﻿
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2023-11-15</date>
    <parliament.no>2</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>0</period.no>
    <chamber>House of Reps</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>1</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;" />
            <a href="Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 15 November 2023</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The SPEAKER (</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Hon.</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Milton Dick</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">) </span>took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.</span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Line" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Line"> </span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Selection Committee</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>1</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present report No. 20 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday 27 November 2023. The report will be printed in the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> for today, and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The report read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1. The Committee met in private session on Tuesday, 14 November 2023.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 14 November 2023, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 27 November 2023, as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Presentation and statements</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Australian Parliamentary Delegation</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">United States of America</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">all statements to conclude by 10.20 am.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr J Wilson</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Next Member </inline> <inline font-style="italic">speaking</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MS TINK: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline>, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Migration Amendment (Limits on </inline><inline font-style="italic">Immigration Detention) Bill 2023</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 14 November 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 MR COLEMAN: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Online Safety Act 2021</inline>, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Online Safety Amendment (Protecting Australian Children from Online Harm) Bill 2023</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 14 November 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second </inline> <inline font-style="italic">reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 MS CLAYDON: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) 25 November 2023 marks the United Nations' International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, beginning 16 days of activism against gender-based violence;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in Australia, it has been publicly reported that approximately 47 women have been killed by acts of violence as of 9 November this year;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) one in three Australian women have experienced physical violence perpetrated by a man since the age of 15; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) violence affects women of every age, from every cultural background, with different jobs and levels of education or income, living in different areas and leading different lives;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) commends the work of the family, domestic and sexual violence sector, which is delivering vital services to women, children and men;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) further notes that the Government is taking immediate and practical steps to prevent violence against women by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) investing a record $2.3 billion in this area;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) launching the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) establishing a dedicated Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander action plan;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) establishing six ambitious targets to hold all governments to account for progress under the national plan;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) reducing the time it takes victim-survivors to access the Escaping Violence Payment;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) securing funding for states and territories to deliver frontline services;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) increasing support for temporary visa holders experiencing violence from $3,000 to $5,000;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) legislating ten paid days of family and domestic violence leave for all employees, including casuals; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) making the family law system simpler and safer for people fleeing family violence; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) acknowledges that there is still more work to done to end violence against women and children, but the Government is committed to ending this scourge within a generation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 14 November 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Claydon</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter </inline> <inline font-style="italic">should continue at a later hour.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 MS DANIEL: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) violence against women is a national emergency;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in October 2023, six women in Australia were killed within a fortnight, five allegedly by men known to them;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) approximately one Australian woman is killed every nine days by a male intimate partner;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) Aboriginal women are 11 times more likely to die from family violence than non-Aboriginal women;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) intimate partner violence is the biggest preventable threat to the health, wellbeing and safety of Australian women; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) eliminating family violence requires national leadership, coordination and investment to build the evidence base needed to identify definitive points of intervention to prevent violence and change perpetrator behaviour;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Australia currently has no national toll recording fatal violence against women and children;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Australia currently has no funded national reporting mechanism dedicated to the detailed reporting of femicide, and the killing of children; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) tolls are an effective tool for prevention and awareness; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Government to establish The Australian Family Homicide Index to generate the evidence required to inform new and improved responses to family violence and help save lives.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 13 November 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">20 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Daniel</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The </inline> <inline font-style="italic">Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 MR VAN MANEN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that the cost of living keeps going up under the Prime Minister and Treasurer, and since this Government took office:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) food and grocery prices are up by 8.2 per cent;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) housing prices are up by 10.4 per cent;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) insurance is up by 17 .3 per cent;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) electricity is up by 18.2 per cent;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) gas is up by 28 per cent; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) interest rates have increased 12 times;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises it has not been easy under the Government since their election in May 2022;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) acknowledges that the Government has no plan to address spiralling costs and bring down inflation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) calls on the Government to deliver real cost of living relief to the Australian people.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 14 November 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr van Manen</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MR THOMPSON: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Australia's 370,000 first responders are the brave individuals on the frontline tackling compounding and cascading disasters, risking their lives to safeguard communities and property;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the work of first responders is a service to our nation and we honour it, and that some experiences can be distressing, traumatic and dangerous;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) it is crucial to provide ongoing, comprehensive national support and enhance the resilience and capability of first responders, especially during and immediately after the current severe bushfire season; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) Fortem Australia is the leading provider of this support for first responders nationwide, providing effective care to 15,000 unique first responders and their families across the nation, including 37,000 wellbeing activity registrations and delivery of over 6,100 clinical psychology sessions;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes the Government's delay in confirming additional continued funding for this important work to continue beyond March 2024, resulting in significant uncertainty and a risk that Fortem Australia will need to begin to scale down its operations from November 2023; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) urgently calls upon the Government to announce continued funding for Fortem Australia prior to the commencement of the upcoming summer bushfire period, ensuring that first responders know where to tum in their time of need, and ensuring the seamless delivery of nation-leading support to these dedicated individuals.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 14 November 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time </inline> <inline font-style="italic">limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Thompson</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 DR FREELANDER: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes the:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) increasing importance of research in the field of genetics in advancing our understanding of better treatments and healthcare policy for the betterment of patients; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) opportunities provided by genetic research and that the findings from life-changing treatments should be regarded as ways and means to provide targeted treatments for patients suffering from disorders such as epilepsy, auto-immune diseases, cancers, heart disease and many others;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) with the rush of new information and understanding of genetic treatments, comes the responsibility to protect the privacy of individuals from being exploited by third parties;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the are imperative in protecting the field of genetics from exploitation and limiting the risk of patient records and disorders being used in discriminatory manners by third parties, such as the life insurance industry, whose current ability to use genetic test results in assessing applications and claims has led to great frustration and should be stopped; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) this concern with privacy must not damage research in the genetics field and the benefits that advances in treatments provide, however, it is in the interest of this field that individuals are not discouraged from sharing information of their disorders; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on Commonwealth, state and territory governments to work towards legislation that will restrict third party access to genetic information and ensure that the only party able to choose when and how to disclose genetic information is the individual themselves.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 17 October 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Dr Freelander</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The </inline> <inline font-style="italic">Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 MR FLETCHER: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the release of Services Australia's 2022-23 annual report, which confirmed that customer satisfaction and other key performance measures went backwards;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) that Services Australia has become a basket case under the current Government, with sky-rocketing call and claims processing wait times; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) that the under performing Minister for Government Services reduced Services Australia's average staffing levels in the 2023-24 budget and decreased funding for technology and transformation;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges the work of the former Government in ensuring service delivery was seamless, simple and safe, with a strong emphasis on digital uplift; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Government to help get Services Australia back on track by launching a root and branch review into the embattled agency.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 14 November 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 </inline> <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Fletcher</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 MR GEORGANAS: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises that the Government's commitment to a Future Made in Australia includes pathways and access to the jobs of the future;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges the Government's commitment to reach 1.2 million tech-related jobs by 2030 and ensure Australians are equipped with the skills needed for these jobs through;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the delivery of over 180,000 Fee-Free TAFE places in 2023, including in the priority areas of technology and digital, and an additional 300,000 Fee-Free TAFE places to be made available from next year;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) its implementation of a Digital and Tech Skills Compact to help workers earn while they learn in entry leave tech roles;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a diversity in STEM review to deliver a more diverse and representative STEM workforce for Australians from all walks of life;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) delivering Australia's first National Quantum Strategy;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) supporting the safe, inclusive uptake of technologies like artificial intelligence that reflect community interests; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) notes the Government is committed to transforming Australian industry through:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the $1.5 billion National Reconstruction Fund that will help Australia capture new, high value market opportunities; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the $392 million Industry Growth Program to support Australian small and medium enterprises to commercialise their ideas and grow their businesses.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 14 November 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">40 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Georganas</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 MS STEGGALL: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) small businesses are the backbone of our economy, making up 97.5 per cent of all businesses in Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) these 2.5 million small businesses include cafes, newsagencies, hairdressers, builders and start-ups, all improving the way we live and work and contributing to Australia's low unemployment rate;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) many small businesses are facing the perfect storm of increased debt due to the COVID-19 pandemic, increasing interest rates, ongoing inflation and resulting decrease in consumer spending, labour shortages, reducing consumer confidence as well as the critical challenges of substantial industrial relations reform, cybersecurity, technological advancements and changes in the workforce;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) small businesses were significantly impacted by the recent Optus outage, costing some small businesses up to $10,000;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) that we must proactively support small businesses in adapting, innovating and maintaining productivity to survive these pressures; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) deliver immediate relief for energy costs;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) amend the Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023 to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) increase the amount and extend the period for the small business instant asset write off; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) increase the amount and extend the period for the small business energy initiative;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) ensure that any legislative changes to PayDay superannuation do not disproportionately impact small business and that measures are taken to improve cash flow for businesses to offset the impact of PayDay reform from 2023;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) take necessary steps to allow the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman to compel Optus to compensate small businesses for the November 2023 Optus mobile and broadband outage;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) implement a comprehensive tax system review over the longer term that specifically focuses on:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) simplifying small business and taxation reporting requirements;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) investigating the potential to reduce tax for small businesses or afford them the same advantages as those offered to all corporations in the economy (for example, the concessions to fossil fuel companies under the Petroleum Rent Resource Tax); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) considers the potential for tax credits for small business including for the payment of Domestic Violence leave; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) deliver a small business strategy, agreed by National Cabinet, to ensure all levels of government are working to reduce the burden on small business and acting to cut regulation to ensure the sustainability of small businesses around Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 14 November 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining </inline> <inline font-style="italic">private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Steggall</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should </inline> <inline font-style="italic">continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices — continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 MR R MITCHELL: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges 2023 as the centenary of the Republic of Turkiye and congratulates the people of Turkiye on this significant milestone for their nation;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) remembers with respect the founder of the Republic and commander of Turkish forces at Gallipoli, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, and his unprecedented efforts to heal the wounds of ANZAC mothers, paving the way for our two nations to become friends from foes in less than a decade; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) recognises the sons and daughters of Turkiye who have since made their home in Australia and the contribution they have made to building our nation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 13 November 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">20 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr R Mitchell</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this </inline> <inline font-style="italic">matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 MR HAMILTON: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes the increase in youth crime across Queensland;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges the increase in digital material featuring criminal activity by young offenders for the purpose of gaining notoriety;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) further notes the impact on victims of crime, as a result of such material being posted online and elsewhere, which demeans victims and flaunts a blatant disregard for the law and policing agencies;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) further acknowledges that digital platforms and online content depicting criminal activity material are being used as a tool to attract young people into criminal behaviour;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) notes the important role of the eSafety Commissioner as an independent regulator helping to safeguard young Australians at risk from online harms; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) enhance protections of children and young people online, from digital content that depicts criminal activity material and prevent them from a life of crime; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) protect victims of crime by empowering the eSafety Commissioner to explicitly handle online content of criminal activity material in a similar way to how cyber-bullying and cyber-abuse material is treated.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 13 November 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time </inline> <inline font-style="italic">allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">40 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Hamilton</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8 MR PERRETT: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges the recent United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) decision not to list the Great Barrier Reef as in danger;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that the Government is tackling climate change and protection of the Great Barrier Reef to make a real difference, including action that has:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) invested a record $1.2 billion in the reef;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) legislated to reach net zero, with a 43 per cent emissions reduction target in 2035, and committed to reaching 82 per cent renewable energy supply by 2030;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) invested $150 million to improve water quality through projects such as revegetation, grazing management and engineering work like gully stabilisation;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) with the Queensland Government, announced the phase-out of gillnets in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park with a $160 million package;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) rejected a coal mine that could have direct impacts on the reef;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) engaged more Indigenous rangers to manage sea country, including combatting crown of thorns starfish outbreaks, marine plastics and ghost nets;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) withdrawn federal funding for dams that would have had a detrimental impact on reef water quality;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) invested an extra $163.4 million in the May 2023 budget to guarantee the future of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, doubling funding for reef science; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) committed to rewriting Australia's broken environmental laws; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) confirms that UNESCO's decision makes clear that Australia's environmental policies have fundamentally changed under this Government and changed for the better.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 1 August 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Perrett</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">9 MR L O'BRIEN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that industrial scale reckless renewable energy proposals, and their associated transmission lines are economically, socially and environmentally untenable for the following reasons:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) they involve significant land clearing and invasive construction, destroying prime agricultural land, native bushland and wildlife habitats;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the location and proximity of transmission lines lead to the devaluation of land and the interruption of agricultural businesses;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the proposals divide communities and cause mental anguish; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the costs of these proposals are prone to blow out; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) impose a moratorium on industrial scale renewable energy projects until the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is amended to require the automatic referral of such projects for assessment under the Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) support a Senate inquiry into the economic, social and environmental impacts of industrial scale reckless renewable energy projects, and their associated transmission lines;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) conduct a thorough and transparent feasibility study into the alternative development of next generation zero-emission nuclear technology as a future sustainable energy source;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) require state and territory governments to avoid the use of private land for projects and transmission lines where such projects attract Commonwealth funding; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) work with state and territory governments to review energy and transmission line project evaluation processes to ensure that environmental, social and economic impacts are given full consideration as part of the assessment process.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 14 </inline> <inline font-style="italic">September 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">45 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr L O'Brien</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should </inline> <inline font-style="italic">continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR THE ELIMINATION OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: Resumption of debate on the motion of Ms Claydon—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) 25 November 2023 marks the United Nations' International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, beginning 16 days of activism against gender-based violence;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in Australia, it has been publicly reported that approximately 47 women have been killed by acts of violence as of 9 November this year;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) one in three Australian women have experienced physical violence perpetrated by a man since the age of 15; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) violence affects women of every age, from every cultural background, with different jobs and levels of education or income, living in different areas and leading different lives;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) commends the work of the family, domestic and sexual violence sector, which is delivering vital services to women, children and men;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) further notes that the Government is taking immediate and practical steps to prevent violence against women by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) investing a record $2.3 billion in this area;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) launching the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) establishing a dedicated Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander action plan;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) establishing six ambitious targets to hold all governments to account for progress under the national plan;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) reducing the time it takes victim-survivors to access the Escaping Violence Payment;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) securing funding for states and territories to deliver frontline services;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) increasing support for temporary visa holders experiencing violence from $3,000 to $5,000;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) legislating ten paid days of family and domestic violence leave for all employees, including casuals; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) making the family law system simpler and safer for people fleeing family violence; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) acknowledges that there is still more work to done to end violence against women and children, but the Government is committed to ending this scourge within a generation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this </inline> <inline font-style="italic">matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">THE HON D. M. DICK MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Speaker of the House of Representatives</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">15 November 2023</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>8</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Orders of the Day</title>
          <page.no>8</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I declare that Federation Chamber order of the day No. 10, government business, Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Supporting the Transition to Work) Bill 2023, is returned to the House for further consideration.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The bill will be set down for consideration at a later hour this day.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>8</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>8</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7106" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>8</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>8</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023 will amend the primary legislation for the National Redress Scheme for institutional child sexual abuse (the scheme). The amendments form part of the government's final response to recommendations from the second year review of the National Redress Scheme (the review) undertaken by Ms Robyn Kruk AO.</para>
<para>The scheme was established on 1 July 2018 in response to the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. It is just over halfway through its legislated 10 years of operation and will be reviewed again at the eight-year mark, on 1 July 2026.</para>
<para>The implementation of the scheme was an acknowledgement by the Australian government and state and territory governments that sexual abuse suffered by children in institutional settings was wrong, a betrayal of trust, and should never have happened.</para>
<para>The scheme recognises the suffering survivors have experienced and the often lifelong impact the abuse has had on their lives. The scheme accepts that these events occurred and that institutions must take responsibility for this abuse.</para>
<para>The scheme is an important step towards healing and provides access to three components of redress as a tangible means of recognising the wrongs survivors have suffered. These are a monetary payment, access to counselling and psychological services, and a direct personal response from the institutions responsible, where a survivor wants that to occur.</para>
<para>In preparing this second reading speech, I revisited my remarks on the primary legislation to establish the scheme. In 2018, I acknowledged the powerful advocates who called for governments to do something to address the wrongs of the past and without whom we would not have had those important pieces of legislation in place. Today, I again acknowledge their bravery in telling their stories to make sure that the abuse they experienced never happens again.</para>
<para>I'd also like to acknowledge National Survivors Day, which occurred this week, and the fifth anniversary of the national apology and that it's just over 11 years since the royal commission was announced by the then Prime Minister, the Hon. Julia Gillard AC.</para>
<para>As at 10 November 2023, 496 non-government institutions are participating in the scheme. This means the scheme now covers approximately 69,000 sites across Australia. In addition, over 13,400 payments totalling approximately $1.2 billion have been paid to survivors to date.</para>
<para>The government remains committed to encouraging all institutions named in applications to fulfil their moral obligation to join the scheme. Institutions are able to join the scheme throughout the life of the scheme, maximising access to redress for survivors.</para>
<para>There are also consequences for institutions who choose not to join the scheme. These include public naming, restrictions on Commonwealth grant funding and possible loss of their charitable status and associated tax concessions.</para>
<para>The Australian government remains committed to the continuous improvement of the scheme by increasing its efficiency, cultural safety and accessibility. With regard to the impact on survivors who are First Nations Australians, culturally and linguistically diverse, those with disability, and those who are terminally ill or ageing, it is critical that we improve the scheme on an ongoing basis.</para>
<para>It is essential that the needs of survivors are being met; that the scheme is operating effectively; and that the unique and evolving challenges in administering a trauma-informed scheme are being addressed.</para>
<para>In undertaking the review, survivors' voices were front and centre and Ms Kruk consulted extensively, whether that be with survivors, advocacy groups, support services, institutions and Commonwealth and state and territory governments.</para>
<para>The review made 38 recommendations to increase access to redress and improve the scheme's operation, making it more trauma-informed, efficient and ultimately more survivor-focused. Of the recommendations, 29 were supported in full, five in part and four were not supported. This bill will fulfil the work of the review and improve the scheme and the experience of survivors for its remaining life.</para>
<para>A number of recommendations have already been implemented, including:</para>
<list>advance payments;</list>
<list>changing to the date for indexation of relevant prior payments;</list>
<list>removing the requirement for a witnessed statutory declaration;</list>
<list>introducing payment by instalments; and</list>
<list>extending funder of last resort provisions.</list>
<para>This bill continues the government's work in improving the scheme, and gives effect to the remaining changes outlined in the government's final response to the review, released on 4 May 2023. In line with the scheme's governance arrangements, all states and territories, as partners in the scheme, have agreed to the amendments in this bill.</para>
<para>This bill will improve accessibility to redress, enhance choice for survivors, increase transparency, and hold the scheme accountable in delivering its commitment to trauma-informed, survivor-focused delivery. These outcomes are addressed through progressing the following amendments to the Redress Act:</para>
<para>Reassessment of finalised applications when an institution named later joins the s cheme</para>
<para>Where applicants name an institution that has not joined the scheme, some may choose to wait to see if the institution joins the scheme, while others choose to progress their application. There are currently no avenues to find a non-participating institution liable after a determination is made, when that institution subsequently joins the scheme.</para>
<para>This bill introduces a new reassessment process in response to recommendation 3.1 of the review, making it fairer for survivors who may have been disadvantaged where an institution was not participating at the time their application was progressed.</para>
<para>Where an institution identified in their application later joins the scheme, or where a government later agrees to be the funder of last resort for the institution, applicants will now have the option of having their application reassessed.</para>
<para>This amendment acknowledges that some survivors have chosen to progress their application without all relevant institutions participating, and seeks to provide an option for these survivors to have their redress outcome reassessed to include the newly participating institution.</para>
<para>When an institution joins the scheme, including those that have joined to date, the scheme will contact applicants where that institution was identified in their application. Where a survivor accepts a reassessed outcome, the institution's or institutions' liability will be updated to reflect any changes.</para>
<para>Review of determinations</para>
<para>Currently, the redress act does not allow applicants to submit further information when requesting a review of a decision. The second year review found this position limits procedural fairness and, along with the risk of a redress offer being reduced, deters survivors from requesting a review.</para>
<para>In response to recommendation 5.1 of the second year review, this measure will allow applicants to provide additional information when requesting a review. The changes will also introduce a 'no worse off' provision so that redress offers are not reduced on review due to a differing interpretation by the reviewing independent decision-maker.</para>
<para>To protect scheme integrity, reviewed decisions can still be adjusted to account for new information that was not available at the time of the original decision. This could include a previously undeclared prior payment; in this example, the final redress amount may be reduced on review. The 'no worse off' provision is also limited to remain consistent with the principles of the scheme and account for fraud and misleading information supplied.</para>
