more water in productive use; a package that removes overly restrictive rules so we can recover the 450 gigalitres of water for enhanced environmental outcomes; a package that removes the cap on voluntary water purchase; and a package that increases integrity and transparency into the system so that those buying and selling water can have confidence that the market is operating fairly, that everyone is subject to the same rules and that everyone has access to the same information at the same time. We on this side of the House know that the next drought is just around the corner. We know that the threats to the health of our iconic rivers and the people, plants and animals that rely on them are increasing. We know that it's more critical than ever to ensure that our rivers are managed in the interests of communities and industries. We know that we must finish what we started in 2012. What would have happened if those opposite had remained in government? The environmental, economic and social vandalism of the Liberal and National parties would have continued. We would have seen more water theft, more improper storage, much reduced water flow and substantial environmental damage. It's been over half a decade since Four Corners exposed the greed and the protection racket that had been going on in the basin. Australians watched in horror as we witnessed industrial-scale cotton farmers rorting the system and stealing water that belonged to the environment and to communities. We watched as their profits were sent offshore to tax havens. We saw, and continue to see, downstream communities struggling to survive wondering whether they would have enough water to brush their teeth. We saw the environment buckle under the pressure with multiple mass fish kills at the Menindee Lakes—a true ecological disaster and one that was entirely preventable. We've seen a South Australian royal commission which slammed the former federal government. The commission found that the Commonwealth committed gross maladministration, negligence and unlawful actions. It found that they all but ignored the catastrophic risks of climate change to the river system. The consequence of their gross negligence and of their horrendous disregard for the river system is that the 450 gigalitres of committed environmental water cannot be delivered on time. The former government delivered a grand total of two gigalitres—two out of 450. On their trajectory we wouldn't reach the 450 gigalitres until the year 3000. Since we were elected we've already managed 24 gigalitres—12 times the amount that those opposite managed over the better part of a decade—because, unlike those opposite, we actually care about the future of the system rather than short-term political opportunism. We want our basin communities to prosper. We want our environment to thrive. We want to support sustainable agriculture. What is clear, and should be clear to those opposite, is that if the Murray-Darling Basin system disappears—if it dies, as it is currently on track to do—everybody loses. 18:32 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney I stand to speak on the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023. First, let's be clear what we're talking about. The Murray-Darling is Australia's largest and most complex river system. It crosses four states, one territory, and spans many thousands of kilometres of interconnected rivers, from Queensland where the water runs into the Darling Barka to South Australia where the Murray meets the ocean, and including the Castlereagh River which starts in the heart of the Warrumbungle Mountains and wraps around my childhood home in Coonabarabran. It is a complex, vast, richly biodiverse and interconnected system, home to 16 internationally significant wetlands and 35 endangered species. It is also a food bowl for the nation. Forty per cent of Australia's agricultural output comes from farmers in the Murray-Darling Basin. So, when people in my electorate of North Sydney do their grocery shop and stock up on rice, milk and fruit, chances are they are buying produce grown in the basin. The Murray-Darling is of deep cultural importance to Indigenous people. There are 99,000 First Nations people from over 40 different First Nations that live in the Murray-Darling Basin and have a unique connection to the river, the ecosystems, and to country. The basin is, in fact, a site for many traditional activities like fishing, hunting, ceremonies and harvesting. It is home to burial mounds, camp sites and records of Indigenous history within the landscape. It is also a recreational place for the communities living along the river and for the many tourists who visit. Delivering on the objectives of the Basin Plan requires cooperation from all basin states and strong leadership from the federal government. It also requires a comprehensive and holistic approach to the management of the basin. In this context I'd like to offer the following analogy. If a medical patient presented with full body aches, no doctor in the world would simply treat just their head or their feet. We cannot fix the Murray-Darling by focusing only on the southern or northern basin. The science is clear. The over extraction of water, particularly for irrigation, has reduced the natural flows of the river system. Climate change is compounding these issues. Increased warming brings increased evaporation and more extreme drought and flood events. According to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, 'Scientists predict that the basin's climate is likely to become drier and more variable.' We can expect more extreme droughts and more extreme floods. If left unmitigated, these extremes will have significant impacts on the communities, businesses and ecosystems of the basin. When I think of the Murray-Darling, it's difficult not to picture the devastating scenes of the Menindee fish kills earlier this year—kilometres of dead fish floating downstream. According to the New South Wales Chief Scientist's report, the event was 'symptomatic of degradation of the broader river ecosystem over many years'. It was impacted in part by the long-term effects of reduced flows from the increasing diversions from the rivers and catchments in the basin. Management of the basin has been marred by decades of major party politics, and it's a sorry state of affairs when petty politicking determines the health and wellbeing of one of our most complex and important river systems. In this context, then, I welcome the intent of this bill to introduce the necessary measures to implement the Basin Plan in full and restore the integrity of water management in the basin more broadly. I appreciate the legislation attempts to strike a balance between the environmental needs and the needs of the communities and businesses built around the Murray-Darling. It seeks to reverse overextraction of the basin's waters while recognising the important role of the farmers, communities and businesses that rely on those waters. But we must remember that those communities and businesses built around the Murray-Darling cannot thrive if the ecosystem does not thrive. The health and sustainability of this basin is a prerequisite for the health and stability of all of the communities that rely on it, both north and south. In order to implement the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full, this bill provides more time to deliver water recovery targets, pushing deadlines out to 2027. While I acknowledge that that extension of key time frames for delivery of water recovery targets is a necessary measure given the lack of progress made to deliver on the targets to date, this is not a free pass for further delays. We cannot kick the can down the road any longer. There should be no further extensions to deliver the 450 gigalitres of water for enhanced environmental outcomes. It is clear that we must do everything we can to return the full 450 gigalitres to the environment, and that is why I welcome the removal of the cap on water purchase entitlements by the Commonwealth, which was introduced by the previous government, as well as the expansion of the types of projects that can deliver the Basin Plan target of 450 gigalitres of additional environmental water, including by purchasing water entitlements from willing sellers. According to the Productivity Commission: Purchasing water products from willing sellers is generally the most effective and efficient means of acquiring water, where governments are liable for the cost of recovering water for the environment. However, I believe the buybacks should be concentrated on areas that have historically been neglected and are most in need and that money from the buybacks should be invested back into the basin communities to support the local economy, reduce local debts, create jobs and assist the local communities to adapt to climate change. I also welcome the much needed assurance and accountability measures in this legislation. The politicisation and mismanagement of the Murray-Darling time and time again highlight the need for greater accountability and transparency measures in the management of the basin. But more is needed. This legislation is a small step on the long pathway to restoring the Murray-Darling. Far more must be done to ensure that sufficient environmental water is available in the basin in order to build resilience to the human induced climate change that we know will further strain this already damaged ecosystem. The bill, while a good start, does not adequately address the impacts of climate change or water justice for First Nations communities. Water rights for traditional owners should be prioritised, enabling First Nations people to exercise their custodial responsibilities to care for the river system. In summary, I welcome this legislation as a small step on the long road to restoring the Murray-Darling. But, as I said, while it is a step in the right direction, it cannot come soon enough. 18:39 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser I'm pleased to rise today to speak in support of the Water Amendment (Restoring our Rivers) Bill 2023. This is an important bill in relation to very, very significant intergovernmental public policy coordination that has been in place for over a decade. But, during the course of the previous government, it was given insufficient attention, which has led to very, very poor outcomes for the community and poor public policy outcomes more generally. The Murray-Darling Basin is the largest and most complex river system in Australia, covering over a million square kilometres. It's very complex in the sense that it covers a very wide range of environmental forms, a very wide range of weather systems and, in a political sense, a very wide range of jurisdictions. It covers four states and, as the previous speaker on this side pointed out, a territory, the Australian Capital Territory. All of that means that there is a sensitivity and a vulnerability to that river system as well as a need for coordination. What we've seen is that that river system has been susceptible to natural droughts. In addition to that, it has been susceptible to increasing risks: greater variability in rainfall and greater variability and susceptibility to extreme events as a result of climate change and increasing human use. Those issues had been emerging in the lead-up to 2012, when the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was put into place, over a decade ago, and some of those risks have only become more severe in the interim. That's why the mismanagement of the river system in the last decade is so tragic. The key elements of the plan were that there should be water for consumption, water for the environment, investment in infrastructure, monitoring of water quality and water markets and trade, and other elements as well. All of those elements, to me, also reflect that there needs to be balance. We need to balance a range of different constituencies and a range of different uses of water. The water uses that we're trying to balance include: water for irrigation and the huge amount of agricultural production that we see in the basin; water for drinking and other uses by the communities that live in the basin area; water for industrial uses and other uses; and, of course, water for the environment. The way in which we balance all of those uses needs to be informed by experts—environmental experts, public policy experts, economists—and the views of those in the community, First Nations groups and other stakeholders. It's critical that we achieve balance across all of those different constituencies. I think it's really important to note from the outset that, in developing this bill, the minister and the government have undertaken exhaustive consultation with other governments, all of the stakeholder groups that I talked about and experts. What we've landed on is a bill that represents a major step forward, by giving state governments and those who are implementing the Murray Darling Basin Plan more time, more funding and, importantly—I'll speak about this a little bit later in relation to the strengthening of the trading arrangements—more transparency and accountability. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan, developed in 2012, was developed two years after the Millennium Drought broke. The purpose of the plan was to provide more water for the environment, certainty for farmers and protection for native plants and animals, particularly in view of the fact that Australia's environment lurches from rainfall, plenty and drought. It's critically important that we who are living and producing in this environment manage the scarce water resources sensibly for ourselves, our human communities and our production, as well as for the environment. The way in which we live in that environment and use water to produce in that environment impacts on the environment. It's particularly poignant, if you will, that we're discussing this bill, given that it's highly likely that we are heading into an El Nino event. We need to protect ourselves, our communities and our production from future droughts, but also, of course, protect the environment. As previous speakers on this side and, indeed, the minister in her contribution noted, those opposite, when they were in government for almost a decade, delivered two gigalitres out of the 450 that is required by the environment. At that rate it would be in the year 4000, roughly, that we would achieve the goal—a fanciful number, of course. What it shows is that essentially nothing was being done. Since we've come to government, in nine months the rate has picked up dramatically, but, even allowing for the fact that we've upped the rate substantially—26 gigalitres in just nine months—more is needed. More is needed in terms of infrastructure investment, more is needed in terms of voluntary buybacks and more is needed to get the water trading system working better, and that's exactly what this bill will deliver. But I do think it's worth noting that we've been put in the situation we're in because those opposite basically sat on their hands for decade. We see that refrain so often on so many bills in this place, but it's certainly worth making explicit when it comes to this one. Part of the negotiated outcome—this bill does reflect a negotiated outcome between the federal government and the governments of New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and the ACT—is to give the states a new deadline, to give them more time to finish key projects and also to bring forward further projects that can be delivered within the new deadline. That's a key element of the package. I also think it's important to talk about the way in which this bill, and what it will put into place, strengthens trading arrangements. The basin provides great economic benefits. There are tourism benefits, which exceed $10 billion a year, and farmers in the basin produce something in the order of 40 per cent of Australia's agricultural output. It's critical that we have trading arrangements so that, if we are to see water being put back into the environment, it's done in the most efficient way. Markets are really a very important way to achieve this outcome, and I want to speak very briefly on the fact that markets are critical because they bring information into the process of achieving an outcome, in a way that other mechanisms often don't. If you have a trading mechanism, then what you will have is different people—different farmers, different users of water—bidding in to provide water to the environment, or whatever it might be that the trading mechanism is trying to achieve, and providing information about how much they value that water. That is incredibly important because, if we are going to buy back water, we want to make sure that we are doing it in a way that has the least impact on local economies and that is the most efficient way. Markets are the most efficient way in which to reflect all of the detailed, nuanced information that each user of water holds and that a regulator or any other entity won't necessarily hold. That's why it's critically important that markets function efficiently. Of course, markets, where they involve voluntary transactions, will involve mutually beneficial transactions, and that's why it's so important that the buybacks that we're talking about are voluntary. When the ACCC looked at water trading arrangements, they found that water trading has brought substantial benefits to many water users across the basin. Water markets allow irrigators to increase their available water seasonally and to earn income by selling water rights, when they are more valuable, to somebody else or release capital for investment in their businesses. But the ACCC also found that it is critical that people are able to trade in confidence and that improving the efficient operation of water markets is likely to enhance the financial operation of water markets and is in turn, I would argue, likely to enhance the balance of social and environmental outcomes. What the ACCC found when they investigated the operation of water markets is that there was insufficient regulation of market manipulation, that the insider trading prohibition was too narrow and that that was having significant negative impacts on the efficiency of the markets. Essentially they found that they needed more transparency. The coalition received this review in 2019, with a whole series of recommendations about how to make those water markets work better. No action was taken. Again, this is something that comes up perennially in bills under consideration in this place, but it's certainly worth noting that the ACCC made a series of very clear recommendations, many of which are reflected in this bill. Those opposite had it in 2019. No action was taken. This bill makes a number of concrete measures that will significantly improve the functioning of water trading. First, it will introduce a framework to create an enforceable mandatory code for market intermediaries. Second, it will create civil penalties for manipulation. And, third, it will double the penalty for insider trading. I'll just reiterate that at the heart of what this plan is trying to achieve is balance. We are trying to protect the environment with water flows reserved for the environment, but we're trying to do that in a way that is the least disruptive to local communities and to the broader agricultural economy across the Murray Darling Basin. A key element of that is to allow water to be traded, to allow farmers and other water users and other holders of water rights to swap water with other uses or potentially with the government for environmental protection. This bill will significantly improve the functioning of those markets. I'll conclude by saying that this bill has the support of stakeholders right across the gamut. As I mentioned before, it has the support of the New South Wales, Queensland, South Australian and ACT governments. The consultation took over a year and involved a range of stakeholders, including farmers, scientists, environmentalists and First Nations groups. A range of environmental NGOs support the full delivery of the plan reflected in this bill. And so many scientists have worked towards devising the goals and the targets in the plan, and they stand behind the implementation of the plan which this bill supports. This bill is an important step towards getting us back on track in delivering the very important Murray Darling Basin Plan, and I'm very pleased to support the passage of this bill. 18:53 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein Water is life. The Murray-Darling Basin covers more than half of eastern Australia from Charleville and Toowoomba in the north; down to Broken Hill and Adelaide in the west; south across to Tamworth, Orange, the ACT, Albury-Wodonga, Shepparton, Bendigo; and almost to Melbourne in the south-east—and all points in between. The environment and the economy depend on the water that flows through this vast tract of land, and so do Indigenous communities, farmers, pastoralists, dozens of towns and capital cities as well as the businesses and consumers who rely on the affordable and reliable food the basin provides. It's a shame that this essential national resource was not handed to the Commonwealth in the Constitution back in the beginning to manage on behalf of us all, but that was not to be. Interstate rivalries saw to that, and now we are where we are. As Margaret Simons wrote in the Saturday Paper: If politics is how societies, short of war, decide on the sharing of resources, then water—particularly in a dry country—is unavoidably political. It is not about parties. It is the politics of place, of community, of food security and ultimately the nature of our federation. It could hardly be more difficult, or more important. I've consulted widely on this legislation, as I always try to do before making a considered judgement on how I will vote. I thank the minister and her staff for their readiness to consult. I've spoken to irrigators; environmentalists; the Inspector-General of Water Compliance, Troy Grant; as well as representatives of horticultural interest in the Goulburn Valley among others. I thank them all for their insights and their advice. It is about the environment. It's also about the economy. I particularly welcomed the insights of Rob Priestly, who reminded me to go into Coles or Woolies and look around at fruit and veg that costs less than $5 a kilo—carrots, onions, apples, pears, potatoes. He says that between 20 and 80 per cent of these are grown in the southern basin. Rob says that if all the water buybacks come in the southern basin, it will crush all milk producers, representing 20 per cent of national supply, but 50 per cent of Brisbane and Sydney's fresh milk, and all these products. Victorian food producers should not be penalised for having done the right thing. Rob notes that the Darling used to contribute 39 per cent of the water to South Australia. Now it contributes 14 per cent. He says that it's dying due to massive dam and surface water diversion in northern New South Wales and southern Queensland. The fact of the matter is, of course, that we've been taking too much water out of Murray-Darling and its various tributaries for too long, and climate change is only making that more difficult. The absence of the impact of climate change from the objects of the act is a significant oversight. I am proposing an amendment to rectify this omission. According to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, winter rainfall and streamflow in the southern basin have declined by nearly 40 per cent since the mid-1990s. The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists points out that the basin has warmed by around one degree Celsius since 1910. They say that the 3,200 gigalitre target of water recovered for the environment under the Basin Plan was based on the historical climate and will be insufficient to restore the long-term sustainability and health of the important wetlands and rivers in the basin, particularly in the absence of agreed mechanisms for climate change adaptation. As the Wentworth Group argues in its submission to the current Senate inquiry, new approaches are required regarding the management of river flows in a changing climate, including the use of likely future climate change projections, not just historical records, in water management modelling and planning; rules to conserve and protect priority flows; the design and implementation of environmental triage for wetlands; and new arrangements to support communities to adapt to climate change. This last point is particularly important and goes beyond our policy responses to the Murray-Darling. If we don't look after communities affected by our policy responses to climate change, we risk losing the support of much of the broader community for the urgent actions we must take to have any hope of getting to net zero. Central to the legislation is the aspiration to recover an additional 450 gigalitres of enhanced environmental water. However, this is not a legally binding target, and according to the MDBA only three per cent of that amount has been recovered so far. I will move a further amendment to entrench this requirement in the legislation. I agree with the Wentworth Group that the Commonwealth should encourage states, basin communities and industry groups to contribute to a suite of projects to address this issue and that the government's transition fund should assist and encourage this approach. The basin states should also be required to meet annual milestones in the water recovered towards the 450 gigalitres target—in other words, around 100 gigalitres per year through to 2027. I welcome the continued achievement of SDL compliance in Queensland, South Australia, Victoria and the ACT. In his latest sustainable diversion limit compliance statement, delivered last month, the Inspector-General of Water Compliance pointed to New South Wales's conspicuous absence—alone amongst the basin states—in complying with SDL commitments. He notes that, in the middle of last year, he gave a speech which called out the failure of the New South Wales government to deliver water resource plans. The evidence is now in that, during 2021-22, New South Wales failed to deliver the outstanding obligations and commitments to the Basin Plan. Therefore, the 20 water resource plans in New South Wales were not accredited or operating in the 2021-22 water accounting year, an absence for the third year in a row since the commencement of SDL compliance. The inspector-general goes on to say in his report: Without water resource plans, New South Wales is subject to a lower level of accountability under the Basin Plan than the other four Basin States. The amending legislation pushes out the review date from 2024 until 2027. This is not good enough. So for reasons of accountability and transparency, I will be looking to bring that forward. Also, given New South Wales's behaviour, the legislation may, perversely, offer that state a reward. Water resource plans are an integral part of implementing the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. All jurisdictions other than New South Wales have successfully completed their MDB water resource plans and had them accredited. As the Wentworth Group points out, despite being more than four years late and having accumulated deficits over the past three years as a result of the overextraction of 71.1 gigalitres in the case of the Barwon-Darling, and 111.8 in the Gwydir River system, these cumulative deficits will be zeroed under provisions in the existing Basin Plan when the water resource plan is accredited by the Commonwealth. As all other jurisdictions have met their commitments under the Basin Plan to submit and have their water resource plans accredited by the Commonwealth, New South Wales remains the only jurisdiction not to have had their WRP accredited. When they eventually do, they will not be penalised for exceeding the STLs from 2019 to the accreditation date. New South Wales should not be so rewarded, so I will look to move an amendment designed to remedy this. The minister's office is reluctant to accept these amendments, but I want to make it clear that I appreciate the diligence with which the minister and her cabinet colleagues have taken my representations to them on this and other legislation. The climate change minister, for example, took on board my concerns that the legislated target in the climate change bill of 43 per cent by 2030 should be explicitly a floor and not a ceiling. I also made the point that 43 per cent was inadequate to keep us on the path to net zero by 2050. Equally, I sought to offer amendments to the safeguard guarantee legislation which were designed to ensure that our biggest polluters could not account their way to zero. Shortly after the legislation was passed, we discovered that Australia is increasing its carbon emissions and not reducing them. I say this to the government, in closing: you cannot please everyone all the time, and by trying to do a bit here and a bit there you run the risk of pleasing no-one. I fear that this is the case with this legislation too. On balance, I will support it because it's a good start. But I note that that's all it is. Debate adjourned. Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 70

Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023