<para>Eligibility for people with serious criminal convictions</para>
<para>Currently, applicants who are sentenced to imprisonment for five years or longer for a single offence (defined as a serious criminal conviction) are not entitled to redress unless the operator is satisfied that providing redress to the applicant will not bring the scheme into disrepute or adversely affect public confidence in, or support for, the scheme.</para>
<para>For the scheme operator to make this determination, applicants with a serious criminal conviction are required to undergo a special assessment process. This process includes seeking advice from the attorneys-general in the jurisdiction(s) where the offence or offences and child sexual abuse occurred. The special assessment process has resulted in delays for this group of applicants.</para>
<para>In response to recommendation 3.2 of the review, this bill limits the special assessment process to specific classes of serious offences. This will reduce the circumstances where applicants are required to go through the special assessment process.</para>
<para>To achieve this, only applicants who are sentenced to imprisonment for five years or more for unlawful killing, sexual offences, or terrorism offences, or where a risk to the integrity of the scheme exists, will be required to undergo the special assessment process.</para>
<para>Eligibility for prisoners</para>
<para>A survivor who is currently incarcerated cannot make an application to the scheme, unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the application being made. For example, where the survivor will not be released before the scheme ends on 30 June 2028, or is so ill that they cannot make an application for redress upon their release from jail.</para>
<para>In response to recommendation 3.2 of the review, this bill removes the restriction on incarcerated survivors from making an application to the scheme. Practically, this means all incarcerated survivors will be able to access redress where they meet the eligibility requirements and those applying from jail will no longer need to submit an applying from jail form, or supply the scheme with information outlining exceptional circumstances.</para>
<para>This will remove a significant barrier for incarcerated survivors in applying for redress and will provide greater accessibility to the scheme for a cohort of survivors where there is an acknowledged impact of institutional child sexual abuse.</para>
<para>Amendments to the protected information provisions</para>
<para>The scheme receives and holds very sensitive information about people, and the protected information framework is designed so that this information is handled in a manner that reflects this.</para>
<para>The second year review recommendation 3.14 suggests the scope and content of the protected information provisions be reviewed, with specific regard to the protection of information provided by applicants and the permitted use by the scheme operator and institutions of that information.</para>
<para>A review of the protected information framework found that overall the current provisions are appropriate and required for the operation of the scheme and protection of children; but it identified some measures to improve the framework, which are included in this bill.</para>
<para>The changes will enable the scheme operator to disclose:</para>
<list>protected information to an applicant that an institution is not participating in the scheme. Matters that may be disclosed include that the scheme has contacted an institution about participating in the scheme and they have not responded; that the institution informed the scheme that they intend to participate, and that the institution has advised the scheme they do not intend to participate.</list>
<para>This amendment is designed to improve transparency with survivors on the steps taken by the institution they named in their application to join the scheme.</para>
<list>relevant protected information to a public trustee to ascertain whether an applicant is subject to a financial management order and support an applicant's financial affairs where they are subject to a financial management order.</list>
<para>This measure will also allow a person engaged by a participating institution to disclose protected information to another institution within the same participating group for the purpose of an internal investigation and disciplinary procedures.</para>
<para>Funder of last resort</para>
<para>In response to the review, theNational Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Funders of Last Resort and Other Measures) Act 2021 (the 2021 FOLR Act) extended the funder of last resort (FOLR) arrangements in the redress act.</para>
<para>This extended the provisions to encompass non-defunct institutions that are unable to participate in the scheme and defunct institutions with which participating jurisdictions do not share responsibility for abuse and there is no parent institution to take responsibility.</para>
<para>This bill would make technical amendments to the funder of last resort provisions to ensure where a payment is made under the redress act and the 2021 funder of last resort act, final figures for invoicing are appropriately rounded up to the nearest cent. Additionally, this bill will make technical amendments to ensure a funder of last resort's redress liability is not double counted in limited scenarios when applying the provisions of both the redress act and the 2021 funder of last resort act.</para>
<para>Summary</para>
<para>To conclude, this bill introduces the remaining legislative amendments arising from the Australian government's final response to the second year review and includes additional improvements to the operation of the scheme.</para>
<para>Considering the compounding impact for survivors of institutional child sexual abuse is at the forefront of all the scheme does; it guides policy, legislation and how redress is delivered to survivors.</para>
<para>This bill is representative of the government's commitment to uphold the trauma-informed principles that guide the scheme. The legislative changes have been made in consultation with states and territories as our partners in the scheme.</para>
<para>The government is pleased to outline these important and substantial amendments and looks forward to continuing to improve the scheme for the benefit of survivors. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>12</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7110" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>12</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>12</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023 represents the final legislative reform required to fulfil the Albanese government's commitment to implement the recommendations of the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report.</para>
<para>The landmark <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report made 55 recommendations to federal, state and territory governments, the private sector and the community more broadly, all driven by the same impetus: to put an end to sexual harassment and to make Australian workplaces safe for all.</para>
<para>The fifth national survey on sexual harassment in Australian workplaces found that 33 per cent of people who had been in the workforce in the preceding five years had experienced workplace sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is a serious and pervasive issue, which demands a fundamental rethink in how our laws are shaped to prevent, protect and support individuals who experience sexual harassment.</para>
<para>Research shows us that for victim-survivors, the risk of an adverse order for costs is a significant barrier to accessing justice in federal unlawful discrimination court proceedings. Victim-survivors should not be deterred from commencing or running legal proceedings by the risk of an adverse cost order.</para>
<para>Costs protections</para>
<para>The bill would insert a modified 'equal access' costs protection provision into the Australian Human Rights Commission Act. This would achieve the policy objective of recommendation 25 of the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report. This new model would apply to all complaints taken to court under Commonwealth antidiscrimination law, reflecting the public interest in holding people to account for discrimination and harassment. The new model would also apply to representative actions.</para>
<para>The <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report considered that cost reform was required to overcome the deterrent effect that an adverse costs order poses to applicants seeking to commence unlawful discrimination proceedings, and to provide sufficient certainty to parties as to how costs would be awarded. The prospect of an adverse cost order can also magnify existing financial and power disparities between an individual applicant and certain respondents, such as large corporations or well-resourced individuals.</para>
<para>While the government previously sought to introduce a 'soft cost neutrality' model, consistent with the Australian Human Rights Commission's position in its 2021 <inline font-style="italic">Free and </inline><inline font-style="italic">e</inline><inline font-style="italic">qual </inline><inline font-style="italic">p</inline><inline font-style="italic">osition </inline><inline font-style="italic">p</inline><inline font-style="italic">aper</inline>, victim-survivor advocates, community legal centres, members of the legal profession and unions raised concerns with this approach.</para>
<para>After careful consideration and close and comprehensive consultation with a range of organisations and individuals, the government considers that a modifiedequal access model would best achieve the policy objectives of recommendation 25 of the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report.</para>
<para>This bill would ensure that where an applicant is successful in proceedings on one or more grounds, the respondent would pay the applicant's costs. This would operate to protect applicants from an adverse costs order where they are successful in a case. However, if the applicant's unreasonable act or omission caused the applicant to incur costs, the court would not be required to order the respondent to pay those costs.</para>
<para>This bill would prevent a court from ordering an applicant to pay the respondent's costs except in certain circumstances. These circumstances include where the applicant has commenced the proceedings vexatiously or without reasonable cause, or the applicant's unreasonable act or omission caused the other party to incur costs. In addition to this, the court would be able to order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs where the respondent has been successful in the proceedings (meaning all claims against them have been dismissed), the respondent does not have a significant power advantage over the applicant and the respondent does not have significant financial or other resources relative to the applicant.</para>
<para>Significantly, this modified equal access model addresses the power imbalances and resource disparities present in most unlawful discrimination proceedings. At the same time, the modifications to the equal access model recognise that not all respondents in unlawful discrimination proceedings are well-resourced or at a power advantage over the applicant, such as some individuals or small businesses.</para>
<para>Conclusion</para>
<para>The <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report represents a major shift in how public policy and the legislative framework support people who experience sexual harassment and discrimination. The modified equal access cost provision in this bill reflects a considered and balanced approach, which best achieves the policy objectives of recommendation 25 of the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report.</para>
<para>This bill would strengthen Australia's antidiscrimination framework and help achieve its core objective of eliminating all forms of discrimination.</para>
<para>I conclude by thanking the many individuals and organisations, including unions, business groups and legal experts that have engaged with the Attorney-General's Department in the development of this important reform.</para>
<para>I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Attorney-General's Portfolio Miscellaneous Measures Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>13</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7103" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Attorney-General's Portfolio Miscellaneous Measures Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>13</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>13</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The Attorney-General's Portfolio Miscellaneous Measures Bill 2023 will make a range of important amendments to update, clarify and improve the intended operation of legislation administered by the Attorney-General.</para>
<para>The bill will enhance the capacity of the Australian court system to deal with corporate criminal offences and enable a more efficient jury preparation process in the Federal Court of Australia.</para>
<para>The bill will also deliver on the government's election commitment to abolish the Native Title Respondents Scheme.</para>
<para>The bill will:</para>
<list>clarify and improve the operation of the Commonwealth Marriage Celebrants Program;</list>
<list>provide greater accessibility for marrying couples; and</list>
<list>remove the administrative burden on the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia in relation to the arbitration framework in family law matters.</list>
<para>Federal Court criminal jurisdiction</para>
<para>The bill will confer jurisdiction on the Federal Court to hear and determine a range of indictable corporate criminal offences within the responsibility of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. This is an important step in the development of the Federal Court's criminal jurisdiction, which was last significantly expanded in 2009 when jurisdiction was conferred in relation to indictable cartel offences. The Federal Court has considerable expertise in civil, commercial and corporate matters, and is well positioned to deal with this expanded criminal jurisdiction.</para>
<para>This jurisdiction will operate concurrently with the existing jurisdiction of state and territory courts. This will enhance the overall capacity of Australia's court system and support the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to more efficiently prosecute corporate criminal conduct.</para>
<para>In the interests of effective and efficient administration of justice, the bill will also provide for proceedings in relation to corporate crime offences to be transferred to the most appropriate court, having regard to the interests of justice.</para>
<para>Neither the concurrent conferral of jurisdiction nor the transfer provision will interfere with the independence of state and territory courts or the powers of Supreme Court chief justices to manage and allocate cases within their jurisdiction.</para>
<para>To support the efficient resolution of criminal proceedings, the bill will confer jurisdiction on the Federal Court to hear and determine summary offences which arise from substantially the same facts as primary indictable offences being heard in the court. This will avoid the possibility of prosecutors having to commence new proceedings in a state or territory court in relation to the related summary offence.</para>
<para>The Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was consulted in relation to schedule 1 of this bill, as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002 and the National Credit Law Agreement 2009.</para>
<para>Federal Court juries</para>
<para>The bill seeks to improve the efficiency of jury preparation processes by allowing state and territory jury officials to provide a jury panel to the Federal Court. This will be in addition to the existing powers of the sheriff of the Federal Court to prepare a jury panel. To respect the independence of states and territories, the consent of the relevant state or territory will be required before the sheriff can request a state or territory jury official to provide a jury panel.</para>
<para>Repeal section 213A of the Native Title Act 1993</para>
<para>Section 213A of the Native Title Act 1993 will be repealed to give full effect to the government's election commitment to abolish the Native Title Respondents Scheme. Abolition of the Native Title Respondents Scheme was a commitment taken to the 2022 election and will save $6.4 million over four years from 2022-23. Many significant questions of native title law have now been settled and the government considers that many current native title respondents, which are generally commercially viable or sound entities, would have the capacity to deal with native title matters as part of their ordinary business costs.</para>
<para>Amendments to the Marriage Act 1961</para>
<para>The bill will make minor amendments to the Marriage Act 1961 to clarify and improve the operation of the Marriage Celebrants Program and provide greater accessibility for marrying couples.</para>
<para>The amendments will improve accessibility by permanently allowing the option of virtual witnessing for notices of intended marriage. Marrying couples, particularly those in rural and regional areas, will greatly benefit from this change.</para>
<para>To ensure the foundational requirement of consent is safeguarded, a complementary amendment requires authorised celebrants to meet independently and in person with each party to a marriage before they solemnise the marriage.</para>
<para>The reasons for transferring a notice of intended marriage have also been extended to allow for circumstances where the marrying couple want to change their celebrant.</para>
<para>The amendments will clarify that an authorised celebrant can only be registered in one subdivision at any time, and that marriage must be solemnised in the physical presence of an authorised celebrant.</para>
<para>The identity requirements to be provided to an authorised celebrant will be clarified by providing that a statutory declaration can be used to provide identity details if it is impracticable to obtain an official record of birth and the person does not have a current passport.</para>
<para>The Commonwealth Marriage Celebrants Program will be improved by extending the time frame for assessing applications to allow applicants the best opportunity to complete their applications and inserting a power to refund application fees in the Marriage Act where an applicant does not have the mandatory qualification.</para>
<para>Deputy registrars will be able to be appointed to assist the Registrar of Marriage Celebrants to, among other things, process the large volume of applications to become a marriage celebrant.</para>
<para>Arbitration</para>
<para>The bill makes technical amendments to the arbitration framework in the Family Law Act 1975. The amendments will allow parties and arbitrators to make applications for review of an arbitral award or to determine a question of law to both divisions of the Federal Circuit and Family Court. These amendments remove the administrative burden on the Federal Circuit and Family Court arising from the current need to transfer these applications from division 2 to division 1 for determination.</para>
<para>Conclusion</para>
<para>This bill will deliver a range of amendments to legislation administered by the Attorney-General, to provide lasting benefits to Australia's legal system.</para>
<para>And I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>14</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Public Works Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>14</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Approval of Work</title>
            <page.no>14</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr LEIGH</name>
    <name.id>BU8</name.id>
    <electorate>Fenner</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Australian Taxation Office—Proposed fit-out of new leased premises at 15 Sydney Avenue, Barton, ACT.</para></quote>
<para>The Australian Taxation Office is proposing to undertake fit-out works in premises to be leased at 15 Sydney Avenue, Barton, in the Australian Capital Territory. The proposed fit-out will allow for the consolidation of the Australian Taxation Office's Canberra workforce into a single building and will provide a fit-for-purpose workspace. The total cost of the fit-out is estimated to be $125.8 million, excluding GST.</para>
<para>The project was referred to the Public Works Committee on 3 August 2023. Following its inquiry, the committee has recommended that the House of Representatives resolve, pursuant to section 18(7) of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, that it is expedient to carry out the works. Subject to parliamentary approval, the fit-out works are expected to commence in late 2024 and be completed by May 2025.</para>
<para>On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee, ably chaired by the member for Moreton, for undertaking a timely inquiry. I commend the motion to the House.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Public Works Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>15</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Approval of Work</title>
            <page.no>15</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr LEIGH</name>
    <name.id>BU8</name.id>
    <electorate>Fenner</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That, in accordance with the provisions of the <inline font-style="italic">Public Works Committee Act 1969</inline>, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Department of Defence—Edinburgh Defence Precinct mid-term refresh.</para></quote>
<para>The Department of Defence is proposing works at the Edinburgh Defence Precinct in South Australia. The proposed works include new and upgraded engineering services, including the high-voltage power network, fire water, sewer and stormwater, and facilities and infrastructure to support base operational requirements. The estimated cost of the project is $311.9 million excluding GST.</para>
<para>The project was referred to the Public Works Committee on    3 August 2023. Following its inquiry, the committee has recommended that the House of Representatives resolve, pursuant to section 18(7) of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, that it is expedient to carry out the works. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is expected to commence in early 2024 for completion in mid-2027.</para>
<para>On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee, ably chaired by the member for Moreton, for undertaking a timely inquiry.</para>
<para>I commend the motion to the House.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Public Works Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>15</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Approval of Work</title>
            <page.no>15</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr LEIGH</name>
    <name.id>BU8</name.id>
    <electorate>Fenner</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That, in accordance with the provisions of the <inline font-style="italic">Public Works Committee Act 1969</inline>, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: National Capital Authority—Commonwealth Avenue Bridge, Canberra, ACT, Renewal Project.</para></quote>
<para>The National Capital Authority is proposing structural upgrades to the Commonwealth Avenue Bridge in the Australian Capital Territory. The works will extend the bridge design life by 50 years, provide improved access for all users and ensure the bridge complies with industry standards.</para>
<para>The works were referred to the Public Works Committee on  20 June 2023.  Following its inquiry, the committee has recommended that the House of Representatives resolve, pursuant to section 18(7) of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, that it is expedient to carry out the works. The committee has also recommended that the National Capital Authority provide six-monthly written updates to the committee.</para>
<para>Further, the committee has recommended that the National Capital Authority offer a briefing to local and federal members of parliament of the Australian Capital Territory that may be affected by the proposed works and report back to the committee on their progress. As a member representing the ACT, I'm pleased by this recommendation. Subject to parliamentary approval of this project, construction is expected to commence in 2024 and be completed by the 2024-25 financial year.</para>
<para>On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee, ably chaired by the member for Moreton, for undertaking a timely inquiry.</para>
<para>I commend the motion to the House.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Public Works Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>16</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Approval of Work</title>
            <page.no>16</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr LEIGH</name>
    <name.id>BU8</name.id>
    <electorate>Fenner</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That, in accordance with the provisions of the <inline font-style="italic">Public Works Committee Act 1969</inline>, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: National Capital Authority—Scrivener Dam Dissipator Strengthening Project.</para></quote>
<para>The National Capital Authority is proposing to undertake works to strengthen the existing water dissipator structure at the foot of the Scrivener Dam on the Molonglo River in Canberra. The proposed works will attend to structural risks and ensure the ongoing safe operation of the dam. The current estimated cost of the project is $39.8 million excluding GST.</para>
<para>The project was referred to the Public Works Committee on 3 August 2023. Following its inquiry, the committee has recommended that the House of Representatives resolve, pursuant to section 18(7) of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, that it is expedient to carry out the works. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction works will commence in early 2024 and are scheduled to be completed in late 2025.</para>
<para>On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee, ably chaired by the member for Moreton, for undertaking a timely inquiry.</para>
<para>I commend the motion to the House.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>16</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme No. 2) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>16</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7098" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme No. 2) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>16</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>16</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms KEARNEY</name>
    <name.id>LTU</name.id>
    <electorate>Cooper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>16</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>16</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>16</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
    <electorate>Bruce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present <inline font-style="italic">Report </inline><inline font-style="italic">501</inline><inline font-style="italic">:</inline><inline font-style="italic">Annual Report 20</inline><inline font-style="italic">22-23</inline> and a corrigendum to <inline font-style="italic">Report 500: Inquiry into procurement at Services Australia and the NDIA</inline><inline font-style="italic">—</inline><inline font-style="italic">Interim Report</inline>.</para>
<para>Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit is required under the Public Accounts and Audit Committee Act 1951 and other relevant legislation to report annually to the parliament on the work it has undertaken. The committee's work includes reviews of the Australian National Audit Office reports, audit priorities of the parliament and recommendations to the government on the budget estimates for the Australian National Audit Office and the Parliamentary Budget Office.</para>
<para>In 2022-23, the committee met 29 times and held 18 public hearings. The committee commenced eight inquiries and presented five reports as well as undertook a range of other non-inquiry activities pursuant to its statutory duties. The committee's inquiries in 2022-23 included Foreign Affairs and Trade's crisis management arrangements, administration of Commonwealth grants, the 2021-22 Commonwealth financial statements, Defence's major projects reports covering two years, Commonwealth procurement and a special inquiry focusing on procurement irregularities at Services Australia and the NDIA.</para>
<para>I'd like to thank all members who were members of the committee in 2022-23 in this place and the other place for the spirit in which they approached the committee's work and their dedication to its scrutiny function. The committee has a longstanding tradition of operating in a nonpartisan manner, which I can say overwhelmingly we observe. There's the occasional outbreak in a public hearing. The Deputy Chair and I occasionally yell at each other and then smile and move on, so I would like to thank Senator the Hon Linda Reynolds CSC for her collegiate approach as deputy chair and her nerdy attention to audit matters, which I greatly respect.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Wallace</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's the pot calling the kettle black!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We're a good team, member for Fisher.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Nerdy is a compliment in my world. It's a compliment!</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I've got repertoire, as you well know. I'd also like to thank the secretariat for its professionalism in supporting the work of the committee. They deserve lashings of praise for the outstanding quality of the work they do and their professionalism—that's lashings in the Enid Blyton sense, member for Fisher!—and that includes the excellent staff of the Department of the House of Representatives as well as the secondees from the Australian National Audit Office. I commend the report to the House.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Bruce?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm sorry. The Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs is very distracting! By leave—I present executive minutes on reports Nos. 479, 494 and 498 of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. Mercifully, I don't seek leave to make a statement regarding them!</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Intelligence and Security Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>17</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>17</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KHALIL</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
    <electorate>Wills</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's advisory report incorporating additional comments on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023.</para>
<para>Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KHALIL</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I note that the bill will amend the Criminal Code Act 1985 to create offences for publicly displaying prohibited Nazi or Islamic State symbols and trading in items bearing these symbols, to create offences for using a carriage service to deal with violent extremist material, to strengthen the offence of advocating terrorism and to remove the three-year sunsetting of terrorist organisation listings so that listings will operate until a decision is made to proactively delist an organisation. Amongst other things, this bill will implement prohibitions on the public display and trade of hate symbols. The committee agrees that the public display and trade of symbols that represent ideologies of hatred, violence and racism cause significant harm to many Australians. These ideologies are incompatible with Australia's multicultural and democratic society.</para>
<para>The committee notes evidence from the AFP that the Nazi hakenkreuz and the double sig rune are the most prevalent symbols that it observes in its investigations. Further, the AFP emphasised the importance of clearly defining which symbols are prohibited to ensure its officers can enforce criminal laws. In light of this evidence the committee is comfortable with the bill's prohibition of two Nazi symbols—the hakenkreuz, which is also known as the swastika, and the SS sig rune.</para>
<para>The committee had concerns with prohibiting the Islamic State flag, which is generally identified by its reference to the shahada and the seal of the Prophet Mohammed. These are central tenets of the Islamic faith which have been misappropriated by Islamic State. The committee, therefore, recommends that the bill be amended to remove the Islamic State flag from the definition of a prohibited hate symbol. The committee proposes an alternative approach for the government to consider to achieve its policy intent. The committee is of the view that the intent of the bill—prohibiting the public display and trade of symbols that promote extremist ideologies—may be better achieved by an approach that prohibits symbols associated with all proscribed terrorist organisations rather than targeting the Islamic State flag in isolation.</para>
<para>The committee considered much evidence from the militaria and collectables community in relation to the offence of trading of items bearing a prohibited symbol. The committee recommends that these offence provisions do not come into force for a period of six to 12 months so that collectors have a window in which to dispose of part or all of their collections if they so wish.</para>
<para>The committee supports the other measures in the bill to create offences for using a carriage service to deal with violent extremists material, to strengthen the offence of advocating terrorism and to remove the three-year sunsetting of terrorist organisation listings. The committee notes evidence in relation to the carriage service offence that the proposed journalistic purpose defence may not extend to editors, producers and others involved in the news and current affairs reporting process. The committee has, therefore, recommended that the bill be amended to address this issue.</para>
<para>The committee notes that the submission from the joint clerks on the issue that the bill seeks to enable the committee to report its comments and recommendations directly to a minister. The committee considers that this is not appropriate and recommends that the committee only report to the parliament on its activities as per its existing practice. Subject to these amendments, the committee recommends that the bill be passed by parliament.</para>
<para>On behalf of the committee, I extend my thanks to those who participated in the inquiry—all the witnesses who gave evidence at the public hearings and those who provided submissions. I also thank the secretariat for all their hard work on this particular inquiry—and many others of course. In such a short time frame the work they did was exemplary. I extend my thanks to them and to all members of the committee—the deputy chair and members of the committee. It was a difficult bill to work through and a difficult report to work through, but we worked in good faith to try to find very good recommendations that we think will improve this bill and will be in the national interest. I thank opposition members and government members of the committee. I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the House take note of the report.</para></quote>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
    <electorate>Fisher</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Coalition members of the committee support the policy intent of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the recommendations of this report. More than six million Jews were murdered by the Nazis as part of what is known as Hitler's final solution—namely, the extermination of all Jews in Europe during World War II, along with people living with disabilities, homosexuals, people of the Catholic faith and Roma people, among other minorities. The rise of Hitler's Third Reich in his ideological quest that the German people would become the master race remains a stain on the history of humanity, and it will remain ever thus. It is a period of history in the 20th century that, until very recently, was almost universally recognised as an era that must never be repeated.</para>
<para>Antisemitism, both within Australia and abroad, has been on the ascendancy in recent years. To counteract this reprehensible conduct, the coalition introduced a private member's bill on 23 March 2023 in the Senate. Titled the Criminal Code Amendment (Prohibition of Nazi Symbols) Bill 2023, it sought to prohibit the public display of Nazi symbols, without reasonable excuse, in circumstances where the person knew that the symbol was a Nazi symbol. Relevantly, the coalition's private member's bill also expressly prohibited the giving of the Nazi salute. Unfortunately, the government rejected this bill.</para>
<para>The illegal and unprovoked attacks on Israel by Hamas terrorists on 7 October 2023 led to the murder of 1,200 Jews—men, women and children—along with the rape and kidnapping of others. These attacks resulted in the greatest loss of life of Jews in one single day since the Holocaust. These barbaric attacks have seen a further resurgence of antisemitism across many countries. We've seen the most recent event, just this morning, where a Jewish school was prevented from having a jumping castle by a private company in Western Sydney.</para>
<para>The Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and its explanatory memorandum expressly states that the display and trading of prohibited Nazi symbols gives effect to Australia's international human rights obligations. It does that in the explanatory memorandum, and talks about article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; the outlawing of the vilification of persons on national, racial or religious grounds, under article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and the prohibition of discrimination under article 26 of the same convention.</para>
<para>Coalition members of the committee agree these treaties allow Australia to ban the display of symbols where the display incites hatred or discrimination. It follows that, under the Constitution, the Commonwealth has the constitutional power to pass laws implementing those obligations under its external affairs power, under section 51(xxix) of the Australian Constitution.</para>
<para>Since at least the Tasmanian dam case it has been clear that the Commonwealth has constitutional power to legislate in order to give effect to Australia's international obligations. This includes legislating to implement obligations under treaties and other international instruments.</para>