Second Reading 70 19:03 Mr 306489 Fadden CALDWELL () (): I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 because I come from the Gold Coast, and we are the small business capital of Australia. We are hyperalert to actions by this government that will make running a small or family business harder. When we hear the minister or anyone from Labor describe these changes as 'modest'—a term which has been used in other proposed constitutional changes of late—the hair stands up on the back of my neck. Nothing about this is modest; it is overreach and overcomplicated. What we see is a government beholden to outside interests. Recently, it was their friends in the Greens who they were happy to bow to on social housing policy. And with this bill, it's quite clear that the unions have them on the hop. What the government is really doing with this bill is fulfilling a long list of union demands to imprint their full union agenda on Australian businesses. The first point of serious concern is the expanded powers of unions. The bill will amend the Fair Work Act to enable unions to exercise right-of-entry powers without any notice whenever it relates to wage underpayment. To gain immediate entry the union only needs to assert to the Fair Work Commission that it suspects a case of wage underpayment. No actual evidence is required to make that case. The National Farmers Federation is rightly concerned about these new rights of entry without notice which would allow union representatives to enter farms unannounced. For most farmers their workplace is also their family home. The farm is the kids' backyard. There are safety and biosecurity considerations. Union reps should not be able to waltz in unannounced. I think about the cane-farming families in the northern Gold Coast and the fact that they will be sitting ducks for union reps heading down the M1 for a frolic. We've saw reports in the Daily Telegraph of activists like Thomas Mayo calling on unions to use their right-of-entry rules under the Fair Work Act to push the 'yes' case at job sites. If it was the 'yes' case yesterday, what will it be tomorrow? What will these unions do when they have effectively unchecked access to businesses? What a frightening prospect. For most businesses—and I know this because I have run one—your staff are actually your family. You want them to be looked after and you want them to look after you, so it is often the goal of growing a business to achieve permanent full-time work. But the reaction to this legislation from business owners I have spoken with is that it will be terrible for business. These are business owners that I know very much value their employees. If the threat of a drop-in from a union wasn't enough of a concern, the fear of failing to properly identify the employment status of employees is of serious concern. The bill, of course, introduces a new definition of 'casual employment' that would replace the existing definition inserted in the Fair Work Act in 2021. The measure is completely unnecessary. The permanent casual loophole has already been closed. All casuals already have the right to convert to permanent status after 12 months if they work regular hours. The government plans to add a new right after six months in addition to the existing system that already allows conversion after 12 months. I am a lawyer by trade, so the reading and interpretation of this kind of thing is something that I am familiar with, but your average business owner is not. How on earth is a business going to interpret a definition that is three pages long and includes 15 factors to determine if an employee is a casual? This involves complexity and inevitably cost that will be passed on for consumers to cover. The 15 factors must all be considered but do not necessarily need to be satisfied. An employee will be casual only if they meet these factors. If not then the business is breaking the law if it tells the employee that they are casual, even if the employee wants to be casual. Quite frankly, you could describe these provisions as tricky, almost designed to force an employer to take the cautious approach because of not wanting to fall foul of the legislation. The new conversion process itself is eight pages long. The new conversion regime for employees to convert after six months is separate to an existing regime that we know covers it after 12 months, which means we are creating two streams regulating exactly the same thing. It is so complex that the Fair Work Commission will have the power to order businesses from one stream to another. The new six-month conversion right has a test with 11 factors, four sections and seven subsections is in the legislation—just more complexity. Employers must provide detailed reasons to employees in response to conversion requests. Employers can be exposed to involuntary arbitration by the Fair Work Commission if a worker or a union disputes their decision or their interpretation of the definition. The definition of casual employee will be changed to prohibit anyone from being engaged as a casual if they work regular hours. A court can order that the employee was always not a casual from the time of their engagement. For all of these reasons employers would have no choice but to force workers to move to a permanent role, thereby losing their additional income and choice of hours. However, casual jobs will not magically be replaced by permanent jobs. Any claim that they will reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of why casual employment is both necessary and legitimate. These changes will in fact embed conflict in the workplace. The legislation will in effect discourage casual employment and make it too risky for some businesses to even consider. There are some good points—and quite frankly the attacks on our side have been completely disingenuous and politically convenient. Nobody thinks that deliberate underpayment of staff is acceptable. To sit hear listening to speech after speech by those opposite painting my colleagues as wage vandals suits the appalling narrative of this bill. The good points include, for example, initiatives that support victims of domestic violence and emergency workers, which are admirable, but of course they're hidden behind a wall of radical changes. The bill adds the experience of family and domestic violence to the protected attributes for discrimination in employment. We do not oppose including protections for employees who experience family and domestic violence in the existing antidiscrimination provisions of the Fair Work Act. That is good amending legislation. On first responders, schedule 3 of the bill amends the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act to introduce a rebuttable presumption that post-traumatic stress disorder suffered by selected first responders was contributed to, to a significant degree, by their employment. The first responders impacted by this change would be, for example, the AFP, firefighters, ambulance officers and paramedics, emergency service communication operators and other emergency services workers. I want to make special mention of those emergency communications operators, some of whom I know. They're often the unseen sufferers of much trauma and distress in their role. To sit on a phone call while someone is dying, to know that a helicopter can't be dispatched to rescue someone from floodwaters, to hear the harrowing screams of pain—again, it's good amending legislation. Perhaps we should be separating the bill in relation to wage theft, antidiscrimination laws and changes for the first responders from other parts of the legislation. The government, if it were serious, would remove those provisions from the legislation so that they can be voted on separately from the more radical elements. Maybe, when the Senate has its influence on this bill, moving forward we might see a different approach. There are so many reasons why this bill is bad for business and for employees. It is impossibly complex. There is way too much uncertainty for both the employers and the employees. As I referred to before, the pages and pages and paragraph after paragraph of definitions that a small business or family business operator will be expected to interpret are, quite frankly, going to drive business to a standstill. By the minister's own admission it is going to add additional costs to businesses, especially small businesses. This will do one thing: it will flow on directly to the cost of goods for households. We know that, at a time when there is a cost-of-living crisis, when mortgages are going up and power prices are rising out of control, this is the last point of pressure that we need on goods and services. Do we need Australians to be paying more during a cost-of-living crisis because of this change and because of this pressure? The bill is absolutely not going to do anything for productivity, and productivity is what is going to ultimately drive jobs and growth within businesses that will provide future stability for those businesses and provide the platform for people to move from casual to permanent and full-time as and when the business can support it. But productivity is not going to be an outcome from this bill. The bill does nothing to enhance competition. Ultimately, it actually risks jobs. This is where the bill completely misses the mark. When a business now looks at their staffing numbers and their staffing costs and does a risk analysis of whether they will see a benefit from taking the step of wanting to employ a new casual, will they do it or will they question whether the risks are just far too great? This bill is designed to hand back to the union paymasters of the Labor Party. It is going to institutionalise conflict at an early time—after six months. You've barely got past the idea of liking to work at the place and all of a sudden you've got to make a decision as to whether you want to take on a permanent position without your choosing. Ultimately, this will deliver union officials into the backyards of mums and dads, onto their farms and through the front doors of their business without any notice and without any care. The government has said that it has made concessions for business, but it hasn't. I can't find them. I can't see them. Ultimately, what this legislation does is make a bad situation worse. Interestingly, my colleague the member for Farrer pointed out that the definition of the term 'loophole' is 'a small slit style hole in the wall of a fortress or castle that would enable archers to simultaneously be defended by the wall against enemy attacks while also being able to see and shoot arrows in attack'. This legislation really is about perspective. The Minister for the NDIS for example and no doubt the minister who put up this bill have one perspective, but it's quite disagreeable to me. My perspective is this: unlike the balance available to the archers, the impact of these radical and extreme measures will leave businesses and employees defenceless against the regime of the unions and of this government. 19:18 Ms DOYLE 299962 Aston I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. As my colleagues have said in support of this bill, it was Labor that introduced enterprise bargaining, outlawed sex discrimination in the workplace, passed the Fair Work Act and removed the WorkChoices program. Labor passed the secure jobs better pay legislation. Labor governments continue to enshrine safe and fair working conditions in industrial relations policy, and that's what this legislation will continue to build on. The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 is primarily focused on delivering fairer and safer workplaces. It provides employers with clarity about the government's expectations. When it comes to business practice and relationships with workers and contractors, it may well be the most meaningful piece of industrial relations legislation in a generation. It is landmark legislation that encourages an ethical and moral workplace culture which has the people at its heart whilst also protecting the economic interests of the business. We are properly defining 'casual employment' so casual workers aren't being exploited. We are helping casual employees that want to become permanent employees, want to make that transition. This will give financial security and leave entitlements to those who work regular hours. There is also no net cost to the business. The business either pays the casual loading for casual workers or pays the leave entitlements to permanent employees. It is one or the other, not both. The new definition of 'casual employment' will clarify what was always intended as casual employment—that is, if you are working regular and predictable hours and you want to be permanent, you'll have that pathway available to you. On that: when I was working on a call centre 30-odd years ago, every one of us telephone operators were casual employees. Some of the workers had been there for 15 to 20 years at the time. For some, the casual work suited them, but others of us would have preferred permanent jobs. There were young people there—like me—trying to save for their first home, for example, but they couldn't get a home loan due to the nature of this casual work, despite the fact that we'd been at this workplace for years with regular and predictable hours. At this time during the nineties, it was a bit difficult to get a permanent job elsewhere, because unemployment was at an all-time high. I remember it well because I tried to get a permanent job myself at the time but there wasn't much out there. So I stayed at this casual job because it was better than nothing at all, and I had to pay rent and bills. I would have loved to have had the choice to go permanent, though, and I wasn't the only one in that workplace. These laws are going to strengthen the current workplace relations framework to provide certainty and fairness and level the playing field for both businesses and workers. This legislation improves the rights of gig economy workers. A lot of gig economy workers like flexible arrangements, and we're not going to them into employees. What we're doing is protecting them from exploitation by setting minimum standards for employee-like workers. We're cracking down on the labour hire loopholes that are used to undercut pay and conditions. That's right: just because someone is in the gig economy, it does not mean that they should receive less pay than they would if they were an employee. This bill criminalises wage theft—and it is theft. It amends the Fair Work Act 2009 to introduce a criminal offence for unintentional underpayment of employees' wages and increases civil penalties for underpayment breaches. For years, the Liberals and Nationals have sat in this parliament and done absolutely nothing to stop vulnerable workers from being exploited. We on this side are making sure that workers aren't being ripped off, and this is so important right now. We are in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis and we need to protect people from exploitation. A large proportion of workers in my electorate of Aston work in healthcare services, light industry, chemical production, food manufacturing and retail. These industries, like many others, stand only to benefit from this legislation. Those opposite do not support this legislation. For years, the Liberals and Nationals have been in denial that wage theft even exists. When they finally introduced legislation as the previous government, they failed miserably as they voted against their own legislation in the Senate. They tore up their own drafts because they don't understand what workers want. They don't understand what it feels like when a single mum working casual shifts is told not to return to work the next day. Those opposite do not understand what exploitation is, but we do. Some of us have even lived it. We know that the vast majority of employers in Australia do not want to do the wrong thing. We know that the majority of Australians are honest and value hard work. But there are some powerful businesses who knowingly exploit workers, and they should face the harshest penalties. that is what this legislation is about. It breaks my heart that even today we hear about airline workers getting sacked and their work outsourced during COVID and in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. Those opposite know very well that it is their inaction over a decade that has allowed this exploitation to continue to fester in Australian workplaces, and we will not stand by any longer. This legislation will stop the rotten apples in the sector who are doing the wrong thing. Employers want an even playing field, and that's what these reforms will do because we know that a rotten apple quickly infects its neighbour. This bill will also expand the functions of the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency to include matters relating to respirable crystalline silica and silica related diseases. This would allow the agency to play a central role in coordinating, monitoring and reporting on national efforts to eliminate asbestos and silica related diseases in Australia and to support those affected by these diseases. Let's be very clear about the impact of this legislation on small businesses. We understand very well the pressures faced by small businesses, and they will not be punished for honest mistakes. There will be pathways to safe haven for small businesses who have tried to correct their mistakes by paying back their employees. In addition, this legislation will allow small franchisees to negotiate fairer and consistent agreements with franchisors. Even in my own electorate of Aston, a large number of franchisees would greatly benefit from this change, and I will continue to fight for the small businesses in my electorate. We have always been very transparent and firm in our commitment to crack down on labour hire loopholes, to protect vulnerable workers. As the minister has outlined, there has been extensive consultation on the precise design of these measures, including with various business groups. But, most importantly, these measures were part of our election commitments. We went to the Australian people with these commitments at the election in May last year and received overwhelming support, and we are now delivering on our promises. Labour hire has a legitimate use in providing surge and specialist workforces, and that will continue to be the case. We're concerned about a loophole where companies deliberately undercut the agreements they've already made with their workers. They've agreed on a fair rate of pay with their workers, they've negotiated an enterprise agreement and then they bring in another group of workers, undercutting that agreement by paying those labour hire workers less. That's a loophole. This is delivering on our commitment to same job, same pay. The way it will work is that employees, unions and hosts can apply to the commission for an order that labour hire employees be paid, as a minimum, the same wages in an enterprise agreement. Again, this is something we promised we would do, and we are now delivering. Those in the union movement and my colleagues on this side of the House come from a proud tradition, stretching back hundreds of years, of building a fairer workplace, fighting for the eight-hour day, providing people with decent pay that can support them and their families, and ensuring safe, secure workplaces. The Albanese Labor government and the minister for workplace relations understand the unfortunate but growing problem of domestic violence in Australia. Violence doesn't discriminate, and neither should the law. We are providing stronger protections against discrimination and providing workers with access to 10 days of family violence leave. This will actually save lives. For transport industry and food delivery drivers, we must modernise our industrial laws to recognise the changing nature of work. People like to have delivery to their doors. I know I do. Uber Eats, particularly during COVID, has become a huge thing. I don't think there's anybody here—unless they live in an area where there isn't Uber Eats or something similar—who hasn't often used it. Those drivers are workers, and they should be paid properly. If they had a minimum standard, we could get more of them in Far North Queensland, in places like Yorkeys Knob, in Elmore in regional Victoria, or Winnaleah in north-eastern Tassie because it could be a job that guaranteed a minimum rate of pay. That is what we're talking about—a group of workers who rely on an app for their work. It's a new form of lining up and waiting to be picked: do you have work today? Those workers deserve minimum standards. That is the role of the parliament and what this bill does. It's modernising our laws to reflect the changing nature of work and saying to a predominantly migrant workforce— Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 74 ADJOURNMENT Israel 74 19:30 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith If our goal is peace and a good life for all Palestinians and Israelis—and I think it should be—then we should be honest and clear-eyed about how to stop this violence. If we are horrified by the murder of innocent Israelis by Hamas and rightly condemn Hamas, horrified by the murder of innocent Palestinian civilians, outraged by Islamophobia and anti-Semitism—I certainly am—then we must do everything we can to stop this becoming a full-blown genocide carried out by the Israeli government and military in Gaza on Palestinians. We must push for an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestine, illegal settlements and blockade of Gaza. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Bowman will cease interjecting. Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 David Cameron said all the way back in 2010 'Everybody knows that we're not going to sort out the problem with the Middle East peace process while there is effectively a giant open prison in Gaza.' For 16 long years the 2.3 million Palestinians have lived under a brutal blockade with limited access to food, water, construction materials and medical supplies. Palestinians in Gaza have had to apply for permits— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Bowman will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Bowman then left the chamber. Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Palestinians in Gaza have had to apply for permits just to leave Gaza to receive treatment for cancer and other serious illnesses, and often those applications have been denied and Palestinians have died of treatable illnesses, including children. Forty-five per cent of Gaza's population are children under the age of 15. Ninety-six per cent of water in Gaza is undrinkable. In 2014 Israel bombed Gaza's only power station and refused to let it be properly repaired, so the Palestinians for nearly 10 years have experienced daily blackouts. In 2018-19 hundreds of thousands of Palestinians peacefully protested in Gaza against the blockade. The Israeli military murdered 150 protesters and shot and injured 5,000, regularly aiming for knees and ankles, often causing amputation. Studies have found over half of Palestinian children in Gaza have presented with serious trauma based mental illnesses. Unemployment in Gaza is at 46 per cent, and the entire population lives under constant drone surveillance and intermittent bombing by the Israeli military. Palestinians in Gaza have lived under these conditions since 2006. This week, when the Israeli defence minister announced that Israel was completely cutting off food, electricity, medicine and water, he described Palestinians in Gaza as human animals. Gaza's major hospitals are hours away from running out of fuel to power their emergency generators. Here is what the Red Cross said: 'As Gaza loses power, hospitals lose power, putting newborns in incubators and elderly patients on oxygen at risk. Kidney dialysis stops and X-rays cannot be taken. Without electricity, hospitals risk turning into morgues.' According to the UN Population Fund, 50,000 pregnant women in Gaza cannot access health facilities, as several hospitals have been bombed. In fact, the Israeli military has dropped over 6,000 bombs on Gaza, an area half the size of Canberra. This has included the use of white phosphorus, which burns human flesh. When the Israeli military called on 1.1 million Palestinians to leave northern Gaza in anticipation of a ground invasion, the UN described it as impossible and a death sentence, in part because it would involve evacuation along roads destroyed by Israeli bombing, along routes regularly bombed by the Israeli military, into southern Gaza, itself home to 1 million people without food, water or power also being bombed. This is not Israel defending itself; this is the Israeli government and military carrying out mass war crimes on 2.3 million Palestinians trapped in an open-air prison—as described by the Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron—when nearly 50 per cent are under the age of 15. All these war crimes will do is bring more hate and more violence, more death, more destruction for Palestinians and Israelis alike. It will make their lives worse and less safe. Have we learned nothing from history? The illegal invasion of Iraq led to ISIS. The invasion of Afghanistan left us with a more radical Taliban. All told, millions of deaths of human beings. For what? More hate, more death, more violence. What we need now is a ceasefire and peace and then a massive aid and reconstruction program for Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank to give the people some hope, a lifting of the illegal blockade and an end to the occupation. I often hear people in this place rightly condemn Hamas but then advocate for policies that will breed more radicalism and breed the conditions in which Hamas emerged. What we need now is a peace process, calling on the Israeli government to back down from what risks becoming a human catastrophe. Vocational Education and Training 75 19:35 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby I was thrilled to hear this morning that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Skills and Training announced a five-year skills agreement to unlock billions for skills and training. The shortage of skilled labour was an issue I heard about from all sectors of the business community when I was campaigning prior to the 2022 election. It is no wonder, because the last National Skills Agreement was in 2012, over a decade prior. This government knows that skills and training are the key to unlocking a great future for this country, for our economy, for business and, of course, for Australian workers who want well-paid, secure jobs. So this landmark five-year National Skills Agreement, starting in January next year, will embed national cooperation and strategic investment in our vocational education and training sector. This includes $12.6 billion in federal funding to expand and transform access to the VET sector. It includes an extra $2.4 billion in flexible funding to deliver skills for critical and emerging industries, including the clean energy and net zero transformation industry; Australia's sovereign capability, including advanced manufacturing skills, national security, food security and construction; care and support services; and ensuring Australia's digital and technological capability. There is up to an additional $1.3 billion of Commonwealth funding to implement agreed reforms, including $325 million to establish nationally networked TAFE centres of excellence and strengthen collaboration between TAFEs, universities and industry; $100 million to support, grow and retain a quality VET workforce; $155 million to establish a national TAFE leadership network to promote a cutting-edge curriculum; $214 million for Closing the Gap initiatives, to be designed in partnership with First Nations people and led by them; $250 million to improve VET completions, including for women and others who face completion challenges; $142 million to improve foundation skills training capacity, quality and accessibility; and a further $116 million to improve VET evidence and data. This new investment is on top of the $414 million already committed for the delivery of another 300,000 fee-free TAFE places from 2024. Australians know that education transforms lives, and they want a bit of it for themselves. In my electorate of Boothby, TAFE at Tonsley, one of the largest TAFEs in SA, tells me that the previous fee-free TAFE program has been taken up with great enthusiasm. We know it was oversubscribed across the country. There has been great interest in areas of high need, such as IT, enrolled nursing and aged care. More than 60 per cent of students entering via fee-free TAFE are women. Fee-free TAFE gives students the opportunity to try a course without the barrier of fees. Some are school leavers and young people starting out. Some have been unemployed and are looking to upskill to be more work-ready. Others are people already working and looking for a change in career. The Tonsley Innovation Precinct is also home to the engineering and science campus of Flinders University and the Line Zero Factory of the Future and will soon be home to a technical college—all onsite, with over 150 innovative, high-tech modern manufacturing businesses. The entire precinct is powered completely by renewable energy produced onsite, and excess energy is fed into the southern hemisphere's largest hydrogen electrolyser, which already exports hydrogen to heavy industry based in Whyalla every week. What better place to have students, surrounded by not only a range of education and training opportunities, working together, but also exciting new businesses—perhaps their future employers—building the industries of the future? This is a government that understands the importance of skills and training to the future of the country, the success of businesses, the growth of the economy and the quality of life for Australians. This National Skills Agreement, the first in over a decade, lays out the pathway to that prosperous future. Education transforms lives. This country needs skilled workers, and Australians want well-paid, secure jobs. This is a government delivering on all three. Stronger Communities Program 76 19:40 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon Everyone across the nation is being hit hard by Labor's cost-of-living crisis. But it is in regional and remote communities where the pain is being felt most, whether it's groceries, petrol, electricity, housing, mortgage or insurance—the list goes on. Every single day across the north-west, the West Coast and King Island, I'm hearing now that life is much tougher under this Albanese government than even during the height of the pandemic. It's shameful and a reflection of Labor's inability to manage our economy on