<para>Article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination sets out mandatory obligations to undertake positive measures designed to eradicate incitement to, or acts of, racial discrimination. There are also relevant provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in articles 20 and 26. The bill and its explanatory memorandum expressly refer to these international law obligations and, in so doing, implies that the offences in its bill rely on the treaty implementation aspect of the external affairs power. The bill expressly provides that the Commonwealth has the power to ban the display of Nazi symbols under article 4 of the ICERD. This is made clear in the legislative note incorporated in section 80.2H(3) of the bill. Similarly, legislative notes make clear that section 80.2H(4) is intended to give effect to article 20 of the ICCPR and that section 80.2H(7) gives effect to article 26 of the same convention.</para>
<para>Article 4 of the ICERD does not distinguish between physical behaviours, like the Nazi salute, and the display of physical objects. The UN committee on the elimination of racial discrimination has expressly given guidance to the contrary. Specifically, from time to time the UN committee issues guidance in the form of general recommendations on how the obligations under the ICERD should be interpreted. The UN committee makes clear that conduct which is dealt with under article 4 and other parts of the ICERD does not distinguish between words, whether spoken or written, the display of symbols, like the Nazi hakenkreuz, and public behaviour, like the performance of the Nazi salute. Rather, it covers a range of behaviours that promote racial hatred or race based discrimination.</para>
<para>In short, both the wording of article 4 of the ICERD and the general recommendations from the UN committee support the view that, to the extent the article supports a ban on the display of symbols like flags and banners, it also supports a ban on behaviours like the Nazi salute. In turn, this means that, to the extent the Commonwealth has constitutional power to ban Nazi symbols, relying on article 4 of the ICERD in the way that the bill proposes, it also has power to ban the Nazi salute. A similar rationale applies to article 20 of the ICCPR; likewise in relation to article 26. There are other heads of power to which the Commonwealth has the ability to ban Nazi salutes; I won't go into any great detail on those.</para>
<para>The bill simply does not address gestures like the Nazi salute. The explanatory notes to the bill do not articulate any basis in international or constitutional law to explain why such a gesture could not be prohibited if it were subject to the same limitations that apply to the prohibition on the display or trade of Nazi symbols. On the available information, it is simply not persuasive to argue that the Commonwealth can legislate under the treaty implementation aspect of the external affairs power to prohibit the display and trade of Nazi symbols but cannot prohibit the Nazi salute. Otherwise, to suggest that state and territory police are best placed to enforce a prohibition on the Nazi salute but that federal police can enforce the display and trade of Nazi symbols is nonsensical and without foundation in law or in common sense.</para>
<para>The coalition members of the committee support the bill, but we feel that the government has not gone far enough in addressing the issue—the scourge—of antisemitism, which is furthered by some members of our community when they conduct themselves with gestures such as the Nazi salute. The coalition members on the committee feel very strongly that that should also be prohibited under the bill. I thank members of the secretariat, all those people who provided submissions and my parliamentary colleagues on the committee.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Does the member for Wills wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KHALIL</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
    <electorate>Wills</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the House take note of the report.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>19</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KHALIL</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
    <electorate>Wills</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>19</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Counter-Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023, Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>19</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r7068" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Counter-Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r7071" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Returned from Senate</title>
            <page.no>19</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>19</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Parliamentary Library Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>19</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Membership</title>
            <page.no>19</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Speaker has received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator Waters has been appointed a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the Parliamentary Library.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>20</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Supporting the Transition to Work) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>20</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7099" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Supporting the Transition to Work) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>20</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NEUMANN</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
    <electorate>Blair</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last night I was speaking on this bill, the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Supporting the Transition to Work) Bill 2023, in the Federation Chamber. I will be speaking in continuance today. From 1 January 2024, pending the passage of this bill, all pensioners over age pension age and eligible veterans will have a maximum work bonus limit of $11,800, up from $7,800 currently. All new age pension recipients will have a starting work bonus income bank balance of $4,000 rather than zero to give an added incentive to maintain a connection with the workforce when they first transition to the pension. In addition, existing pensioners who haven't used their one-off $4,000 credit yet will be able to keep it in their income bank and use it at a later date. This builds on the temporary work bonus measure the government announced at the Jobs and Skills Summit. This temporary measure is in place from 1 December 2022 to 31 December 2023.</para>
<para>This announcement was warmly received by pensioners, stakeholders and peak bodies representing senior Australians. Indeed, many senior Australians have explained how the temporary changes to the work bonus have supported them to work more and make a real difference in their lives. That's been my experience as a federal MP when people have come and seen me in my electoral office about the issue.</para>
<para>The bill before the House today has permanently extended these changes from 1 January 2024 to all eligible new recipients over pension age. As a result, more than 195,000 senior Australians who start on a pension every year will be given an added incentive to maintain a connection to the workforce and continue to contribute their skills, talents, knowledge and experience to the labour market. We will be better for that. There is no doubt about that.</para>
<para>On top of this, the ability to undertake meaningful work has been shown to benefit the health and wellbeing of veterans in particular after military service. In opposition, I was pleased to announce our veterans employment policy, which included programs around the recognition of veterans' skills and experience and support for further study and training and support for employers. There's benefits for veterans in the legislation before the House today.</para>
<para>I know very well veterans bring to the civilian workforce so many transferable skills they have gained in the ADF, such as leadership, teamwork and the ability to work under pressure and a strong mission focus, but they can sometimes struggle in the transition to civilian life and the civilian workforce. They are a vastly underutilised resource. Fortunately, many do fall on their feet and end up working in areas like the Public Service, the defence industry, policing or running their own businesses. Measures in this bill will complement the government's veteran and employment policy and help ensure our community continues to benefit from their wealth of experience. There are about 7,000 veterans and their families in my election of Blair. It's one of the largest veteran populations in the country, so I know how important this particular piece of legislation before the chamber today is to them.</para>
<para>More broadly, mature-age workers are a great untapped market, having years of knowledge and skills to offer employers. Giving older Australians, including veterans, the choice to engage in the workforce not only will benefit them by ensuring they keep more of their pension but also is an important step towards addressing Australia's labour shortages. My electorate based around Ipswich and the Somerset region is the one of the fastest growing areas in the country, and we are experiencing severe skill and workforce shortages. Many employers are calling out for experienced workers, particularly in the health and childcare sectors and in hospitality. So it makes sense to offer incentives for older Australians to encourage them back into the workforce to share their skills and abilities.</para>
<para>Importantly, the income bank credit offers flexibility for those who want to take up extra work and work for short periods. There will be plenty of short-term seasonal jobs coming up over the Christmas period and the summer period also. We know a lot of pensioners want flexibility. They don't necessarily want to work all year round. They often prefer seasonal jobs. In a regional and rural electorate like mine, that is really important. There are many seniors who are doing seasonal work and enjoying it because it keeps them mentally and physically active, and their employers value them as mature workers because of their work ethic, commitment, life experience and availability particularly for mentoring, which is a crucial aspect in the workplace. It is a win-win for employers and workers.</para>
<para>I know many people are doing it tough on limited fixed incomes and are feeling, as they age, cost-of-living pressures. This might encourage them to engage in ad hoc work to earn a little bit more cash without their income support taking a hit. The festive season is a great time to pick up part-time or casual work, and the work bonus will help older Australians to stay engaged in the workforce while getting some extra support. These changes broaden their choices and increase flexibility while helping them to break down barriers faced by older Australians who want to be in the workforce.</para>
<para>The changes to the work bonus complement existing arrangements that enable age pensioners to earn an amount of income before their pensions begin to reduce. This includes the income-free area and the tapering arrangements which apply to all types of income, along with the work bonus which is specifically designed to reward pensioners who are working. It provides incentives that mean pensioners with employment income can earn more before their pensions are affected. That's the best way to target additional support for pensioners who want to take on extra work.</para>
<para>Alongside the changes to the work bonus are amendments to double the existing employment income nil rate period to provide support to income support recipients when they take up work. The employment income nil rate period is available to recipients for a range of payments—including JobSeeker payment, youth allowance, Abstudy living allowance, Austudy, parenting payment and pensions—and enables income support recipients to be considered as still receiving their payment when their fortnightly rate is reduced to nil, due to personal or partner income, for the purpose of qualifying for supplementary benefits. This is an important measure. I know it's critical for my electorate and for the many people I've spoken to about these issues. They are sensible, practical, targeted changes, and they complement our economic inclusion measures to strengthen the safety net and tackle cost of living in the May budget. With these, the government's providing additional support to working-age and school payment recipients as well as support through Commonwealth rent assistance and expanded access to parenting payment single. These measures are doing a lot to help Australians of all ages get into the workforce and keep our objective to remove barriers to employment and broaden opportunity for all Australians.</para>
<para>I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to thank all of those who have spoken on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Supporting the Transition to Work) Bill 2023, which implements two of the immediate actions the government is taking to deliver on the objectives of our employment white paper.</para>
<para>The changes in the bill will permanently enhance the pensioner work bonus and extend the employment income nil rate period for those on income support, helping to remove barriers to employment and broaden opportunity. It includes amendments to permanently establish the government's temporary changes to the pensioner work bonus that we announced following the Jobs and Skills Summit, giving older Australians more choice and continued flexibility to participate in the workforce if they would like to.</para>
<para>Through this bill, all new eligible pension recipients will have a starting work bonus balance of $4,000 instead of $0. This will mean that, from the outset of commencing on the pension, new recipients will be able to earn more before their pension rate is affected. In addition, we are also retaining, on a permanent basis, the maximum income bank balance of $11,800 for all eligible pensioners and veterans to accrue in their work bonus income bank. These changes are designed to take effect from 1 January 2024 to ensure there's no gap between the end of the current temporary work bonus measure on 31 December 2023. If this bill does not pass in time, the work bonus will revert to its old settings and around 2.35 million pensioners will see their income bank balance reduced and new pensioners will not get a starting balance of $4,000. With these positive amendments we are giving greater scope to all eligible pensioners to earn more income from work before their pension is reduced or cancelled, and greater choice and increased flexibility to participate in the workforce.</para>
<para>I inform the House that we will not be supporting the member for Deakin's second reading amendment. Of course, we reject entirely the points made in that, including that this government is not acting when it comes to cost-of-living relief. Indeed, this government is absolutely acting in a targeted, responsible way for cost-of-living relief. We also don't believe that the proposal put forward by the member for Deakin will adequately ensure that pensioners are encouraged to re-enter the workforce. Our government has thought very carefully about the importance of the starting balance and the higher income bank, so that it does incentivise, particularly, newer pensioners or pensioners coming onto the system to continue to add their skills, knowledge and expertise to the labour market. Our change, also with the increase to the maximum income bank balance cap, will allow for more flexible use by pensioners about when and how they take up that extra work.</para>
<para>Enhancing the work bonus is a priority for this government. This bill also doubles the employment income nil rate period for income support recipients, from 12 to 24 weeks, from 1 July 2024 and extends access to recipients who begin full-time employment. This change is designed to provide more support for people to get into work without the fear that the social safety net won't be there for them when or if they need it again—in particular, a benefit for people receiving the JobSeeker payment and youth allowance (other). It will enable income support recipients to take up employment while retaining access to benefits such as the healthcare card, childcare subsidy and some supplementary payments, and stay active in the system for longer. This measure is designed to smooth the transition from income support into employment and to encourage income support recipients to take up work opportunities, particularly those that might be ad hoc or short-term roles that could turn into longer term work opportunities. Smoothing the transition from income support into employment is incredibly important.</para>
<para>With the measures in this bill, the government is doing more to help Australians of all ages get into work, consistent with our objectives to remove the barriers to employment and broaden opportunities for all Australians. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Deakin has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendment be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [10:15]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>61</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Archer, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Birrell, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, R. E.</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S.</name>
                  <name>Caldwell, C. M.</name>
                  <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Coleman, D. B.</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Entsch, W. G.</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                  <name>Goodenough, I. R. </name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Hamilton, G. R.</name>
                  <name>Hastie, A. W.</name>
                  <name>Hawke, A. G.</name>
                  <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Howarth, L. R.</name>
                  <name>Landry, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Le, D.</name>
                  <name>Leeser, J.</name>
                  <name>Ley, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Littleproud, D.</name>
                  <name>Marino, N. B.</name>
                  <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                  <name>McIntosh, M. I.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, Z. A.</name>
                  <name>Morrison, S. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, E. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, L. S.</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                  <name>Pearce, G. B.</name>
                  <name>Pike, H. J.</name>
                  <name>Pitt, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, R. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Stevens, J.</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, M. S.</name>
                  <name>Taylor, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Tehan, D. T.</name>
                  <name>Thompson, P.</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                  <name>van Manen, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Vasta, R. X.</name>
                  <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                  <name>Wallace, A. B.</name>
                  <name>Ware, J. L.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Willcox, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                  <name>Wolahan, K.</name>
                  <name>Wood, J. P.</name>
                  <name>Young, T. J.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>79</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Albanese, A. N.</name>
                  <name>Aly, A.</name>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Bandt, A. P.</name>
                  <name>Bates, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Burke, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                  <name>Clare, J. D.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Husic, E. N.</name>
                  <name>Jones, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Katter, R. C.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                  <name>King, C. F.</name>
                  <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Marles, R. D.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, B. P. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Perrett, G. D.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Plibersek, T. J.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Shorten, W. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that this bill be read a second time.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
<para>Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>23</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Bankruptcy Amendment (Discharge from Bankruptcy) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>23</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7109" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Bankruptcy Amendment (Discharge from Bankruptcy) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>23</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Bankruptcy Amendment (Discharge from Bankruptcy) Bill 2023. The coalition will be supporting this bill and, like the other urgent bill introduced into the House this week, the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 2) Bill 2023, we will facilitate its passage through the House.</para>
<para>This bill is intended to preserve the status quo. It addresses a technical issue concerning the dates on which a person is treated as being bankrupt under the law. In order to receive the benefits of bankruptcy, a person must file a document called a statement of affairs. This is a document that sets out the person's financial position to allow a trustee to administer the bankrupt person's estate. The filing of a person's statement of affairs starts the clock on that person's bankruptcy. Under section 140 of the Bankruptcy Act, the person will be discharged from bankruptcy three years after the statement of affairs is filed. Where a person has a status as an undischarged bankrupt, important legal consequences flow. For example, the estate of the undischarged bankrupt will be administered by a trustee and, subject to the limitations set out in the law, the bankrupt's property is divisible amongst creditors. The person only gains the legal protections that go with bankruptcy once that period has commenced, and the trustee only has legal powers to deal with the person's property until it ends. In other words, the dates when a person's period of bankruptcy start and finish are critical.</para>
<para>There are technical and process issues that have important implications for the dates over which a person is bankrupt. Under section 149 of the Bankruptcy Act, the period of bankruptcy will continue for three years and one day after the statement of affairs is filed. The longstanding business practice of the Australian Financial Security Authority, or AFSA, and its predecessors has been to treat a person's statement of affairs as having been filed on the date it is accepted. This allows for back-and-forth between AFSA and the individual concerned to ensure the statement of affairs is complete and adequate. Once AFSA accepts a person's statement of affairs, it records that date on the National Personal Insolvency Index, at which point the period of bankruptcy is triggered. This is a sensible approach that has been widely accepted amongst the community.</para>
<para>What this bill does is ensure that the law reflects the current practice and the settled understanding of most in the sector. It makes it clear that the filing date for a statement of affairs is the date on which it has been accepted by AFSA. This affirms the longstanding practice of AFSA and creates certainty for users of the bankruptcy system. It applies both prospectively and retrospectively to preserve the status quo.</para>
<para>Technically speaking, the amendments ensure the bankruptcy period of those who are or have been bankrupt is consistent with the dates recorded by the official receiver prior to commencement in respect to the bankruptcy. This will provide certainty to everyone who relies on the dates in the national personal insolvency index to ensure their decisions and actions are valid. It benefits bankrupted persons, trustees and others.</para>
<para>There is a carve-out in relation to criminal law: retrospective validation does not apply to criminal proceedings. However, the coalition accepts the government's assurances that this carve-out simply means a person who believes they were wrongly convicted of a crime due to a mistaken understanding as to whether or not they were bankrupt at a particular time will be able to challenge a conviction.</para>
<para>This bill provides certainty and stability to Australia's bankruptcy system, and I commend it to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This government promised transparency but it's not delivering it. This bill, the Bankruptcy Amendment (Discharge from Bankruptcy) Bill 2023, was introduced yesterday and we received our first briefing on it this morning, and now we're being asked to debate and vote on it. This bill may be an urgent bill but there has been no case made by anyone about the supposed urgency of it. It may a technical bill, but we don't have the basis or the time to consider that and seek advice from stakeholders or others. It may be that what has in fact happened is the government just didn't get its act together to draft a bill in time, to give us the usual courtesy of the ability to examine it and get advice on it. When this happened under the previous government, Labor railed against it. When the Liberals came in here and introduced legislation one day and said, 'You've got to vote on it the same day or the next', they said, 'No, we need time to consider it.' And they were right then, but it seems that transparency and the ability for this parliament to scrutinise evaporates as soon as Labor hits government.</para>
<para>The parliament shouldn't have to just take the executive's word for it that something is urgent. We have the right to test that. And the parliament shouldn't just have to take the executive's word for it that something is technical. We should have the right to test that. That's what inquiry processes in this parliament are for. That's what debate is for. That's why, in the ordinary course, when legislation is introduced, there is a period of time for people to go away, read it, take advice, take briefings and then come back with a considered position. But for some reason the government has decided not to do that. You've always got to watch out as you get towards the end of the year in this place, because when you get to the end of the year they all come in here and tell you: 'Something's urgent and it's got to be passed, and we've got to chuck scrutiny overboard. Just take our word for it.' It may well happen a number of other times between now and the end of the year.</para>
<para>If it's the case that this is so urgent, then explain why and tell us why, if it's that urgent, it took until this morning to get a briefing. If it's really that urgent, surely the government must have been drafting the legislation over a period of time. They could have come to us and said: 'Here, it's urgent. We're going to introduce this. Let us give you some information about what's happening to satisfy you.' No, they didn't do that. They just come in here and say: 'We'll tell you about it. Take our word for it that it's urgent and there are going to be no unintended consequences—absolutely none.'</para>
<para>Only this week we had ministers getting up in the House and speaking in favour of amendments they said improved their own legislation because those amendments were discovered during an inquiry process and they said they made the bill better; that's what debate in this place does. But instead we're being asked to accept we should have no right to debate or scrutinise legislation. The opposition may be happy with that; they may have got earlier briefings and been brought into the tent earlier on this, I don't know. Maybe they've got access to information the rest of us haven't. The penny doesn't have seemed to have dropped with Labor that the two-party system is over. There is a bigger crossbench in this parliament than there has been in any other parliament. When the Liberals and Labor sit down and do a deal, they are excluding the third of the country that have said they want third voices in here, in part to ensure integrity in this place and to ensure deals are not done that adversely affect people.</para>
<para>We on the crossbench have the right to consider government legislation, and if we'd had the opportunity to consider this piece of legislation we might well have agreed with the Attorney that it's technical legislation that is urgent, and we may have been in a position to support it. But, instead, Labor has deprived us of the opportunity to scrutinise their legislation, and they're just asking us to take their word for it.</para>
<para>It may well be that actually what is going on is revealed in the next bill, because the next bill—in the limited time that we've had to look at it—is retrospective. It retrospectively changes the laws of this country back to 2013, and the government is just asking us to take their word for it that it's all okay. That should raise huge alarm bells, and, again, I'll speak to this more in the next bill, because that may be legislation that people are prepared to support. But instead we get this Christmas Eve special from the government that there's legislation, some of which is retrospective, and that we've just got to take their word that it's technical.</para>
<para>I want to ask Labor this: why are the members of the crossbench being denied the usual opportunity to scrutinise this legislation and go and get stakeholder feedback? Why do we not have the capacity to go and check, understand and look at a review of the legislation or an inquiry into the legislation, seek our own advice and satisfy ourselves about what the government has said? No basis has been provided for it, so we're not in a position to support passage of this bill or the other bill today, and we reserve our position as the Greens in the Senate. I say very, very clearly to the government that the crossbench has a right to scrutinise legislation and to debate it. In the absence of a compelling case of urgency—which could have been made to us well before this week, because I'm sure the legislation wasn't drafted yesterday morning—you could have made this case to us well before this week. In the absence of a compelling case for urgency, every single member of the crossbench has as much right as any other member of this parliament to consider legislation.</para>
<para>If you want to know why the two-party system is in decline, I say to the government, through the Deputy Speaker, to have a look at your processes. Labor's vote went backwards at the election. They still won enough seats to just crawl into majority government, but their vote went backwards. We now have a situation in this country where less than a third of the country voted for the government, a bit more than a third of the country voted for the opposition and a third voted for someone else. Part of the reason for that is that people are sick of the public being kept in the dark and just told to accept what the government tells them and accept it at face value. If you want to start returning some integrity into politics then start with the processes of this place and give everyone in this place time to debate and consider legislation.</para>
<para>I repeat the point that it may well be that this legislation is non-controversial, and had the government just done what they do with every other piece of legislation—introduce it, give us time to consider it and time debate it and then bring on a vote—it may well have got the unanimous support of parliament. But I don't know, and we won't know, because the government has deprived us of an opportunity. Labor promised transparency, and they're not delivering it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Bradfield for his contribution to the debate on the Bankruptcy Amendment (Discharge from Bankruptcy) Bill 2023 , but it is really difficult to thank the member for Melbourne for the puffed up indignation we have just had on display, with not one single word about the content of the actual bill that's before the parliament. To make the point clear about this puffed up indignation, what we've heard from the member for Melbourne is a complaint about some imagined deficiency in process. Other members of the crossbench, not including the member for Melbourne, attended the briefing provided by the government and they were satisfied as to the need for this legislation.</para>
<para>I will now go to the actual content of the legislation. Perhaps I could invite the member for Melbourne to have an actual look at what the bill does. The bill amends the Bankruptcy Act 1966 to accurately reflect the way automatic bankruptcy discharge dates have been calculated by the Australian Financial Security Authority and its predecessors for over 30 years. The government is committed to ensuring that there is legal certainty for those who have engaged with the bankruptcy system over this 30-year period. The retrospective application of the bill ensures that past decisions are validated. It confirms the position people already believed themselves to be in and allows for any orders of the court to be upheld. The bill will also—and this is prospective—allow the official receiver to assess a statement of affairs for adequacy.</para>
<para>Bankrupt persons are usually automatically discharged after three years and one day after the filing of their statement of affairs. Historically, in most cases, the Australian Financial Security Authority, in its capacity as official receiver, has calculated the discharge date from the acceptance date of a bankrupt person's statement of affairs. In a majority of cases, the statement of affairs is accepted on the day it's filed. However, there have been instances where the date of acceptance was later than the date of filing. Where this has occurred, it will have impacted on the calculation of a person's automatic discharge date. In practice, persons filing for bankruptcy may require assistance from the Australian Financial Security Authority to provide an adequate statement of affairs. Rather than rejecting any inadequate statement of affairs, the debtor or bankrupt person is provided with an opportunity to provide further information. This process is designed to support debtors when engaging with the system.</para>
<para>The provisions contained in this bill provide current and future Australian bankrupt persons certainty over their automatic discharge date and allow the Australian Financial Security Authority to continue its practice of assessing bankruptcy applications for adequacy in order to assist with the effective administration of bankruptcy statements. The new provisions will require the official receiver to either accept or refuse to accept a statement of affairs within 14 days of receiving it. The time frame will ensure decisions are made within a reasonable and transparent time. The bill will also ensure that the bankruptcy period of those who are or have been affected by this issue is consistent with the dates recorded by the official receiver prior to the commencement in respect to the bankruptcy. These amendments will validate decisions made before the commencement of the bill in reliance on those dates. The bill provides certainty for those who are currently in or have previously entered the bankruptcy system over the past 30 years and clarifies the process of accepting a statement of affairs.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the bill be read a second time.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">A division having been called and the bells having been rung—</inline></para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the <inline font-style="italic">Votes </inline><inline font-style="italic">and </inline><inline font-style="italic">Proceedings</inline>.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>26</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll respond very briefly to two matters that the Attorney just referred to in his summing-up speech in relation to the Bankruptcy Amendment (Discharge from Bankruptcy) Bill 2023. Firstly, the Attorney knows full well that a member of the Greens was in attendance at the briefing, as I, in fact, referred to, and it was our relevant spokesperson. So, for there to be some implication that we hadn't been briefed—I made exactly the opposite comment.</para>
<para>Secondly, I note that, despite an invitation, nothing in the Attorney's summing-up speech went to the urgency of this, in terms of why it is that members of the crossbench are being asked to vote on a bill which we only got briefed about this morning and which has been on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline> for about 12 hours. Transparency matters in this place. If there was a compelling case for urgency, the Attorney could have made it, and he chose not to. We repeat the point, especially as we head towards the end of the year, that, when legislation is introduced into this place, every one of us here as members of the crossbench are entitled to the time to consider legislation and take advice on it. Who knows? We may well have ended up supporting it, had we been given that time.</para>
<para>I repeat that we are going to oppose the rushed passage of this bill through the House and reserve our position in the Senate. Next time, I implore the government to treat the crossbench with a bit more respect and give us time to consider this legislation.</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Members on my right interjecting not from their seats—it is highly disorderly.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I say to the Leader of the Australian Greens party, that, as I understand it, two bills were briefed to members of the crossbench this week by me and by representatives of my office. On the other bill, which is the bill that is next on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>, a parliamentary representative of the Australian Greens party did attend, but not for this bill—the Bankruptcy Amendment (Discharge from Bankruptcy) Bill 2023—where a member of staff was sent. For the member for Melbourne to stand up and complain when the Greens party did not bother to send a member of parliament for the briefing that was offered is a bit rich.</para>