the ground, where it matters. This is a government who's gloating about a ballooning budget surplus while families and businesses are going under. But we shouldn't be surprised. This is a well-trodden Labor path. They talk themselves up publicly, while behind the scenes continue to axe vital funding streams crucial to regional and remote communities such as mine, in the electorate of Braddon. This is the case with the axing of the Stronger Communities Program. This was a great program set up by the former Liberal-National government to ensure that every single electorate, whether in inner-city Sydney or in the most remote places of Australia, like King Island in the middle of Bass Strait, receive an equal share of funding to support our vital community organisations. The Stronger Communities Program was fair, equitable, practical, functional, and it achieved great outcomes for local communities right across the north-west, the West Coast and King Island in the great state of Tassie. It's exactly how it should be, so it beggars belief that, at the time when we are all dealing with enormous cost-of-living pressure, this federal government believes it's the right time to ask volunteers, families and businesses to put their hands even deeper into their own pockets in order to keep their local community club afloat. Since I was elected in 2019, 64 community groups in my electorate have benefited from the Stronger Communities Program. Some include the Emu Valley Rhododendron Garden in Burnie, City Mission in Ulverstone, the Smithton Lions Club, the Devonport Men's Shed, the King Island community radio station, Latrobe Footy Club, Live Well Tasmania in Wynyard, and the Queenstown Amateur Swimming Club. That's just a small selection of those who benefited from that great program. Each of these eight rounds guaranteed that $150,000 in total would be invested across the north-west, the West Coast, and King Island in the electorate of Braddon. That's $1.2 million invested directly into our local community organisations, where it matters, through this program alone. Not only that, but the downstream benefits of supporting small businesses by injecting vital investment into local communities has been crucial, and it's been a force multiplier when it comes to benefits. Sometimes that investing is lifesaving. Just the other day, I received an email from a bloke called Arron Brooke from the Mersey SES. Now that Labor has axed this program, Arron and his team are amongst the final worthy recipients of funding through round 8 of the Stronger Communities Program. Arron writes: Hi Gavin, We were very fortunate to receive one of your recent grants. We were able to purchase 4 trauma first aid kits for our SES vehicles. We have now received these kits. We would like to express our appreciation— and genuine thanks— for these and they will be put to great use keeping our members and members of the public safe— when needed. Regrettably, one of Labor's first acts when elected to government was to scrap the Stronger Communities Program. At a time when many can't afford the petrol to drive to medical appointments, Labor thinks that they should be making communities in the bush hurt more by cutting important funding streams such as this. Funding is crucial to the ongoing social and economic fabric of our great local communities. Prime Minister Albanese and the Labor government should hang their heads in shame. On behalf of the electorate of Braddon, I call on them and plead that they should reinstate this important program immediately. Lyons Electorate: Health Care 77 19:44 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons I rise to provide an update on health services in my electorate. It's no secret that the nation is continuing to grapple with a longstanding regional health crisis brought about by a critical shortage of doctors, nurse practitioners, nurses and other health professionals. The unwillingness or inability of health professionals to practice in the regions, whether it's too far or the business model is too risky, collides daily with the need for people in the regions to be able to access health care. It's an issue the Albanese Labor government, under the leadership of health minister Mark Butler, is aware of and is committed to addressing. The fact is: people deserve access to quality health care in Australia no matter where they live. City or town, country or city—your health and your life expectancy should not be determined by your postcode. My electorate has a number of flashpoints. The town of Ouse, in the central highlands, lost its GP before the last election, and a number of attempts to revive the service have failed. Other options are now being looked at, including a nurse-led service and the possibility of mobile services. In Bridgewater, we learnt in September that IPN—a division of Sonic Healthcare, which last year posted a $1.5 billion profit—will be closing the Greenpoint medical centre in December. News of the imminent closure understandably put the community in a tailspin. There are 8,000 patients on the books, many of them low income with compromised health. Books of the closest alternative GP services are full. The service simply must continue. If it is not run by IPN, it must be run by someone else. The Tasmanian Liberal health minister tried to handball the entire issue to the federal government until I reminded him that under Commonwealth-state health agreements the state does have a role to play in primary health delivery. Many people have spent many hours on the phone in recent weeks, seeking a solution to ensure GP services continue at Greenpoint when IPN leaves. I am pleased to say those efforts appear to be bearing fruit. Fingers crossed, there will be good news soon. In the north of my electorate, Campbell Town lost its GP when the clinic ended its contract to deliver medical services to the local hospital. Happily, that's since been resolved, with an alternative provider, Ochre Health, now providing services both to the hospital and to the community. Evandale lost a GP, but a new service has now started, with an enthusiastic new GP. Westbury lost a GP but is managing with alternative services. In the north-east of my electorate, the town of St Marys learnt in August that the legendary Dr Cyril Latt was hanging up his hat. Dr Latt had been contracted by the Tasmanian health service to be the doctor at the St Marys Community Health Centre for many years, and he also provided a separate service to the community as its GP. When the THS failed to provide the extra support he'd asked for—he was working 24/7, one of the most dedicated and selfless people you'll ever meet—he reluctantly resigned, which meant the town also lost its GP. The state government has now contracted Ochre Health to provide health centre services, and it's been confirmed this week that Ochre will also provide a separate local GP service. That's good news, but Ochre is a fee-charging for-profit service while Dr Latt bulk billed, so it's going to be a change for the community. Dr Latt's an absolute legend, and I only wish the THS had valued him higher and had given him the support he sought. I wish him and his wonderful family all the best for the future. On the east coast, in the Glamorgan-Spring Bay municipality, cohealth has taken on a contract for the local council owned medical service, which runs out of the towns of Triabunna and Bicheno. Cohealth is a non-profit, multidisciplinary service, and I'm particularly excited to see how it goes, especially as it was awarded a Primary Care Rural Innovative Multidisciplinary Model grant by the Australian government. Turning to the south of my electorate, I am pleased to report the new Brighton GP clinic is under construction and looking great; I'm very excited to see it going up next to the bowls club. That project was made possible through a $1.5 million commitment that I was able to secure for the community during the 2022 election, and the Albanese government is delivering on that promise. That surgery will ensure more capacity for medical services in Brighton, a fast-growing community full of young families. Labor is the party of Medicare, and we are the only party committed to its long-term future. The sad fact is that we are dealing with 10 years of Liberal failure and neglect in health care. We are dealing with that. I would like to say a big thankyou to all the health professionals in my electorate who work in the regions and choose to provide quality health care to people in the regions. We need more of you. So come to the regions. Economy 78 19:49 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield The growth of Australia's economy over recent decades has been heavily based on technological innovation, and that will be of continuing importance to our progress in future decades. We know that software provides the opportunity for significant productivity improvements for cost reductions, for new products and for transforming how we work. At the start of the 20th century it would have been impossible to overstate the impact that electricity was going to have on our economic and social lives, and, similarly, here in the early part in the 21st century it's impossible to overstate the impact that software will have. We know Australia has a productivity problem. Over the long run our productivity has grown at an average of 1.5 per cent a year, but, in the five years to 2019, that dropped to 1.1 per cent a year, and the performance under the first year of this government has been very poor. What we also know is that this government does not seem seized with the urgency of boosting our digital economy. We don't have a minister for the digital economy under this government. We don't have a clear national goal for Australia to be a leading digital economy. As the Business Council commented in its recent report, Seize the moment: On our current path, we face the real risk of Australia being overtaken by the rest of the world and Australians being worse off for generations to come. But the report also highlighted the way that Australia could boost its productivity, including through the use of technology and the use of software. As shadow minister for science and the digital economy, I've been privileged to see a number of examples of great work being done by Australian researchers and businesses. For example, I recently visited Diraq, a company spun out of the University of New South Wales and based at that university's Kensington campus. It was an opportunity to learn about their world-leading quantum technology and their efforts to commercialise that technology, and it was a privilege to meet and learn from the CEO and founder of Diraq, Andrew Dzurak, who is also the Scientia professor in quantum engineering at UNSW. It was coalition government investment into quantum research and infrastructure at the UNSW Sydney that was an important enabler for Diraq to undertake world-leading quantum computing research in spins in silicone quantum dots, attracting world-leading academics and employees, as well as global investment. I recently also had the privilege in Emu Plains, on the other side of Sydney, to visit a startup called AusComply, which is led by managing director and founder Jason Thomas. It's an end-to-end mobile compliance platform and consultancy, helping the liquor, gaming and security industries manage compliance, register incidents, track data and analyse results. Since its launch in 2015, the business has recorded more than two million incident reports, and it's all done using digital tools that make it easier for licensed clubs and other organisations to comply with their regulatory obligations. Recently I met Brett Baker and Carolyn Hough of the technology company Torqn, which is serving the mining industry. Their clever technology takes a social media approach to sharing information about complex mining equipment, meaning solutions to equipment problems can be crowdsourced globally, shared instantly and searched easily. As a result, equipment can be fixed more quickly, saving downtime and improving productivity. Recently I had the privilege of visiting the Australian Genome Research Facility, the AGRF, at their University of Queensland premises in Brisbane. Under the stewardship of the CEO, Joe Baini, and lab manager David Hawkes, they're working with a company called Genics. The Genics chairman, Roger Sayers, and chief executive and distinguished and accomplished scientist, Melony Sellars, explained to me that Genics is commercialising research done at the CSIRO over many years—research led by Melony Sellars. What that allows them to do is deliver services to support farmers to identify harmful pathogens by smartly harvesting new data tools to reduce the time required for genomic testing. They've got a presence in the prawn industry and in the pork industry, and their test can efficiently, quickly and cost effectively test for, right now, some 11 pathogens in one test, and that number will increase in the next iteration to be released shortly. While technology and digital innovation will play a defining role in Australia's economic future, ultimately this depends upon smart, creative and clever people, and it is a privilege, as shadow minister for science and the digital economy, to meet so many smart, clever and innovative Australians doing great work, building great companies and building our prosperity. Prime Minister's Prizes for Science 78 19:54 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan It is lovely that on this evening we're having a science love-in in the House. The way that I like to think about science is as the pursuit of knowledge. I think that that's something that is quite noble. Science is the study of the physical and the natural world through observation and experiment, while technology is the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes. So science in practice today is the technology of tomorrow. I too had the pleasure of attending the presentation of the Prime Minister's Prizes for Science last night. The prizes were announced by both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Industry and Science. I see the evening as being a bit like the Brownlow Medal for scientists. The prizes celebrate and acknowledge the achievements and success of Australian scientists and innovators. The prizes recognise the achievements and the benefits of scientific work to our country as well as to the world. It's about exploration and discovery, and that's something that I see as very exciting. It's about pushing the boundaries to find a new generation of opportunities that can be uncovered by science. Last night the winner of the Prime Minister's Prize for Science was Professor Michelle Simmons, and it was for her work in pioneering developments in quantum computing. Quantum computing will be the next frontier of computing. Quantum physics is basically the study of things at the atomic and subatomic level, where physical matter can act both as particles and as a wave. What this study will do is see computing solve really complex problems which current computing can't. What Professor Simmons created is a company that can develop a new style of manufacturing that is the basis of a new approach for quantum computing. It's innovative and groundbreaking. Innovations can be used in other fields to make a huge difference to health, transport and agriculture. These are things that could affect the lives of millions of people for the better. That's what science can do. As the Prime Minister said last night, behind every great scientist, there's a dedicated science teacher. I know that, when I wanted to pursue a STEM career, I had lots of amazing teachers, which included Mr Simpson, Mr Mazzuchelli, Miss Cypher and even my primary school teacher Mrs Wilson, as well as amazing physics lecturers like Yarra Korczynskyj and Marjan Zadnik. But what was really lovely to see last night was the celebration of a teacher from WA called Donna Buckley, who works at John Curtin College of the Arts. You wouldn't think that arts and maths go hand in hand, but they do. In some ways I see them as two sides of the same coin. What Donna does is teach creative, artistic students to use maths as a facilitator to create amazing, beautiful pieces, but she also challenges the way that they do things. The other thing that she does is teach girls how to code and how to use computer programs to be really creative, so I see this as something that goes hand in hand. The other thing about last night that was really lovely is that sometimes you go to the Great Hall and you have these big dinners, but, because it was a big STEM love-in, all the nerds were very happy to have a chat with each other. You've got the brightest minds from all across Australia. During each of the breaks, everyone was in the middle having a chat with one another, talking about their new scientific discoveries and what things they had been working on. I was very pleased to spend time with two of my constituents last night. One of them was Dr Sarah Pearce, who lives and works in my electorate of Swan. She works at the Square Kilometre Array and is the telescope director. This is about the next generation of radio astronomy which is being driven by a big data facility and will fundamentally revolutionise our understanding of the universe. While I'm learning about the laws of this country, she's learning about the laws of physics and will be looking at this from a cutting-edge perspective. It was also lovely to see Parwinder Kaur last night. She has been doing some amazing work looking at STEM and women in STEM and the way that we can get more women to think about STEM careers because the truth is we've got a lot of work to do and we need the whole workforce. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 79 NOTICES Presentation 79

Tuesday, 17 October 2023

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Andrews ) took the chair at 16:00.

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 84 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Melbourne Electorate: Public Housing 84 16:00 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne We must stop Labor privatising public housing. Public housing is a human right. But in his final act as premier, Daniel Andrews announced the sell-off of much of Melbourne's remaining public housing land. Forty-four public housing towers are to be demolished and a majority of public housing land sold off to developers. It's the biggest privatisation spree since former Liberal premier Jeff Kennett. Labor really is a party of the centre-right now. North Melbourne's and Carlton's towers will be the first to go. People will be kicked out of their homes within the next few years. It is wrong to destroy these vibrant and diverse communities. The people there have a right to a home—a public home. But, instead of renovating or replacing, Labor is moving to end public housing in Melbourne. According to their plan, some social housing will be rebuilt, and the rest of the land will be given to developers to build expensive apartments. This is of no comfort to the current residents. Labor says the people will be relocated and then allowed to return. But at what cost? Labor is letting these people down. These towers might need a reno, but they have created strong communities—communities who have stood together through tough times, like the pandemic lockdowns, and learnt to support each other. They are tough, and they don't deserve to be turfed out so that private developers and property investors can make even more money. Communities are going to be torn apart if this goes ahead. People will lose connections with schools, doctors, friends and neighbours. For over a decade now, Labor has been flipping public housing to private developers, but this is the biggest sell-off—and a huge win for the property developers and investors. Shame on Labor for tearing down people's homes and selling off their communities. There are 125,000 Victorians who are in desperate need of public housing, and when you tear down all the towers, this number will increase. Labor is making the problem worse. Under their plan, the demolished towers will be replaced with 15 additional social homes a year over the next 28 years. That's the net benefit: 15 a year; that's it. The big winners will be the big developers who get sold public land to build expensive private apartments. In the middle of a housing crisis, the Greens will keep fighting to cap and freeze rents and to build more public and genuinely affordable housing. We need to build more public housing. When you privatise public land you don't house people; you just provide developers and investors with more profit. Public housing is a human right. In the middle of a housing crisis, it's outrageous to be selling off public housing for profit. Labor is letting people down. Barton Electorate: Local Community 84 16:03 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton One of the privileges of representing the people of my electorate of Barton is sharing in their passion for our local community. Over the past six weeks, 40,000 people across Australia gave their time and skills to speak to their neighbours, family and friends about the Voice to the parliament. To the 540 people across the Barton for Yes campaign, I want to say thank you. These volunteers were from different cultures and different faiths. Some were seasoned campaigners, but for many it was their first campaign. They spoke about the hope of the next generation of Indigenous Australians about closing the gap. By the end of the campaign, these volunteers had knocked on 20,000 doors and spent time at dozens of train stations and street stalls. Their passion and drive inspired me in my travels across the country. We didn't see the result we were hoping for in the referendum, but it was heartening to see the passion for reconciliation and closing the gap, not only in my community but in communities across the country. Those wonderful volunteers have my gratitude from the bottom of my heart. I also express my gratitude to the many residents of Barton who sent their well wishes to my electorate office. I would also like to acknowledge and celebrate the birthdays of two of my centenarian constituents. Mrs Edna Berry of Bexley turned 107 on 7 October, and Mrs Dolores Esangga of Hurstville will turn 102 on 5 November. Mrs Berry was born in Picton in 1916. With her husband, Hugh, she had four children and cared for two others until their adulthood. Her daughter Paulene says she has a lot of grandkids and great-grandchildren and loves them all dearly. Mrs Esangga was born in Pampanga, in the Philippines. She lived in Papa New Guinea before moving to Australia in 1987, and Hurstville in 1988. Mrs Esangga has five children, 23 grandchildren and 11 great-grandchildren. I wish them both good health and many happy returns, and all my very best to their families. Business Innovation and Investment Program 85 16:06 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin The business division and investment (permanent) visa, subclass 888, allows individuals to manage their business and investments in Australia and to bring that expertise to our nation. It's a permanent residence visa. It lets you and family members who have also been granted this visa to stay in Australia indefinitely, work and study here, enrol in Medicare, sponsor eligible relatives for permanent residence, and to travel to and from Australia for five years from the date of the visa being granted. Importantly, it also allows you to continue to own and manage a business in Australia—the business innovation stream—and continue business and investment activity in Australia, which is the investor stream. Sadly there are prolonged delays in the visa approval process for both of these subclasses of visas and it has left many applicants in my electorate and the community that they live with in a state of limbo, with their dreams and the future plans in Australia hanging in the balance. These visa classes, quite rightly, are designed to attract business investors to Australia who can create wealth and create jobs, but the extended waiting periods are leading to considerable frustration, anxiety and, sadly, uncertainty for many of those applicants. These delays affect not only the individual applicants, as you can understand, but their families as well. Indeed, we have situations now of families being separated because of the uncertainty that they are facing. These are situations that are coming into my electorate office for help. In heartfelt pleas that I've seen sent to ministers in the government, these people have written about a long catalogue of issues that these prolonged processes under Labor and the effects they are having on them. Indeed, one applicant reached out to me with their experience of having waited 34 months on a bridging visa. The extensive delays are clearly taking a very significant toll on the mental health not only of the applicant, but the of family from whom they are separated. The reality is the impact of the pandemic, coupled with these prolonged waiting periods, means that for tens of thousands of people the anxiety that is being felt is rippling through communities such as mine, particularly the Australian Chinese community in my area. There's a great network of support for each and every one of these people, but their problems can be solved if the government gets moving, deals with these applications, stops prevaricating, stops saying one thing and doing another, and actually treats these people in a way that gives them the respect of dealing— (Time expired) Medicare 85 16:09 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I rise today to talk about urgent care clinics, and particularly the opening of the Old Port Road Medical and Dental Centre as a Medicare urgent care clinic in the western suburbs of Adelaide. Urgent care has been something that a whole range of providers in the primary care sector have been trying to establish and make work for many years. It's a very well-known, understood model in many other countries to which we would usually compare ourselves, most notably New Zealand, where it is a very, very developed model of care. There's a particular college of urgent care that recognises this as a particular discipline in medical practice. Having had that in place for as long as New Zealand has, when you compare the emergency department presentation rate per capita in that country to ours, there is a yawning gap. It is much, much lower. We know that, particularly when it's hard to see a doctor out of hours or on the weekend, when your kid falls off their skateboard or you have an emergency that is not necessarily life-threatening but requires urgent attention if you can't get in to see your GP too often your only option is to attend a fully equipped hospital emergency department. We know that around half of all presentations to emergency departments across Australia, around a million every year, are what are classified as non-urgent or semi-urgent presentations. What lay at the heart of our policy at the last election to establish at least 50 urgent care clinics around Australia was not only making it easier to see a doctor when and where people needed for these non-life-threatening emergencies but also taking pressure off the hospital emergency department system at a time when it's never been higher. We know that there is a background increase in acuity across an older population, with more chronic disease, but there is also the legacy of deferred care arising from the pandemic. That's why I'm so delighted that, by the end of this year, 58 urgent care clinics will be in place across Australia. Already a couple of dozen are open and operating. They've provided services to around 50,000 Australians already. Remarkably, a third of them have been kids under 15, falling off their skateboards and doing those things that kids do. Being able to attend these clinics that are open seven days a week, with extended hours, often into the evening, and fully bulk-billed means they don't have to spend hour upon hour waiting at the hospital emergency department with mum, dad or both. I'm delighted that we have been able to open one of those in the western suburbs of Adelaide, the Western Medicare Urgent Care Clinic. I'm really confident it will not only make a difference in making it easier to see a doctor in that part of Adelaide but also take much-needed pressure off the hospitals in the area, the Royal Adelaide Hospital and the Queen Elizabeth Hospital. Pollie Pedal 86 16:12 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume Last week, I was delighted to cycle around 1,000 kilometres across Western Australia raising funds and raising awareness for veterans organisation Wandering Warriors as part of the annual Pollie Pedal. More than 30 cyclists participated, including former prime minister Tony Abbott and the member for Canning. They jumped on a bike and rode through Perth to regional towns and villages, including Mandurah, Bunbury, Busselton, Margaret River, Nannup, Collie and Pinjarra. Pollie Pedal was founded in 1998 and has ridden more than 24,000 kilometres across Australia, but for the first time this year it was in Western Australia. In that 25 years, Pollie Pedal has raised more than $7 million for organisations, including Carers Australia, the Royal Flying Doctor Service, Ronald McDonald House, Youth Insearch and the Paralympic Games, and has supported medical research into childhood leukaemia, diabetes, breast cancer and prostate cancer. This year, as I said, we were supporting Wandering Warriors, an outstanding organisation that helps veterans, primarily special forces veterans, transition from military to civilian life, with a particular focus on education. I'm proud to say that we raised around $250,000 for that great cause as part of the Pollie Pedal. We couldn't have done it without an amazing group of volunteers from across Australia as well as community organisation Rapid Relief, which fuelled us with coffee and whatever else we needed along the way. Their support, which has been there for many years, was absolutely brilliant. We rode with our sponsors and saw many others who donated along the way in the towns that I have talked about. Personally, it was a particular privilege for me to ride with those who put their lives at risk for our great nation and served in uniform. Led by Quentin Masson, the chief executive of Wandering Warriors, himself a former member of the SAS, I saw the toughness of our special forces soldiers, but I also saw their teamwork, collaboration and kindness. I gained some of that along the way when I was having tough times on some of those hills. They have amazing commitment, and we certainly saw that on the bike over that 1,000 kilometres. It was a great opportunity to get out of the suit and spend some time with Australians in some wonderful parts of this great country—Australians who are suffering and struggling under the rising cost of living. It was a very special Pollie Pedal. I'm looking forward to next year's Pollie Pedal and I strongly encourage members on all sides of the chamber to get involved. We have e-bikes now, so those who are not accustomed to pedalling quite so hard are more than welcome to come, even if it's just for a couple of hours. Health Care 86 16:15 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell I rise today to speak about health care in regional Australia. In Australia today, the further you live outside of a major city, the worse your health outcomes are likely to be. A big part of that is timely and affordable access to care. For a woman living in the most remote parts of Australia, life expectancy is 19 years shorter than her city counterpart. That is not acceptable. I know just how hard it has been for people on the Central Coast of New South Wales in my electorate to be able to see a doctor, especially for urgent care. Having worked at Wyong Hospital for almost 10 years, I've seen, firsthand, people who have had to delay or avoid accessing care, ending up in the emergency departments of our already clogged hospital systems, waiting hours for care. Our government is delivering on its commitment to health care, especially for people living outside our major cities. On the Central Coast, I was pleased to stand with my colleague Dr Gordon Reid when we announced locations for two Medicare urgent care clinics on the Central Coast. The Peninsula Medicare Urgent Care Clinic will be established at Providence Medical Umina, and the Lake Haven Urgent Care Clinic will be established at Coastal Lake's Medical Practice in my electorate. Importantly four our local constituents, both urgent care clinics will start seeing patients before the end of this year. Medicare urgent care clinics deliver on our government's commitment to make it easier and more affordable for people on the Central Coast and right around Australia to get the urgent treatment they need from highly qualified doctors and nurses, while taking the pressure off Gosford's and Wyong's hospital emergency departments. Our urgent care clinic is going to offer the high-quality urgent care that our community deserves, seven days a week and fully bulk-billed. Over half of the presentations to Gosford and Wyong hospital emergency departments are non-urgent or semi-urgent. It's such an important investment in our community, and I'm so pleased that these clinics are two of 14 Medicare urgent care clinics that will be established across New South Wales, and part of 58 around Australia. I also want to mention one of the most significant investments that has been made in Medicare. After a decade of cuts and neglect by the former government, it has never been harder or more expensive for Australians—particularly those living outside the major cities—to see a doctor. Peter Dutton froze the Medicare rebate for almost 10 years when he was health minister, and the Liberals ripped billions of dollars out of primary care, which caused gap fees to skyrocket. That's why the centrepiece of the May budget included our commitment to make Medicare stronger, and from 1 November the government's historic investment in Medicare will triple the bulk-billing incentive—the largest increase in the incentive in the 40-year history of Medicare. Wannon Electorate: Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease 87 16:18 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I rise to thank a wonderful group of Wannon residents who ran with me or supported the run for Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. To raise awareness and much-needed funds for CJD, we went from Parliament House here in Canberra to Warrnambool—some 950 kilometres. Matty Stewart, the key ideas man and organiser who lost his father, Bobby, to CJD, and James Kenna, a gun runner and gun golfer who lost his father, Jimmy, to CJD, joined with me on this journey with some wonderful support. I lost my mother, Marie, and my Aunty Helen to CJD. Fellow runners Greg 'Eyes' Kelson, Billy Edies, Patty Paton, Josh Dwyer, Marcus Norton, Mark Vaughan, Leon Brooks and Joss Brooks—the Brooks brothers—Chris O'Connor, and our wonderful support crew, Jack, Gerard and Danny Kenna. We ran and we had a lot of fun, and we did some really important work. We raised over $80,000, which will go into research for CJD. Up until now, there has never been a cure for CJD. Once you're diagnosed with it, it's a sentence. For the first time—and we heard this news 24 hours before we headed off—there will be a trial to find a cure for CJD. The co-chair of the CJD family support group, Suzanne, was there with us to see us off in Canberra last Saturday week, along with the NRL Canberra Raiders female coach, who gave us a very inspirational speech to head us on our way. The fun included a guest appearance by one of the lead singers of a folk band called Old Melbourne Road. David Murphy came and sang for us, but he also recounted the story of how he lost his mother to CJD at about the same time I did. He had never spoken about it because of the stigma associated with it. We had a lot of fun that night, like we did right along the trip, and we got a wonderful welcome when we arrived back in Warrnambool this Saturday. We've made lifelong friends through this journey. The bond that was built between the group of us who did this 950-kilometre odyssey will last forever. I want to thank everyone who ran, who supported us, who donated, who tooted their horns and who shared on social media. CJD is on the way to getting a cure because of some of the work that we did. Eden-Monaro Electorate: Community Events 87 16:21 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro I want to give a shout-out to a young legend from Jerrabomberra in my electorate who is following her dreams and inspiring her peers. Alyse O'Brien was recently selected to represent Australia at the Junior World Series of Indoor Cricket in Dubai, after she represented the ACT and surrounding regions in the junior Indoor Cricket National Championships, which were held in Ipswich earlier this year. Alyse has just returned from Dubai, where the under-15 Australian team finished up with a bronze medal in the under-17s division. On top of that, she was also awarded player of the match against New Zealand. Her cricket journey started at Jerrabomberra Public School with the indoor cricket program in kinder. She then played for an under-10s Queanbeyan District Cricket Club side, progressed through the age groups and won two premierships in the Queanbeyan District Cricket Club women's team. Congratulations, Alyse, on your budding cricket career. You're doing us all incredibly proud. I recently had the opportunity to visit a brand-new early intervention PlayAbility inclusion hub that has opened in Bega. The hub was founded through round 2 of the Bushfire Local Economic Recovery Fund, boosting fire affected communities and helping them to get back on their feet. The PlayAbility inclusion hub will provide specialised early intervention services for families who have kids from birth to school age with a disability or developmental delay in two or more areas. The hub will provide family support through their supported playgroups, mobile parenting support services and Indigenous family support programs. The space will provide accessible services and support for vulnerable families in the Bega Valley, giving children opportunities to play, socialise and learn in a safe and inclusive environment. This week, I was invited to join Meals on Wheels Queanbeyan to celebrate their 70th anniversary, but unfortunately, as it's a sitting week, I can't get there. It is a much-loved food delivery service which helps thousands of people across the country and in my own electorate. We know that older people suffer from social exclusion. It's a national health and wellbeing issue. Big congratulations to all those volunteers from Meals on Wheels Queanbeyan. Recently, I was able to present them with a $2,000 volunteers grant. Thank you for the work that you do. In the last week, there has been a bushfire in my electorate again. I want to extend my sympathies to those impacted by the Coolagolite bushfire near Bermagui. It started in farmland and spread quickly over nearly 7,000 hectares, impacting areas of Cuttagee, Barragga Bay and the Murrah, destroying two homes, damaging two more and destroying 14 outbuildings. We know that the Bermagui sporting club sustained significant damage, along with a number of primary producers. The Prime Minister and I visited Bermagui the day after the fire to check on the community there. The overwhelming sentiment was one of sincere thanks. (Time expired) Israel 88 16:24 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert Nine days ago, Israel faced the unthinkable—a terrorist attack by Hamas, which led to the death of thousands, hundreds being taken hostage and the unrest of the world. There have been many speeches condemning the attack, and rightly so. The work of our nation is far from done, and words are not enough. We have had an Australian grandmother killed. Thousands of Australian citizens are in a war zone, many of which are stranded in Gaza, and there are hundreds who will face terror on our own shores. We need flights to get our people out, and a few just aren't enough. If military aircraft is needed, then activate the online battalion and get it done. On our land, on our shores, we have seen support for terror. We have seen terrorist sympathisers chanting in celebration of these barbaric attacks. The Prime Minister needs to meet with the New South Wales Premier to put an immediate end to this behaviour. The threat of more violence on our own home soil is very real. It needs to be taken seriously and addressed swiftly. We need the Prime Minister to convene the National Security Committee, immediately cancel the visas of those non-Australians involved in the erratic behaviour on our shores and have them deported. If you support terrorism, if you chant, 'Gas the Jews,' you get deported. There needs to be actionable outcomes to support our nation and the people of Israel. The ambassador of Israel said to our party room this morning, 'We did not start this war, but we will win,' and the coalition supports them. There was a bipartisan motion put forward by the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition, condemning the terror attack that killed so many. In a disgraceful moment, the Leader of the Greens, with the member for North Sydney and the member for Mackellar, moved a motion during this condolence, when people were speaking about the terrorist attack. That motion said words to the effect of condemning Israel for committing war crimes, and it called for an end to illegal occupation. Hamas is a terrorist organisation that has been condemned by the Australian parliament. Innocent people—women and children—have been killed. The Leader of the Greens and those two Teals should be ashamed of themselves. It is disgraceful what they did. If you stand for nothing, you will fall for everything. In this time, our Prime Minister should stand up and be counted and condemn that extra motion by the Greens. Employment: Social Enterprises 88 16:27 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite Right now, more than 200,000 Australians with complex barriers to work are employed by over 12,000 social enterprises across our nation. These social enterprises offer secure, fairly paid work for so many people who for too long have missed out on opportunities—employment opportunities that so many of us take for granted. These are opportunities that lead to lifelong friendships, fulfilling careers, the building of skills knowledge and enhanced self-esteem. This growing sector offers inclusive employment, job training and on-the-job support. That's why social enterprises are one of the key target areas identified by the Treasurer in our government's employment white paper. In response to the white paper, our government will draw on the expertise of the social enterprise sector and build its capacity to improve employment for people who are experiencing entrenched disadvantage. This is a policy move that will drive far-reaching and positive results, especially in my own electorate of Corangamite in Victoria, which is home to some of our nation's most remarkable social enterprises. I recently had the great pleasure to meet staff and volunteers at Star Cafe, a social enterprise led by aged-care provider Villa Maria Catholic Homes in Torquay. Cathy, Lindy-Joy and the workers at Star of the Sea do an incredible job, and I'd like to take this opportunity to encourage all locals on the Surf Coast and across my electorate to drop by for a coffee, a pastry or a delicious treat. Our government recognises the importance of social enterprises like Star Cafe. It's why we're already partnering with the sector to create more opportunities for more Australians. We've introduced the Social Enterprise Development Initiative, which supports social enterprises. Under the new outcomes fund, we are partnering with states, territories and service providers to tackle disadvantage and organise inclusive job opportunities. All in all, this commitment ties in with our government's reform agenda. It's all about boosting jobs and skills. Whether it be through fee-free TAFE, apprenticeships or local social enterprises, we are committed to ensuring all Australians can access rewarding work. Rewarding, fairly paid work is so important. It builds confidence and self-esteem. It builds skills and friendships. Importantly, it delivers a fair wage. There should not be barriers to achieving these outcomes. Social enterprises like Star Cafe must be commended because they break down barriers and embrace inclusive, rewarding work. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230886 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. STATEMENTS 89 STATEMENTS Israel 89 16:30 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin My focus right now, at this most difficult of times, is to do all I can to strengthen social cohesion in our country. I'm doing this, firstly, by listening; by working closely with multicultural and multifaith groups who are the most directly affected by the conflict. I am listening with intent to address concerns and to appreciate what directly affected communities need from government right now. Through these conversations, I've been hearing about the fear that exists within our Jewish communities—of mothers too scared to send their children to school, about the ongoing distress of communities about reporting illustrating the suffering faced by innocents in Israel. I've also heard about how Muslim and Arab communities are feeling scared and horrified at the conditions facing innocent people in Gaza as well as distress around aspects of the public discourse. I've spoken in recent days to Jewish and Muslim community leaders. Many have reached out to me. From speaking right now, I will proceed to roundtables with Muslim community leaders first and then with Jewish community leaders. I don't presume that these roundtables will bring resolution. Rather, I see this as the start of a deep engagement to which I am committed and from which I hope I can play a part on behalf of the Australian government in bringing people together by keeping communities safe. 16:32 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey Like so many Australians, my heart broke when I saw the reports and videos coming out Israel of the barbaric actions of Hamas. Let us be clear, this is a human tragedy caused by Hamas. ISIS and Hamas are no different, targeting innocent people and families—women, men, children, the elderly, the young and the old—with no regard for human life. The coalition utterly condemns the unprovoked and abhorrent attack by the militant Hamas on Israel. Too many innocent people have lost their lives, Israeli and Palestinian. It was a deliberate act of violence intended to inflict maximum harm on innocent civilians. The attack is a provocation. Israel has every right to defend itself in response and to deter future attacks and other acts of aggression, coercion and interference. Hamas is a recognised terrorist organisation consistently showing a blatant disregard for life—just like al-Qaeda, just like ISIS, just like Hezbollah. The merciless killing of more than 1,300 Jews by Hamas was barbaric. These sick acts have no place in our world. I try to imagine if I woke up to the news that 260 kids who had been to a music concert in Australia had been driven into the desert and had been murdered. I cannot imagine that. I try to imagine that 199 Australians have been taken hostage and threatened with execution on the internet. I cannot imagine that. But this is the unthinkable reality for Israel. The evil acts of Hamas have sent shock waves around the world. Hamas terrorists committed mass murder on an atrocious scale. At the moment there are many Australians of Jewish faith who are going through a very difficult time, not just because they might have a loved one, a family member or someone they knew in Israel who's been affected by this atrocious terrorist act but also because it has an impact on families and communities here in Australia. Children at some Jewish schools have been told to not wear their school uniforms. Children are not being allowed to walk home from school, their parents fearing violence and abuse. Children at school in our own country are being heavily guarded with guns. Security at synagogues and Jewish community centres has increased significantly. Antisemites are driving around the streets of Melbourne looking for Jews to hurt. Living Holocaust survivors have to listen to chants of 'Gas the Jews' and 'Kill the Jews'—in 2023 in Australia. Where is your moral compass when your first reaction to these atrocities is to protest and to celebrate in the cities of our great country? But it is happening, and it has no place in this world. Whenever there is conflict in Israel, our Jewish communities in Australia feel the impact deeply. The lack of care for people who are hurting is inexcusable. This kind of hatred has no place in our society. And now is no time for equivocation: Israel must defend its territory, its way of life. Global support for Israel—its right to exist, its right to self-defence—is crucial, and we must call out antisemitism in all its forms. We stand with people of Jewish faith, both in Australia and abroad, as they experience what is another difficult and traumatic period in their lives. We must stand firmly against these acts of terror perpetrated by Hamas and support Israel taking strong action to defend themselves. We must send the message that this can never happen again. But we mustn't forget the Palestinians, and we must make clear that any condemning of this terrorist group is not a reflection on the world's view of the Palestinian people. Hamas aren't just the enemy of the Jewish people; they are the enemy of many good Palestinian people as well. We must be clear in our wording and in our conversations that Hamas is the enemy, not Palestine. And it is heartbreaking to hear reports of Hamas stopping innocent civilians from evacuating Gaza. Many Australians are in pain at the thought of their fellow human beings suffering, and this has occurred purely through the actions of Hamas. Recently I had the opportunity to speak to a Jewish member of my community, and his heart is breaking for the Jewish people, his friends and family at home, but his heart is also breaking for the Palestinian people, because he knows the struggle they are going through. He showed humanity in that conversation that many wouldn't. We must remember that this is not about the Palestinian people; it is about the actions of Hamas. It is my wish that all Jewish Australians know that they are not alone. Australia mourns alongside you for what is the single biggest loss of Jewish life since the Holocaust. We stand side by side with you in what is a deeply traumatic time. The coalition proudly supports Israel's right to do what is necessary, within the rules of war, to protect its people, its sovereignty and its borders. Like many Australians, I stand with Israel. We, as a nation, have to stand with Israel and the Australian Jewish community at this time of need because, after the horrors of the Holocaust, the world said to the Jewish people, 'Never again.' As I stand here today, I assure those people that the coalition stands in complete unity with Israel. We stand in unity with the Jewish people and with Israel. One thing we learn and know in this role with the opportunities that we have is that words are important and our actions are important. That's why it was so disappointing and heartbreaking to see yesterday that seven members of this House took the decision to move a motion in which they wanted to remove one part of this motion in particular, paragraph 2. It's quite simple and straightforward. It reads: (2) stands with Israel and recognises its inherent right to defend itself … Seven members of this House wanted to have that removed from this motion. It is a shame and a disgrace and I condemn them for that. Their names are recorded in history for wanting to remove that from this. We need to stand with Israel and recognise that, much like we would expect Australia to defend itself if these actions had occurred on our land, Israel has the right to defend itself. I hope those seven members take some time to reflect on the pain and hurt that their actions yesterday caused many people in this country and across the world. 16:42 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell I rise to speak on the unfolding tragedy in the Middle East. We must condemn all forms of violence and the killing of innocent civilians on both sides, without exception. It is on the basis of a fundamental principle, respect for international humanitarian law. It is this principle which guides our promotion of peace and justice. It is this principle which underlines our condemnation of Hamas's attacks on innocent Israeli civilians. The death of every single one of the over 1,300 people is painful. It was a crime and it's tragic. But we must also mourn and condemn the loss of life of innocent Palestinians. The scale of the death and destruction in Gaza is painful and tragic. We mustn't just imagine, like passive observers, what the unfolding catastrophe will bring but actively seek to see what we can do to put an end to the horror that is unfolding before us. If we don't try to immediately address it now, it is an issue which will force itself even further upon the international community. I want to today highlight what we face in the coming period if we do not put a halt to this unfolding tragedy. What is most tragic is that Israel's offensive has yet to even begin. If Israel's attacks so far have meant the deaths of over 2,800 innocent Palestinian civilians, over 1,000 of which were children, what will the beginning of this incursion bring? If 600,000 Palestinians are already displaced, 500,000 of whom are in UN shelters, what will the beginning bring? If tens of thousands of homes and dozens of medical centres and schools have already been destroyed, what will this beginning bring? If there's no food, water, electricity, fuel or medicines, what will this beginning bring? This conflict has hit home for me—like other colleagues—but particularly in my electorate. I have constituents who have lost immediate family members in Gaza. The father of one of my constituents from Roxburgh Park in my electorate was killed, the extended family buried amidst the rubble and family homes destroyed. The death of my constituent's father was not within the rules of war. The death of my constituent's father was not legal. The deaths of my constituent's father and family members is a crime. They are not collateral damage. They are also hurting. My constituents deserve a voice, to be heard as equals, joined in solidarity and joined in grief. I also have a constituent trapped in Gaza, with a terrifying uncertainty as we look to try and get them safely back into Australia. Australia must do everything it can for the safe evacuation of Australians, and I thank the government and DFAT officials both overseas and in Australia for their tireless efforts and engagement with the families in this regard. Australia is providing an initial $10 million in humanitarian assistance for civilians affected by the conflict in Gaza. Australia will provide $3 million to the International Committee of the Red Cross to fund urgent needs like restoring essential services and providing medical support to victims of the conflict. Through United Nations agencies, Australia will provide $7 million to deliver critical support, including emergency water, nutrition, sanitation and hygiene services, as well as child protection. My community is fearful. I have had people in the community say to me that they are afraid to speak out. We must continue to work with and give voice to our local communities across Australia with connections to the region. We mustn't stifle the legitimate, peaceful voices of the people seeking to engage with an issue that directly impacts them. They are our answer to ending the rhetoric of hate and division, of the scourge of antisemitism and Islamophobia, which has never had any place in this conflict and no place on our streets—or in the world, for that matter. Our local communities and local organisations have direct connections to the area. The Australian Foundation for Palestinian Children, Olive Kids, a 100 per cent volunteer-led organisation, has helped thousands of children, primarily in Gaza. Olive Kids works with Al-Amal Institute—Arabic for 'hope'—an institute for orphans. The majority of the 400 children residing at the orphanage relying on Olive Kids, sponsored and supported by Australians. As Israeli strikes levelled entire neighbourhoods, the orphanage was severely damaged and its children evacuated, with 10 reported injured. The work of all NGOs in Gaza is now crippled. I acknowledge the work of Amin Abbas, for leading Olive Kids' efforts, and for his support for some of the world's most vulnerable people in the most vulnerable of places. I've spoken on the principles of peace and justice, and of the fundamental legal principle of international humanitarian law. It is this principle that underlies our condemnation of Israel's attacks in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Israel policy of the forcible displacement of an unknown civilian population, many of whom are already refugees, falls outside the rules and norms of international law. As US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said, expelling Palestinians into Egypt is a non-starter. How can it be otherwise? UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini, whose organisation has already lost 14 staff members, says that UNRWA operations in the Gaza Strip on the verge of collapse. He says: There is not one drop of water, not one grain of wheat, not a litre of fuel that has been allowed into the Gaza Strip for the last eight days. He says that soon there will be no food or medicine. He also says: Thousands of people have been killed, including children and women.  Gaza is now even running out of body bags. He says: In fact, Gaza is being strangled and it seems that the world right now has lost its humanity. He goes on to plead: In fact, an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe is unfolding under our eyes. And already—and we should always remember that—before the war, Gaza was under a blockade for 16 years, and basically, more than 60 per cent of the population was already relying on international food assistance. It was already before the war a humanitarian welfare society …   …   … Every story coming out of Gaza is about survival, despair and loss.  …   …   … Entire families are being ripped apart.   The bombing of homes, hospitals and civilian infrastructure in Gaza is not within the rules of war. Collective punishment is not within the rules of war. And we must never accept a situation where the lives of the people of Gaza are seen as collateral damage. Let's be clear: 'not within the rules of war' is doublespeak for illegal, doublespeak for crime. The indiscriminate targeting of an unarmed civilian population, 40 per cent of whom are under 15 years old, is not within the rules of war. The occupation of Palestine, the longest ongoing military occupation in modern history, and the siege and blockade of Gaza is illegal. And as US President Biden said, any move by Israel to reoccupy Gaza would be a big mistake. Fifty thousand women in Gaza are pregnant; 5,500 are due to give birth in the coming weeks. With hospitals being given military orders to shut down and evacuate, the very same hospitals that have children attached to ventilators and are treating the endless influx of injured, what hope is there for the unborn? And if they survive childbirth, what will they be born into? We cannot be unwavering and selective in our commitment to international law and the value we place on human life. I call on Australia and the international community to do whatever it can to put an end to the violence which threatens to engulf the whole region. It is time to redouble our efforts and push for a peace and justice that gives hope to all. In the decades that have passed since Oslo, we have seen Palestinians give their cause over to the international community in the hope that we can assist in helping them realise Palestinian statehood that would bring about a peace for both sides. We have failed them. Now more than ever this crisis unfolding before us is another warning bell that only self-determination for the Palestinian people and the establishment of a Palestinian state will guarantee a lasting peace for Israel, for the Palestinians and for the region. We've had quartets, summits, processes, roadmaps and accords—all of which have produced no outcomes, no peace and delivered no justice to the Palestinian people. If there continues to be the absence of bold moves by the international community, we will have enabled the triumph of violence and despair over hope, over peace and over justice. 