<para>But I'll just say on this bill: the discharge from bankruptcy bill is directed at providing certainty and order in the Australian bankruptcy system—an important part of our insolvency law. For the Australian Greens to not make one single comment about the content of the bill and to make this complaint as they have about process simply shows the irresponsibility of their party and their lack of interest in real legislative work in this place. After this bill is passed, as I expect it to be, if they are really interested in it, I'm happy to talk to them anytime about it. But I will say again: this bill is to provide order and certainty to all involved in the Australian bankruptcy system. It's an entirely appropriate use of the processes of this parliament, and members of the Greens party should reflect on their own conduct.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 2) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>27</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7108" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 2) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>27</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 2) Bill. The coalition will be supporting this bill, and we will facilitate its passage through the parliament.</para>
<para>There are three schedules to this bill. Schedule 1 is about parole. It makes technical amendments to clarify the Attorney-General's decision-making powers in relation to parole under part 1B of the Crimes Act. At present, there is a mandatory requirement for the Attorney-General to make a parole decision in relation to a federal sentence before the end of a non-parole period. However, sometimes it is impossible to meet this obligation. This can happen in two circumstances. First, it can happen when an offender is eligible for parole immediately following sentencing because of time already served while held on remand. Second, it can happen when an offender's sentence is reduced on appeal. When this happens, the legislation is unclear on what the Attorney's obligations are and on the legal consequences that flow from the inability to make a parole decision within the stipulated time frame. This schedule puts it beyond doubt that the Attorney can still make a decision to grant or refuse parole in these cases.</para>
<para>Schedule 2 of the bill is about drug importation. It changes the way we make regulations to list substances as border-controlled plants, drugs and precursors. Currently, to deal effectively with drug importation, we need appropriate powers under the Criminal Code and the Customs Act and appropriate cross-references under the Defence Force Discipline Act. The changes to the regulation-making powers allow substances to be listed in a consistent and flexible way that lines up across all three acts. Importantly, the changes also allow the government to say that some substances are only treated as serious drugs or precursors for specific and narrowly-defined purposes.</para>
<para>Specifically the provisions of schedule 2 allow a substance to be listed as a border-controlled plant, drug or precursor only in relation to specific offences in part 9.1 of the Criminal Code or elements of those offences. As we understand it, the government's intent is to ensure that we are able to deal effectively with dual-use precursors. These are substances which have a legitimate use but can also be turned into illegal drugs. An example is 1,4-butanediol, which has a range of legitimate uses as a solvent and in the manufacture of plastics. However, it is also a precursor and substitute for the drug gamma-hydroxybutyrate, also known as GHB or liquid ecstasy. These chemicals are imported legitimately under the Industrial Chemicals Act 2019, but it is clear that more action is needed to ensure that the import of these dual-use precursors is effectively disrupted at the border.</para>
<para>We understand that the government intends to use these amended regulation-making powers to make targeted regulations that line up with the licensing system under the Industrial Chemicals Act. The government has advised the coalition that it intends to use these regulation-making powers to ensure that unlawful imports are treated as an offence under the Criminal Code, but, by targeting the regulations appropriately, it will ensure it does not inadvertently criminalise legitimate actions of licensed businesses that follow the rules. The coalition believes this is a sensible amendment that allows our drug laws to keep up with changes to the importation of precursors by serious and organised crime groups.</para>
<para>Schedule 3 of the bill deals with the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, the ACIC. The ACIC is one of our premier organisations that brings together law enforcement, national security policy and regulatory agencies to combat serious and organised crime. The provisions of this schedule relate to technical processes of the ACIC board and follow changes commenced under the coalition and continued by Labor in government. These technical and validation provisions preserve the status quo and ensure there is no legal doubt about decision-making processes undertaken by the ACIC, so that it can continue to combat serious and organised crime. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Again, the government, Labor, promised transparency, and is coming to the House with legislation that affects criminal or criminal related law that has retrospective effect, and is asking the House to debate it and vote on it in less than a day. This government promised transparency, and it's delivering contempt.</para>
<para>When legislation is brought to this place—especially legislation that has retrospective effect—that deals with criminal matters, that is a very serious piece of legislation. Every member of this parliament is entitled to the time to consider that legislation and decide whether to support it or not, or whether to seek amendments to it. We know that, when you have rushed legislation, especially when it is dealing with criminal matters, there is a huge potential for unintended consequences.</para>
<para>What we've got here is a piece of legislation, the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 2) Bill 2023, that was introduced yesterday. The Greens were briefed on it this morning for the first time, and now, before noon, we are being asked to vote on it—without a chance to go and seek advice or to have it go through the inquiry process, or to consider whether to make any amendments, or to consider whether to support it or oppose it.</para>
<para>What we do have in the limited time that we've had to consider this is an explanatory memorandum that, amongst other things, says that what this bill is going to do is operate as far back as 2013 to retrospectively validate actions of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission that, by implication, may be illegal. In other words, what this bill has been inviting us to do in the time that we've had to consider it is draw an implication that unlawful action potentially involving government agencies has been taking place in the criminal sphere for a period of time. If that is the case, the Attorney should tell us about it. If there's a wrong that is sought to be remedied by this bill, then tell us what has happened.</para>
<para>Has a government agency been acting in a way that is potentially unlawful? Is the government in receipt of advice that potentially unlawful activity has been happening? If that is the case, we are entitled to know about it. That may go some way towards persuading people to do it. It may go some way towards raising some questions about whether further amendments are required. It may go some way towards asking us whether there are questions about how intelligence or information has been gathered. At the moment we're in the dark, and a Labor government that has promised us transparency shouldn't have us in the dark. This is serious. When we're being asked to pass retrospective legislation, firstly, we should know why and, secondly, we should have the chance to go and get advice about it.</para>
<para>I imagine the Attorney-General may rise to speak about this. It's an opportunity to explain whether it's the case that the government is now in receipt of advice that something wrong has been happening. Is it the case that there are real question marks over past practices of any government agency? Asking this parliament to pass retrospective legislation is a very serious thing, and we want to know why we're being asked to do it. Secondly, explain why we're being asked to do it with less than 24 hours to consider our position.</para>
<para>Every member of this place has the right to scrutinise legislation, but that is especially important for those of us who sit on the crossbench. It may well be that the government briefed the opposition on this some time ago and that the opposition knows exactly what this is all about. That may well be the case. But that's not what the government has done, certainly, with the Greens. The briefing that we've received on it has raised questions that I'm raising here in this place today, so we're just not in a position to be able to say whether we support the legislation, and we shouldn't be put in this position.</para>
<para>No member of this parliament should be put in the position of being asked to vote on retrospective legislation that affects a government agency without being told why or without being given the chance to consider it. And to the Attorney I say again: if you want to get all of the parliament on board, brief us with enough time to consider the legislation and you may well then get unanimous passage of this legislation; I just don't know. But what we have to say no to is this process that we just have to take at face value—that when the government says something is urgent it is urgent and that when the government says something is technical it is technical.</para>
<para>The two-party system is in decline in this country. Labor's vote went backwards at the election. Less than a third of the country voted for the government, just a bit more than a third voted for the opposition and a third voted for someone else. Why? It is because they want more transparency and integrity in government. That starts with how this place works. There's a reason that we've got the biggest crossbench that you've ever seen—people want to understand what governments are doing, and people want to understand what deals the Liberal and Labor parties are striking. They want scrutiny of it, and they're entitled to it. There can be no more serious time to bring that scrutiny than when we're being asked to pass retrospective legislation.</para>
<para>So I make the point that we've not been presented with a case for urgency that says why the usual processes should be circumvented. For people who aren't as familiar with this place, the usual process is: a bill gets introduced; you get time to take it back to your colleagues, to your party room, to your caucus, and have a discussion about it; and you've got time to get advice from experts and work out whether you want to support it, vote against it or try and seek some amendments to it. Today, Labor has deprived us of that opportunity, intentionally. They have intentionally deprived us of the opportunity to sit down together as Greens to spend at least 24 hours getting our heads around the legislation, asking questions, seeking advice and having the capacity to talk about amendments. It has been rushed, with no basis for urgency, and we've just been asked to take it at face value.</para>
<para>If there's some suggestion—and I just don't know, because the government's not being transparent about this—that agencies have done something wrong, then tell us. If there's some suggestion, then tell us so that we can understand what we're voting on. If there's some urgent reason why retrospective legislation has to be passed, then tell us. If there's some reason why this had to be kept secret from the crossbench members of the parliament until yesterday, then tell us. Tell us why these had to be kept secret until yesterday, because I'm sure this bill wasn't drafted yesterday morning. It was introduced yesterday without any prior briefing about what is required. We were briefed this morning and then just asked to accept that it's all technical and not to worry about it. That is not the role of this parliament. The role of this parliament is not to just accept everything the executive government says. I know that, when Labor was in opposition, they railed against the coalition doing this kind of thing. They railed against legislation being rammed through that had serious consequences and potential unintended effects. Now that they're in government, they're just doing exactly the same. They're just doing exactly the same.</para>
<para>So we can't support this bill's passage through the House, and we reserve our position in the Senate. I hope that the government can put this through the usual processes where we can have a look at it. Who knows? We may end up supporting it. In the time that we've had available to look at it—I've referred to the explanatory memorandum—in the time that we've had available to digest it, it has raised questions. It raises questions. I'll conclude on this: when we're talking about retrospective legislation in the criminal sphere, why is it that the bar is all of a sudden lowered now that Labor's in government and it's okay to rush a bill with retrospective application in a criminal sphere through, without going through the usual processes?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I do thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on this bill. The bill will update, improve and clarify the intended operation of key provisions in the Crimes Act 1914, the Criminal Code Act 1995 and the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002. These amendments are required to support the proper administration of justice and to combat serious and organised crime. Just to remind honourable members, as I said in introducing this legislation, in the last year for which accurate statistics are available, 2020-21, the Australian Institute of Criminology has estimated that serious and organised crime cost the Australian community over $60 billion. Serious and organised crime is a major threat to our country. It's the reason why the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission was established. It's the reason why the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission continues to work every day with state and territory police forces and with the Australian Federal Police to undertake the vital work that they have in combating serious and organised crime.</para>
<para>The amendments to the Crimes Act in schedule 1 of the bill will provide certainty that the Attorney-General has unambiguous authority to make parole order decisions for federal offenders even if an offender's non-parole period has expired. It's a simple but useful change to the Crimes Act.</para>
<para>The amendments in schedule 2 of the bill will support law enforcement agencies to manage the threat of serious and organised crime by enhancing import controls on chemicals that are commonly used by serious and organised crime groups to manufacture illicit drugs. These amendments will ensure that the importation of these substances by entities not registered with the Australian Industrial Chemicals Introduction Scheme will be subject to appropriate criminal penalties and will be subject to seizure by the Australian Border Force.</para>
<para>Finally, the amendments in schedule 3 will ensure that the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission can continue to undertake its vital statutory function to combat serious and organised crime in Australia and keep the Australian community safe.</para>
<para>I would say to the member for Melbourne that it is standard practice for governments to make amendments to acts such as this to ensure that agencies can undertake their vital statutory functions.</para>
<para>In conclusion, the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 2) Bill 2023 will assist law enforcement and the intelligence agencies in their vital work of protecting the Australian community.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the Attorney-General. The question is that this bill be now read a second time.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">A division having been called and the bells having been rung—</inline></para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the <inline font-style="italic">Votes and Proceedings</inline>.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>30</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Federal Courts Legislation Amendment (Judicial Immunity) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>30</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7097" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Federal Courts Legislation Amendment (Judicial Immunity) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>30</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>This bill would confirm that the same form of judicial immunity that applies to judges of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) also applies to judges of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2).</para>
<para>Background</para>
<para>The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA) (Division 2) is Australia's largest federal court. It has jurisdiction to hear a broad range of family law, migration and general federal matters. It is the single point of entry for all federal family law disputes.</para>
<para>The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) is also the only inferior court at federal level. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1), and each of the other federal courts, are superior courts.</para>
<para>The expression 'inferior court', it is important to note, is not a pejorative. It is a legal term of art. The common law has long recognised distinctions between the jurisdiction and powers of superior courts and inferior courts. In the recent decision of Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta, a justice of the Federal Court of Australia drew on centuries of common law to conclude that judges of the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 2) have more narrow protection under the doctrine of judicial immunity than do their counterparts in superior courts, including the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 1).</para>
<para>Judicial immunity protects judges from personal liability for actions done as part of their judicial functions. Judges must be able to decide matters before them in accordance with their assessment of the facts and their understanding of the law without the threat of being personally sued.</para>
<para>Following the decision of the Federal Court, there is uncertainty as to the scope of judicial immunity that applies to judges of the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 2). The common law concerning what judicial immunity is enjoyed by inferior court judges is highly complex, spanning centuries of case law.</para>
<para>This uncertainty is undesirable, and it arises because the parliament has not previously clarified the scope of immunity that applies to Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 2) judges.</para>
<para>This bill would resolve that uncertainty.</para>
<para>It is important to note that this bill does not condone misbehaviour or inappropriate conduct by any judge.</para>
<para>Judges can be held accountable in a number of ways.</para>
<para>Most obviously and most commonly, judicial errors can be corrected through appeal.</para>
<para>Complaints about judges can be made to the chief judicial officer of the relevant court.</para>
<para>In extraordinary cases, under section 72 of the Constitution, a judge can be removed by the Governor-General in Council on an address from both Houses of the Parliament in the same session, praying for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.</para>
<para>A parliamentary commission under the Judicial Misbehaviour and Incapacity (Parliamentary Commissions) Act 2012 can be established to investigate a specified allegation of misbehaviour or incapacity in relation to a judge.</para>
<para>Effect of legislative amendments</para>
<para>The approach in the bill is simple. It would extend the more settled and broader common law immunity that applies to a judge of a federal superior court to judges of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2). This achieves the aim of providing clarity, without unduly attempting to codify the scope of judicial immunity for federal judges. It will also allow for the doctrine to be refined over time by future decisions of the courts.</para>
<para>The consequential amendments in the bill will also ensure that there is no confusion about the immunity afforded to arbitrators, mediators, registrars and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Chief Executive Officer after the change to Division 2 judges' immunity. There is no change to the existing policy that certain officers undertaking particular quasijudicial functions receive the same immunity as would a judicial officer exercising the same function.</para>
<para>The bill would operate prospectively, meaning that it would not affect any matters currently before the courts or any causes of action that may have already accrued.</para>
<para>Conclusion</para>
<para>Judicial immunity plays an important role in upholding the integrity and independence of the judiciary. By providing judges of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) with legislative clarity about what protections are available to them when they exercise their judicial functions, this bill will uphold the independence of the judiciary, encourage the finality of legal proceedings and support the timely and effective administration of justice. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Federal Courts Legislation Amendment (Judicial Immunity) Bill 2023. This bill goes to a matter of fundamental importance, the independence of the judiciary, which should be axiomatic in our legal system. Judicial independence is guaranteed by a few key pillars. First and foremost, we guarantee independence through security of tenure and remuneration, concepts dating back to at least the act of settlement but finding more modern expression in chapter 3 of the Constitution. But, perhaps more relevantly in light of recent events, independence is also guaranteed by judicial immunity from civil suit.</para>
<para>As members would no doubt have seen, in August this year Justice Wigney handed down a decision in the Federal Court of Australia in the matter of Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta. That is the decision in which Judge Vasta, a judge in Division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, was found personally liable in respect of a contempt declaration and related order that he had made. I don't wish to express a view, one way or another, about the merits of the judgement, or about the circumstances that led to the judgement being made. That would not be appropriate in this place, particularly when the decision is subject to appeal. What has very quickly become apparent, however, is that the judgement has had immediate and profound implications for the immunity of a vast number of judicial officers throughout Australia. It has had systemic impacts. It affects the way judges do business and, as a consequence, it flows through directly to the Australians who come before our courts.</para>
<para>The Stradford decision has been appealed, and the appeal process will take its course. However, appeals are inherently uncertain and may take some time. In the meantime, the judgement is having an impact on our legal system as a whole, and it is right that we address it. Liability based on jurisdictional issues is not the way forward. The heart of the problem created by the Stradford decision is this: judicial immunity may be lost where it is found that a judge acted without, or in excess of, jurisdiction, even if they did so unknowingly or in good faith. It is worth emphasising that last point, which has been expressly acknowledged by the government. Immunity could be lost if the judge exceeded their jurisdiction, even if they did so unknowingly or in good faith.</para>
<para>As any legal practitioner knows, jurisdiction is a complex, uncertain and contested issue. The immunity of judges in division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court, and other similar courts, has never previously been in doubt, but what the Stradford decision did was to link that immunity to a complex, uncertain and contested issue of jurisdiction. This was an issue specific to division 2. It did not affect division 1 of the court or the Federal Court of Australia. But, for our division 2 judges, it put one of the fundamental principles of our justice system—judicial independence—on an uncertain footing. That is not good for the integrity of our courts or the Australians that appear before them. As the President of the Australian Bar Association, Peter Dunning KC, stated:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Judicial immunity is an important institutional requirement in facilitating the fearless administration of justice by judges across Australia. When occasions arise, such as the present, that in a significant way impact the understanding of its boundaries, it is always appropriate to consider whether the immunity remains appropriately calibrated to securing that fearless independence.</para></quote>
<para>Since the Stradford judgement was handed down, the coalition has observed a sense of grave disquiet over the prospect of judges being found personally liable by a party to a case because of the way it proceeded through the court. That is not to say that judges must not be held accountable for their conduct if they transgress. That is a given. Rather, it is to acknowledge that judges are human. Since the Stradford judgement was handed down, the coalition concern has been that putting judges at risk of personal liability is not the right way forward.</para>
<para>Australians should be proud of their judges, and I want to acknowledge the judges in division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The judges of division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court are the backbone of our judiciary. They are the frontline judges, the ones who decide the overwhelming majority of cases that directly affect Australian families. They are hardworking, talented and highly skilled. They strive to decide the case before the court, on its merits, without fear or favour. That is not a behaviour we should seek to change. It is part of the essential character of our justice system that we should seek to preserve, but it is precisely the thing which, in light of the Stradford decision, is potentially at risk. That is the issue we're now grappling with, because, as we all know, the prospect of liability is something that tends to change behaviour. Anyone who has faced the prospect of personal liability for conduct in their professional capacity knows that merely the threat of a claim can have a powerful impact. Even the knowledge that an avenue of a challenge is available can be influential.</para>
<para>We know that litigation casts a long shadow. It can be launched for many reasons. Quite apart from the financial and professional burden of an adverse finding on liability, the process itself can be a heavy weight to bear, even for those who are highly experienced at the law. We cannot rule out that a judge might subconsciously take the prospect of liability into account in forming a view on a matter before them. The coalition does not say that this is likely. The coalition does not say that parties or their legal representatives would seek to exploit this, but, as I've said before, judges are human and, as the coalition has been saying for some time, the Stradford decision should be the catalyst for us to carefully examine the policy settings to see if they are right.</para>
<para>That is why the coalition has been calling for this bill to be brought forward for the last two months. The shadow Attorney-General, Senator Cash, wrote to the Attorney-General on 15 September, around two weeks after the Stradford decision, to set out our concerns. She said: 'I am concerned that the judgement may have profound implications for the administration of justice in our country, particularly in division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. Immunity from suit serves a critical role in ensuring that a judicial officer can make decisions based on the merits of the case and the application of law. It allows a judge to perform their role free from external influences, such as a fear of personal liability. Members of the judiciary and the legal profession have raised concerns that, following the judgement, there is now significant uncertainty around the limits of judicial immunity, with potential adverse consequences for our legal system. In your capacity as first law officer I ask that you urgently progress options to restore certainty to our judiciary, whether legislative or non-legislative. We would, of course, work constructively with the government in relation to any legislation you bring forward, to ensure that judges are able to exercise their judicial functions without fear or favour.'</para>
<para>There was no immediate response to this letter. In the depths of that silence, the systemic impacts of the Stradford decision started to play out in real time. By late September the <inline font-style="italic">Australian</inline> newspaper was reporting that matters had been put on hold or transferred to other courts because of uncertainties around jurisdictional questions and the impact on division 2 judges. By October it was reported that the Federal Circuit and Family Court had asked the Attorney-General's office to intervene, but from that office—silence. We continued to press the issue. Just two weeks ago, during a Senate estimates hearing, the court gave very disturbing evidence about the immediate and adverse impacts on litigants with cases before division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. They told the Senate that cases were being delayed or transferred because of the jurisdictional uncertainties now in play—delay and transfer. We expect that the vast majority of those cases are family law cases, meaning additional costs and time for Australians going through some of the most painful, sad and difficult times in their lives.</para>
<para>Senator Cash wrote to the Attorney-General again on 26 October to press for urgent action. She said: 'I remain deeply concerned about the potential implications for judicial immunity and the administration of justice in our country. Evidence given at Senate estimates earlier this week has made clear that, in light of the Stradford decision on 30 August 2023, the need for action is urgent. It is plain that there are very limited options available to manage the risk to affected judges. For example, the registrar of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia gave evidence that where, there is uncertainty around the potential for personal liability in division 2 of that court, a matter may be transferred either to division 1 or to the Federal Court of Australia. However, it is unclear what additional costs and delays this type of transfer could inflict on the parties, nor whether it could resolve concerns around indemnity and insurance cover for the judges. The registrar was explicit that this type of management action is not a long-term measure that they would want to adopt as a fix. I am aware that the Stradford decision is currently subject to appeal. However, as you know, the outcome of any appeal is uncertain and may not be known for a very long time. As first law officer with responsibility for the administration of justice in our country, I urge you to address this issue as an immediate priority.' The coalition has not been alone in making these calls. The Australian Bar Association, the Law Council, judicial officers and the legal profession have all been calling for these changes. We are pleased the Attorney-General has finally listened to the calls we have been making alongside so many others and brought this bill to the chamber.</para>
<para>The bill makes the very simple fix we've been calling for. It puts Division 2 judges on the same footing as their counterparts in Division 1 and likely every other superior court established under Commonwealth legislation. It extends those protections to arbiters, registrars and mediators in appropriate circumstances.</para>
<para>This is a good, simple, sensible and overdue change, and I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Federal Courts Legislation Amendment (Judicial Immunity) Bill 2023 will make an important amendment to ensure judicial independence and support access to justice in our largest and busiest federal court, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Division 2. The bill will achieve this by clarifying the scope of judicial immunity for judges of this court. The common law doctrine of judicial immunity serves a critical purpose, and it is important that its scope and operation are clear. Where there is potential for uncertainty or inconsistency in its application, it's appropriate for legislation to provide that clarity. It's essential for our justice system that judges are free to decide matters before them in accordance with their assessment of the facts and their understanding of the law without the threat of being sued. This bill will uphold the independence of the judiciary, encourage the finality of legal proceedings and support the timely and effective administration of justice.</para>
<para>The bill will not mean judges are unaccountable. The bill will not affect a person's right to challenge judicial decisions through the appeal process or the ability of parliament to consider the removal of a judge from office under our Constitution on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. The prospective nature of the bill will not impact on matters currently before the courts or any causes of action that may have already accrued.</para>
<para>The amendments the bill will make are simple. The bill will provide that judges of Division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court have the same immunity as judges of Division 1 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court. By extending the more settled and broader common law immunity that applies to a judge of a federal superior court to judges of Division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court, the bill will achieve the aim of providing clarity but will allow room for the common law doctrine to be refined over time. The bill will also make consequential amendments to four provisions of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 and the Family Law Act 1975. These consequential changes will ensure that, following the change to Division 2 judges' immunity, there is no confusion about what protections apply to certain individuals who are exercising quasi-judicial functions.</para>
<para>In conclusion, judicial immunity ensures that judges are able to make independent decisions free from any external influence outside of the law itself. In this way, judicial immunity is about protecting everyone who comes to a court. It does not mean that judges are unaccountable, and this amendment is not about protecting the personal interests of judges. We are all entitled to a fair and public hearing by an impartial court, and clarity about the scope of judicial immunity is an important prerequisite to achieving this. This bill will provide necessary clarity about judicial immunity and, in turn, assure the timely, efficient and effective administration of justice.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>33</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>33</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7072" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>33</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Bradfield moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. Subsequent amendments have been moved by honourable members. The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mayo be agreed to.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms KEARNEY</name>
    <name.id>LTU</name.id>
    <electorate>Cooper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Albanese Labor government was elected on a promise to get wages moving. To do that, we had to close loopholes that were undermining wages and conditions, because for 10 years it was the policy of those opposite when they were in government to do the exact opposite, to leave those loopholes gaping and to make sure that wages went nowhere. This is what this set of workplace relations reforms is all about—fixing that. It contains four main elements: cracking down on the labour hire loophole that's used to undercut pay and conditions, criminalising wage theft, properly defining 'casual work' so that casuals aren't being exploited and making sure gig workers aren't being ripped off.</para>
<para>We announced all four of these policies while we were in opposition more than two years ago, and we took them to the Australian people at the election. They endorsed it when they are elected an Albanese Labor government. But we don't only have a mandate for this legislation; we actually have a responsibility.</para>
<para>These are not radical changes. They're not complicated. If we listen to all the speeches from those opposite, they would have us believe that this is tying the entire economy up in knots. I give our business community a lot more credit than they do. The business community are not stupid. They can deal with these changes that are not complicated and will benefit their workers and, ultimately, the Australian economy, and that means businesses will do better. All we're doing is making the current law work effectively. Closing labour hire loopholes will simply require an employer to pay rates that it has already negotiated and agreed to with its own workers. These are rates of pay that are already set for work being done. They don't have to recalculate, they don't have to change anything, they just have to pay the wages that they agreed to pay. That is not complicated.</para>
<para>Our employee-like reforms simply require workers to have some minimum standards, benchmarked against existing award rates. Those rates are there. They're easy to find, they're well-known right across the business community and they are not hidden in some deep, dark box that will take pages and pages and pages to find. They are there for all the world to see.</para>
<para>Our wage theft reforms will simply strengthen the enforcement of existing rates of pay. Most employers out there don't want to be undercut by bad apples doing the wrong thing. They want an even playing field. and they want to know that they are doing the right thing by their employees without being undercut by dodgy employers.</para>
<para>A new definition of casual employees will clarify what was always intended with casual work , that, if you are working regular and predictable hours, you want to be permanent. You have a pathway available to you to do that. These laws will strengthen current workplace relations framework. It will provide certainty, it will provide fairness and it will provide a level playing field for both businesses and workers.</para>