16:52 Mr PIKE 300120 Bowman The attacks on Israel by Hamas in recent days have shocked the world. It is the sort of barbarity that we had hoped was consigned to history, but sadly we have been reminded of what is still possible by those corrupted by political, racial and religious hatred. Israel stands as a beacon of democracy and freedom in the Middle East, and Australia stands as a true friend and supporter of the state of Israel in its moment of need. We must remember Australia's pivotal role in the creation of the state of Israel. It was in 1947 and Australia was the first nation to vote in the UN for the partition resolution that led to the creation of Israel as a nation. And of course we must remember the important impact of Australia's Jewish population, the impact they've had in our country and our society, starting with the arrival of Jewish people to Australia as part of the First Fleet. I want to express my steadfast support of Israel and unequivocally condemn Hamas and its allies for these appalling acts of terrorism. The terrorist actions of Hamas have no justification, no legitimacy and must be universally condemned. There is never any justification for terrorism. There is never any justification for massacring people enjoying a music festival, or kidnapping elderly women, children and entire families that are now being held as hostages. Those who have tried to justify these horrendous acts, or even celebrate them, over recent days should stand condemned by this house and by every Australian. Australians are horrified by this terror but unified in our support for Israel's efforts to defend itself and its people against such atrocities. These hostages must be recovered. Hamas's capacity to make war upon Israel must be completely extinguished. Israel must restore its ability to defend its citizens. We must stand with them as they work to restore peace to the region. In doing so, we must call out extremist ideology within our own communities, those who sit in the comfort and freedom of our cities while fomenting religious and ethnic hatred. Those scenes that we saw and that have been talked about in this debate have no place in Australia. They don't represent us. They don't represent our values. They don't represent our commitment to and friendship with the people of Israel. The Australian people stand united with Israel as they work to overcome this existential threat. 16:55 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke I want to join with my parliamentary colleagues in condemning the actions of Hamas. The killing of more than 1,400 Israeli civilians by Hamas 10 days ago was not just an act of war; it was an act of terror. It was murder. The acts of those Hamas militants who breached the border were unspeakably and unimaginably evil and should be condemned absolutely. There can be no defence over the decision by Hamas to launch an unprovoked and barbaric attack intended to maximise the pain and suffering of civilians. Hamas is a terrorist organisation, and Israel has the right to defend itself against this threat. Israel has the fight to protect itself and protect its citizens by taking action against Hamas. Australia supports that right absolutely. Israel and Australia share a special friendship. While we are separated by thousands of kilometres, we maintain a deep connection, primarily through the strength of the Australian Jewish community. That's why the pain and suffering felt by Jews the world over was so apparent to us here. Our friends—my friends—have been struck by a deep sense of angst and suffering, worried not just for their loved ones in Israel but for the future security and safety of the Jewish people. Not since the Holocaust have so many Jewish lives been lost in a single day. While I cannot truly understand how they must be feeling in the aftermath of this act of terrorism, I am sending my deepest and most heartfelt sympathies to their community. Similarly, I am also thinking of the innocent Palestinians during this unfolding disaster. The loss of any civilian life in conflict like this is a tragedy, as is the suffering endured by people as a result of the developing humanitarian situation. We must be very clear that we are condemning Hamas, not the Palestinian people. Hamas does not represent the Palestinian people. Half of the two million Palestinians living in Gaza are under 18, born into a conflict they did not choose and that is older than them by several decades. In committing this act of terror, Hamas has not just killed 1,400 innocent Israeli civilians but also undermined the aspiration for peace, safety and prosperity for the people of Gaza. Hamas is the enemy of the Israeli and Palestinian people alike. It should be condemned as such. Their blatant disregard and contempt for the lives of Israelis and Palestinians is causing immense suffering and is standing in the way of the peace that all people in the region not only aspire to but, indeed, are entitled to. In the face of this conflict, the Australian government is doing all that it can to assist Australians to return home if they wish to do so. Some repatriation flights have already been completed. The Australian Defence Force is continuing to communicate directly with those seeking to leave. I urge all Australians caught up in the conflict to register with Smartraveller if they have not already done so. Alternatively, they can call our consular emergency centre. The Australian government is also supporting the humanitarian effort, which will provide support and supplies to civilians. As we see the pain and suffering unfold from afar, I know it feels much closer for many Australians. During this difficult time, it is important that we come together as Australians in our shared sadness about what is happening in the Middle East. It is undoubtedly having a significant impact here in our own country, particularly for those who have a deep cultural and religious connection to the region. We are a strong, multicultural nation, and we are immensely proud of that. It is important we continue to be thoughtful about the cohesion of our multicultural society. There are people in this country who hold strong and passionate views on this complex issue, but we cannot allow for antisemitism or Islamophobia to take hold in our communities in any way, shape or form. It has been very disturbing and immensely disappointing to see a rise in antisemitism in the last week. There is no place for racist vitriol in this country. I was extremely disturbed by the scenes outside the Sydney Opera House last Monday and other vile incidents that have occurred across Melbourne and elsewhere in the country. All this is counterproductive to the continued attempt to highlight the human tragedy at the centre of this conflict. It is absolutely essential that we maintain respect for each other as Australians as we continue to support those that are affected. Australia is committed to the pursuit of peace and a two-state solution. Now more than ever we cannot waver in that support. The atrocities perpetrated in Israel 10 days ago by Hamas and the unfolding disaster since tragically demonstrate the need for peace and the immense human cost of not achieving it. We will continue to stand with Israelis and with Palestinians in this collective aspiration and condemn Hamas for denying it. 17:02 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning It is the stories of courage and bravery in the moment of crisis that stay with us. Itay and Hadar Berdychevsky of kibbutz Kfar Aza hid their 10-month-old twins in the safe room of their home before taking on Hamas with pistols—two parents with pistols against two dozen jihadis armed with assault rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers and belt-fed machine-guns. Itay and Hadar Berdychevsky managed to kill several marauders before perishing in a hail of bullets, but they fulfilled their mission. They stood their ground, they held the line, and when Israeli troops fought their way into Kfar Aza hours later, they found the Berdychevsky babies alive and well. Inbal Lieberman's act of bravery lifts our hearts too. She did her job as the security coordinator of kibbutz Nir Am. At the sound of gunfire, Inbal Lieberman opened the kibbutz armoury, activated volunteers and posted them in defensive positions. There were 25 Hamas terrorists killed on the fence, with no losses to her kibbutz. She fulfilled her mission. She stood her ground; she held the line. These stories are small slivers of light within an abyss of darkness. October 7 was meant to be a quiet religious day for the Jewish people, the day of Simhath Torah or 'Rejoicing of the Torah'. It is a time for reading the Torah scrolls. It is a time for faith, family and community. It is a time for peace. But it was not a day of peace. It was a day shattered by barbaric, blood soaked violence. It was a day shattered in southern Israel by Hamas terrorists, who breached the Israeli border on paragliders, motorbikes and utility vehicles and then began a murderous rampage, wielding Kalashnikovs, grenades and rockets. The violence visited on the innocent is hard for our ears to hear, but it must be spoken of; it must be entered into the public record. And it must be condemned—without qualification, without nuance or equivocation. The stories of violence are distressing: Jewish babies shot in their cribs; Jewish revellers at a music festival hunted down and shot at point-blank range; Jewish women frogmarched at gunpoint through the streets of Gaza, bloodied and humiliated, by their Hamas captors; Jewish families—fathers, mothers, and children—gunned down together and murdered in their homes; Jewish people burned alive as they hugged each other for the last time; Jewish children stolen from their parents, mocked and humiliated as they cried out for their mums. The violence inflicted by Hamas terrorists upon the innocent residents of southern Israel was brutal and evil: 1,400 dead and 200 hostages, and many are still missing. And why? Well, it is simply because they were Jews who chose to live in the national homeland of the Jewish people. It didn't matter that they were simple farmers. It didn't matter that they were peace activists who volunteered to shuttle sick Palestinians from Gaza into Israel for medical treatment. It didn't matter that they were children, pregnant women, and the elderly. It didn't matter that they all lived within pre-1967 Israel borders. They were Jews, and to Hamas that was enough. But none of this should come as a surprise. Hamas hates the Jewish people, and we must take them at their word. The Hamas charter not only makes an explicit call for the destruction of Israel; it also mandates the murder of every Jew on this Earth. And these terrorists film their mass-murder and torture spree and broadcast their depravity to the world on social media. In one infamous incident, they videoed the shooting murder of a 78-year-old grandmother on the victim's own mobile phone and posted the footage on her Facebook account. Their depravity knows no bounds. That is one case among thousands as to why Hamas is listed as a terrorist organisation by the Australian government. They are no different to the thugs of ISIS who unleashed their murderous darkness across Iraq, Syria and the Levant. Yet now, even after the murder of so many innocent Jewish people, we see people unable to condemn what is clearly an evil act of murder. At a pro-Hamas rally in Sydney, New South Wales Greens MP Jenny Leong berated the decision to illuminate the Opera House with the blue and white of the Israeli flag as 'appalling'. Last week we saw ugly scenes at the Opera House of pro-Hamas crowds chanting 'Gas the Jews' and 'Eff the Jews'. And I, along with many other mainstream Australians, did not recognise my own country. Only yesterday in this place, after the fuller scale of the horror in Israel became painfully clearer, the Greens and two teal Independents put an amendment that accused Israel of war crimes. Their moral confusion and wilful ignorance is breathtaking. Jewish innocents—women and children—were violated and slaughtered by terrorists, and we have people in this place unable to condemn the violence without politicising it. Good political leadership requires a strong moral compass: the ability to see the difference between good and evil, right and wrong, justice and injustice, to hold wrongdoers to account for their actions. And it's not always easy. We live in an imperfect world governed by imperfect people. But this is a precise moment that demands a precise moral judgement. This is not a time for moral relativism. This was murder. This was evil. And we must condemn it. The days ahead will be dark as the Jewish dead are laid to rest and families mourn the brutality of their departure. The days ahead will be dark as Jewish parents long to be reunited with their kidnapped children again. The days ahead will be dark as more innocent people die, Jewish and Palestinian, as Israel exercises its right to self-defence—Israel's right to self-defence that I support unreservedly. The IDF will bring the sword to Hamas, but in defence of their people and homes, and the blood that will be shed is on Hamas. They brought this war. They shattered the peace. They murdered innocents. They used innocents among the Palestinians in their own territory to further their evil savagery. I do pray, though, for a quick resolution. War is inherently violent. The violence will escalate, as it always does. There are innocent people on both sides who do not deserve the suffering that will come, that has already been visited on the Jewish and the Palestinian people. That is on Hamas. They started this. The deaths of little Palestinian children is on them, as are the lives of murdered Israeli children. My heart breaks for those children and for all of those, not of their choosing, caught up in this. And so I pray for a quick resolution to this war and I pray for a lasting peace, shalom over the Holy Land, a shalom that realises the hopes and dreams of both the Jewish and the Palestinian peoples. May that peace come quickly. 17:10 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin Hamas's cold-blooded killing of innocent men, women and children in Israel and the taking of hostages has rightfully been condemned by the Australian parliament and others throughout the world. I extend my heartfelt sympathy to the families of those killed, injured or being held as hostages. As the motion moved by the Prime Minister yesterday states, those hostages should be immediately and unconditionally released. Life is the most precious thing we have. It is sacred. Every life matters, and a life taken can never be returned. The grief of those Israeli families who have been directly affected is something I can only begin to imagine. Their lives will be changed and their grief will never leave them. I don't know how I would react if it were one of my family members who was a victim of this terrible act, but I know that my life would never be the same again. Violence and killing inevitably evokes retribution, including more violence and more killings, with civilians always becoming victims. We are seeing that right now in Gaza, with distressing scenes of innocent Palestinians, including children and medical workers providing medical aid, being killed. According to media reports, nearly 3,000 Palestinians have now been killed, and emergency relief and medical centres are fast running out of food, water and essential medical supplies. People in Gaza are pleading to the rest of the world for help to prevent an emerging humanitarian catastrophe. According to reports, even hospitals in Gaza are now being told to evacuate. The killing of innocent Palestinians in Gaza must also stop. I'll quote some of the remarks made by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres. He said: Moving more than one million people across a densely populated warzone to a place with no food, water, or accommodation, when the entire territory is under siege, is extremely dangerous—and in some cases, simply not possible. Hospitals in the south of Gaza are already at capacity and will not be able to accept thousands of new patients from the north. The health system is on the brink of collapse. Morgues are overflowing; eleven healthcare staff have been killed while on duty; and there have been 34 attacks on health facilities in the past few days. The entire territory faces a water crisis as infrastructure has been damaged and there is no electricity to power pumps and desalination plants. He went on to say: International humanitarian law and human rights law must be respected and upheld; civilians must be protected and also never used as shields. I've spoken in this place on other occasions about the oppression of the Palestinian people. But the killing of innocent Jewish people by Hamas is not the answer and can never be condoned. It is inconceivable that Hamas would not have anticipated the response we have seen from Israel, including the loss of innocent Palestinian lives. Equally, Israel must show restraint and respect for international law in its responses. Right now, world leaders should be working to de-escalate the conflict. When I speak to people in my own community—and I did a lot of that over the weekend—they say they hold genuine grave fears about what is happening in Israel and Palestine, what that conflict may do to the rest of the world and how quickly it may spread if it continues in the way it is. Events of recent days highlight, in my view, why it is so important to reach a permanent two-state resolution to the Israel-Palestine issue and end the uncertainty and insecurity that both Jewish and Palestinian people have lived with for the past 75 years. I expect that most of them—in fact, pretty much all of them—would not know a life other than a life of insecurity and uncertainty. I'd hate to think what it must be like for them each and every day, having to get up and not knowing what the day might bring. This is a moment where global leadership and global intervention is needed. There is enough suffering throughout the world each and every day without adding to it the carnage and destruction of property that war brings—carnage and destruction that reverberates throughout the world. The refugee crisis that will emerge from this will have to be picked up by other countries around the world. The cost is a cost that could otherwise have been spent on doing a lot of good for humanity rather than simply trying to restore the lives of people who have been caught up in this conflict. The member for Calwell talked about some of that in her own comments when she talked about the thousands of evacuees and the work that is going into just trying to support and aid them at this critical time. As we have been told, the real conflict has hardly even begun. I can only imagine, if it continues on the trajectory that it is on, that the demands on the rest of the world will be even greater. The only certainty of conflict is more human tragedy. It should be a global objective to try and restore peace throughout the world, because right now, throughout the world, not just in Palestine and Israel, there is already too much conflict, in so many places. Right now the world needs more peace talks. It needs leaders that are prepared to stand up and try and do whatever is humanly possible to restore peace throughout the world—in particular, to restore peace between Israel and Palestine. 17:17 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I think it's really important to get on record what has happened in Israel. On Saturday 7 October, an act of pure evil occurred. In the early morning of 7 October, ideology won. People that want to wipe out Israel—and I'm talking here particularly about Hamas—have done something unjust and unacceptable. The terrorist attacks in Israel are a deliberate act of violence intended to inflict maximum harm on innocent civilians. What Hamas have done has not inflicted harm on the Israel Defense Forces; they have gone in to kill and maim innocent people. These attacks are the most lethal assault against Jews since the Holocaust. The Leader of the Opposition spoke of the innocent young children and adolescents gunned down on that early morning in Israel on 7 October. We saw hostages being pulled by their hair, forced into the back of trucks and taken away to be held hostage and treated horribly. We saw the father of a young girl, crying and saying, 'I'm actually glad that she's dead—that she has not been taken hostage by Hamas.' The allegations of rape and ill treatment of innocent children, women and people of all ages, including young men and those festival-goers at that concert that were gunned down—some 1,400 deaths—are horrific. Stories of the treatment of babies are also disgraceful and heartbreaking. Let's not mince our words: Israel is at war. That's what has happened. Israel is at war, and the attack by Hamas is a provocation. Israel has every right to defend itself in response and to deter future attacks and other acts of aggression, coercion and interference. Hamas is a recognised terrorist organisation consistently showing a blatant disregard for life. Global support for Israel, its right to exist and its right to self-defence and opposition to antisemitism in all forms is crucial. This kind of violence is anti-Australian. It is completely disrespectful for pro-Palestine rallies to be occurring around Australia currently. What we saw in Sydney at the Opera House recently and the chants of 'Gas the Jews' are outrageous. I support the calls by the Leader of the Opposition that people like that, if they are not Australian citizens, should be deported by the Minister for Home Affairs. They would never be allowed to come into the country with those views, and if they're here on a temporary visa they should be gone. It's very sad that that has occurred in Australia. I want to have a go at the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network, APAN. The main group associated with the parliamentary friends of Palestine have not come out to condemn this attack. Nasser Mashni, the president of APAN, has not come out and condemned Hamas at all. As a parliament, we are this week standing in solidarity with the people of Israel and have moved a motion stating: That the House— (1) unequivocally condemns the attacks on Israel by Hamas, which are the heinous acts of terrorists, and have encompassed the targeting and murder of civilians, including women and children, the taking of hostages, and indiscriminate rocket fire— some 5,000 rockets fired by terrorist groups into Israel— (2) stands with Israel and recognises its inherent right to defend itself; And yet President Nasser Mashni of APAN has not only failed to condemn Hamas but has publicly commented that Western governments who have stated Israel has a right to defence itself are aiding and abetting the brutal Israeli regime. These comments are divisive in nature, and they're offensive to our sovereign nation, our country, and the authority of this parliament. If that is the main group associated with the parliamentary friends of Palestine, it should be disbanded. When asked about Hamas on the Project, Nasser Mashni went on with the question to talk about how he condemns Israel—no condemning Hamas, nothing like that. They were allowing pro-Palestinian Hamas lovers to freely comment on their social media pages, which clearly shows where they stand and is why I'm asking for that parliamentary friendship group to be disbanded. Here's a comment on the APAN Facebook page: 'We love you, Hamas.' 'We call on Hezbollah to open another front.' 'Syria must also play its part, and Saudi Arabia.' It goes on. People who are out celebrating the rape, the abduction, the slaughter of women and children are completely cold blooded. There are no excuses. This is terrorism. Those who are applauding the actions of Hamas, like the comment on the Facebook page—that was left up there and could still be there. It was left up there for 10 hours, despite APAN posting other posts after that. On their Facebook page is not one mention of terrorist attack on Israel. It is a disgrace. Our country needs to have a zero-tolerance policy for the rallies and actions that celebrate violent behaviour, and I support what the Leader of the Opposition said in relation to those visa holders. The teals and the Greens have accused Israel of war crimes—some of the teals, I should say; two of them. Hamas terrorists have invaded Israel and have murdered thousands of innocent civilians, and what do we hear from the Leader of the Greens? With a ground invasion of Gaza looming, it is disappointing to say the least that this motion moved by the government backs that invasion. He goes on and on and on. These sorts of words from the Leader of the Greens give legs to extremist views like what we saw at the Opera House. That's what it does. The Greens are the ones that have extreme views, and they do not have a large moral compass as far as I am concerned. How would you feel if 5,000 rockets were raining down on your country or if your teenage daughter was abducted, raped and murdered or if your baby was beheaded? How would you feel? This is an act of terrorism, and the Western world has rightly supported Israel. When you are at war, what happens? Look how many people have passed away in Ukraine and Russia. Israel have a right to defend themselves. They have a right to hunt down the terrorists in Gaza. We in this place support them. I've reached out to the ambassador of the State of Israel, Mr Amir Maimon, and passed on my condolences for the terrorist attack that happened in his country. I am glad that he's met with the Prime Minister. He's also visited the coalition party room. However long it takes for Israel to defeat Hamas and hunt down every one of those terrorists, we should be supportive in this place and not mince our words. This was an unprovoked attack. Over a thousand people were absolutely slaughtered at a festival, including babies, women and men. No mercy was shown from these animals. The Israeli Defence Force have a right to take their time and completely eliminate this evil from Gaza. We stand with Israel and the Jewish community within Australia through this dark hour. 17:26 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner On the weekend, Hamas terrorists committed mass murder on a shocking scale. People at a music festival were gunned down. Babies were killed in their beds. Defenceless elderly people were murdered. Over 100 hostages were taken into Gaza. The scale of the attack was so large that it was the greatest loss of life among Jewish people since the Holocaust. This is a murderous, barbarous terrorist group whose objective was not just to kill Jewish people but to kill the peace process itself. Hamas has as its goal the destruction of the Israeli state. It wants to ensure that the peace process is derailed. These shocking attacks are particularly hard for Australia. Australia has the largest per capita Holocaust survivor population outside Israel. The Jewish community has rich and deep links into Australia. It's a pleasure to have here in the chamber the member for Macnamara, who is such an articulate advocate and somebody who many of us on this side of parliament go to to better understand issues around the Middle East and around the Australian Israeli diaspora. For Jewish Australians, the branches of their family trees are heavy with loss and suffering, as the Prime Minister told the parliament. It's nearly 80 years since the close of the Holocaust, but the suffering that occurred is still so redolent in the memories of so many Jewish Australians. If the government has one message for Jewish Australians it is that it stands with you and Australians stand with you. I understand that this is not just an attack on Israel. This is an attack on democracy itself. This is an attack on those of us who prize peace over war. As Penny Wong told the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce last week, one of the many tragic consequences of Hamas's abhorrent attack has been that it has pushed the two-state solution further out of reach. That makes this a crime perpetrated not just against the Jewish people but also against the Palestinian people. All peace-loving people should abhor the attacks that took place. I join with others in this parliament who have spoken out against the abhorrent antisemitism that we have seen at some rallies in Australia. There is no greater weapon against inhumanity than our own humanity. That is why Australia has announced that it is providing an initial $10 million in humanitarian assistance for civilians affected by the conflict in Gaza. We are providing some $3 million to the International Committee of the Red Cross to fund urgent needs like restoring essential services and providing medical support to victims of the conflict. Through United Nation's agencies we will provide $7 million to deliver critical support, including emergency water and nutrition, sanitation and hygiene services. We understand that there are communities on all sides who are hurting now. I was pleased to hear from my friend Rabbi Dovid Slavin in Sydney when he wrote to me, 'This is the time for decent people of all backgrounds to stand together in the face of bloodthirsty terrorism.' I've also spoken to Mohammed Abujarbou, who is a leader in the ACT Muslim community, who reminds me that there are ACT residents whose families have been killed in Gaza over recent days. There, in just a single attack on a residential building in al-Zeitoun neighbourhood, 15 members of the same family, including seven children, were killed, in addition to their elderly grandparents. There are deaths on both sides of innocents—deaths of children; deaths of those simply seeking to go about their everyday lives. Here in Australia it is critical that we support our multicultural society, that we reinforce the fact that the government will not stand with public displays of hate symbols. Our government introduced the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill earlier this year in order to ensure that glorifying and praising acts of terrorism are criminal offences under Commonwealth law. We also want to work to strengthen our multicultural framework. Antisemitism and Islamophobia are equally abhorrent. We do not want to see either of them flourish in the current environment. Australia played a role in the foundation of the modern state of Israel in 1948, a moment of light after the darkness of the Holocaust. And over the ensuing decades we have welcomed many Jewish and Muslim migrants to Australia. They are equally welcome. It is so critical at this time that we reinforce the value of Australian multiculturalism. It is critical too that, while we understand the extraordinary hurt that is being felt in Israel right now, the response is appropriate to the potential humanitarian suffering. It is a desirable goal to fully eradicate Hamas, but, as the Economist has argued, achieving that goal in an enclave of two million impoverished people with nowhere to flee will be impossible. The Economist warns that the comparison is potentially with the United States response after 9/11 and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. It points out that Hamas wants a ground war. Hamas wants Israel not to exercise self-restraint. But the street fighting that could ensue and the deaths of hostages that could follow might ensure that the operation loses international support and, ultimately, plays into the hands of those Hamas terrorists who are willing to let their own people die. This is the horror of the way in which Hamas operates. They are willing to invite an attack from Israel which would ultimately cost the lives of their own people. It is critical that the Abraham Accords are built up, not undermined. It is possible to strengthen those accords between Israel and its Arab neighbours, including Bahrain, Morocco, the United Arab Emirates and potentially Saudi Arabia. These Arab neighbours stand for a new Middle East that is pragmatic and focused on economic development. Just as the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt that followed the 1973 wars set peace forward in the region, it is possible to have peace advanced in this process. But that is unlikely to occur through an attempted occupation of Gaza. It is a challenging time, but it is critical that all involved in diplomacy ask the question: 'What did Hamas want to achieve out of this, and how do we ensure that those ends are not met?' Hamas wanted to destroy a two-state solution. Hamas wanted to draw regional actors into the conflict. Hamas wanted to destroy any prospect of an Israel- Saudi Arabia accord. As Thomas Friedman has argued in the New York Times, it is important to think about how we can pursue those peaceful goals. At a time when anger and sadness is running hot, it is important for Israel to exercise appropriate self-restraint. The eradication of Hamas will ultimately occur through stability and, one day, peace. This must be the endgame that all of us encourage Israel to pursue. In closing, I stand with the Israeli people at this time of horrific attacks upon their territory. Australia has provided international support and flights out, and we will continue to support our friends in the region. 17:36 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom I rise to join speakers from across the parliament in condemnation of Hamas's attacks on Israel. It has been impossible to look at the visuals that have come through with the stories over the last couple of days without feeling incredible emotion. Indeed, that is the intent of what Hamas have done—to evoke emotion. Largely, what they want to drive is fear. That's what terrorists seek to do; to drive fear into the house not just of their opponents but also their opponents' allies and all good people around the world. We must find in ourselves the ability to feel another emotion, that being courage—the courage to stand with our friends, the courage to stand up for Western democracies, and the courage to be there in times of crisis. I'll make a brief contribution about my own reflections. I spent a good many years in the Middle East, living and working throughout quite a few Middle Eastern countries, and during that time, as you would expect, I developed friendships right across that part of the world. I have Palestinian friends and colleagues I worked with, including people from Jordan. I remember escorting a young Israeli guy to Saudi Arabia, which I thought for me would never happen, but we sat in an office together and worked with the Saudis. What I found was this very complex world which from the outside we sometimes see in very simple division. In the quest for peace there is complexity. In the quest for peace there is compromise, there is negotiation, and there is the need to understand each other and work together. But at no point has Hamas engaged in the quest for peace. This is an organisation devoted to bringing about the end of Israel. It has never sought compromise. It has never sought to understand or work together. So while peace may afford some complexity, in an act of terrorism there is this very clear simplicity. There is a great wrong that has been committed by Hamas and, very clearly, I stand 100 per cent beside Israel and the Israeli people. I am very happy to have communicated that to the ambassador, and that's a position I will continue to hold. It doesn't stop us from having hopes of one day aiding peace in the Middle East. We won't be prevented from doing that by standing very clear on our values. That won't prevent that. We certainly stand up and say: no, Hamas. This is wrong. There is right and wrong. What you've done is a terrible, terrible wrong. I commend the government on very clearly articulating their position, and I'm very happy that we were able to join with them. I think there's an important element here too in that it's not just the legacy of Israel that encourages us to provide them support; there's also its future. Among democracies in the Western tradition, there are a vast array of different types, but we must always defend each other. We must work together. The freedom and the equality that is found and encouraged in Western democracies is something worth pursuing, worth fighting for, worth supporting, no matter how terrible the opponent, no matter the fear that they seek to strike in your heart, and I think it's important that we always stand very clearly for that. I must say I was terribly disappointed to see the Greens and some of the teals use this occasion to make a statement that I don't think aligns with community values and I don't think aligns with where Australia stands. We've come to expect this from the Greens. We've come to expect these little bits of theatre, where they put themselves onto stands far greater than their competency or capacity would ever allow, pushing themselves into conversations they have no place in. I think it says a lot that those teals who went through talking on integrity, who tried to present themselves as community advocates, have come out with this extreme position they've taken. It's upon them to explain themselves to their electorates, but I hope it's very, very clearly held that those views have no place in common, decent Australia. What will happen over the next days and weeks will no doubt be terrible, and supporting Israel is not to discount that there will be incredible harm done. I do think of my friends across the entire Middle East, the entire area, and the dangers that will be brought into their lives, but it is important for us to remind them and ourselves that this is the work of Hamas. This is what they have sought. The Middle East has been working hard to secure peace by any means in recent times, and we have seen relationships established that we never thought would be. Quite frankly, to see Saudi Arabia and Israel working together has been, I think, beneficial. But to see Iran continue to provoke demonstrates that there are those who do not see the same value in peace, who do not see the same value in democracies in the Western tradition. Sadly, what's ahead of us will no doubt be as terrible as the events we have just witnessed. On a personal level, I don't know how I could ask the mothers, the fathers, the husbands and the wives of people who we have seen murdered, tortured and kidnapped—man to man, person to person—to show restraint. It's a terrible burden that has once again been thrown on the community. There is no chest-beating in our support of Israel. What's about to happen is a war in which there will be sadness and terrible impact. We must remember this is what Hamas have sought—this is what Hamas have created. We must stand against them, not just now but through the difficult days ahead, and remind ourselves that the freedoms and the equalities that we enjoy here and that Israel has been searching for and building within itself are worth standing for, and we must continue to do so resolutely. 17:44 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra It's with a very heavy heart today that I reflect on what we've seen in the past weeks in Israel and Palestine. To date, it's estimated that 2,800 Palestinians and 1,400 Israeli civilians have been killed since Hamas launched their horrific terrorist attacks. That's 4,200 mothers, fathers, sons and daughters—all human beings, all with aspirations and life goals and all who now leave behind a family in mourning. Australia has rightfully condemned the vile terrorist attacks by Hamas on Israel. The details of these atrocities are horrific. Israelis have the right to live in peace. The cause for a Jewish homeland is a just one, and the right for Israel to exist should never be denied as Hamas would have it. My heart goes out to the families of the young people massacred at a music festival, the elderly people taken hostage, all of those affected by Hamas's heinous actions. The attack on the Sabbath last week was the deadliest day for the Jewish people since the end of the Holocaust. These are acts of evil. These are heinous acts by a group that is hellbent on violence, not peace. And Hamas does not represent the Palestinian people. What Hamas has done in the past week has set back legitimate aspirations of Palestinians immeasurably. Australia recognises Israel's inherent right to defend itself and its citizens, but it must be said that defence should not amount to the death of Palestinian civilians. We urge restraint so that more innocent human lives are not taken or destroyed. In this time of immense hurt and unimaginable suffering, we appeal for peace. The lives of more than two million innocent Gazans are now under threat. The crimes of Hamas cannot and must not equate to the collective punishment of millions of innocent human beings. The humanitarian situation in Gaza is deteriorating rapidly. Hospitals are running out of fuel to power their generators. Water has been cut off. Humanitarian aid has been blocked. Australia calls for the safe and unimpeded access of humanitarian assistance to the Gaza Strip through the establishment of a humanitarian corridor. We support the work of the United States and Egypt to that end. The Australian government has committed an initial $10 million in humanitarian assistance for civilians affected by the conflict in Gaza, and we stand ready to provide further support. Our primary goal is for civilian lives both in Israel and Palestine to be protected. As the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres, has said: … we are on the verge of the abyss in the Middle East … He called on Hamas to immediately release the people it is holding hostage and for Israel to allow for rapid unimpeded access for humanitarian aid. Guterres called on the world to unite in support of the fundamental principle of protecting civilians and find a lasting solution to this unending cycle of death and destruction. As we look at the devastation from afar, we must remember the impact these events are having on communities here at home. My heart is with both the Jewish and the Palestinian communities, and with anyone who has loved ones in their homeland. I know that they are hurting, and I know that they are concerned for family and friends both at home and abroad in a way that most of us here in Australia cannot even imagine or understand. In the last week, I have spoken with people here in Canberra from the Jewish and the Palestinian communities. Both communities have expressed their concern for all people involved and their wish for peace. I want to make it clear that the scenes we saw in Sydney a few days ago were utterly abhorrent. The chants that we heard were antisemitic and they have no place in this country, and I condemn them in the strongest terms. Tensions at the moment are high in our community. There can never be room for antisemitism or Islamophobia. Racism and bigotry must be stamped out in its entirety. To that end, I also want to call for respect in this place in the way that we, as members, are conducting ourselves in this house and to be mindful that this isn't about us. This is about people who are going through something that we, thankfully, cannot actually understand. We have not ever experienced, most of us, any deep devastation like that. And this is not about things that we say. We need to be mindful of the way we're conducting ourselves and the feelings of others at the moment. We must remember that we're all human beings. We must remember our humanity. My deepest hope is for peace for Israel and Palestine and for a two-state solution where both Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace and security. 17:50 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne The events of 7 October will be etched in my memory forever, like they will for the rest of civilisation. What we saw is beyond belief. The depravity, the absolutely gory violence—the perverse violent nature of it—made me realise how far things have descended in the Middle East. We all know the existential survival situation that the state of Israel has had to face. When the state of Israel was created by all of us, by the United Nations, it was given a homeland because of pogrom after pogrom, and then the Nazi Holocaust was the final straw. The world decided they should have a place to call their own. Since then they've had several wars against them, usually unannounced. And this latest one made me realise how violent Hamas really is. They are acting like ISIL. They are brutal monsters to do that, to be killing people, flying in in gyrocopters, in bulldozers, and then running around in kibbutzes and at a youth festival, for goodness sake, hijacking people, taking them back into Gaza, holding them and torturing them and/or shooting them. The stories and the verbatim reports I've seen from the US Secretary of State—stories about beheading—are true. Burning and beheading soldiers, children and defenceless people goes beyond the pale. Hamas should be condemned around the world. Those people who equivocate in that condemnation need to face up to the reality. If they don't condemn that, they are tacitly allowing it. You cannot go any lower than that. We see, too, that Hezbollah is to the north of Israel, trying to stir up another flashpoint. We know there are geopolitical actors behind both these organisations. But Israel has a right to exist, like any nation state, and has an obligation to protect its citizens. It is unfortunate that the only way they can do that, the only way they can get rid of Hamas, is to go into Gaza. In Australia, our defence forces wear a uniform and are usually housed in our military bases, and the Army, Navy and Air Force defence systems are all clearly marked. But in the Middle East, Hamas and Hezbollah put a lot of their military equipment in civilian buildings, in the bottoms of schools, in educational facilities. They use human shields. They have threatened to assassinate each of the hostages they've taken if Israel sends more bombs to them. I understand that the people of Gaza will be suffering. If they have the ways and means to get out of there—I can't see peace happening any time. I will just say that I personally condemn Hamas. I support Israel's right to exist. It's fundamental. We must not let this go unchallenged. We offer support. We feel for the Palestinian people who will bear the brunt of this. But they have to realise Hamas is doing this to them, to their own citizens. They have been misled by Hamas. Israel do not want to have permanent war. They want to have peace. Most people in the world get over conflict and come to a sensible resolution. But it's an interminable battle for survival. They thought they had it under control, but obviously we have to the north and the south support from other nations states. It is really interminable. I wish to pass on my condolences to the many people of Jewish faith and Israeli citizenship who reside here in Australia and in my electorate of Lyne. It is a sad and horrifying day for everyone. I also have people in my electorate who have family in Palestine, and it's horrifying for them. That Hamas thinks this is going to end with some glorious victory just shows you how perverse and twisted they are. It's not Islamic to do that; it's just barbaric. That is the thing. These people are just evil, and evil begets evil. They have to be stopped. So I would like to pass on my condolences to the people of Israel and say to the people of Palestine that, if you can move, please do, because it will be what it is. A war is a horrible thing. We hope for common sense and peace and that Hamas is toppled by the Palestinians themselves and that, likewise, Hezbollah, which appears to be trying to do a synchronous attack from the north, will be overthrown by their own citizens. I say to all those other nations that are standing behind Israel, 'Thank you.' 17:56 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper I start today by acknowledging and mourning those whose lives have been lost as part of the ongoing crisis in Gaza and Israel. We have already witnessed a devastating loss of life and the suffering of civilians on all sides. My heart hurts for the children fleeing their homes, their future and hopes ripped away from them in both Gaza and Israel. It deeply saddens and terrifies me that the humanitarian and security situation in Gaza is rapidly deteriorating. We are all watching and waiting with fear-filled hearts: what will happen next? Already so many have suffered horrible losses from horrible acts. Enough must be enough. Millions of people in Gaza are now left in limbo, caught between the fighting, with limited access to food, water, power and medical care. Hamas is holding hostages. All of this is against the rule of law when it comes to conflict. Australia's consistent position has been to call for the observation of humanitarian law and the protection of civilian lives. About half of Gaza's population is under the age of 18. Think about that. Half of the population are children. This is the reality of war and conflict—innocents dying, lives ruined and communities torn apart. The unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in front of our eyes is pushing the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East to the verge of collapse. That agency has called for a suspension of hostilities to take place without any delay if we want to prevent the loss of more lives. We cannot predict with certainty what will happen next, but I am deeply concerned for the people in Gaza. I join with others in calling for Israel to operate by the rules of international law. It's always the right thing for Australia to urge restraint and for the protection of civilian lives, and to criticise that call is just wrong. Thankfully, we, the Australian government, have announced an initial $10 million in humanitarian assistance for much-needed essential supplies and support services, but that will mean little if unfettered revenge is unleashed on a civilian population already starved and isolated. Constituents in my electorate of Cooper hold refugees and asylum seekers close to their hearts. We are a vibrant and multicultural community, including being home to one of the largest mosques in Melbourne, to thousands of Christians and to a small but caring and concerned Jewish community. We live in harmony, and all of us want that to continue. Many of them have been in touch with me, asking me to add my voice to the calls for restraint and expressing their commitment to living peacefully as neighbours here in Australia. They've been brought to tears by what they see and hear, and they all want the violence to stop. The actions of Hamas were evil. Their abhorrent acts on innocent people must be condemned in the strongest of terms. As the Prime Minister said: It was an act of terror—calculated, pitiless, brutality—compounded by a rain of rockets designed to kill and to terrify without mercy … My thoughts and those of my community are with those who lost loved ones and who are now experiencing the tragedy of these acts—abhorrent acts that have advanced nothing in the name of resolution for Palestinian people who have long suffered. As my good ministerial colleague the member for Watson said yesterday: There are legitimate aspirations for the Palestinian people. It's legitimate to want to live freely: free of occupation, free of endless checkpoints, free of a legal system which differs in the different ways that military courts do. All of that is further away now … But the answer to the senseless killings of Hamas cannot be the collective punishment of the Palestinian people. The safety of civilians in Gaza must now be prioritised. The Australian government's guiding principle has always been the pursuit of a just and enduring peace, a two-state solution where Israelis and Palestinians can live within secure borders. For Australians trapped in the conflict, the government is communicating directly with citizens and their families. The government has now enabled six assisted department flights from Tel Aviv to London and Dubai, and we look forward to welcoming them all home safely. We acknowledge that Australians are in Gaza right now, trying to flee for their lives. Amidst this conflict, we must also reflect on our own role when discussing this issue. As the Director-General of ASIO has reminded us, we need to safeguard social cohesion back home. We need to safeguard that harmony that I'm so lucky to have in my electorate of Cooper. We have to resist hate speech and acts. I welcome the motion moved by the Prime Minister and supported by the majority of the House, but, disappointingly, not all of the House. This moment cannot be about political pointscoring by anyone. As a government and parliament, we must constructively work together in a unified way to find meaningful solutions for peace and security at home and abroad and to give a unified message to our communities that we are fighting for harmony. We can't do anything and we can't be divided in a way that will incite any actions of hate and the targeting of individuals, of colleagues of ours here in this House, of friends of mine. This is unacceptable. Most importantly, we must use this opportunity to remember those who have lost their lives, and we have to work together to secure peace so the violence ends. 18:03 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler The horrific events in Israel might seem far removed from Australia, but they are a stark reminder that terrorism still exists, and our nation, Australia, must remain vigilant. The abhorrent attack, the despicable attack, the heinous attack, the horrifying and awful attack, the reprehensible attack by Hamas on Israel was clearly intended to inflict maximum harm on innocent civilians, and that has been achieved. There are more than 1,400 Israelis who have lost their lives. Almost 200 people are being held hostage by Hamas. Hamas was officially listed as a terrorist organisation by the coalition government in March 2022 following a recommendation by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in September 2021. I think it is important to remind people what this means and what these restrictions and Australian law require. In this country, it is an offence to be a member of a terrorist organisation. It is an offence to direct the activities of a terrorist organisations. It is an offence to recruit for a terrorist organisation. It is an offence to train or receive training from or participate in training with a terrorist organisation. It is offence to acquire funds for, from, or to a terrorist organisation and to provide support to a terrorist organisation. It is also an offence to associate with a listed terrorist organisation. The maximum penalty is up to 25 years in prison. Hamas is a listed terror organisation in this country and many others. Thankfully, this war is not on our shores, but it is having an impact on many Australian citizens and those who have relatives and others who are directly impacted. I continue to hear calls for restraint, but can you imagine if it were 1,400 Australian citizens who were killed by weak men with guns, who kicked down the doors of their residents and murdered women and children and infants? Can you imagine the response that would be expected of the Australian government? I think some of the commentary, to be honest, has been ridiculous. It is not a matter of being pro-Israel or pro-Palestine; it is a matter of being antiterrorist and antiterrorism, and I think every Australian would support that position. We have seen some changes with the Albanese government in terms of their counterterrorism framework, and I would urge them to be cautious. They have shifted the responsibility for the banning of terrorists to the Attorney-General—it was held by the Minister for Home Affairs. I'm concerned about what change and what impact that might have on our national security framework. This is a terrible time for those individuals directly affected. It's a terrible time for the world. It's a terrible time for the people we represent and for the Australian people. Like many, I saw the footage in Sydney. In the first couple of instances I took no notice because I simply did not think it was in this country—I thought it was somewhere else. The images of the protests in Sydney are not the nation I know, they are not the people I know, they are not the Australians I know. I think that we should all stand up against anyone that would go out and say such reprehensible things. Chants 'gas the Jews'—and others which I won't repeat in this place—have no place in this country. They do not. I urge the AFP and our other security organisations that if these are individuals who are here who are not Australian citizens then they need to be identified and they need to be moved on, and we need to take every opportunity to keep our people safe. I refer to a column by Aaron Patrick, titled 'For the first time Sydney's Jews fear to walk their streets'. I can't believe this is our country where a child is scared to wear their school uniform. This is a very challenging time for our nation. Some of it reflects poorly on all of us—the fact that it occurred and the fact it was allowed to occur—and it should not continue in this nation. This will go on for some time in terms of the potential conflict and the conflict that is currently occurring in the Middle East. Australia needs to do its part, and to do it in a way which is respectful of the fact that 1,400 people have been murdered. It is an incredible, awful thing to have happened. Many Australians have relatives who are impacted, many Australians are terrified for their relatives and their loved ones, and a number have had the worst possible outcomes—not only Israeli citizens but also those from other countries around the world. I won't speak for much longer. I know the member for Moreton will be very keen to make a contribution before the time ends. This is a position against terrorism. We are against terrorists and we should do everything we can to prevent them from causing harm to any citizen, including Australian citizens. 