<para>I've been around the industrial relations are seen for over 30 years of my working life. Hard to believe, I know! I've got to tell you: I've heard it all before. Every time there's any reform to the industrial relations system, I hear it will lower productivity, businesses will close, the pendulum is swinging too far, the sky guy will fall in, it's going to be a disaster. But, do you know what? For over 30 years, it's never happened. Things have gone well, workers have benefited and businesses have benefited.</para>
<para>Casual employment is an issue that is particularly close to my heart. because being employed as a casual is not the Nirvana that many people will have you believe. They say: 'You have the flexibility to work when you want. You can cut your hours. You can do this; you can do that.' Well, I'm telling you it doesn't work like that. It doesn't. Those on that side of the House may never have heard of zero-hour contracts. These exist in our economy. You're employed as a casual, and you are contracted to work zero hours. This means you have to be on call all the time. You can't get another job to prop up your hours, in case your other job calls you in. You can't get a loan. You can't take a holiday, because you may not get enough hours in January or February after you take a Christmas holiday to make up the lost pay. If you work in some institutions, like a TAFE institution, as a casual, you might get employed as a casual from March, the beginning of the academic year, until the end of October, the end of the academic year, and then you are not employed at all over the Christmas period, when the school is out. Sure, everyone says, 'You get leave loading if you're a casual.' Try living on leave loading for four or five months of the year. It's almost impossible, and it's incredibly stressful because you don't know—you really don't know—if you're going to be picked up again in March.</para>
<para>If you're employed as a casual, I'm here to tell you that you don't have any power. It's nice to think that you did, that you could pick and choose your shifts.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr Aly</name>
    <name.id>13050</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You can't.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms KEARNEY</name>
    <name.id>LTU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You just can't. I was talking to one young man who worked on the docks, on the wharves. He told me he was at the beck and call of his employer. For his girlfriend's birthday, he told his employer that he was unavailable for a long weekend so he could take her camping. He was penalised for that. He didn't get any shifts for a whole month, and they let him know that that was why. Try renting a house and say that you are casually employed. Try getting a car loan. Life is tough. You miss Christmas Day. You miss sporting events with your kids because you have to take that shift just in case there's not another shift. I've heard people tell me they sit by the phone panicking, hoping, waiting for a call to say that they're going to get a shift. That is not a good life. It simply isn't. So we are closing the loophole that leaves people stuck, classified as casuals, even though they work permanent regular hours. It means they can get a job like any permanent employee and all the benefits of job security. We're going to legislate a fair, objective definition to determine when an employee can be classified as a casual.</para>
<para>I did hear some speakers on the other side of the House and on the crossbench say, 'One big thing we're worried about is that the unions are going to come in and force all the employees to be made permanent, and this is going to be terrible and a disaster.' That is just rubbish. That is not true. This can only happen if the employee wants it to happen. No-one will be forced to do anything that they don't want to do.</para>
<para>I understand the need to have casual workers. I come from a small-business family. We were publicans. I know that you cannot know, 'Are we going to have a special function on Saturday night where we're going to have 300 people, or are we not?' I understand the need for a casual workforce and the role it plays in those industries. But there's still a place for people to be permanent. We always employed a core group of permanent people in our pub. Cooks, managers, cleaners, deputy managers or a 2IC—there were always people there all the time that ran the business while the rest of the staff were casual. We get it. But there are so many instances you hear of where people work even five days a week, 52 weeks a year, and they're still casual, without all the benefits of being permanent. So we are going to fix that, and I think that that is a good thing.</para>
<para>On closing the labour hire loophole, again, labour hire has legitimate uses in providing surge and specialist workforces. We know that will continue to be the case, and that's a good thing. There are some good labour hire companies out there. But some companies use labour hire firms to undermine the hard-fought-for wages and conditions of the permanent workforce. You might have two workers working side-by-side doing exactly the same job, with one getting paid a considerable amount less than the other one. We've seen this across lots of industries. I personally have experienced it in my work with the union movement in the aviation industry. The minute an EBA was struck, that particular company disappeared, another labour hire firm would appear and the entire workforce would be moved across on lower wages and conditions. That is not fair, and that is a loophole that we are going to close, because this will give powers to the Fair Work Commission to make orders that labour hire employees be paid at least the wages in a host's enterprise agreement. That is not complicated. That is not hard. It will not reduce productivity. In fact, I could almost guarantee that it will increase productivity, because people will feel valued and they will want to do a good job. It's fair and it's right. If you can run a business, you can understand this. I think it will be well received.</para>
<para>In relation to minimum standards for employee-like workers in the gig economy, our government will extend the powers of the Fair Work Commission to include employee-like forms of work, allowing it to better protect people in this new and emerging form, the platform economy or the gig economy, where people, we know—everybody knows and everybody accepts—are being exploited and they are not being paid minimum standards. We're going to let them continue to work. We're not telling anyone they can't work as a gig worker. We're just going to say that they can have a decent floor of conditions, like any other worker in this country. As the minister says, we are living in the 21st century, and we do not like people to be employed under 19th-century conditions. Again, it will be through the Fair Work Commission, who will be able to set minimum standards for employee-like workers, including in the gig economy. I think that is absolutely a good thing. The bill provides a non-exhaustive list of content that minimum standard orders can cover, including payment terms, deductions, insurance—which is incredibly important—and cost recovery. That will not affect the business in any huge way, shape or form.</para>
<para>Finally, we are going to criminalise wage theft. This is so important, and I cannot believe that those opposite would not support this. We all know—and we've all heard it here from speaker after speaker—that if a worker steals from the till it's a criminal offence, but in many parts of Australia if an employer steals from a worker's pay packet it is not. We have heard terrible stories. You may remember the 7-Eleven scandal, where workers were actually taken to the ATM and made to withdraw money from their own bank accounts and give it to their employers. It was that blatant. But in a lot of other ways wage theft is much more subtle. It is simply underpaying, cash in hand, under the counter or not paying entitlements. My own stepdaughter found, after she left a job, that not a single cent of her superannuation had been paid into her superannuation account—not one single cent. She had zero superannuation after working there for so long, despite the fact that her pay packet said it was going in. I honestly don't think that to this day she has recovered that money. That is theft, and it shouldn't happen. Business owners who knowingly withhold wages should face the harshest penalties.</para>
<para>We must also ensure our new laws do not water down any wage theft laws already put in place by the states, so we are looking at that. The Labor governments in Victoria and Queensland criminalised wage theft because they got sick of waiting for previous federal governments to act on this. Australia does need a national wage theft system to end the rip-offs, and we're determined to deliver on our promise to Australian workers and make wage theft a crime.</para>
<para>I am very proud of these reforms. I think they show workers in this country that we are absolutely serious when it comes to their rights, to their standard of living and to making sure that they are treated with the respect they deserve in the workplace. I've got to say that when I heard the minister stand up and make the very first speech that introduced this bill I nearly cried. As someone sitting in the chamber, I had not heard a minister stand in this chamber and make a speech like that. He talked about workers' rights and he proudly talked about our connection with trade unions, who do an incredible job for workers in this country. He proudly said that this government, an Albanese Labor government, is going to make the world a better place for our workers and ensure they get the respect, dignity and pay they deserve.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHANEY</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I've been in parliament for just over a year, and this is the third major set of changes that's been proposed to the Fair Work Act 2009. As a first-term MP, it's been pretty eye-opening. Industrial relations seems to be the issue that absolutely polarises the major parties on a fundamental, philosophical level. You're either pro-business and horrified by union activity, or you're pro-union and you dislike and distrust business. As a community Independent, I'm not beholden to business or unions and my comments are less political or philosophical—they're pragmatic. I'm just trying to assess whether the bill in front of us is fit for purpose.</para>
<para>I'm 100 per cent supportive of workers' rights, and I believe every worker has the right to be in a safe workplace that provides fair remuneration and support, but I'm also supportive of economic competition and the need for business to have the flexibility to innovate and grow and make hiring decisions that enable this. I'm genuinely worried about the increase in complexity of IR laws and how that affects business. IR laws should be simplified as much as possible to help employers do the right thing. So my comments today will not be about capitalism versus socialism or the rights of the worker versus the rights of the employer. My comments will be about whether this bill is necessary, balanced, fair and if it solves the problems that need solving.</para>
<para>At the outset, I'd like to acknowledge the minister for his comprehensive briefing around the introduction of this bill. He and his office have offered extensive background information and have made themselves available for many conversations with the crossbench. I really appreciate the way this suite of reforms has been approached and discussed.</para>
<para>I also commend the government on the aspirations outlined in the employment white paper released on 23 September. According to the white paper, the government wants full employment where everyone who wants a job is able to find one. It notes that productivity growth must be the key driver of improvements in living standards over the long term.</para>
<para>In this bill, this 284-page document accompanied by a 521-page explanatory memorandum, the minister says he is fixing loopholes that are used by business to undercut Australia's best employers in a race to the bottom. The loopholes identified in the minister's introduction speech were: workers not being paid properly through wage theft, casuals not having a pathway to secure work, EBAs not determining the rates of pay at a workplace, and gig workers and road transport workers not having minimum work standards.</para>
<para>To solve these four loopholes I've just mentioned, the following solutions are legislated in this bill. Wage theft is solved by giving unions greater right of entry to workplaces. The need to give casuals a pathway to secure work is solved by changing the common law definition of 'casual employee' and giving the Fair Work Commission the ability to resolve any disputes. Making sure EBAs determine the rate of pay in a workforce is solved by giving the Fair Work Commission the ability to make a ruling about labour-hire workers if they're being paid less than the minimum rates in a host business enterprise agreement. Finally, ensuring gig workers and road transport workers have minimum work standards is solved by giving the Fair Work Commission the power to make minimum standard orders for workers on digital platforms.</para>
<para>Is this bill actually solving the identified problems? On wage theft, this bill introduces a new criminal offence for intentional wage underpayments, and I have no problem with this. If a business operates by intentionally underpaying its employees, then it should be prosecuted. But I remain concerned that the complexity of the IR system means that employers struggle to understand the correct rates of pay. It's essential that employers that underpay purely by accident because of the confusing and complex IR framework have the opportunity to fix their mistakes rather than being charged.</para>
<para>As well as this new offence, this bill expands the circumstances in which unions can come onto worksites without prior notice. This doesn't seem necessary or appropriate to address wage theft. Currently, any union wanting to enter a workplace to represent a member or attract members already has a straightforward mechanism to do so. Entry without prior notice is already possible, where necessary, to prevent employers from destroying evidence. The Fair Work Commission's data on entry disputes doesn't reveal any problems or overuse of the entry rights, so I can't see any reason we need to expand this entry right. It seems to be an excuse to give more power to unions.</para>
<para>On the definition of casual, the government has said this bill will close the loophole that stops casual workers from having a pathway to permanency. It uses the example of casual workers who've been working 30 or 40 hours a week and whose requests to convert to being a permanent employee have been refused. I'm not convinced this bill addresses this concern. As many speakers before me have said, the Fair Work Act already defines a casual employee in a clear and well-understood way. The act already has a casual conversion entitlement which requires businesses to offer employees an opportunity to convert to a permanent position after 12 months. The government's proposed changes remove this certainty and clarity of definition, and instead propose a new test based on the conduct of the parties. The WA Hotels and Hospitality Association, which is the peak industrial employer body for hotel and hospitality businesses in WA, said the change in this bill makes the definition of a casual 'unclear, problematic and subjective to the person or institutions assessing the relationship.'</para>
<para>The main problem I see with the government's proposal is that this adds ambiguity in an already confusing regulatory space. When talking about the definition of casuals, the explanatory memorandum says, 'A firm advance commitment of permanent work could be identified on the basis of ongoing work performed on a regular systemic, stable or predictable basis.' This increases ambiguity around rostering, with an employer seemingly at risk of representing a role as casual if they roster an employee, for example, on regular weekend work shifts or on the same morning every week. I don't subscribe to the hysteria that this change will mean employers won't offer casual work ever again or that every employer will be at risk of prosecution if they have a regular pattern of rostering, but I don't support this amendment as an effective way to achieve the government's goal. More ambiguity does not lead to greater certainty.</para>
<para>The government says it's closing a loophole that allows business to engage labour hire providers in order to save costs, by paying those contractors less than employees being paid to do the same job. I agree that this is bad practice. Throughout all of our briefings and discussions, it seems clear that this change is aimed at certain businesses and labour hire companies. But these amendments are not limited to labour hire companies and have a much wider impact than the problem articulated. As it's currently drafted it could also include service contracting. If this is not the intention, the drafting needs to be changed.</para>
<para>With the current provisions, unions and others will be able to seek orders obliging employers that supply workers, directly or indirectly, to a host to ignore the rates of pay already agreed in their contracts. The obligation will be to apply the full rate of pay, which includes bonuses and incentives. This could be a real problem for labour hire and service-contracting providers. In a recurring theme with this bill, these changes are confusing and will add complexity to an already complex framework. The additional admin burden for labour hire and host employers, as they try to wade through EBAs and previous agreements to find the correct rate of pay, adds yet another degree of difficulty. Companies will have little time to prepare for this drastic change.</para>
<para>The government has stated repeatedly that workers in the rideshare and food delivery sectors are at risk of exploitation because they're independent contractors and therefore don't have minimum pay and conditions. I want to make it clear that workers should absolutely not be exploited nor exposed to dangerous working conditions, but I'm not sure this bill solves the issue it purports to address. This bill gives the Fair Work Commission the ability to set standards for non-employed workers in the gig economy and for those whose work is facilitated through platforms and websites. The current drafting specifies that an individual must fulfil one of the three criteria to be defined as employee-like. This is too broad. I'll be supporting amendments that require an individual to fulfil at least two of the specified criteria instead of just one. A number of online businesses have noted that this provision undermines the digital platform business model by imposing strict requirements on workers. I believe that we should be supporting innovation and flexibility in new businesses and allowing workers to elect to work as it suits them and get the benefits that flexible work entails.</para>
<para>What else is this bill doing beyond allegedly closing these loopholes? There are a number of provisions in this bill that don't seem to address any loopholes at all. Some provisions seem straightforward and noncontroversial, like schedule 2, which aims to eliminate silica-related diseases, and schedule 3, which relates to PTSD suffered by first responders. As we discussed at length on Monday, I believe these provisions should really pass before the end of the year.</para>
<para>I'm not sure why this bill includes an increase in the rights of union delegates which doesn't seem to address an identified problem, including uncapped paid time off for union training, and making employers engage with union stewards on any issue they may wish to raise. Also, how is any of this helping to address productivity?</para>
<para>But maybe the most important question to ask about this bill goes beyond the detail and wonders: 'Why is this bill needed to ensure that Australians can all be gainfully employed and productivity increases?' The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has come out bluntly and said that this legislation will be bad for productivity. Master Builders Australia has pointed out that the word 'productivity' appears only twice in the whole bill, and only in the context of proposed new powers needed to be exercised in a way to avoid unreasonable impacts on productivity and business viability.</para>
<para>Last month, RBA Governor Michele Bullock said that, with wage growth so strong, productivity will need to improve for inflation to return to target. I'm not sure how adding complexity to an already-complex IR framework will contribute to this aim.</para>
<para>I appreciate that there are some issues that need to be addressed, but I'm unconvinced that there are systemic loopholes that require this sort of drastic and complicated legislative response. I'd be more supportive if this bill was more targeted, if the response to wage theft was limited to increasing penalties, if the response to increasing casuals' pathway to permanence was addressed by reducing the conversion time in the already-clear definition, and if the response to exploiting labour hire workers was focused on the industries of concern. But, to me, it seems like the government is introducing far-reaching changes that go way beyond their claims.</para>
<para>This bill seems to expand the powers of the Fair Work Commission and unions and to reduce the flexibility for workers, while adding complexity for business. If we assume that the majority of business owners are doing the right thing, then these changes will only make life harder and more confusing for them. For those few businesses that are trying to undermine workers' rights, they should absolutely be addressed specifically.</para>
<para>In its current form, this bill is less about closing loops than creating hoops for businesses and workers to jump through.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>39</page.no>
        <type>MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australia's International Environment Leadership</title>
          <page.no>39</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>44</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>44</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7072" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>44</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNELL</name>
    <name.id>300129</name.id>
    <electorate>Spence</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What we have here is a bill that has been a long time coming, in so many respects. The main pillars of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 were announced whilst we were in opposition over two whole years ago. Those pillars, of course, were taken as policies by us at the last election. Despite this extensive foreshadowing coupled with extensive industry consultation after the election, the opposition feel that they have been blindsided. Businesses have been blindsided, almost as if they were one homogenous entity, which is quite a contrast from their approach during the formulation of Jobs and Skills Australia, not to mention the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation and even the nature repair market framework.</para>
<para>But it is the allure of digging a trench and forming a battleline as part of the old war—the long war that those opposite have waged against those who earn a living wage and go about their working life, hoping to avoid suffering from unscrupulous, unjust or unsafe practices by their employers. You'd like to hope that that isn't too much to ask for. Despite what those opposite would portray of this side of the chamber, this bill is not a battle waged in some great eternal war or a struggle between employers and employees. Those opposite prefer to substitute employees with unions, as if that somehow makes it more palatable to a wider audience outside their own echo chamber. It literally took a global pandemic event for those opposite to entertain bringing in representatives from the union movement to consult on policy. That in itself demonstrates the gulf of difference between the approaches of two parties of government in this country. They'd obviously prefer to avoid like the plague—until there is one—speaking to unions.</para>
<para>Our government, the Albanese Labor government, takes a very different approach. It is one of collaboration and tripartisanship, working with employer groups, employee groups, unions and other stakeholders, which are all working in concert to further the national interest. This is a reality those opposite refuse to accept.</para>
<para>What is vividly at the forefront of my mind is the disgraceful display in this chamber on Monday, particularly by the member for Bradfield and the member for Page. It was little wonder that they were so angry when faced with the prospect of reading a couple of hundred pages of explanatory memorandum, because you'd have to wonder whether they've read <inline font-style="italic">House of Representatives Practice</inline> after the several years that they've been in this place. But it was their words as part of the debate rather than the procedure involved that got my attention. They spoke to the urgent need to pass four parts of this bill. They were saying how generous they were for passing these bills before Christmas.</para>
<para>But these provisions are not just uncontroversial; not doing so would be a kick in the guts to all those workers these bills set out to protect. I had to look up because I wanted to see them say these things whilst they relived their school debating glory days on the floor. I certainly couldn't hear any sincerity in their voices. I couldn't see any in their actions either. I fear that even to this day their copies of the explanatory memorandum are collecting dust on the bookshelves in their offices somewhere in the building, a bookmark sitting somewhere inside of them. If they had even bothered to do their reading, they'd have seen that their argument is one that completely rejects a lot of other measures in this bill—a lot of loopholes that are going to have a whole bunch of negative consequences for thousands of the workers that the members for Bradfield and Page seem to have overlooked as part of their first day of attempting to convey empathy toward workers.</para>
<para>What are they overlooking? It is a very long list. They seem to think that there is zero requirement for urgency in the need to introduce the provisions concerning industrial manslaughter. But, of course, they wouldn't see urgency. I know that a good number of members have echoed the sentiment that everybody deserves to return home safely after heading to work each day. Frankly, this should be something that goes without saying and doesn't need clarification as to whether both sides of the chamber see eye to eye on it. During their nine years in government, they showed no urgency on that front either.</para>
<para>What they also continue to show zero urgency on is wage theft. Seriously, if the roles were reversed, we'd have employees locked up indefinitely and charged with theft. Oh, wait—that is what happens! Why shouldn't everyday mums and dads, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters have the right to expect that, when they go to work to earn a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, they get paid correctly? It's not that unrealistic to expect this. Unfortunately, I have seen on far too many occasions that wage theft is a business model. I have represented countless workers in the road transport industry, helping them to claw back unpaid wages. It's not just unpaid wages; it's unpaid overtime and unpaid superannuation. We are talking about the difference between paying the rent or not, retiring with dignity or not. Wage theft has real consequences, and I make no apologies in supporting the closing of this loophole. But it is little wonder those opposite have no appetite for criminalising wage theft. It is an absolute disgrace that we have seen Victoria and Queensland criminalise wage theft on their own because they couldn't wait any longer. You know who else can't wait any longer? Australian workers.</para>
<para>On that note, another group that can't wait any longer is the road transport industry. It's an industry that carries Australia. It's an industry united in purpose to deliver reform to its sector through closing loopholes. This is a sector delivering between four and five per cent of Australia's GDP. The reason I say 'industry' is for clarity to those opposite, that I don't just mean—#triggerwarning—'unions'. I know this because I was part of the dialogue within our industry long before I came to this place. I have seen the Australian Road Transport Industrial Organisation, the National Road Freighters Association, NatRoad and others, along with the TWU, come together to discuss meaningful resolutions to save our industry, make it viable and save lives in the process. This is represented by 575 transport companies, 30,000 owner-drivers and over 650,000 transport workers across Australia. The simple fact is this: the current regulatory framework doesn't provide for viability within the sector. It is why the empowering of the Fair Work Commission to set fair minimum standards is so important. This will lead to a safer, more sustainable and viable industry.</para>
<para>We need to stop companies like Scott's Refrigerated Logistics from going into administration, with 1,500 workers waking up to find out they have no job. That is what this bill seeks to fix. Owner-drivers are being pushed to the wall, where a tyre blowout ruins their chance of breaking even for a trip. That is what this bill seeks to fix. Just last year there were 185 truck related fatalities, which included 44 truck drivers who lost their lives. That is what this bill seeks to fix. As to why the member for Bradfield and the member for Page don't believe in addressing this as a matter of urgency—it beggars belief.</para>
<para>The member for Riverina dismissively referred to these measures as nothing more than a means for greater union membership coverage within the road transport sector—this, despite the vast majority of both employer and employee organisations and business groups in this sector calling out for these reforms. But the member for Riverina, as he regularly says, was a union member for 21 years, and now he joins in the chorus on the other side of the chamber, which sees a whole industry united and discounts their joint position that widely supports these provisions in the bill. It's almost as if more workers joining a union is a price they feel isn't worth paying in order to avoid more blood being spilt on our roads.</para>
<para>The member for Riverina has probably attempted to see if he can refund his union dues over these long years. We all know he has better things to spend his money on, such as antique books. It was no surprise that the member for Riverina did not join his colleagues in their tantrum over the number of pages within this bill and its explanatory memorandum. The members for Gippsland and New England may prevent him from coming here to lead, but the member has certainly come here to read instead. I can vividly recall the member for Riverina holding aloft a very old leather-bound book in the Federation Chamber as a part of a point he was making on the Murray-Darling Basin. Instead of being armed with the latest data, he prefers to refer to a book published back in 1888—the good old days to some, perhaps; a simpler time. It's a hallmark of a true conservative if I ever saw one. Unless a book was printed by the dutiful hands of a monk—'No, I don't want to know about it.'</para>
<para>It's now my turn to explore a little. I might take a page out of the member for Riverina's book—though not from his antique book; from a slightly more contemporary book, the ninth edition of the <inline font-style="italic">Macquarie </inline><inline font-style="italic">Dictionary</inline>. I do so because our use of language is important. Definitions are important in ordinary use but important still when prescribing legislation. The word in question I am reading the definition of right now is 'casual'. We hear a lot about what it means to be a casual worker, with those opposite and business lobby groups making further distinctions by coining contradictory terms such as 'regular casual'. It just didn't sound right to me in every way that I know casual work to be taking place in workplaces across Australia. The dictionary here defines 'casual' in a number of ways, including 'happening by chance', as in a casual meeting. The example given is: 'appointed to join the Senate to fill a casual vacancy'. The dictionary also gives 'unpremeditated, offhand or without any definite intention' and 'irregular or occasional'. The example used there is:</para>
<quote><para class="block">She was excellent at her job and she was willing to accept casual employment without any allowance for the time she must inevitably take off.</para></quote>
<para>Other definitions include 'participating in activity occasionally' and:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Employed for a short period of time on a rate that is high compared with permanent staff rates but which does not include benefits such as holiday pay.</para></quote>
<para>Lastly, it gives 'a worker employed only irregularly'.</para>
<para>It really makes you wonder, when reading through submissions and statements from the business lobby. Is it big business or is it our government that is making the radical departure from what we understand casual to mean?</para>
<para>The business lobby sure talk a big game about flexibility in the workplace, but, the second you draw the Uno reverse card on them, they suddenly appear quite inflexible with the nature and extent of their flexibility, which should be of no surprise to any of us, regardless of one's overall perspectives on industrial relations. I recall the member for Menzies's initial contribution to this debate, including a quote he gave from Jennifer Westacott, the former CEO of the Business Council of Australia. She stated:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Australians should have safe jobs, well paid jobs and rewarding jobs, but the government's radical shake-up of the industrial relations system will not deliver that.</para></quote>
<para>The real radical notion is that the business lobby and their parliamentary proxies on the other side of the chamber walk a very fine line with casuals. They have casual disdain not for casualisation itself but merely for those that have pipedreams of having a stable and rewarding job. They had me in the first half of that—I'm not going to lie.</para>
<para>The Business Council have even attempted to do a bit of astroturfing, with their own special-purpose website, casualworksforme.com.au. It is very informative if role-play is your thing, and far be it for me to judge. Scrolling through the page, there are a number of examples of workers whose lives are about to be destroyed by the very prospect of obtaining secure full- or part-time work. We can see once more the fifth horseman of the Apocalypse showing itself after not quite making the cut in the Book of Revelation—'Conquest, war, famine, death and secure and stable employment.' It doesn't quite have the same ring to it as the others.</para>
<para>In one of the examples we meet Nick, a casual retail worker who is saving for a holiday. I hope Nick is a proud member of the SDA. As the website I mentioned states:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Nick's saving for an overseas holiday and his higher hourly rate as a casual is helping him reach his goal quickly.</para></quote>
<para>But we skip to Nick somehow magically becoming part time and losing his dreams. His life is ruined. This scenario also fails to mention that Nick being on holiday, if he still were a casual employee, would be earning zero dollars and zero cents—nothing—for that entire time. This goes for casual workers on a holiday, but equally so when they are sick. We all know bills aren't casual. We can all remember the height of COVID-19, when many casual workers were left with a choice to make about whether they tried to mask their illness and spread it or stay at home and earn zero, nothing, nada.</para>
<para>The craven motives behind the stances and tactics of those opposite on this legislation are basically the only forms of transparency they are capable of consistently displaying. These loopholes need to be closed urgently and frankly. We need many of them closed yesterday, and much sooner than that too. For these reasons and so much more, I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Many of us have enjoyed the benefits of the gig economy. Getting food delivered at home through apps on our phones has made a big difference to our lives, and many of us do it regularly. Especially through the pandemic, it was something that, for many people, was a literal lifeline. Now it's something that, for many people around the country, has become a regular part of every week and we enjoy the convenience that it brings. We know that the big names of the corporations behind the apps are making an enormous amount of money off the food delivery services. They often charge a markup compared to if you went into the shop itself to get it. They make an enormous amount of money off the people who deliver it to our doors as well.</para>
<para>We don't often think about the wages and conditions of those people delivering that food to our doors. What are they working under? What do they actually enjoy? You probably think that, in a country like Australia, people who do that should be entitled to, at a bare minimum, the minimum wage and get a number of protections you'd get in an office job or a factory job. But, because of the way our laws have been structured up till now, many of those people bringing food to our doors and also increasingly working in other areas like aged care, or in care in general, or in disability care, where they're turning up to do a bit of work perhaps at the start of the day and at the end of the day, are in many instances not caught by things like minimum wage laws. Why is that? It's because our laws have allowed big corporations to say that those people aren't employees, that they're just independent contractors who happen to be running their own business, as if there was somehow some level of parity between Uber Eats and the rider delivering the food from the restaurant to our home. They say: 'That person could basically be a business. We'll treat them as a business, and they're responsible for looking after their own minimum wage. They're responsible for looking after their own insurance. They're responsible for looking after their own pay if they get sick.'</para>