18:09 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton Moreton has three mosques in it and several others close by. There are people living in my electorate right now who are attending one of those mosques because the country they were born in no longer exists. It no longer exists because, overnight, politicians—acting in their own self-interest—decided that people of different faiths could no longer live together peacefully in Yugoslavia. Yugoslavian politicians decided that, despite those faiths having lived together for 45 generations. Race, like ethnicity, is a social construct. Children don't understand it until adults teach it to them. I saw that in my own kids when they were growing up in my home suburb of Moorooka, where there's a large African diaspora. My children were completely colourblind to race and hopefully still are. Instilling hatred in people does nothing except undermine their ability to connect with other people as human beings, and it undermines their ability to be empathetic. Once you go down that path, it's a path to nowhere. All Palestinians and Israelis are entitled to a life free of violence and free of fear. All Israelis and Palestinians have a right to a future where they see their children thrive and prosper and to live in a world at peace with their neighbours where they are all equal, and hopefully where they are colourblind. People in my community and across Australia are distraught at the stories they're hearing, the images they're seeing, the terms that are being repeated over and over again in parliament. They are shocked by the destruction and brutality that is happening, on both sides, particularly at Hamas's hands on 7 October and around that date and by the Israeli government response since. Now, I don't claim to have an answer to any of this, but I do know that we cannot measure atrocities by a standard that we think is acceptable or think that the Hamas atrocities should somehow permit the suspension of international humanitarian law. These are the rules that were developed after World War II and the extreme horror of the Holocaust—something so significant in the creation of Israel and all those other extremes associated with World War II. It was the war that saw 15 million military personnel die. But, most significantly, 38 million civilians died. Thus international humanitarian law said that there are some moral absolutes: orders that can't be obeyed, that you cannot lawfully obey, even if coming from your superior officer—fog-of-war actions that can result in courtroom convictions in later times of peace. The world is watching and judging—literally judging. I know that there are too many innocent people in Gaza who are now paying the price for those horrific actions of Hamas that I condemn outright. It is right that all of Australia condemns the actions of Hamas and their attacks on innocent civilians. I especially acknowledge that Hamas does not have the best interests of Palestinians in mind, even those in Gaza, the most densely populated place on Earth. So let's be clear about these actions and whose interests Hamas has acted in. As I've said, these actions were not in the interests of any Palestinians. They were designed to be brutal, to instil fear and create division, not just in the Middle East but across the world—even in multicultural communities like Australia. Like any form of terrorism, these actions were designed to make people in multicultural communities, like mine in Moreton, feel unsafe and fearful. They were designed to pit groups of people against each other and generate violent outrage, maybe in the hope that politicians would overnight decide that faith and races that have lived together peacefully for generations cannot now do so. To suggest that Hamas's actions represent the Palestinian struggles demeans the Palestinians, their struggle for freedom and their human rights. Australia has unequivocally condemned the attacks by Hamas, including the indiscriminate rocket attacks fired on cities and civilians, and that horrific taking of hostages, as well as all that footage that the internet is now able to amplify through those horrible algorithms, and people are prepared to echo the terms surrounding it. Australia has consistently said—and legally said—that Israel must act within the rules of law, that every country must do so, and that Israel and others must ensure that they act to protect civilian lives. The collective punishment of the innocent civilian population of Gaza via cutting off power, water, food and medical supplies not only is cruel and against humanitarian law but also could inadvertently—I really fear this—become a recruitment drive for Hamas. The Geneva convention very specifically says, 'Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.' I'll go back to what I said before: we should not start to measure atrocities and accept that behaviour by what we think is worse or better than the other. We should remember that they are all atrocities, and all should be condemned as such. Peace does not get closer by killing more children. The Palestinians and Jewish communities and their allies in Australia want to see an end to this conflict. All sensible politicians want to see an end to this conflict. They want to see an end to the death and destruction, and they want to see peace in a place that should not be so filled with violence and tragedy. Like Minister Wong and so many other Australian politicians, I call on Hamas to release all 199 hostages immediately as a gesture towards peace. I also call on the Israeli government to stop the blockade of water, food, power and medical supplies to Gaza. I'm reminded of this quote from Anne Lamott: You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. I know that the God that the Palestinians and the Jewish people in my community believe in is a peaceful God, and, God willing, peace will prevail in this situation. 18:16 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise on this motion to suspend standing orders to discuss and pause in relation to the current events occurring in Israel and the attack by Hamas. I'm deeply saddened by the shocking and tragic loss of civilian lives in the recent Hamas attacks on Israel. I unequivocally condemn the atrocities perpetrated by the terrorist group Hamas on innocent civilians—young people enjoying freedom at a music festival. The accounts are horrific. My thoughts are with those killed and injured, those taken hostage and all affected by the ongoing hostilities. These are horrific events. It's a devastating setback for both the Israeli and the Palestinian people, and I urge the protection of all civilian lives and the de-escalation of the conflict. I strongly support the legitimate aspirations of Palestinians for statehood and the two-state solution, but Hamas is an acknowledged terrorist organisation, and those attacks were terrorist attacks. This is a very distressing time for many Australians, especially those in the region and their friends and families here. I want to acknowledge and thank those constituents in Warringah who have contacted me with their concerns for both the Israeli and the Palestinian people caught up in horrific conflict. It's heartening to see the outpouring of concern for the many affected by this conflict. I thank the Jewish community who invited me last week to attend a ceremony to acknowledge and give solidarity to their community in their time of need. They were distressed by the antisemitic messaging that had been written in public places and that had been chanted by some during the protests in Sydney. It's important that they feel supported and able to go about their lives in our free, democratic country. There is no place in Australia for that kind of conduct. To help protect the innocent lives at stake, particularly as the news unfolds, I encourage the government to advocate a safe corridor to ensure civilians can get out of harm's way. Acknowledging Israel's legitimate right to defend itself against Hamas, it is also critical that the international rules of law be observed. I strongly denounce the senseless killing and hostage-taking perpetrated by Hamas, and I call for the release of those hostages. I also am concerned about the innocent Palestinian lives in Gaza. Innocent lives of men and women and children must never be used as shields in a war zone. It's a horror of terrorism and war that means that all too often it is innocent civilians who pay the price. I know that there are genuine concerns at this time from Australia and other countries that this conflict could escalate with other regional powers seeking to use the conflict to their own end. Calmer heads at the diplomatic and military levels must prevail to ensure this does not happen. I supported the government's motion in the chamber yesterday as I felt it struck the right balance in what is a very complicated conflict with deep historical roots. Many are hurting from the ongoing news of these events and now, more than ever, it's important for Australia, as a multicultural society, to show love and respect for our diverse and peaceful nation. Antisemitism and Islamophobia have no place in our country, and I strongly condemn any who display such conduct. No Australian should ever feel fear to go about their lives, to go to school, to go into public places in the event that they might face such conduct. I know many in the Jewish community felt that way as a result of the chants and some of the antisemitic rhetoric that came from the protests in Sydney. That is wrong. At the same time, we have to acknowledge the Palestinian community within Australia are also hurting and worried about their relatives. And so that is where innocent civilians are too often caught up in the war zones and acts of terrorism. I have been dismayed by the tone of some in parliament this week, and in the chamber yesterday in the context of this motion, using words and phrasing, turning up the volume on fear and division for what I consider base political objectives in a confected contest. We cannot let that be the record. We are a nation, and as leaders in this place we have a responsibility to ensure, as representatives of the Australian people, we moderate our language. The challenge for political leaders is to moderate language, to not whip up further civil unrest that leads to more instability and ultimately innocents being caught in the crossfire. We must not repeat the vilification lest it encourage others to do so openly, and so I call on members in this place not to put on the record phrases and vilification as that then officially enables it because it has been put on the record. Mike Burgess, the head of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, is clear: moderating your language is the right thing to do right now. All parties must consider the implications for social cohesion when making public statements. Let us stand united, spreading love, understanding and hope during these challenging times. I applaud the government's initial response to provide an initial $10 million in humanitarian assistance through trusted partners for civilians affected by the conflict in Gaza. I also echo the support of the Australian government for the work the United States, Egypt and others are doing to open the Rafah crossing for humanitarian purposes. I understand that more than 1,400 previously registered Australians have now left Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. I understand DFAT is in contact with a further number of registered Australians in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. I note that the Australian government flew a significant number of people from Tel Aviv to Dubai overnight, including some 75 Australians and 96 people from Pacific nations and citizens of partner countries. I thank the government. I urge the government to maintain those efforts and ensure those pathways remain open. I know that six assisted departure flights from Tel Aviv to London and to Dubai, including the three RAF flights, have now operated to repatriate people out of Israel, with further government assistance being provided to assist Australians with onward travel. Obviously the situation in Gaza is extremely challenging. The government has advised that DFAT is in direct contact with Australian families seeking to leave Gaza and Israel to provide updated advice on options to leave. We support the work of the US, Egypt and others to open the Rafah crossing. It's incredibly important that Australians with families in Israel or Gaza or territories that want to leave and need assistance with departure should register with DFAT or call the 24-hour consular emergency centre. The government has noted that there have been a lot of spare seats on flights for two days in a row. I can understand that in the flexibility and uncertainty of the situation, but I urge those seeking to leave to take this opportunity. The situation remains fluid and challenging and so you don't know when that window of opportunity may close. Take the opportunity whilst it is there in a safe and secure way. It is really important. Finally, I would like to thank again everyone who has written to me from Warringah expressing their deep concern in relation to the Israeli people and Palestinians caught in the conflict in Gaza. I echo their concerns. It's at these times that we must come together as a peaceful nation to provide other solutions to resolve these conflicts that do not involve such innocent lives being caught in the middle. But at all times terrorism activity must be called out, and the actions of Hamas are simply inexcusable. 18:25 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie It was a horrific series of attacks that the world watched unfold when Hamas terrorists struck innocent Israelis only10 days ago. Every one of those vile acts—the murder of civilians, women and children, the taking of hostages, including from a music festival, the door-to-door terror and rocket fire—is to be condemned, as this parliament has joined together to condemn it and the terrible loss of 1,400 lives in Israel. We've called on Hamas to release the hostages unconditionally. The consequences of what Hamas has done and the inevitable response is having a profound effect on Palestinians living in Gaza as well as the West Bank. As I speak, the world is anticipating an Israeli offensive in Gaza with the stated aim of wiping out Hamas. But we do know the toll that will take on civilians. The IDF says 100,000 people remain in Gaza City. Already the Israeli retaliation means thousands of innocent civilians in Gaza have lost their lives. Thousands more are injured. Hundreds of thousands have fled south to try and escape what is expected to come. Every one of these civilian lives lost, whether they are Israeli or Palestinian, or any other nationality, is to be mourned. As the humanitarian situation deteriorates, Australia is supporting the work of the United Nations, the US and Egypt with Israel to find safe passage for Gaza civilians. Under international law, one inhumane act does not justify another. Collective punishment is not within the rules of war. As a nation, Australia consistently calls for the protection of civilian lives and the observance of international law. We joined President Biden and other leaders in calling for Israel to operate by the rules of war. We have urged restraint in Israel's response, knowing that civilian lives are at stake. I want to explain about Gaza. It's only 41 kilometres long and only six to 12 kilometres wide, a narrow strip that is really densely populated—more than two million people, half of whom are under 18. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, UNRWA, the only UN body with a mandate to provide relief and social services to Palestinian refugees, describes the current situation there as 'unprecedented'. UNRWA is supporting displaced people in their schools and buildings, rationing food and water, but there's no access to fuel in many areas for people to relocate. With little food, water or electricity, it is a dire humanitarian situation. Hospitals are not able to meet the demand. That is why we need to see an end to this blockade. Let's be really clear: Hamas is a terrorist group and does not represent the Palestinian people or their legitimate needs and aspirations. I am not the only one in this parliament to say that. Their aspirations are what most of us would consider human rights: the right to live in peace, the right to move around without checkpoints when you go to work or visit your grandchildren and the right to equal justice. Hamas's terrorism means that the only aspiration many Gazans can have right now is to survive. That is why Australia has engaged with countries in the Middle East and beyond at all levels in support of the protection of civilians and the containment of conflict. Innocent civilians on both sides are suffering as a result of this conflict. Both Palestinians and Israelis deserve justice and freedom. I feel a profound sadness for how far away the prospect of this is now. I will pause there, Mr Deputy Speaker, knowing that I've got more to say. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T I thank the member for Macquarie for bringing it to an end right on 6.30 because, it being 6.30, statements are interrupted in accordance with standing order 192(b). GRIEVANCE DEBATE 105 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Mackellar Electorate: Hospitals 105 18:30 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar I rise today to express my deep concern at the state of public healthcare services in my electorate of Mackellar, on the northern beaches of Sydney. Over the last decade, Mackellar has seen our public hospital placed under the management of a private company in a public-private partnership arrangement, the withdrawal of drug and alcohol rehabilitation and the withdrawal of public dental services, a critical lack of both local hospital and community-based mental health services, a paucity of specialist medical outpatient services and a shortage of healthcare workers. The northern beaches have a population almost the same size as Canberra, yet we only have half a public hospital run by a private provider. In 2018, the two local public hospitals on the northern beaches, Mona Vale Hospital in the Mackellar electorate and Manly Hospital, were closed and replaced with the Northern Beaches Hospital, which is administered by a private company under a public-private partnership. The Northern Beaches Hospital is the only surviving hospital in the state under a public-private partnership. This follows the buyback of the Port Macquarie Base Hospital after a series of failures. It too was under a public-private partnership. After a very troubled start, a New South Wales state parliamentary inquiry into the Northern Beaches Hospital was conducted. The key recommendation of this parliamentary inquiry was handed down in February 2020. The key recommendation was that the New South Wales government not enter into any public-private partnerships for future public hospitals. Our local doctors, nurses, admin and support staff at the Northern Beaches Hospital do incredible work every day and I only have the highest praise for them. However, the hospital has been managed by its private operators in such a way that constituents have felt compelled to raise an alarm with me. There are stories of staff being overworked, assigned to roles they don't have adequate training for and being exposed to unsafe work conditions. It's claimed that this is leading to an exodus of nursing staff, with others taking early retirement. As a former GP in the area, I also have long held a deep concern over the paucity of public specialist outpatient medical services at our local Northern Beaches Hospital. This has meant that those without private medical cover have had to travel to neighbouring electorates to get their care. Another issue that is causing great concern in our community currently is the lack of mental healthcare services on the northern beaches. We are facing a crisis. In 2022, the former New South Wales government allocated $11 million to improve youth mental health services on the northern beaches. This money was allocated by the New South Wales state government in response to a growing adolescent mental health crisis in the community which was worsened by the pandemic and was also triggered by a specific tragedy that led to an inquiry into what was happening at the hospital and with mental health services. Of this total funding amount, $7.5 million was allocated to establish a specialised adolescent mental health unit to help address this desperate need for acute youth mental health care. However, nearly 18 months on that money is yet to be spent as intended and the four beds we were promised are nowhere near being delivered. There was also $365,000 allocated for the employment of a full-time additional adolescent psychiatrist. Again, I'm told that there is still only one adolescent psychiatrist working part time, only 2½ days a week. There are times, also, when there is no psychiatry registrar cover. This leaves specialist psychiatric care to nursing staff. For nurses both in emergency and on the ward who do not have specialist adolescent mental health training, this is often extremely stressful and is contributing to nursing staff burnout, sleeplessness and distress. If the promised acute mental health unit had been in operation now, it would mean these patients would remain admitted and receiving the necessary care, rather than having to repeatedly present to the emergency department. Their families in crisis would be better supported, confident that their acutely unwell children were being adequately cared for. I currently have a petition circulating the electorate, calling for the urgent establishment of these four adolescent-mental-health beds. Already, nearly 1,000 locals have signed it. Our children and our families of the Northern Beaches deserve to know that in a time of crisis our local hospital is there to help. There are a number of other issues of concern among my constituents. One of these constituents, Simon Lewer, is from Life Returning. Life Returning is a local community drug-and-alcohol support organisation. Simon founded Life Returning in 2008 after he experienced a serious lack of support services for individuals recovering from drug or alcohol dependency. Simon came to me recently to express distress at the sudden and unexplained closure of the only public drug-and-alcohol rehab facility in Mackellar. The facility, Kadesh Treatment, which was managed within the former Mona Vale Hospital site, had been operating for only a year before it was closed without warning or consultation with the community. This state-of-the-art facility offered a publicly funded nine-week rehabilitation program. The sudden closure of Kadesh has left a significant gap in the provision of drug-and-alcohol treatment services on the Northern Beaches. Simon has told me that, as a result of the closure of Kadesh, his team at Life Returning now has no other option than to drive people seeking rehab to the Central Coast—over an hour and a half away—for residential rehabilitation services. It's not just drug-and-alcohol rehabilitation services that have disappeared. Constituents have also told me that a new public health dental clinic at the site of Mona Vale Hospital was opened with much fanfare in 2022, but after less than a year of operation it has stopped treating patients owing to a chronic lack of staff. Julie Kelpsa, the oral health consumer coordinator for the Northern Sydney Local Health District, told me that because there has been extreme difficulty in recruiting and retaining staff, particularly for auxiliary roles such as dental assistants and receptionists, the clinic was forced to close. It's not just a lack of funding impacting our local health services; it's also the availability of housing. I've had meetings with local healthcare professionals who say that unaffordable house prices and rising cost-of-living pressures mean they cannot afford to live locally. This is depriving Mackellar and the Northern Beaches of the precious health workforce that we desperately need. Many of our local healthcare workers have been forced to move out of the area and must commute for hours a day, spending hundreds of dollars a week on petrol and tolls, just to get to work. As somebody who worked as a GP and as an emergency medicine specialist in the area, I have deep concerns over the public health services in Mackellar. We've been promised a ward for adolescent mental health, and that has not yet appeared—and we haven't got a good reason as to why that hasn't happened. We've also lost a number of other public health services—the public dental health service, the drug-and-alcohol rehabilitation service—and the people of Mackellar are asking why. We have questions, and I will seek to meet with the New South Wales government to see what can be done to re-establish these services. Banking and Financial Services 106 18:39 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce Today I stand to address a matter of growing concern in our community of Pearce in Western Australia, one that affects many of us: the closure of banks; the reduction in the number of bank automatic teller machines, ATMs; and the rapid transition towards a cashless society in Australia. We need our financial institutions to consider the far-reaching consequences branch closures and ATM reductions are having on the people they serve. In recent times, I have received many, many contacts from concerned residents wanting to discuss the impact that the big four banks' branch closures are having on them, particularly pensioners, local businesses, and community and sporting clubs. For example, one local resident, Mr Newton, shared his experience. He and his wife are now stretching their banking activities out to fortnightly intervals, as they cannot afford the petrol or the time to make the round-trip from Merriwa to Whitfords only to be met with two meet-and-greet staff and one teller, with an hour-long wait along with other disgruntled customers. The shortage of branches is extending to Two Rocks and beyond, forcing a businessman in Seabird to pay a day's wages for a staff member to cover him at work since he cannot get back in time to assist staff during peak business hours. It is not just these communities affected. Places like Seabird, Lancelin and Moore River, with high day tourism numbers, are reliant on metro banks. The nearest branches in the Durack electorate are a considerable distance away, with the Commonwealth Bank situated in Moora and Geraldton, the National Australia Bank in Dongara, Bankwest in Jurien Bay, and the ANZ in Geraldton. The situation becomes even more unacceptable when we consider the loss of ATMs. The big four banks now only have one ATM each left in Pearce, with Bankwest offering a slightly better option of three. While we acknowledge the industry's shift towards digital banking, we must make sure that no-one is left behind. A cashless society can have an adverse impact on small businesses, particularly those on the outer fringes of the metropolitan area and in rural or remote areas. They may struggle to keep up with the cost of accepting digital payments, and customers who prefer using cash may be driven away. This in turn can lead to the closure of small businesses and the loss of jobs in local communities. Local sporting and community groups that still rely on cash transactions for their events are having to travel considerable distances to access their financial institutions, with most now situated in either Joondalup or Whitfords. It is important that we are careful not to disregard the potential negative impacts that come with the transition to a cashless society. First and foremost, a cashless society can have profound implications on financial inclusion. Not everyone in Australia has access to a bank account or is comfortable with digital technology. Elderly people may be less comfortable with technology and less able to make the switch from physical currency. Rural communities could also be left vulnerable because of poor broadband and mobile connectivity. People with low income or debt also tend to find cash easier to manage. This exclusion can perpetuate income inequality and create a two-tiered financial system, with significant repercussions for social cohesion. Additionally, digital transactions are not immune to technical glitches and cyberattacks. Threats from organised cybercriminals are very real, and they frequently find new ways of breaching established security systems. During the pandemic, many more of us made online and mobile purchases, and data breaches increased to match. We have witnessed numerous high-profile data breaches in recent years, with sensitive personal information and financial data falling into the wrong hands. In a cashless society, the risks of such breaches increase substantially, potentially exposing us to identity theft and fraud. The protection of our financial assets and personal information becomes a real and critical concern. Digital transactions leave a trail of data, allowing corporations to track our spending habits and financial activities. We must carefully weigh the convenience of cashless transactions against the price of sacrificing our privacy. Many people also feel that cashless spending is more difficult to control. It's simply too easy to overspend when you're not looking at a finite, physical sum of money in your wallet or purse, so careful budgeting becomes very important. Moreover, digital payment systems often come with transaction fees that can add up over time. While this might be seen as a minor inconvenience, it can disproportionately affect low-income individuals, who can least afford it. Beyond individual consumers, a cashless society could also prove costly for small businesses. Most credit card and mobile payments attract a processing charge of up to three per cent, which will quickly eat into small profit margins, making it hard for independent shops and small-scale specialist outlets. In a cashless society, we may find ourselves paying more for the privilege of accessing and managing our own money. The disappearance of cash could also pose a threat to financial stability. Natural disasters or even large-scale cyberattacks could render entire financial systems useless, preventing people from accessing their money or buying what they need. In this scenario, the old-fashioned physical quality of cash seems reassuring and a reliable form of payment when digital infrastructure falters. Without this backup, we become more vulnerable to disruptions and emergencies. Ensuring that we have the means to survive and recover during times of crisis is an absolutely essential consideration. In conclusion, the transition to digital transactions, with access to fewer financial institutions and ATMs, and the move to a cashless society in Australia offer undeniable convenience and efficiency to some. However, we must also consider the valid concerns of financial inclusion, privacy, security, potential increased costs and the impact on small businesses. Think about what a cashless society might mean—no more tooth fairies, no more piggy banks, no more car boot sales, no more markets, no more saving cash for a rainy day, no more giving to the homeless and no more tipping waiters or busking musicians. Is this a future we really want or need? Instead, we should aim for a balanced approach, where our residents have access to their financial institutions and where