<para>Most people, if they were made aware of the conditions that a lot of these delivery riders and increasingly many more people in the country work under, would be shocked and horrified, and would think it's absolutely unfair that someone could get paid less than the minimum wages and conditions that apply to employees simply because the big corporation that engages them has used a clever legal team to call them something else—to call them a contractor, to call them a standalone driver. These people aren't independent businesses in their own right; they have to do whatever the delivery service tells them, they have to do it in certain times and they have to do it according to certain directions. If they don't do that, they lose their work. In many instances, for all intents and purposes, they're employees but they don't get the benefits of employees.</para>
<para>The convenience that comes from the gig economy shouldn't come at the cost of the exploitation of the workers doing the work, who then deliver massive profits to the corporations that employ them. For a number of years this is something we've been concerned about. We've been concerned about this Uber-isation of work—it's not only Uber Eats; it has been creeping into other areas of the workforce as well, especially the care workforce. For many years this is something the Greens have been concerned about. I brought what I think was the first bill to this place that said it was time to put a hard floor under the wages and conditions of the Australian workforce, so that, no matter what the employer calls you, you get the minimum. I think that should go even further to some conditions. They should be able to bargain as if they're employees or workers. We need to stop the incentive for big corporations to use clever legal labels to call someone something that means they get fewer wages and conditions, which is what's happening to lots of delivery drivers and lots of care workers at the moment.</para>
<para>When I brought that bill into, I think it was, the last parliament, it didn't get support from the government at the time because we know that the Liberals are on the side of the big corporations and the Liberals want to do whatever they can to drive down wages and conditions for people. They don't care if a big corporate profit comes at the expense of the delivery driver who, in many instances, is risking their life and safety in having to navigate streets on their bikes through danger and through all weather. Tragically, we've seen too many of them get injured or lose their lives. It's good that now we're taking steps towards redressing that.</para>
<para>The government's bill doesn't go as far as the bill that I brought to this place to ensure that we get a hard floor under wages and conditions, so that there's no incentive for big corporations to find even more loopholes. But it is good that it addresses the decision of the High Court in which the High Court came to a very different position from what many people had understood to be the law and said, 'No, actually, if you put a label on someone's contract to call them an independent contractor then that's what we're going to give primacy to.' That just ignored the reality of the modern workplace, and it's good that that's going to be addressed. Part of the test for the government's provisions is going to be whether, at the end of it, we see fewer people falling through the cracks. We've got to make sure that these provisions work. If they need to be tightened, they should be tightened. As I say, it would have been good if the government had gone further on this front.</para>
<para>Likewise, on casual work, one of the things that we've seen in this country is a rise in the casualisation of the workforce. The first thing I spoke about was corporations using clever legal techniques to label someone as not being an employee, even though, for all intents and purposes, they are. The second thing that is rife in this country is the casualisation of the workforce. Casualisation, especially when you put it together with the uberisation of work, is destroying people's lives. It makes it impossible to plan for your life and your family if you don't have regularity and guarantee of work.</para>
<para>This is why, a number of years ago, I introduced the first bill to this place to tackle the rise in casualisation and insecure work in this country. When we had the inquiry into that bill, we did not only hear from people who worked in the areas that many people in this country would think of as being traditional casual areas—perhaps in retail or in shops. We also heard from people who worked in our universities—which are publicly funded and are always going be there—who'd worked in the same department of the same institution for eight to 10 years and were never entitled to a day of sick leave during that time because they were put on rolling casual contracts for that whole period. How can it be that you're doing work that you know needs to be done and that is publicly funded, year after year after year, and yet being called a casual? This move towards putting people on rolling contracts, and the casualisation of work, is pushing people to the brink. We heard from university staff who said, 'I have put off planning a family and having a family because I just don't know whether I'm going to have any money.'</para>
<para>It's becoming very difficult in this country for young people to even rent a house, because of Labor's rental crisis, but owning a home is even further out of reach for them if they go to the bank manager and say, 'I've only got a casual contract for the next four months.' But that's the reality for many people, including people in publicly funded institutions in this country at the moment.</para>
<para>Again, I introduced legislation to address this rising scourge of insecure work in this country. Under the previous government, and even the one before that, we didn't get a lot of action or traction on that, especially because the Liberals aren't interested in giving people secure employment.</para>
<para>Again, this bill doesn't go as far as we would like. The test is going to be whether, after a period of time, there are fewer people employed in the insecure workforce.</para>
<para>If it doesn't turn out that way then we should consider revisiting it to tighten it up, because the rise of insecure work in this country, together with Labor's rental and housing crisis and the increasing cost of living, is pushing people to the brink. If government can't step in and ensure that people can get an affordable roof over their head, afford to pay for their groceries and have ongoing work then what is government for? What is government for if it can't put in place the basics so that people can have a good life?</para>
<para>I hope that we get to see some change on that front. It's welcome that we're starting to see some change on that front.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I hear someone from the Labor Party interjecting now to back Labor's push for unlimited rent rises. Labor members from all around the country, all the premiers and the Prime Minister, met and they decided to back unlimited rent rises at a time of a housing crisis. The Labor member is interjecting in support of that, saying it's okay to have unlimited rent rises in this country. It's an interesting interjection from the Labor Party. But that's their position.</para>
<para>They're coming in and talking about affordable housing in the electorate of Melbourne. In the electorate of Melbourne we have the gasworks development, and the state Labor Party has just told us that they're going to pause all the affordable and public housing. So perhaps the member who is interjecting who is from Victorian Labor might want to go and have a word with the Victorian Labor Party, which is in the process of knocking down public housing in Victoria and ending public housing in Victoria by demolishing towers, including in my electorate. Then when it comes to public land, where they could build housing, they're putting a pause on public housing. Now he's gone incredibly silent because he knows that Labor is not only backing unlimited rent rises but knocking down public housing as well. That's the Labor position.</para>
<para>One of the other areas of industrial relations law that we need to address and fix is on giving people the right to log off when they clock off. We need a right to disconnect in this country. For too many people, technology, mobile phones in particular, has meant that their work life is creeping into their personal life and their employer gives them an expectation that outside of work hours they've got to respond to texts and emails. Our industrial relations laws were designed in the pre-mobile-phone age and the pre-email age. We've got to update it so that people have the right, outside of work hours, to switch off unless they're getting paid for it. There will be some people who will get paid an allowance or paid some remuneration to be on call. If that's what people bargain for and that's what happens then that's good. But if you're not getting paid for it then you should be able to ghost your boss after hours. You should be able to say: 'No, this time is my time. I need this to relax. Just because he can contact me doesn't mean it's right to.' We're finding this happens far too often. Not only are there texts saying, 'Can you just answer a question for me?' that end up with someone having to work for an hour or so to find the answer to that question and get back to their employer but what's increasingly coming in is people having to check their phones to work out whether they're going to have a shift or not because the roster wasn't done before they left work and they've been left waiting. All of this contact outside of work hours is making it harder for people to recover and recuperate.</para>
<para>We need a right to disconnect. It's getting strong support through the Senate inquiry into this bill. It's something that the Greens are going to continue to push for because a right to disconnect in our industrial relations laws, a right to log off and switch off when you clock off, is something that contemporary workers need.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAE</name>
    <name.id>300122</name.id>
    <electorate>Hawke</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In September, the High Court ruled that Qantas had illegally sacked 1,700 workers at the height of the pandemic. This attempt to undermine legitimate prospective industrial action under the cover of the pandemic demonstrated their contempt for their own employees and indeed the very need to protect workers from acts of industrial bastardry just like this. Over several years Qantas has systemically decoupled its workforce from the organisation in an attempt to inflate unsustainable short-term profit margins at the expense of their greatest asset—their people. At every opportunity, they've outsourced their workforce, creating a web of 21 external companies and a further 17 subsidiaries, designed to avoid enterprise bargaining and dictate wages through labour hire loopholes.</para>
<para>In a recent public hearing of the House Committee on Economics, I asked Andrew Finch, Qantas's general counsel in the office of the CEO, how they ensured workers in this extraordinarily complex web were afforded proper pay and conditions, decent pay and conditions, how they looked after their own people, the people that look after us when we fly with them. He responded very tellingly that they require only that their supply chain comply with the law—the very bare basic law. Given their demonstrated contempt for our industrial relations laws, it is unsurprisingly clear that relying on businesses like Qantas to simply do the right thing by their own employees is not good enough and it's not working. In fact, he even went on to arrogantly defend Qantas's prioritisation of their commercial interests ahead of their legal responsibilities to their workers. This legislation will close the labour hire loopholes that companies like Qantas use to undercut pay and conditions for Australian workers.</para>
<para>While Qantas was found to be in breach of our existing laws on this occasion, too often companies get away with similar tactics. After negotiating and agreeing on a fair rate of pay and conditions with their workers, they bring in low-paid, contracted, labour hire workers who aren't covered by that agreement. Of course, we recognise the legitimate role that labour hire plays in providing surge and specialist workforces, and this bill won't prevent companies from using them. It will simply prevent them from using labour hire to circumvent agreed industrial instruments. It'll give the Fair Work Commission the power to order labour hire employees be paid at least the same wages in a company's enterprise agreement and deliver on the Albanese Labor government's Same Job, Same Pay commitment.</para>
<para>The labour hire loophole is just one of many that this bill will address. Despite some of the fearmongering and the hyperbole and the contributions from the Liberals opposite, it's absolutely not a radical piece of legislation. It is simply about bringing our workplace relations laws up to speed with modern economic settings. We know that our economy has evolved significantly over the past decade with changes to workforce employment patterns, an increased dependence on global supply chains and the emergence of the gig economy. Unfortunately, the previous Liberal government were asleep at the wheel as these changes were taking place and our industrial relations laws have not kept pace. We've seen that as our economy and technology evolve so too do the terms of workforce engagement. It is therefore essential that the laws governing these engagements also continue to evolve in order to protect the fundamental rights of workers.</para>
<para>We understand that hundreds of thousands of Australians rely on the gig economy for work. That's why these reforms are so important. Workers on these platforms shouldn't have to choose between minimum workplace standards and flexibility. No industry should be able to inflate profits by underpaying their workers or failing to provide safe working conditions under the false guise of flexibility. The reality with many workplace arrangements in the gig economy is that ultimate flexibility is afforded to the platform. Gig economy providers enjoy flexibility regarding their obligations to their workforce, they enjoy flexibility with the rates of pay for workers and they enjoy the benefits of a one-sided workforce marketplace. By largely underpaying their workers, they ensure that demand for their jobs remains high as desperate gig workers try to earn a living wage. When this exploitative, open-marketplace approach does occasionally tip in the workers' favour, such as during peak demand times like on a Saturday night, these platforms simply threaten workers with deactivation, essentially forcing them to work or risk losing access to their livelihood ongoing.</para>
<para>A survey conducted by the McKell Institute in conjunction with the Transport Workers Union found that 56 per cent of food delivery drivers had felt pressured to rush or take risks to earn enough and avoid deactivation. Not only that, the survey found that two-thirds of full-time gig workers earned less than the minimum wage and that 45 per cent have struggled to afford basic necessities like groceries and household bills. This means that, too often, gig workers are forced to work a huge number of hours every week, while all the time battling dangerous fatigue and facing the threat of deactivation. While the flexibility of the gig economy is often spruiked by platforms, the reality is that there is no flexibility for a workforce that can't afford not to work. That's why this legislation is so important—to ensure that minimum workplace standards are afforded to these workers and to ensure that the gig economy can operate sustainably into the future.</para>
<para>Under this proposal, the Fair Work Commission can set minimum standards for independent contractors working in the gig economy who have one or more employee-like characteristics, such as low bargaining power, low authority over their work or being paid at or below the rate of comparable employees. This ensures that basic protections are provided to vulnerable gig economy workers, while also not capturing those people who truly enjoy the potential benefits of contract work, such as real flexibility and autonomy over their work. Employee-like workers will also be protected against unfair deactivation under this legislation. They'll be able to apply to the Fair Work Commission to order a reinstatement if they feel that their deactivation was unfair, ensuring that workers cannot be punished for embracing the flexibility that the gig economy celebrates and promises them.</para>
<para>In addition to changes for gig workers, this legislation will enable the Fair Work Commission to set minimum standards for the broader road transport industry. Already, tragically, more than 150 people have died in Australia this year in truck crashes, devastating families and communities across our nation. The increasingly thin margins in road transport and logistics are creating a race to the bottom as enormous pressure is placed on drivers to make more deliveries more quickly. Not only is this dangerous for workers and other road users—and it is dangerous for both—but it is also threatening the viability of many operators in the industry. In the last financial year alone, 347 companies in the industry became insolvent, and many more are struggling on. Meanwhile, in a survey of employee drivers, one in four reported being pressured to drive past legal hours and skipped mandated rest breaks. One in five had been pressured to speed to meet deadlines, and one in five had been pressured to falsify their logbooks. Clearly, drivers and their employers are suffering. This legislation will help to turn this trajectory around. The creation of enforceable minimum standards in the industry will ensure that companies are unable to undercut each other by undercutting the pay and conditions of their own workers. It will enable those who do the right thing to compete, while also protecting drivers and the workforce more broadly.</para>
<para>The closing loopholes bill also delivers a new pathway for casual workers to seek permanent employment. There are over 850,000 casual workers who have regular work arrangements but who are employed as casuals without the benefit of leave entitlements or any sense of true financial security. Of course, some workers prefer casual employment, and they won't be forced to convert to permanent staff if they don't want to. However, for the workers that want and need the security and assurance that comes with permanent work arrangements, this change is absolutely essential. It allows casual employees who believe their working arrangements have changed so that they no longer meet the definition of 'casual' to seek a conversion to permanent employment. The option will be available to employees of large and medium-sized businesses after six months of casual employment and to employees of small businesses after 12 months of casual employment. Unlike the existing casual conversion pathway—which will remain—the new employee choice pathway is entirely employee driven. It empowers employees to seek the employment status that most accurately reflects the reality of their work arrangements. Importantly, despite the alarmism from those opposite, it does not affect the legitimately casual workforce that many Australian businesses rely on. It will, however, stop businesses from unfairly expecting and requiring permanent and regular commitments from staff without offering them a pathway to the job security that they so dearly deserve.</para>
<para>The changes in this bill are long overdue. For nine years, our industrial relations system stalled at the hands of the Liberals while our economy rapidly evolved, and the consequences upon workers, families and communities were massive. Workers went backwards as wages were deliberately suppressed, and we had our worst decade for productivity in over half a century. The reality is that the Liberals are ideologically opposed to higher wages and better conditions for Australian workers. They're opposed to workers getting their fair share of the dividends from Australia's economic pie. Former finance minister Mathias Cormann even admitted that low wage growth was part of the Liberal's economic plan. This approach not only left Australian workers worse off but it damaged our economy. While real unit labour costs fell by approximately 10 per cent under the former government, labour productivity growth also slowed materially for the first time in decades. By eroding pay and conditions, the Liberals were undermining the long-term efficiency of our labour market to inflate short-term business profit margins. That's why this legislation is so badly needed, not just to improve the pay and conditions of Australian workers but to restore some balance in the labour market. We need to move back towards an efficient equilibrium that realises the maximum productivity potential of Australian workers in the Australian economy.</para>
<para>This legislation was the result of countless hours of work by so many people. I want to acknowledge the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations for his tireless efforts, as well as the ACTU and the broader union movement for their fierce advocacy over the years. In particular I want to acknowledge my friends from my union, the Transport Workers Union of Australia. They have been on the front line of the fight against the loopholes that this legislation seeks to address. It was the TWU that took Qantas to the High Court, refusing to accept their unlawful use of labour hire and winning compensation—and, importantly, winning dignity—for the 1,700 workers who were illegally sacked. The TWU has fought for gig workers in food delivery and transport, signing charters with major gig companies to lift standards, and fighting for compensation for the families of delivery riders who have, tragically, been killed while working. I want to give a special shout out to Mem Suleyman and Mike McNess from the TWU Vic-Tas branch, as well as Michael Caine and Nick McIntosh from the TWU national office. I have seen firsthand the blood, sweat and tears that these people have poured into defending their members and, indeed, all Australian workers—particularly when the former Liberal government abdicated all responsibility. I'm so proud to be part of a government that stands alongside them—the TWU and the entire union movement—in standing up for Australian workers, their pay and their conditions and, indeed, their safety. Every worker, regardless of the terms of their engagement, deserves fair pay and conditions. For those reasons I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The federal electorate of North Sydney is the third-largest business centre in Australia, with some 30,000 small- to medium-sized businesses calling the community home. These businesses, the people who have built them, those who work in them and those who buy from them are the backbone of our community. As such, those living in my electorate are very aware that the current economic climate is creating unprecedented challenges for them. It is imperative that any legislative change that directly impacts these businesses be reviewed through a process that involves deep listening. As North Sydney's federal member, it has been my privilege to do just that when reviewing the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. The opinions I express today represent the input of hundreds of North Sydney residents, who have provided invaluable commentary to help me and my team come to a position on this legislation, and I'm honoured to be able to now advocate for them in this place.</para>
<para>From the outset, let me say there is good in this legislation that my community welcomes. However, they ultimately fear that the devil is in the detail and that this good is a smokescreen to enable less favourable employment practices to be progressed. When you overlay the fact that our current Fair Work Act has over 800 sections, covers 121 modern awards and has more than 100,000 separate wage rates and allowances for employers and employees to navigate, it is little wonder that, when a bill like this one is introduced in an omnibus form, many in the wider community feel both unease and concern. The community of North Sydney supports wage growth and improved worker standards, but it also recognises this can only be achieved if the businesses themselves are operating successfully and efficiently.</para>
<para>With that said, my community welcomes the establishment of a new protected attribute in the Fair Work Act to improve workplace protections against discrimination for employees who have been or continue to be subjected to family and domestic violence. So far this year a woman has been killed every five days by an intimate partner, while many thousands more have continued to struggle to navigate a system that needs to be turned on its head. These changes proposed in the legislation are a welcome step in the right direction.</para>
<para>My community also welcomes greater support for first responders, including police, firefighters and paramedics, suffering post-traumatic stress disorder, just as they support expanding the role for the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency to cover silica and silicosis. They also support the small-business redundancy exemptions in insolvencies and support introducing a new criminal offence for intentional wage theft. However, to this second reform, they insist that it be focused on capturing those that are truly pursuing this course of action with intention, not just those who are falling foul of our incredibly complicated award and work system.</para>
<para>Broadly, my community also favours the Fair Work Commission having the power to set fair minimum standards for employee-like workers, including those in the gig economy and road transport industry workers. However, many also express concern that these growing responsibilities for the Fair Work Commission must be matched with increased funding and resourcing and that any change in this area should ultimately still enable employees to work in the terms that they wish to work within, not to which a union would wish they could work to.</para>
<para>There are, however, six key areas that are cause for concern in my community. The first is a fear of the pace and scale of change and the potential for unintended consequences. Coming off the back of other recent significant industrial reform moved by this government, there is a general fear, particularly among small to medium-sized businesses, that there could be several unintended consequences that come with this legislation. In truth, this is the second tranche of an extraordinary amount of change in a relatively short period of time. I just wish this change was matched with the same efforts in climate action. Even large businesses with human resource teams are putting forward that they expect to struggle to get their heads around it.</para>
<para>Perhaps most concerning, however, is the message the scale of reform is sending to the business community. It's a message which is hard to miss and seems pretty clear: this government is expressing a relatively low opinion of those in business. Any successful business knows it is only as strong as those that work with it or for it. So to pursue such broad reform based on an argument that it is required is deeply concerning and insulting to many. The simplest solution for many employers in the face of this commentary will be to just not get involved, meaning they won't risk employing someone on a casual or contract basis. I believe that for many employees this would be to their disadvantage.</para>
<para>The second area of concern is that my community believes there is a specific role for labour hire workers in business, and this legislation complicates it. Several business operators have raised concerns with me around the labour hire or same job, same pay measures, and I confess: when I first saw this legislation, I was also concerned. Previously my partner and I managed and owned a recruitment agency, and when I read this legislation I was immediately struck by the challenges it will create for a business that frequently either deploys or employs temps. Would their pay be based on what was negotiated with the employing company, like the one we owned, or would it require the employing company to pay the temp on the same terms as the company to which they were being deployed? If it was the second option, how would a business that may have upwards of 150 temps across 20 to 30 businesses at any point in time manage their payroll effectively? Frequently, in any business environment, being able to scale up and down—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</title>
        <page.no>53</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Forde Electorate: Christmas Card Competition</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VAN MANEN</name>
    <name.id>188315</name.id>
    <electorate>Forde</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Every year, I send out a Christmas card to the wonderful people of my electorate of Forde, wishing them a safe and enjoyable break over the Christmas and New Year period. My annual Christmas card drawing competition invites all primary schools in the electorate to encourage their students to submit their Christmas card designs, with the winner featured on the Christmas card that I send out.</para>
<para>This year, we had an incredible number of participants—182 students, from 11 different schools in my electorate, sent in their drawings, and the quality was as high as ever. The winner of this year's Forde Christmas card competition was Molly from Loganholme State School. Her drawing was truly fantastic, and her creativity will now be on display to over 100,000 people in the electorate of Forde.</para>
<para>I'd like to extend my congratulations to Molly, along with the following highly commended award recipients: Kayden from Pimpama State School; Asher from Highland Reserve State School; Mason from Loganholme State School; Gabby from Norfolk Village State School; Sarah from Mount Warren Park State School; and Imogen from Kimberley College. It is fair to say that there was no lack of creativity or talent amongst the primary school students in the electorate of Forde. To all the students who participated, thank you very much. To all the teachers who helped facilitate this, thank you for your efforts. A merry Christmas to you all.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Bean Electorate: Tuggeranong Arts Centre</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DAVID SMITH</name>
    <name.id>276714</name.id>
    <electorate>Bean</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>For over a quarter of a century, the Tuggeranong Arts Centre, located just behind my electorate office, has been a place where people come together and celebrate creativity. Some come to learn, others to teach, some to dance and others to sing. All come to share stories and explore the wonderful world of visual and performing arts. From choirs to classical quartets, digital productions to home-grown musicals, the arts have found their way into the hearts and minds of many Tuggeranong residents. The Tuggeranong Arts Centre offers visitors a host of activities, with free exhibitions across three gallery spaces, a regular program of events, a range of workshops and classes engaging with both professional and community artists.</para>
<para>Earlier this year, the theatre at Tuggeranong Arts Centre received $2 million from the ACT government to upgrade its facilities. The theatre's sound and lighting systems and audio communications will be updated, allowing it to host a broader range of arts and events. The improvements at the centre will also be providing spaces for the community to experience art within facilities that are fit for purpose, safe and inclusive.</para>
<para>Congratulations to the team at the Tuggeranong Arts Centre on this significant milestone, and all the best for the upcoming celebrations this weekend.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>South-East Queensland: Rail</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TED O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>138932</name.id>
    <electorate>Fairfax</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor's 90-day infrastructure review has just hit the 200-day mark. Amidst all of this dithering and delay, and amidst a hyperinflationary environment, the minister now says, 'I think it all costs too much.'</para>
<para>One of the projects that is rumoured to be on the chopping block is the $3.2 billion rail line to the Maroochydore CBD on the Sunshine Coast. This is the core project that formed part of our pitch to secure the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The Sunshine Coast, for example, will host the marathon. Can you imagine world visitors trying to get on buses and cars to go up the Bruce Highway to meet a 6 am marathon event? This will be an international humiliation.</para>
<para>But, most importantly, the people of the Sunshine Coast—indeed, of South-East Queensland—backed that bid because it was going to deliver critical infrastructure for a booming population. We must get infrastructure ahead of population growth. Labor is letting us down, and we should not have to cop it.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Youth Voice in Parliament Week</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>157125</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to present a Raise Our Voice speech on behalf of a constituent. It reads:</para>
<quote><para class="block">My name is Alexis Pallister. I am 22 years old and currently live in Western Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Respect for women, this is the change I want to see to better future generations of young women.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">On average one woman a week is murdered due to male violence towards women. This year we have devastatingly lost 56 women to gendered violence. 56 women.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Why is this violence so normalised, where does it stem from? Could it be a lack of respect for women, which in turn creates a culture whereby gendered violence is normalised as women are seen as less than?</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Well, if respect is one piece of this violent puzzle the question, I want to post to you all here today is, are women being respected in parliament?</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And if they are not being respected, what sort of precedent is that setting for our country?</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">If women are torn down, excluded, ridiculed, called names and told that their experiences are invalid in a place that is meant to govern and protect us, what sort of message are we sending?</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That these gendered atrocities are somehow, okay? What behaviours are we unconsciously normalising?</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Respect for women, respect for women in parliament and in every facet of life, this is the change I want to see to better the future generations of young women.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Youth Voice in Parliament Week</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LE</name>
    <name.id>295676</name.id>
    <electorate>Fowler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This year I'm excited to announce that we had 56 submissions from my community of Fowler in the Raise Our Voice in Parliament campaign. According to the Raise Our Voice Australia team, it was one of the most successful outreaches.</para>
<para>This is the winning speech from Matt Keo of Sacred Heart Catholic Primary School Cabramatta:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Ms Le, My name is Matt Keo, I am of the age of 11 and am part of the Fowler electorate. I would like to express my concern about the issue of property prices in Sydney. Property value in Sydney is among one of the most expensive in the world as well as being the least affordable.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australia's housing prices has been a major issue for quite a while. This could result in the housing market and economy in Australia crumbling. Causes of this could be things such as population, material shortages and more. Some of these can't be prevented, but some can. Home building has been quite a problem for a while, increased home building would over time result in housing prices being more affordable. Other ways this can be solved is investing in the housing market. Yes, this would cost a fortune, however the economic market would fall without it.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In conclusion, housing prices are a major problem that could cause the fall of the economic market and should be a major concern. Ways to fix this problem are increased home building and investment in the housing market. This could save Australia from an economic disaster.</para></quote>
<para>I'd like to thank Matt Keo for this speech.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Podolski, Mr Ralph</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr REID</name>
    <name.id>300126</name.id>
    <electorate>Robertson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to acknowledge the amazing life of Ralph Podolski, aged 96, who lives in Killcare Heights in my electorate of Robertson. Ralph is a highly accomplished artist whose paintings have been accepted into the Archibald Prize and the Sulman prize competitions. Ralph was born in 1927 in the polish town of Lublin, before moving to Warsaw in 1939, where he started high school. He only spent two days there before it closed because of the Second World War.</para>
<para>At the age of 14 he helped print newsletters for the Polish resistance and was recruited at age 15 and given a rifle because of his excellent marksmanship skills. Ralph was assigned to a unit which was tasked with disrupting the German railway supply line between Lublin and Kyiv, Ukraine. Their mission was to sabotage German supplies to slow the invasion of Russia. In 1944, Ralph and his family were captured by the Germans and put to labour. He was liberated by the British army in Belsen at a weight of just 29 kilos.</para>
<para>After the war, Ralph spent many years working and studying in Paris before migrating to Australia, where he married Rhonda Coogan in 1959 and had one daughter, Yolanda. In 1959, Ralph and Rhonda moved to Canada, where he studied at the prestigious Ontario college of Art & Design and scored an average of 97.5 per cent over 11 subjects. They returned to Australia in 1964, where they lived in several locations before settling on the central coast at Killcare Heights. Ralph now devotes much of his time to his painting, and I look forward to seeing his works on show at the Gosford Regional Gallery in early 2024.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Curtin Electorate: Housing</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHANEY</name>
    <name.id>300006</name.id>
    <electorate>Curtin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last week, more than a hundred constituents joined our Curtin Housing Forum to discuss what it will take to achieve our agreed housing goals in Curtin: secure, long-term housing for all; incentives aligned to the provision of homes rather than assets; and social housing integrated into our communities. This is what we agreed at the forum.</para>
<para>A key theme that emerged was the need for vision and cooperation between all levels of government. We need a national housing policy that drives this. With rental vacancies at 0.7 per cent in WA, we need more housing supply, with well-designed, medium-density infill and a diversity of housing options. The federal government must incentivise the build-to-rent model through GST exemptions or o land tax concessions. All the experts agree that stamp duty needs to be phased out and replaced by a land tax. The WA state government must provide scale to ensure that WA gets its fair share of federal funding for social and affordable housing. Renters in WA need greater protection to provide greater stability and, at a state and local level, approval processes need to be accelerated, access to land increased and planning rules simplified, especially for well-designed, sustainable housing that can be built rapidly.</para>
<para>I thank all Curtin constituents who participated in this conversation. I'll take the outcomes of our Curtin housing forums and use them to continue to advocate for integrated solutions to the housing crisis in Curtin and across the country.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tangney Electorate: Sikh Community</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LIM</name>
    <name.id>300130</name.id>
    <electorate>Tangney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to take this opportunity to draw attention to and thank the Sikh community in Australia on the occasion of the 554th birthday celebration of Guru Nanak.</para>
<para>Guru Nanak laid the foundation of the Sikh faith. He coined the word 'Sikh', which means 'becoming the learned one', spreading the message of universal oneness. Guru Nanak travelled across India, the Middle East, Iran, Afghanistan and Tibet. He left behind a monumental text, called the <inline font-style="italic">Guru Granth Sahib</inline>, for all mankind. Sikhs originating from the undivided Punjab arrived in Australia in the mid-1800s and have lived here since then. There's even a place in Australia called Punjaub, at the border of Queensland and the Northern Territory.</para>
<para>In my electorate of Tangney, there's a large Sikh community and the largest Sikh temple. I have the pleasure of saying that I'm always being invited and I'm made to feel welcome at all times. Sikhs are renowned for their community service. During COVID and the floods, bushfires and drought, the Sikh community opened community kitchens around the country and provided food to many Australians.</para>
<para>I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Sikh community in Australia and invite everyone to join them in celebrating the birthday of their founder, Guru Nanak.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cherbourg State School</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LLEW O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
    <electorate>Wide Bay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Cherbourg is an Aboriginal community in Wide Bay that faces its challenges but is also having some wins. In a recent meeting I had with Mayor Elvie Sandow, she told me one such story around education. In the past 18 months the Cherbourg State School has made real progress as a result of its local community education board. Collaborating with parents, the local community education board is focused on promoting excellence, supporting student wellbeing, organising homework clubs and fostering leadership. These efforts have led to impressive academic achievements: a 71 per cent increase in English and a 45 per cent increase in maths results, with early-year students now exceeding the state average in both subjects. Elvie showed me a recent survey highlighting a 37 per cent increase in parents feeling valued and a 30 per cent increase in their belief that the school now takes their opinions seriously. This has highlighted engagement results and resulted in an 11 per cent increase in attendance this year.</para>
<para>Mayor Elvie expressed deep concern that the federal and state funding for this successful program will end in 2024. She emphasised the importance of not dismantling a program that's clearly working. In the words of Mayor Elvie: 'When something is working, please do not take it off us.'</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Hunter Electorate: Local Government</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr REPACHOLI</name>
    <name.id>298840</name.id>
    <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I know I say it a lot but the Hunter really is the best place on earth, and the awards just keep backing up my claims. On Sunday, Singleton Council was awarded as the best council in regional New South Wales, taking out the prestigious AR Bluett Memorial Award, announced at the Local Government NSW annual conference. Recognising excellence and progress, the AR Bluett is the most prestigious award in local government.</para>
<para>Singleton is a small regional council and, as I have said, this is absolute proof that we really do punch well above our weight. Singleton Council delivers fantastic outcomes for the people who call Singleton home. Singleton Council was awarded the AR Bluett for the area's liveability and how it is moving to meet the future head on. Singleton is a community and an economy known for coalmining and ag, but the council and the community are working together to shift the paradigm from the here and now to the future.</para>
<para>A huge congratulations to the council's general manager, Jason Lenane, and his incredible staff. Congratulations also to mayor Sue Moore, deputy mayor Tony Jarrett and councillors Godfrey Adamthwaite, Sue George, Hollee Jenkins, Sarah Johnstone, Mel McLachlan, Tony McNamara, Val Scott and Dan Thompson. The sign of a good council is a good leadership. Singleton council, you're in good hands.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Barker Electorate: Food Producers</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PASIN</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
    <electorate>Barker</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Murray-Darling Basin is home to 2.3 million Australians who provide economic output worth $2 billion each year. We colloquially know the basin as 'Australia's food bowl', producing a staggering 40 per cent of the food and fibre we consume and around 7,300 irrigated agricultural businesses. Almost all of Australia's rice, nearly three-quarters of Aussie grapes and a third of our dairy is produced in the basin. This produce is world-renowned for its quality, and we should all be extremely proud of what our hardworking farmers produce.</para>
<para>This afternoon, members of this place who represent much of the basin will be hosting an event in the Senate courtyard to exhibit some of the amazing food and fibre these farmers produce like beef, rice, avocado, wine, gin, citrus, fresh fruit and juice from Barker's own Nippy's, almonds, pecans, quail, stone fruit, dairy—the list goes on. We've got chefs and barbecues and the best the basin has to offer. If you love Aussie grown, Aussie made food, this event is for you.</para>
<para>I encourage the opposition to come and join us at 6 pm in the Senate courtyard to celebrate what our amazing farmers and producers can do with the water of this nation. Let's keep these farmers farming the great Aussie made products on our supermarket shelves.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Sumner, Mr Jack</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHARLTON</name>
    <name.id>I8M</name.id>
    <electorate>Parramatta</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to take this opportunity to share a few words about a former Parramatta constituent and local Labor champion, Jack Sumner, who passed away on 9 October at the age of 82. Jack grew up in Manchester in the UK. In 1968, at the age of 27, he married his wife, Sue, and together they led a life of adventure, living between the UK and India and eventually settling in Australia.</para>
<para>Throughout his career, Jack thrived in the business world. He worked for 25 years at Coates Bros and Co, a global manufacturer of printer ink and supplies, where he managed several international branches, including here in Australia. Then in 1997 Jack joined the Labor Party. He served as president of the North Rocks branch in Parramatta and took on the role of executive officer for the Mick Young Scholarship Trust. For four years he managed the administration, fundraising and distribution of scholarships to TAFEs and universities.</para>
<para>Today Jack is remembered as a local leader, a devout campaigner, a deep thinker on Labor principles and justice, a loving husband and father, and a great friend. Our thoughts today are with his family—his wife, Sue, their sons Daniel and Barnaby, and grandchildren Will and Riley. May he rest in peace.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Bowman Electorate: Fathers</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PIKE</name>
    <name.id>300120</name.id>
    <electorate>Bowman</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>One of the most important tasks in our country is that performed by our dads. The research says one of the biggest predictors of individual success in life is the presence of good fathering. Of course mothers play a vital role in the lives of their children, but when we see societal issues emerge it can often be traced back to the lack of a strong fatherly influence. We can't all be lucky enough to have a father in our lives but male role models have a huge influence in raising well-adjusted and responsible individuals who can contribute to making our society stronger. Targeted interventions aimed at promoting positive parenting behaviours and fathers' engagements are working in my community, and I want to see more of them.</para>
<para>Since the parliament last met I hosted the shadow assistant minister for social services and prevention of family violence, the member for Cowper, in the Redlands to listen to local organisations working in this space. Men and Co Capalaba are providing services to help struggling men reflect upon their lives and challenges and become the best man they can be in every area of their lives. The local leaders of The Fathering Project in the Redlands are also positively impacting fathering behaviours and fathers' engagements with children through evidence rich programs and resources that equip and support fathers, families, schools and employers in my city.</para>
<para>I thank all the different groups working across the Redlands to help our dads be the best they can be for themselves, their children and Australia's future.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Youth Voice in Parliament</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEORGANAS</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
    <electorate>Adelaide</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I'm going to read a speech from young Daniel Mills, an eight-year-old who goes to Nailsworth Primary School in my electorate of Adelaide. Daniel says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">What change would make Australia a better place for future generations? I have a few ideas. Less fossil fuels should be burned to create electricity so we have a cleaner future. The burning of fossil fuels is causing climate change, and that is worrying me. I feel like in the future our earth will die. Burning fossil fuels creates pollution, which is bad for our planet.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Climate change is making the weather wilder. Storms and droughts are more common. This means that we risk not being able to grow food and people will starve.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which comes from burning fossil fuels, is trapping heat, making Earth's temperature rise. A rising temperature on Earth will cause the ice to melt in the Arctic and Antarctica. This will mean that many people around the world will lose their homes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Human beings are harming planet Earth in other ways too. Waste from factories and houses can pollute rivers, and our forests are being cut down, which destroys animals and homes. But there are solutions to this problem, and this would make Australia a better place for future generations for people like me.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I think we should use more solar power and wind turbine electricity. This is because solar and wind power are renewable resources which do not harm planet Earth. They don't release carbon dioxide, and they won't eventually run out.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We live in such a sunny place, every house should have solar panels and battery storage. It should be cheaper. The Australian government should make it—</para></quote>
<para class="italic"><inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Hinkler Electorate: Bundaberg Brewed Drinks</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PITT</name>
    <name.id>148150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hinkler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to thank Prime Minister Albanese. The Prime Minister came to my patch a couple of weeks ago to open the Bundaberg Brewed Drinks super brewery. The Prime Minister did a good job. He wielded the scissors with perfection! He gave a good speech, with perfect picture opportunities and a good media pack in attendance. It did give us local, state and national media exposure. But in the speech the Prime Minister missed a couple of things which I just want to help him with in terms of the record!</para>
<para>The $19 million provided to this project under the Regional Growth Fund was a coalition initiative, would you believe, Madam Deputy Speaker? That $19 million was announced back in October 2018. It was a very important policy package. Unfortunately, under this government, the Regional Growth Fund, the Stronger Communities Program and the Building Better Regions Fund are all gone, so there are no further opportunities in these packages, and that is a great shame. However, putting aside the politics of names on plaques and ribbon cutting and pick-offs and media opportunities, I'm actually incredibly humbled to have played a small part in helping to deliver a $157 million facility in our local region, which is operated, owned and invested in by a local family. Congratulations to Cliff Fleming and all of the team at Bundaberg Brewed Drinks. That's someone I've had involvement with for many decades. They deliver over 200 jobs continually. They are a great exporter. They are an icon for Bundaberg, for Queensland and for Australia. Congratulations to them on the work that they have done.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Holt Electorate: Karva Chauth</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms FERNANDO</name>
    <name.id>299964</name.id>
    <electorate>Holt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to share about the enriching experience I had attending Karva Chauth celebrations at the recently established Hindu temple Shri Swaminarayan Mandir in Cranbourne South. The Hindu festival of Karva Chauth is a testament to the enduring bonds of love and commitment within families. It is a profound experience to witness the devotion and dedication of the community as married women observed a fast from sunrise to moonrise for the wellbeing and longevity of their husbands. Shri Swaminarayan Mandir in Cranbourne South served as a vibrant backdrop for this celebration, illustrating the diversity and cultural richness that defines my electorate. It is moments like these that remind me of the importance of fostering understanding and appreciation of the diverse traditions that contribute to the fabric of our society. Our communities' ability to come together and celebrate these traditions is a testament to the inclusivity that we hold dear. I want to express my gratitude to everyone at Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, particularly to Pandit Rajesh Tiwari for inviting me to be part of this very special occasion.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Youth Barometer</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PRICE</name>
    <name.id>249308</name.id>
    <electorate>Durack</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The 2023 Monash University Youth Barometer survey highlights the difficulties that our youth are facing. Nine in 10 surveyed experienced financial difficulty over the past 12 months, and 61 per cent believed they will be financially worse off than their parents.</para>
<para>You shouldn't have to be born with a silver spoon in your mouth to be able to get ahead in this country—I know how hard it can be, as someone who lived in regional Australia and left school at the age of 15—yet, the Australian dream of homeownership is literally slipping away. Just 41 per cent of young Australians believe that they will be able to purchase a property in the future, and it's only getting harder under Labor. Their reckless immigration policies mean that Australia's population is growing at the highest rate in 70 years. They are driving the rental crisis, with vacancies hitting a record low of just 1.02 per cent in October and the cost of housing increasing by 10.4 per cent in the past 15 months.</para>
<para>The Liberal Party has always believed in supporting young people to get ahead and to purchase their own home. Labor cannot continue to take the youth vote for granted, while, at the same time, pushing up rents and destroying the Australian dream for so many young Australians.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Middle East</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SITOU</name>
    <name.id>298121</name.id>
    <electorate>Reid</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Recently, Gazi Mahajna, a student from Homebush Boys High School, spent his work experience week with me. I asked him to write his first speech as if he were to become a member of parliament.</para>
<para>Gazi's family is Palestinian and he still has family living there. For his first speech he chose to speak about the conflict in the region. Here is an extract:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Palestinian people have lived through generations of turmoil, conflict, and uncertainty.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I believe it is our moral duty to advocate for a peaceful, two-state solution where Israelis and Palestinians can coexist side by side in harmony, each with their own sovereign and secure states.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We must … address the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza … Access to clean water, healthcare, education, and basic necessities remains a daily struggle for many Palestinians.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It is our responsibility to ensure that their suffering does not go unnoticed. The Palestinian people deserve nothing less than a brighter and more secure future.</para></quote>
<para>To Ghazi and his family I want say that I share your hopes. I want to see an end to this conflict. I want humanitarian aid to flow into Gaza. I want to see the Israeli hostages released. I want to see an end to the killing of innocent civilians. I want to see an enduring two-state solution, where Israelis and Palestinians can live with security— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Murray-Darling Basin</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
    <electorate>Farrer</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to invite all members of the House to an event I'm proudly co-hosting in the Senate courtyard this evening, along with my colleague MPs from the Murray-Darling Basin. I suspect your loyal staff already have it in your diary because they know we will be offering some of the best produce the world has to offer, and it is home grown, in this country, by some of the best farmers in the world—farmers who also demonstrate world's best practice when it comes to caring for their farm and the Australian environment. The Murray-Darling Basin accounts for $19 billion of agricultural output, providing one-third of this nation's food supply. The government's water amendment legislation, to be debated by the Senate in coming days, puts the future of our food and fibre production on a knife's edge.</para>
<para>The decisions we make in this House matter and make big differences to people's lives. They have the potential to drive up supermarket prices even further. To those opposite: imagine going back to your electorate this weekend and letting your constituents know the federal government has just added even more to their fresh food and grocery bill, and taken some of that fresh produce off the shelves.</para>
<para>The farmers that are here today have spent much of the last 10 years adapting to a dryer climate, improving their irrigation practices and preserving as much of our precious water as possible. All we ask is that you let them keep doing their job.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Youth Voice in Parliament Week</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KHALIL</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
    <electorate>Wills</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This week is Youth Voice in Parliament Week. Matthew Khwaja, a year 11 vocational student at John Fawkner College, in my electorate of Wills, wrote about what change would make a place for future generations. Matthews words are as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">One change Australia can make is to focus on providing support and education around mental health for young people at school. Mental health is not a separate subject to be timetabled, but must be integrated into all learning experiences.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The world is changing so quickly that youth in particular need to feel prepared for taking on the future.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Many young men in my culturally diverse community, don't know how to talk about their feelings and mental health.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Some of the stresses felt by young people in my electorate include the cost of living for their families.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As a young 16-year-old, living in the outer northern suburbs of Melbourne, I work a casual job to help support my family.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Many of my peers do the same and often struggle to keep up with the academic demands at school.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This is something young people find difficult to speak about and don't often ask for help when they are feeling under pressure or stressed out.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">To make Australia a better place for future generations, we need to invest in giving young people and educators access to learning spaces and the skills to talk openly about how mental health impacts on our learning and our growth as young people.</para></quote>
<para>Well done, Matthew! I thank Matthew for his thoughtful and intelligent words. I've no doubt that Matthew will be a voice for change in his generation.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>59</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Immigration Detention</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Can the minister advise the House whether any of the 81 hardcore criminals released into the community following the High Court's decision last week were released into the community without a visa?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
    <electorate>Scullin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I can confirm that all of those individuals required to be released as a result of the decision of the High Court are on bridging visas with appropriate conditions.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GARLAND</name>
    <name.id>295588</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. How have the government's actions to relieve cost-of-living pressures helped Australians doing it tough? What opposition has the government faced in delivering this help to people?</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! There was far too much noise during that question.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member very much for her question. Of course, relieving cost-of-living pressures is our No. 1 priority. And we know—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Taylor</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We're going backwards.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I take the interjection from the shadow Treasurer who can't ask a question of the Treasurer, even though he's back today. He's back. Get ready, Jim! The fact is that the figures released today show that wages rose by 1.3 per cent in the September quarter—higher than the inflation rate. Real wages rose in the quarter. They rose. They went up, because 1.3 is higher than 1.2. It's pretty simple. It's the highest quarterly growth on record. People will recall, of course, that those opposite said that lifting the minimum wage would wreck the economy. But they had more to say than that, because, when they were voting against the 'secure jobs, better pay' laws, their spokesperson on workplace relations, Senator Cash, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It will return Australia to the dark ages. It would close down the economy. It would leave supermarket shelves bare. There will be nothing there.</para></quote>
<para>The fact is that they voted against this legislation. They opposed the increase in the minimum wage, and we are getting real wages lifting. And they opposed a lot of the other measures.</para>
<para>But, just like they opposed all the other measures, they opposed cheaper medicines—$200 million on 17 million scripts. They voted against it six times in the Senate. We know that the Leader of the Opposition wanted no-one to be able to see a doctor for free and wanted to jack up the price of medicines by $5 a script. They opposed fee-free TAFE. The deputy leader said that this was a waste of taxpayer dollars. There are 214,000 Australians who have benefited already from free-free TAFE. In relation to energy bill relief, the member for New England claimed that this was 'Venezuelan communism'. That was what he said. They opposed the Housing Australia Future Fund as well. They opposed the biggest investment ever in bulk-billing, even though now the AMA vice president, Danielle McMullen, has said in Townsville that she's going back to bulk-billing as a direct result of our policy. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Immigration Detention</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Can the minister advise the House whether any of the 81 hardcore criminals released into the community following the High Court's decision last week were released into the community without a visa?</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is in order. I give the call to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
    <electorate>Scullin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Again, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. I should confirm that there have now been 83 releases from detention, and all of those who have been released from detention have been granted and are on visas with appropriate conditions. I say again that complying with the orders of the High Court is not something that is optional.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Paterson is warned.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms</name>
    <name.id>299964</name.id>
    <electorate>Holt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>FERNANDO () (): My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government helping ease the cost-of-living pressures and get wages moving again? What other approaches have been rejected?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Holt is a champion for working people in her community and our country, and she would have watched with great interest today the release of the new wages data, which came out just a short time ago. What we saw earlier this morning was that the wage price index rose 1.3 per cent in the September quarter this year and 4.0 per cent for the year. This means, as the Prime Minister said, that real wages have grown now for the second consecutive quarter. This was the highest quarterly growth in the 26-year history of the wage price index, and it is the fastest annual growth in wages since 2009. The shadow Treasurer keeps interjecting. He doesn't get to ask a question, so he hopes—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The members for Hume and Deakin will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>that if he chirps enough that will be a substitute for a question. I heard him earlier today before question time. He was out there in the courtyard talking about real wages. It hasn't dawned on the shadow Treasurer that real wages were falling 3.4 per cent in the last quarter that they were in office—3.4 per cent. The figure is now 1.4 per cent in annual terms, which is still too much of a real wages fall, but we are closing the gap that we inherited from those opposite. There was a 3.4 per cent real wages fall under them; it was 1.4 per cent in the numbers today, but it was the second consecutive quarter of real wages growth on our watch.</para>
<para>This isn't accidental. Wages growth is a deliberate design feature of our economic plan. It's why we supported an increase to the minimum wage; it's why we supported decent pay for aged-care workers, and that was recognised in today's release. Those opposite spent the best part of a decade pursuing a policy of deliberate wage stagnation and deliberate wage suppression.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I raise a point of order on relevance. The question was—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Treasurer will not interject while I'm hearing the point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question was: what is the government doing to get wages moving and what approaches have been rejected. That is not licence to spend the entirety of his answer going over—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! I have not called the Treasurer. Resume your seat. The Manager of Opposition Business is entitled to raise his point of order in silence.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Treasurer is a repeat offender and he should be directed to speak about the policies of his own government.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Wright will not use that language. The Leader of the House.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, the point of order raised by the Manager of Opposition Business actually explained why this answer is in order. When the question refers to what policies have been rejected, to then refer to the opposition's policies to keep wages down—to keep them low—as something that we have rejected is exactly what the question is asking the minister to respond to.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Treasurer has been going for two minutes. Part of the question did ask what measures have been rejected. I'm going to ask him to return to the question to make sure he's talking about policy, not personality.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We reject the deliberate wage stagnation and wage depression which defined a decade of economic mismanagement from those opposite. That's because on this side of the House we see decent wages growth as part of the solution to cost-of-living pressures, not part of the problem, which is what those opposite think.</para>
<para>The sort of rubbish that we hear about wage from those opposite, particularly the shadow Treasurer, might get him a polite little golfer's clap over a sherry at that cookers' convention he went to in London—</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>or the HR Nicholls Society. He was at the HR Nicholls Society on Friday. But we take a completely different approach to those opposite. Getting wages moving again is a key part of our economic plan. We are pleased to see today for the second consecutive quarter that real wages are growing again.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! I'm just going to ask the Treasurer to temper his language in future. I have a few welcomes to the House that I would like to do.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Treasurer and the member for O'Connor, when I'm welcoming people to the House, show some courtesy.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>61</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>United States: Trade Delegation, Brazil Federation Council, Armenian National Committee of Australia</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to informed the House that present in the gallery today is a trade delegation from the United States led by the Governor of Minnesota, Tim Walz, and a delegation from the Brazil Federation Council from the Federative Republic of Brazil led by the secretary of the council, Mrs Elaine Licio, and representatives from the 2023 Armenian National Committee of Australia's youth advocates, guests of the Manager of Opposition Business. On behalf of the House, welcome to you on all.</para>
<para>Honourable members: Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>61</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Climate Change</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BATES</name>
    <name.id>300246</name.id>
    <electorate>Brisbane</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Education. Most high school students can't vote, yet the decision of your government to push more coal and gas is harming their future. That is a big reason why this Friday students will hold a school strike for climate, gathering in their thousands in cities and towns across the country. Minister, do you support the students being able to strike this Friday and to leave school to protest for climate action and against more coal and gas?</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Members on my left will not interject while questions are being asked.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CLARE</name>
    <name.id>HWL</name.id>
    <electorate>Blaxland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for his question. My view is, I hope, pretty uncontroversial—that school students should be at school during school hours. I want our to kids to be passionate, I want our kids to care about democracy and I want to our kids to care about the future, but I also want our kids at school.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Security</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DAVID SMITH</name>
    <name.id>276714</name.id>
    <electorate>Bean</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Following today's release of the Australian Signals Directorate's annual cyberthreat report for 2022-23, what action is the Albanese Labor government taking to meet these threats and why is this required after a wasted decade in defence?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MARLES</name>
    <name.id>HWQ</name.id>
    <electorate>Corio</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for his question. Today the Australian Signals Directorate released its annual cyberthreat report, and what it shows is that there is a worsening cyberthreat to our country. We're seeing an increase in cybercrime. We're also seeing an increase in the interests of state actors in our critical infrastructure, including our defence. That includes an increase in the interest in our work on acquiring a nuclear powered submarine capability under the banner of AUKUS. What this requires is an improvement in our cyberdefence capability, which is what we are doing through the Australian Signals Directorate.</para>
<para>But this task has been made so much harder by the mess that was left to us by the Leader of the Opposition. When the Leader of the Opposition announced an increase in our cybercapability in March of last year, there was an $8 billion hole. It was a big announcement without the money to back it up, just as there was an announcement of $35 billion for guided weapons but only $1 billion was allocated. It was big on the fanfare and light on the substance. Those opposite weren't doing defence policy; they were just running an advertising agency. That is what they literally did on 4 January in 2020, when at the height of the worst bushfires in our country's history they used the Australian Defence Force to cut an ad to raise money for the Liberal Party.</para>
<para>This government is making the difficult decisions to prioritise defence spending on where it's needed most, and that definitely includes our cybercapacity. We also understand that that also requires an increase in our spending on defence. That actually stands in stark contrast to those opposite. Back in May of this year, the shadow Treasurer said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We've said that the Defence budget should be within the envelope that's already been established …</para></quote>
<para>That was the shadow Treasurer. Then last week the shadow minister for defence backed that in when he said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… I can't commit to increased spending …</para></quote>
<para>When it comes to those opposite, and it comes to defence, you will get hoopla, singing and dancing but you will not get an extra dollar for defence. This government is taking defence spending to 2.3 per cent of GDP over the next 10 years—that is a 10 per cent increase in the spending trajectory on defence that we inherited from those opposite—because we are committed to making the difficult decisions to keep Australians safe.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Immigration Detention</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. The ABC has just reported that, following the High Court decision, the government released some of the 80 hardened criminals—including murderers, rapists and child sex offenders—into the community without a visa. Is this true?</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members on my left, you do not need to add sound effects as well! The House will come to order!</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