cashless options coexist with traditional forms of payment, to ensure that no-one is left behind and that our society remains secure, private and inclusive. It is time for our financial institutions to take our concerns and the concerns of our residents seriously and find a way to use new innovative ideas to ensure the best possible outcome for all of us. Bonner Electorate: Crime 107 18:48 Mr E0D Bonner VASTA () (): Every person has the right to feel safe and secure in their own home. They have the right to feel at ease when they walk down the street with their family to go to the park or visit a mate's place. They have the right to feel comfortable when they go to the shops, no matter what time of the day or night. They have the right to know, when they go to sleep at night, that all will be okay in the morning when they wake up. But, in Queensland, those rights to safety, protection and security have fast been slipping away, including in my electorate of Bonner. I shouldn't have to be standing here giving this speech. One of the most important roles of any government is to protect its people no matter what side of politics you are from. This principle is at the very foundation of all nations and states around the world. Yet there are too many people in Queensland and in my electorate of Bonner who just don't feel safe, like Lama from Rochedale. Lama's house was broken into. Her bag, wallet and car were all stolen. When she went down into her garage to check on her car, she fell, breaking her ankle. Lama was 12 weeks pregnant. No-one should have to go through the stress and trauma of having their house broken into, especially not when they are pregnant and focusing on their health and the health of their unborn child. And Yu-Ying from Rochedale told me her young children don't feel safe and are struggling to sleep at night because of the high number of break-ins in the area. Yu-Ying said one of the main conversations her children are having at school is about how their classmates' homes are getting broken into. This is causing them to feel stressed and anxious. The thought of, 'What if our house next?' is running through their minds and making Yu-Ying's children feel vulnerable. That apprehension is not allowing them to focus on school, which is so important, especially in the early years of learning. Simply put, this isn't good enough. Unfortunately the situation is not unique to Rochedale. John from Mansfield recently had his house broken into at 1.30 pm, in broad daylight. Three teenage boys broke into his house, broke down the door, without concern or fear of repercussions. And why should they fear? With watered-down Queensland crime laws and a lack of resources and support of our incredibly hardworking police, a slap on the wrist is all these youths will get, and they know it. It's not just households who are being targeted. Local sporting clubs and community groups are also in the firing line of the Queensland youth crime crisis. The Wynnum Wolves Football Club have been rebuilding their clubhouse and grounds after the devastating impacts of the February 2022 floods. Just last week their newly renovated dressing rooms and amenities were vandalised and graffitied. This deliberate destruction of the club facilities caused $20,000 worth of damage. Volunteers, parents, players and club members are heartbroken and frustrated, as this is not the first time the Wynnum Wolves Football Club has been the victim of youth crime. Whilst all these stories of youth crime have been horrible, there was one last year that still sticks with me. A Hemmant man, a father of three and a loving husband, tragically was killed after being hit by a stolen car driven by a 15-year-old teen. When will this end? When will people be able to stop living in fear of being broken into because of youth crime? When will sporting groups not have to worry about facilities being damaged and destroyed? And when will families never again have to say goodbye to a loved one who has been killed as a result of youth crime? It's time for change in Queensland, and we're coming up to one year until the Queensland state elections, when Queenslanders will have a choice. They can choose to re-elect a state Labor government who have created this youth crime crisis and who have admitted that they cannot fix it themselves, or they can back a David Crisafulli led government, who will be tough on crime, who will put Queenslanders first and who are determined to make sure that every Queenslander is safe and secure in their own home. It's safe to say I know who I'll be backing. Lalor Electorate: Community Services 108 18:52 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor My grievance is that for nine years while I represented the people of Lalor in this place—the people's house, in the federal parliament—in aged care, in early education and child care, and in Indigenous affairs we had a government that wasn't serving my community. All that, of course, has changed with the election of a Labor government. You just have to look in my calendar for the last month to see the care and attention that the local people I represent are now getting from this government. We can start with a visit from Minister Anne Aly on 26 September to Little Oak Early Learning in Werribee. The Minister for Early Childhood Education came to talk about Labor's cheaper childcare plans and how our new plan saw, on average, parents paying 14 per cent less per hour for centre based early learning and education. It was an absolute pleasure to visit with the minister and to meet the families who were there, the workers who were there and the owner of this facility, a hands-on small business owner, who told me that since those changes her occupancy rates are now over 90 per cent. She actually told me that there are mums of the children they're educating who are now doing an extra day or an extra two days of work; hence the rise in occupancy. It was fabulous, and I want to thank Minister Aly for taking the time to come and visit and for her interest in the plan that benefits 8,000 local families. In aged care, we saw terrible things. We all know the story. We know about the royal commission. We know about the findings. We know about the interim report titled 'Negligence'. Again, this space has changed with the election of the Albanese Labor government. On 29 September Minister Anika Wells came with me and visited Manor Court aged care centre. The Minister for Aged Care and Minister for Sport joined residents for a pre-grand-final lunch, as it happened, and we also met with the volunteers on that committee. This is a community based organisation established in my community decades ago. Families have absolute faith that when their elderly loved ones go into Manor Court they get the absolute best of care. Of course, Lalor was ground zero during COVID for the neglect by the former government in aged care, and it was a pleasure to talk to staff about the wage rise that they had received. It was a pleasure to share lunch—cooked by the in-house chef, who came out to make sure that we'd all enjoyed the lunch—with, as I said, the committee members, the board, who run that facility and with four beautiful ladies. On 27 September, I had the pleasure of welcoming Minister Linda Burney to Wunggurrwil Dhurrung Centre. Having the Minister for Indigenous Affairs come to speak about the referendum was a highlight of the campaign and an absolute pleasure for my local community. People from all backgrounds attended the evening, but it was wonderful to be in a centre that Wyndham City Council have built and developed specifically for local mob, and local mob were in attendance in numbers. Although the room was filled with disappointment on Saturday night, I was still receiving thankyous from volunteers and supporters because they'd had the chance to hear from a remarkable Australian. I want to thank Uncle Rob, as well, for the wonderful acknowledgement of country and the smoking ceremony. For four years in this place, I stood up time and time again to ask the then federal government to support my growers in the Werribee irrigation district. We are responsible for 70 per cent of Australia's lettuces. They're grown right in Werribee South. I was really thrilled to represent Minister Plibersek at a fantastic announcement on 19 September in Werribee South. I joined the state minister there and was able to officially announce the final stages of the Werribee Irrigation District upgrade, which will save 30 per cent of the water going down those old channels. It's a win for the growers, a win for the environment and a win for our local economy. I also had the pleasure, after years of neglect from the former government, to visit Utopia health centre in Tarneit in recent days. This is one of the 41 local GP clinics in the electorate of Lalor who received, between them, over $1.2 million in Strengthening Medicare GP Grants. It was wonderful to meet again with Dr Lester Mascarenhas, who was also able to tell me the positive impact the Labor government's decisions had made—not just the grant but also other decisions, like the decision to reverse the Liberals' local Medicare cuts. This has seen this facility able to access three more doctors again to provide vital services to our new and growing communities. In the last two weeks, I also had the privilege to join with the Speaker of the House and other members and senators on a delegation to Nepal and India. Representing one of the largest Indian diasporas in the country, I was honoured to visit the country that I hear so much about on a week-to-week basis. I just wanted to note that here—not, obviously, as a grievance. While I was away, I was disappointed but not surprised to hear the revelations of the Nixon review into Australia's migration system. I took the time out while on this delegation to read it, because I know firsthand, having represented this community over a long time, some of the exploitation that has gone on around people who are supposedly on student visas, who get to Australia to find there are no courses and they are going to be exploited in a workplace. I've dealt with individuals who have been harmed in this system across this 10 years. This report, the Nixon review, found 'abuses of sexual exploitation, human trafficking and other organised crime' in Australia's immigration system. The review identified significant gaps and weaknesses in Australia's visa system, a system the now Leader of the Opposition personally oversaw for six years. As the now Minister for Home Affairs said, he liked to say he was the tough cop on the beat in the immigration system and now what we find is that—to quote from what Ms Nixon said: It is clear that gaps and weaknesses in Australia's visa system are allowing this to happen. I am thrilled that the Minister for Home Affairs and the minister for immigration have been busy cleaning up this mess and have made clear recommendations that the government has accepted. They will continue to do the work. The Albanese Labor government inherited a broken immigration system where abuse of Australia's visa system was allowed to run rampant. If ministers of the former government had visited my electorate they would have known that firsthand. The Leader of the Opposition presented himself as the tough guy who secured our borders and kept Australia safe, and now we find that that was a sham. The findings of the review show the reality that, under his watch, criminals were abusing Australia's visa system and the government turned a blind eye. The Albanese government will not turn a blind eye. While in India in conversations with people in Chennai, Bangalore and Delhi about our international education system I would have loved to have been able to stand there and say that I could guarantee that every young person who had left India in the past decade to come to Australia for an education was guaranteed to have got a rolled gold quality education. The Nixon review affirms what I knew on the ground, and that was that all those families couldn't be given that guarantee. We lived that experience in my part of the world. These problems are systematic and they'll take time to fix, but I trust that both our ministers will get busy and do just that. With increased resourcing of $50 million, the Albanese Labor government will establish a new division within the Department of Home Affairs to reprioritise immigration compliance and protect the integrity of the visa and migration system. This is not just important as a good friend to India. It's not just important to ensure that we are safe. This is about our education system. This is a multibillion-dollar international education system and we need to know on the ground that when someone comes to Australia they are going to get a rolled gold education, the one they paid for. Albanese Government 109 19:02 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey We are coming up on 18 months of the Albanese Labor government, so I thought it was a good opportunity to have a look and do a bit of a review of the last 18 months and what the then opposition leader and now Prime Minister said when he was in opposition and what he has actually done in the last 18 months. It doesn't matter what you say; it's about what you do and what is happening for the Australian people. I could spend the whole 10 minutes with quotes on what he promised, but this sums it up pretty well. I don't think anyone would disagree. On 17 March 2022, Anthony Albanese said: A Labor government will lower the cost of living. He promised he would lower the cost of living. Then in his campaign launch speech, a set piece with lots of work put into it and where he meant every word, he said: 'Labor has real, lasting plans for cheaper electricity, cheaper childcare, cheaper mortgages, cheaper medicines and Medicare and better pay.' Let's go through these promises that this Prime Minister made 18 months ago. He said on cheaper child care: 'Our plans for cheaper child care will make child care more affordable for 96 per cent of families.' That was his promise. The reality is that there are higher fees today than there were 18 months ago—an increase of 9.5 per cent over 12 months. There are longer waiting lists than ever. In Casey, my electorate, it's an average of two years. Mothers have to wait and book in when they are doing their 12-week scans. And there are childcare deserts. Again, I thank the Mums of the Hills and Belinda Young for their advocacy on childcare deserts and the cost of child care in our community. They know that they can't find places when they need them. Let's look at real wages and the cost of living. They spoke a lot about real wages and better pay and meaningful help with the cost of living. But it's not working. Households are paying 9.6 per cent more under this government. Mr VIOLI 300147 Those statistics came from the ABS, Member for Dawson, so they are very reliable numbers. They stack up, Member for Parramatta, because I know you will check. People are working more and taking home less, with real wages falling by 2.4 per cent to June. That's the number that matters, the real wages, because that's what Australians are feeling. We're now in a per capita recession. We've had two-quarters now where growth, per person, is negative. So we're going backwards, again, under this government. Regarding inflation, the OECD economic outlook forecast the second consecutive downgrade to Australia's GDP growth forecast and predicts inflation will be higher for longer under Labor. Our economy will grow at a slower rate than the EU, the United States, Brazil, Mexico and the G20 average. Australia's core inflation rate will lead the Euro area, the United States and the G20 advanced economies by 2024. Australians know this because they're feeling the pain every day. Turning to cheaper mortgages, this Prime Minister, when he was the Leader of the Opposition, stood there and promised cheaper mortgages to the Australian people. An honourable member: How's that going? Mr VIOLI 300147 Good question. There have been 11 interest rate rises since he became Prime Minister. If he's happy to promise cheaper mortgages, he can live with the consequences of 11 interest rate rises. He didn't put caveats on it. As I mentioned, 'cheaper mortgages' is all he said. A typical Australian family with a mortgage of $750,000 is paying $22,000 more, per year, than they were a year ago. They know that every time the bank takes that money out of their accounts. House prices have gone up in every state and every city, so you need a bigger mortgage just to get into the market. But, remember, this Prime Minister—no ifs or buts—promised the Australian people cheaper mortgages. Well, he hasn't delivered that. He also promised a Voice to Parliament. We will deliver a constitutionally enshrined Voice to our Parliament. This will be an uplifting moment of healing and unity for our country. There's no doubt many people are struggling at the moment with the result on the weekend. It was a missed opportunity to achieve the healing and unity that the Prime Minister promised. But he never sought a bipartisan position. He refused to answer the 15 questions that the opposition leader and the shadow minister for Indigenous Australians asked. He never attempted to achieve bipartisan support. He did not move his position at all. He acknowledged on the weekend that history shows that referendums do not pass without bipartisan support, so why did he proceed without bipartisan support? He will have to answer that question and explain to the Australian people why he chose to divide this country instead of providing the healing and unity that he promised. That's on him as the leader of this country, because, as he said, the leader is responsible. On productivity growth, the Prime Minister said we were going to 'embark on a new era of economic reform with productivity growth at the centre'. Unfortunately, productivity is in freefall, with another annual fall of negative 3.6 per cent. Productivity has fallen for three consecutive quarters for the first time since 2005, experiencing its deepest three-quarter fall on record. We know that sustainable higher real wages are only possible with higher productivity, but we don't have a Prime Minister or a Treasurer investing in and making the decisions to drive productivity growth. Nothing shows that better than the Prime Minister's refusal to have a minister for the digital economy. Technology is one of the key drivers to get productivity where it needs to be, and there's not a dedicated minister focused on that. The Prime Minister likes to talk about how he was the infrastructure minister. He quoted it in his speech at the campaign launch: We will invest in infrastructure to boost productivity and create jobs. We'll improve regional roads and major highways. It's news to the member for Dawson, I can tell. He asked a very good question about infrastructure in question time today and got completely ignored by this arrogant Prime Minister. His 90-day review is already up to 170 days. As the member for Dawson said today, maybe we'll get an answer by 200 days. In my community we know the Prime Minister has abandoned infrastructure at Killara Road and the Maroondah Highway, endangering lives in Coldstream. There's a reason the CFA in Coldstream and Gruyere are calling for this—it's so they can get out to the jobs quicker and save lives. The Canterbury Road upgrade in Montrose, so important to our community, is weeks away from starting. It was at tender and is now on pause because this Prime Minister will not invest in infrastructure. That's before we even talk about cutting $100 million in sealing roads in our community. In 2019, when he was the shadow minister for infrastructure, he supported that 10-year plan for 100 kilometres of road, and he broke his promise and backflipped and cut that money out of my community. He also said: Labor will put the focus back on nation-building infrastructure using the Infrastructure Australia model I created as Minister. It's a big claim. What did he actually do? He gave $2.2 billion to the Daniel Andrews Labor government in Victoria for the Suburban Rail Loop. That project didn't go through Infrastructure Australia. He pulled money out of my community and gave it to Daniel Andrews and Labor for the Suburban Rail Loop. He broke his word again and didn't put it through Infrastructure Australia. We now move on to cheaper power for homes and businesses. The Prime Minister said the Powering Australia plan will deliver investment in cheap renewable energy and will mean cheaper power for homes and businesses. I think the member for Dawson knows where I'm going next. The Prime Minister also promised to reduce power bills by $275. Honourable members interjecting— Mr VIOLI 300147 I'll take the interjections from those opposite because I know they get frustrated that the Prime Minister and many of them on the campaign trail promised 97 times to reduce power bills by $275. Well, guess what? In March 2022 it was $1,393. In October 2023 an annual power bill is now $1,827—a long way off that $275 that he promised and many candidates and MPs opposite promised. I appreciate that they want to interject and get frustrated, but when you are struggling to pay the power bills you relied on that promise from this Prime Minister. He continues to break his promises. The Prime Minister promised the urgent care clinics would be delivered by 1 July this year—they're not delivered. Cheaper medicines, ripping money out of pharmacies and small businesses in regional communities—he's not paying for cheaper medicines; he's making small businesses and families pay for that, putting their viability at risk. I've run out of time to talk about petrol prices. He was happy to criticise the prime minister when they were $1.79. He has no plan at all to bring petrol prices down. First Nations Australians 111 19:13 Ms SCRYMGOUR F2S Lingiari I want to say a few things about what led us to the recent referendum and what it means for those first peoples Australians most affected by the outcome, particularly the first peoples Australians in my electorate of Lingiari. Because of some arcane parliamentary tradition, which I understand derives from English House of Commons, we are obliged to call the making of a speech at this time and in this place a 'grievance debate'. We are told that we should follow such traditions and treat them with respect, no matter how arcane they may seem. No matter that for someone of my background they represent a distant pantomime from a pompous colonial past. So I follow the protocol and accept the rules and customs which apply here. In contrast to that, over recent weeks throughout this country there has been, at times, a belligerent chorus of ridicule and derision from a surprisingly large number of people directed at Welcome to Country ceremonies. That chorus has included people elected to work in this building. Underlying the ridicule and derision has been a view about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and their place in this nation. The views of 'Let's pour scorn on Welcome to Country' is in effect saying that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders may well have been here before colonisation, but that shouldn't give them any ongoing or contemporary rights and status as first peoples—whether in relation to their traditional lands or anything else. 'We're all the same now,' they say. 'We're all Australians, and I'm buggered if I'm going to ask permission or be treated as a visitor in any corner of Australia. I belong here just as much as them.' That is basically the terra nullius view, and it is alive and well. This referendum has revealed some fault lines, and we are going to have to address them. In my part of Australia, in Lingiari, I believe we have moved beyond the terra nullius view. I'm not just talking about my Aboriginal constituents when I say that, but it is primarily my Aboriginal constituents I am thinking of now as we consider the way forward from here, because these things primarily concern them. First Peoples who have survived the relatively recent history of colonisation in Lingiari include the Tiwi—my people—Yolngu, Mirarr and Jawoyn at the top; the Arrernte, Luritja, Warlpiri and Pitjantjatjara down the bottom; and so very many in between. They overwhelmingly voted yes to the proposition of recognition. In the context of Lingiari, the proposition of recognition is the proposition that the various Lingiari First Peoples were here before the sometimes desultory and sometimes brutal attempts to progress white settlement and control of the northern frontier; that they are still here now trying to exercise self-determination on their traditional country; and that respect is due to them as custodians of the land and culture which they look after not just on their behalf but also, in the way they see it, on behalf of all Australians. The bush voted for that recognition to be confirmed and advanced through a voice which would be drawn from and feed back to those many First People communities. This is what we call substantive recognition. I'm committed to making the vote for substantive recognition in the bush count, for it to mean something. That won't be by way of the Australian Constitution; I've heard the voice of many non-Aboriginal voters in my electorate as well, and I must also represent them in relation to this matter. But there are other possible pathways and options, which will be the subject of discussion when I go back out bush to talk to my people and their communities in coming weeks and months. We'll also talk about how we can change things for the better at the local level. In particular, I'll be wanting to follow up on complaints made to me in communities throughout the Territory about the way the local organisations which used to manage the old CDEP scheme have been undermined and marginalised. This has been done to preference mostly non-Aboriginal labour hire companies and compliance monitoring entities favoured by the bureaucracy, which have made a fortune from government contracts. This legacy of the intervention has imposed hours-limited Work for the Dole rather than the real CDEP jobs which used to exist. I said I would mention what led us to the referendum, and I think it is important to say a few words on that before the caravan moves on. Before he became a senator, my friend Patrick Dodson, a great Australian, worked with other advocates for constitutional reform and developed a proposal to remove section 51(xxvi), the race power, from the Constitution and replace it with a provision that would enable the Commonwealth government to make laws for the benefit of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander First Peoples. This would shift us from the colonial preoccupation with race to an acknowledgement of the need for recognition of the special place in our country of our First People. That proposal was rejected by the so-called constitutional conservatives, who said they were concerned that it would be a trojan horse for a bill of rights. At the dialogues leading up to Uluru, all our First Nations delegates discussed and finally settled on the alternative option of recognition through a voice. With the failure of the referendum, we are stuck with a Constitution built on a deliberate plan for exclusion and discrimination by way of race, which still retains a race power rather than a mechanism for recognising the special relationship the Commonwealth government must have with its First People as a result of the way this continent was colonised. That is something which we are all going to have to accept and do our best to work around going forward. Returning to where I started, although this is called a grievance debate speech, and although others have claimed that the yes case agenda was all about grievance, grievance is not what motivates me in trying to advance recognition to make this a better and more united country. The same goes for millions of Australians, including Indigenous Australians, who voted yes. The grievance camp were in fact the ones who were directed to vote no. And many of them did. I do feel aggrieved and disappointed about a couple of things. I feel aggrieved that Senator Price and Senator Thorpe have each purported to speak on behalf of First Peoples communities in Lingiari, when the overwhelming yes result shows that their views have been totally rejected in those communities. I feel aggrieved that Senator Price suggested, most insulting at all, that Aboriginal voters in the bush should not have been given how-to-vote cards when approaching a polling booth, while triumphantly embracing the no vote cast by untold thousands throughout the country who were assailed by no campaigners outside the polling booths, through social media and text messages with claims that a vote for the voice was a vote for reparations; or that the UN would be taking over; or that they would lose their backyards. I was even told a young man was voting no because black men rape their child every night. But we move on. I will be doing my best to try and achieve better outcomes for all my constituents, including those living in towns who have various ongoing concerns, including crime, the economy and the environment. We must also address the cost of living and housing issues in Northern Territory towns, in Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. I look forward, beyond this parliament, to going back out and talking to my communities. I have had so many phone calls from young people—particularly young people. When we have the debates in this place, no-one thinks about those young Aboriginal people who for the first time in this country cast their vote, their feelings, and how insulted they are feeling by the comments that are being made for the first time and that vote being rejected. So I am looking forward to going back out and saying we have to build this country into a better country. I look forward to making sure that Aboriginal people take their rightful place in this country. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230886 There being no further grievances, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:23