    <electorate>Scullin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the shadow minister for his question. I say again: complying with the orders of the High Court is not optional; it is incumbent on this government and on any government. All those who have been required by the decision of the court to be released have been placed on appropriate visas with appropriate conditions. As I've outlined at some length in the chamber, there has been quite an extensive process of engagement with relevant law enforcement authorities.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Member for Latrobe.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>157125</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. How is the Albanese Labor government getting on with the job of delivering critical transport infrastructure, including in my electorate, while also doing the responsible work of cleaning up the mess left behind by the Liberals and Nationals?</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There has been far too much noise during questions. I want to make this clear: I've got to hear the questions and they've got to be heard in silence. What comes after is up to the House, but for the purpose of question time, questions have to be heard in silence, without commentary or any effects at all. I'm going to ask the member for Pearce to state the question again so I can hear the entire question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>157125</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. How is the Albanese Labor government getting on with the job of delivering critical transport infrastructure, including in my electorate, while also doing the responsible work of cleaning up the mess left behind by the Liberals and Nationals?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Pearce for her question and for her continued advocacy for infrastructure in her electorate, including projects like METRONET—the Yanchep rail extension—and the Mitchell Freeway. As members know, this government has been doing the hard work of cleaning up the mess that those opposite left.</para>
<para>We'll soon be announcing our response to the independent infrastructure review, which has already highlighted just how reckless the coalition was when it came to managing, or not managing, our infrastructure investment pipeline. Their legacy, and the path that they set for this nation, is $33 billion of known cost blowouts and an inability to add any new infrastructure projects to the pipeline until the year 2033. It is a breathtaking indictment on every single one of those opposite, but particularly on those in the National Party. It's an indictment on their economic management and their failure to genuinely deliver for their communities.</para>
<para>While we've been doing the hard work of responding to the recommendations of the review and negotiating with the states and territories, we've of course also been getting on with the job of construction.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We've completed the following projects: the Mitchell Freeway extension to Hester Avenue in the member for Pearce's electorate; the Townsville Ring Road stage 5 extension has been opened; we've completed the Bruce Highway from Bribie Island to Steve Irwin Way in Caboolture; the Barwon Heads Road Upgrade stage 1 has been—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The minister will pause. The member for Hume is warned. I'm pausing the minister because there's too much noise in the House—way too much noise. This will not continue. The minister is going to be heard in silence. It was the same yesterday when this minister was on her feet. She deserves the respect to be heard in silence.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have opened the Barwon Heads Road Upgrade stage 1. We have commenced projects like the Huon Link Road in Tasmania, the Tanami in Western Australia, the next stage of the Jervis Bay Road intersection upgrade and the new Midland Station for METRONET in WA. And, of course, as was first announced by this Prime Minister when he was infrastructure minister, we have the Rockhampton Ring Road, which the coalition not only failed to start any work on but they didn't actually provide enough money to do it!</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You did not provide enough money to a project being delivered by the Albanese Labor government! We've reached a major milestone on our election commitment to transition Perth's buses to electric. We're nearing completion on the Nowra Bridge project in New South Wales, with all lanes now open to traffic. The Barton Highway upgrade—we remember that—now has vehicles travelling on it for the first time, with the final alignment. We've awarded the design-and-construct contracts for the Monaro Highway and we're opening the Menmuny Overpass as part of the Cairns southern access road. We're getting on with the Majors Road Interchange in South Australia and the Bridgewater Bridge is well under construction. And we're nearing completion of the Townsville Northern Access Interchanges Upgrade.</para>
<para>While we saw that the Liberals and Nationals were all about announcement, we are getting on with the job of actually delivering.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Gippsland is seeking the call on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Chester</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the full list of documents of the projects that the minister has actually started and completed in her time as minister.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Resume your seat. Order! When the House comes to order, and members on my left cease interjecting, I will give the call to the member for Wannon, but the House will have to come to order first.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Treasurer will cease interjecting. I give the call to the member for Wannon.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Immigration Detention</title>
          <page.no>63</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. How many hardcore criminals released from detention got a letter from the Department of Home Affairs which said they were being released as an unlawful noncitizen?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
    <electorate>Scullin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Once again, I thank the shadow minister for asking a question of me. It's a pretty similar one and the answer will be similar.</para>
<para>I'll say again that complying with the orders of the court is not optional. We have to give effect to the decision that was made. All of the 83 releases required by the decision of the court are people who are on bridging visas with appropriate conditions.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Medicare Urgent Care Clinics</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NEUMANN</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
    <electorate>Blair</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. How are Medicare Urgent Care Clinics helping Australians to get urgent health care when they need it, and helping to ease pressure on hospital emergency departments? Why is this important after a decade of cuts and neglect?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Hindmarsh</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Blair for his question. He is such a strong advocate for better health care and better aged care in his Ipswich community. And he's a really strong supporter of the Ipswich Medicare Urgent Care Clinic, which has been open for weeks now.</para>
<para>There are now 38 clinics open and operating, with 58 to be opened by the end of this year. They'll be operating seven days a week for extended hours and will be open to walk-in patients who need urgent care for non life-threatening emergencies, either for themselves or their kids.</para>
<para>For example, Billy and his mum went straight to the Ipswich clinic when Billy had a suspected broken wrist from playing basketball. Twelve-year-old Billy was triaged in just five minutes. He was seen shortly after by a doctor, he was then X-rayed, he was treated with a splint and he was then connected for a physio appointment the following week. That was all done within two hours. Melissa, in the member for Lindsay's electorate, took her daughter to the Penrith Medicare Urgent Care Clinic when her daughter sustained a possible ankle fracture from playing soccer. Her daughter was seen, X-rayed, and discharged with a CAM boot in less than one hour. Melissa said, 'Why would anyone go to the emergency department with this sort of injury when the Medicare urgent care clinic can deal with it so quickly?'</para>
<para>It's not just that these appointments are done quickly; importantly, they are completely free of charge. They are fully bulk-billed. All you need to do is take your Medicare card. So far, with the 60,000 occasions of service that have already been delivered, a third of them have been for kids under the age of 15 and a third of them were on the weekend, when often people can't get in to see their usual GP. Of the weekday services, fully one in five were after 6 pm.</para>
<para>These clinics are not just providing high-quality urgent care where and when people need it, completely free of charge. As the member for Blair said, they're also, in a much-needed way, taking pressure off our overcrowded emergency departments. As we know, almost half of presentations every year to our EDs are semi- or non-urgent presentations—so-called category 4s or 5s. It's early days, but we know these clinics are already making a difference. At the Logan Hospital, in the Treasurer's electorate, category 4 and 5 presentations have gone down by 10 per cent since the Logan Medicare Urgent Care Clinic was opened, compared to the July and August average. At Ipswich Hospital there's been a fully 20 per cent reduction in that type of presentation, which is a huge relief of pressure.</para>
<para>This government was elected to strengthen Medicare. We're delivering on that promise, tripling the bulk-billing incentive, delivering cheaper medicines and rolling out a network of Medicare Urgent Care Clinics.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MOTIONS</title>
        <page.no>64</page.no>
        <type>MOTIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Security</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to move the following motion:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) expresses its grave concern at the vicious rise of antisemitic vilification in our country, and the breakdown in social cohesion occurring in our communities;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) expresses its grave concern that social disharmony has reached dangerous levels, and that community safety is now at significant risk;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) condemns the Prime Minister's failure to show the strong leadership required to overcome divisions within his own caucus, to stamp out antisemitism and bring our country together;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) expresses its concern that community safety in this country has been further threatened by the release of more than 80 hardcore criminals from immigration detention into the Australian community;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) expresses its deep concern that this cohort includes individuals who have committed acts of child rape, murder, sexual assault, and other violent crimes;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) condemns the Government for catastrophically and demonstrably failing to prepare contingencies for High Court proceedings where it fully aware of the risks;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) condemns the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs for consequently undertaking an unprecedented and shocking mass release of dangerous criminal non-citizens into the Australian community; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) therefore calls on the Prime Minister to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) understand that his priority must be the protection of the Australian community at home;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) cancel his plans to travel to the United States;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) urgently convene a National Cabinet meeting to formulate a strong and coherent response to combat the rise of antisemitism, repair social cohesion and protect community safety;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) urgently bring forward any legislation necessary to neutralise the threat posed by the hardcore criminals his Government has released into the Australian Community; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) amend the days and hours of sitting to facilitate the passage of such legislation prior to the rising of the Parliament this week.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Attorney-General will cease interjecting. Is leave granted?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Albanese</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On a point of order, as I understand it, the Leader of the Opposition is asking for leave to move a question relating to the serious issue of a rise of antisemitism, somehow linking that to a decision of the High Court that was made last week, linking those issues—</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Prime Minister is seeking clarification.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Albanese</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I do not have a copy of the motion, Mr Speaker.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The first thing we'll do, Prime Minister, is that you can complete your point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Albanese</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I was seeking clarification of the Leader of the Opposition's trying to mix the issue of social cohesion, antisemitism and a decision of the High Court relating to—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Just pause a moment, Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister can come to his point of order. I can then ask whether the leave is granted. But I need to know what he's asking at the moment.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Albanese</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I am seeking clarification here. I do not have a copy of the resolution. I would find it extraordinary if this Leader of the Opposition was overreaching so much that he is linking antisemitism with the decision of the High Court.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Resume your seat. Thank you, Prime Minister. Is leave granted? We'll just go through this.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't have it.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is there a copy of the—</para>
<para>An honourable member interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! To assist the House, if a copy can be provided to the—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Dutton</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, if I have the call, I'm happy to answer.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Bruce! The Leader of the Opposition is seeking leave to move the motion. The way this will work is that, if the copy could be provided to the Leader of the House, the decision can be made on that question.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Dutton</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, to assist you and to assist the House, I'm happy to provide a copy of the motion, but I'd appreciate from you an understanding of the precedent for such an act to take place. I have read out word for word the motion that I have put before the House. Under the standing orders, the longstanding standard practice of this House, practised by the Prime Minister when he was the Leader of the Opposition and a shadow minister in opposition, is that I can move a motion, which is what I've done. I have read verbatim what it is I'm proposing by way of this motion. The motion is seconded. The standing orders provide for you, Mr Speaker, as you're well aware, to ask whether leave is granted. That's the question before the House, and that is the question the Prime Minister refuses to answer. Has he got the guts to have the conversation or not?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. We'll just do this in a methodical way. On the point of order, the copy has now been presented to the Leader of the House. On the point of order—the Prime Minister, and then we'll move through the normal processes.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Albanese</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On the point of order, it is actually the practical practice of the House that if a motion such as this is a simple motion it can be read out by leave. If there is, though, any genuine attempt by an opposition to have a government accept a leave motion, it is given to the government and then negotiated through how many speakers a side. So, on that basis, leave is certainly not granted for a motion that links antisemitism with the decision of the High Court.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is not granted. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Dutton</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I've given the copy to the Clerk for a photocopy for the Prime Minister. To the point of order, though, to be very clear, there is no link between the rise of antisemitism and the High Court case. Let me be very clear about that. This concocted outrage by the Prime Minister demonstrates his weak leadership and his inability to debate a reasonable motion in this parliament.</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Members on my right will cease interjecting. The member for Hasluck is warned. Leave has not been granted. There was far too much noise for anyone to hear anything. Copies of the motion have been circulated. I'm now granting the Leader of the Opposition the call to move as he sees fit.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion immediately—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That the House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) expresses its grave concern at the vicious rise of antisemitic vilification in our country, and the breakdown in social cohesion occurring in our communities;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) expresses its grave concern that social disharmony has reached dangerous levels, and that community safety is now at significant risk;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) condemns the Prime Minister's failure to show the strong leadership required to overcome divisions within his own caucus, to stamp out antisemitism and bring our country together;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) expresses its concern that community safety in this country has been further threatened by the release of more than 80 hardcore criminals from immigration detention into the Australian community;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) expresses its deep concern that this cohort includes individuals who have committed acts of child rape, murder, sexual assault, and other violent crimes;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) condemns the Government for catastrophically and demonstrably failing to prepare contingencies for High Court proceedings where it fully aware of the risks;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) condemns the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs for consequently undertaking an unprecedented and shocking mass release of dangerous criminal non-citizens into the Australian community; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) therefore calls on the Prime Minister to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) understand that his priority must be the protection of the Australian community at home;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) cancel his plans to travel to the United States;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) urgently convene a National Cabinet meeting to formulate a strong and coherent response to combat the rise of antisemitism, repair social cohesion and protect community safety;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) urgently bring forward any legislation necessary to neutralise the threat posed by the hardcore criminals his Government has released into the Australian Community; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) amend the days and hours of sitting to facilitate the passage of such legislation prior to the rising of the Parliament this week.</para></quote>
<para>The reality is that this Prime Minister has been missing in action—missing in action when the Australian people need him most. The Australian Prime Minister has one of the most serious charges in this country: that is to take care of the Australian people; to protect and to defend them; to make sure that, where threats exist, the Prime Minister utilises the powers at his disposal to deal with those threats, to neutralise them, and to keep our country and our people safe. And he fails at the first hurdle.</para>
<para>The dreadful attacks that we saw on 7 October in Israel resulted in terrorists—a listed terrorist organisation here in our country and in other countries in the West and other parts of the developed world, Hamas—going in and massacring people of Jewish faith. It was a disgraceful act and rightly condemned by both sides of politics. It has given rise to a discussion here in this country, in the United States and elsewhere in the world, and it has seen a significant rise in antisemitic behaviour.</para>
<para>I commend those members, one of them that I can identify, on the opposite side, for having the guts to stand up and to speak strongly in favour of the Jewish community and against those who perform provocative acts, calling Jews names that shouldn't be repeated anywhere, but saying: 'Eff the Jews,' and, 'Gas the Jews.' And this Prime Minister had a solemn duty—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Attorney-General will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>to stand up and make sure that his government spoke with one voice. But did they do that? No. And what the Australian public has seen—and what has shocked the Jewish community in recent weeks, since 7 October—is that this government is speaking out of both sides of its mouth. Let's call it out for what it is. You've got Senator Wong in the other place, the foreign minister of this country, who is at odds with her Prime Minister. The caucus is split right down the middle. And the Australian public sees that this is a government where the wheels are quickly falling off. It's given rise to social disharmony in this country. There are Jewish kids who are afraid to go to school. We've got groups who are going into predominantly Jewish communities in our country to try and provoke them into a response.</para>
<para>And this Prime Minister is flying off overseas again, when he should be staying in this country to deal with the issue. 'What could I do?' he says. What could he possibly do about it? Well, Prime Minister, I've written to you, and what you should do is to consult with the premiers and the chief ministers and immediately convene a meeting of the National Cabinet, to get a better understanding of the police response and to understand what the security and intelligence agencies are providing, and then to collate that information and to have a coherent response which provides support and an underpinning to security for people of Jewish faith in this country, when they need it most, in their hour of need. This Prime Minister has gone missing.</para>
<para>I never thought that I would see, in my lifetime, a repeat of the horrific scenes which were seen, and that we've read about, during the course of the Second World War. But to see people of Jewish faith cowering in their homes, being dragged from cupboards out into the street—when children are still abducted and still held hostage, this Prime Minister needs to stand up and to be united with the Jewish community. And he's not. The words have been qualified, the message has been divided and the Australian public has looked to the Prime Minister and not identified this man compared to the man they voted for in May 2022, less than 18 months ago.</para>
<para>What compounds it is the fact that, in the last 48 hours, we learned that the hapless minister for immigration has taken a decision to release 83 hardened criminals—rapists, paedophiles, murderers; he won't disclose the rest of the detail—to live at large in the community with the Australian public, and he's done nothing about it. The government knew this case was being decided in the High Court. They have the benefit of the advice of the first law officer of this country, the Solicitor-General, and countless KCs at their disposal. The High Court had given indications in relation to this matter. A competent minister would have dealt with this matter by way of legislation at the first available opportunity, and he would have rushed that legislation through this parliament so as to prevent the 83 from going out into the community with the significant potential of committing more offences against the Australian public.</para>
<para>One primary charge, as I say, for this Prime Minister, is to keep the Australian public safe. There is legislation now being drafted; we saw in a trainwreck interview by the defence minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, this morning that there is legislation being drafted to address this issue. We hear from Senator Wong in the Senate today that there will be legislation introduced into the parliament. So we know now that, when the government have been called out and they're under pressure, there is actually a legislative response available; we now know that. Why is it available now but it wasn't available before the 83 were released into the community? The minister refuses to answer that question. It turns out that this minister has released these dangerous criminals into the community without a visa. Some of those have been left out, and you saw his evasive, tricky and incompetent responses today. Did the Prime Minister pull him into line? Not a chance, because this Prime Minister is as weak as water, and the Australian public are working out what a fake and a fraud he and his government have turned out to be.</para>
<para>The Australian public at the moment know that they've got a government who has made every situation in their lives more difficult. We know that the cost-of-living pressures are putting enormous pressure on families because the government has made incompetent decisions in two budgets. We now know that in many parts of the country Australians are suffering because of a crime crisis in their communities; we know that. How does this Prime Minister respond? He goes off overseas again. Prime Minister, don't leave this country until you have dealt with these issues. Don't hop on the plane again to the United States. You've just met with President Biden—an incredibly important relationship, but you've just met with the President. The first responsibility for you, Prime Minister, is to be here and take care of the Australian public. Don't continue to abrogate your responsibilities.</para>
<para>How can the government release 83 of the people who have significant criminal records and keep in detention nine when they are all subject to the same finding from the High Court? How can that be the case? How can you not have legal capacity or legal capability to keep the 83 in but you can to keep the nine in? Has this been explained by the Prime Minister? No, it has not. So the Prime Minister should not leave this country until the National Cabinet has been convened to provide assurances and support and comfort and safety to people of the Jewish community. That is the first priority for this Prime Minister—not to get on yet another plane and head overseas.</para>
<para>Prime Minister, don't leave Canberra and don't leave this parliament until legislation has been passed which will give effect to providing safety to the Australian people. What is happening is these people with significant criminal records, having committed significant rapes and assaults and murders against Australian citizens, are being released into the community, and you stand condemned.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the motion seconded?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>():  Yes, the motion is seconded. The No. 1 priority of any government is to keep its citizens safe. We asked today three very simple questions of the minister for immigration. The first one was:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Can the minister advise the House whether any of the 81 hardcore criminals released into the community following the High Court's decision last week were released into the community without a visa?</para></quote>
<para>No answer. The second one we asked was:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The ABC has just reported that following the High Court decision the government released some of the 80 hardened criminals—including murderers, rapists and child sex offenders—into the community without a visa. Is this true?</para></quote>
<para>The minister refused to answer. We then asked:</para>
<quote><para class="block">How many hardcore criminals released from detention got a letter from the Department of Home Affairs which said they were being released as an unlawful noncitizen?</para></quote>
<para>No answer.</para>
<para>What the minister has confirmed is that at least 12 of those detainees were released into the community without visas, and that goes against the assurances he gave to the Australian public on the weekend. This is what he said on the weekend:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Individuals who are required to be released as a result of the High Court's order will have appropriate visa conditions imposed on them in line with the need to protect the community.</para></quote>
<para>That did not happen. The ABC has reported—you would not confirm it; you would not deny it—that people were released into the community without visas.</para>
<para>Minister, you said yesterday that you would stand up in this parliament or you would tell the Australian people how many of those hardcore criminals were rapists, were child sex offenders, were murderers. You haven't provided that information to the Australian public.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order. I'll get the member for Wannon to direct his comments through the chair.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Speaker. Minister, you said—</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Sorry. The minister said that he would provide that information. The minister said he would provide the information to the Australian people. He has not provided it. The Australian people do not know where these hardened criminals are. He has given no assurances whatsoever to the Australian public about what the conditions are on those visas. He has given no assurances to the Australian people as to what would happen if there were breaches of those visa conditions—none whatsoever.</para>
<para>The No. 1 priority of any government is to keep the Australian people safe. We said on Monday that we would stand with the government to support legislation to keep the Australian community safe, to make sure these detainees were locked up again. Yet what we've heard from most ministers in the government is reason after reason as to why they cannot legislate. And then we find out today that they are going to legislate. Well, when? When are you going to legislate? When are you going to legislate, because all of us on this side are prepared to stay here tomorrow evening, we're prepared to stay here Friday, Saturday, Sunday to make sure that this legislation is—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We can't vote for it, Prime Minister, because there is no legislation! You've said that there would be, but we've got no sign of that legislation! How can we vote for something that isn't in the parliament?</para>
<para>We heard on Monday all the excuses and the reasons why that legislation couldn't be here in the parliament. Now, because you're being put under pressure to do your job, we're going to see legislation brought before the parliament—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Dutton</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Dragged kicking and screaming.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>dragged kicking and screaming all the way to do it. Meanwhile, we read reports in the <inline font-style="italic">West Australian</inline> newspaper that those detainees were out partying—alcohol; drugs; going to and from the city—while we're waiting for you to put this legislation into place!</para>
<para>This is a government which is asleep at the wheel in keeping the Australian public safe! You have been caught out having all the wrong priorities: not focusing on the cost of living; not focusing on keeping the community safe; allowing these hardcore criminals to roam free; not doing your job!</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When people look for a definition of overreach, they will search for this motion that's been moved by the Leader of the Opposition. There is no issue too big for him to show how small he is. The weaponisation of, or attempt to weaponise, antisemitism in this chamber to make it a partisan issue is frankly beyond contempt. I spoke in this chamber on Monday about the events in Caulfield and about the events in the eastern suburbs of Sydney. There was no qualification whatsoever in my condemnation. I've spoken since to people, including the Israeli ambassador and, this morning, Jillian Segal. Moshe Kahn, the rabbi from that community in Balaklava in the electorate of Macnamara, sent me a message saying, 'Thank you for speaking out so clearly and so unequivocally.'</para>
<para>So to come in here, move this motion and link antisemitism with the decision of the High Court is beyond contempt. This is the same political party that tried to repeal section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, and I stood with Peter Wertheim and other members of the Jewish community at that time. The Executive Council of Australian Jewry said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That would be the worst possible message to send at a time of increasing fear, insecurity and polarisation. It would be a serious abrogation of principled leadership by government.</para></quote>
<para>And indeed it was, which is why it was defeated. They failed to deliver the religious discrimination bill they moved in here, and, when an amendment was passed to carry antivilification provisions, they voted against it and trashed their own legislation before it was passed.</para>
<para>I make no apologies for standing up against antisemitism, and I will do it unequivocally as I have, as someone who led a campaign against a council my own electorate, against the BDS campaign—two decades ago, I think. I have a track record on this and I'm proud of it, but I also have a track record of standing up for the rights of and justice for Palestinian people. I make no apologies for being a consistent supporter of a two-state solution. I make no apologies for trying to bring communities together, not divide them, because that's the role of political leaders. At a time when there is social division, leaders have a choice. They have a choice to either bring people together or divide them, to look for unity or look for opportunism. And what we have seen from this bloke here is consistent with his entire political career. It has been based upon division.</para>
<para>Jewish Australians are fearful at the moment. The sort of activity that is occurring is scaring them, and I stand with them. No-one should threaten people because of their religion or their race in this country. But it is also the case that Arab Australians, Islamic Australians and women wearing hijabs in the streets of Sydney and Melbourne are being threatened, and I stand against that as well. The idea of selective human rights is one that I stand against. I'm opposed to any innocent life being lost, whether it be as a result of the terrorism of Hamas in Israel—those dreadful occasions. I'm against innocent babies being killed in Gaza. We have responsibilities, as a democratic nation, to say that democratic nations must stand up, consistent with the international rule of law. That is something I have done and will consistently do. That's something I will have meetings on at APEC, in San Francisco. I stand up for Israel's right to defend itself. I've done that consistently. I also say that how Israel does it matters. And I say that we need to care for all civilians.</para>
<para>We then have, somehow, a link between that issue and the issue of the High Court decision—a High Court decision that, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition himself, having been responsible for these issues for six years, went on 2GB yesterday and said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I'm not going to comment on individual cases because in some of those cases, I will have been a decision maker, and in relation to that case, I believe that I was. So, if the matters go to the Court again, I don't want to interfere or taint that process.</para></quote>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Groom will cease interjecting. Members on my left! The member for Bowman!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He stood up here and said we should have prevented people from being released—prevented a High Court decision. He stood in here, day after day, week after week, month after month and said: 'You've got to respect the Constitution. You can't change the Constitution, because if you do, you can't out-legislate it.' That's what he said. That's what they all said in justifying their 'no' vote, day after day and week after week.</para>
<para>This is what he said in May, in this chamber, 'The parliament cannot out-legislate the Constitution.' But, when it's convenient, just chuck it out and pretend it doesn't exist. They were responsible for a decade. The legislation that's been thrown out by the High Court was coalition legislation.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The members for Bowman and Groom are now warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Then they say there's no responsibility. The opportunism of the Leader of the Opposition has been exposed for all to see here today, but I didn't think he could go so low as to try to link these two issues. Then, just to get another crack in the tabloids or to get a 'hear, hear' from <inline font-style="italic">Sky </inline><inline font-style="italic">After Dark</inline>, he tries to link it with whether or not we should be represented at APEC. APEC has been there for 30 years. For thirty years, every prime minister, since APEC's creation by Paul Keating as a leaders' summit, has represented Australia.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Wannon will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The only time that has not occurred is when Prime Minister Gillard had to return to Australia after a tragedy in her family, so she returned early. John Howard represented Australia every time. Coalition prime ministers represented Australia every time. But that is not okay. They do that, while, at the same time, he leads a party who had a shadow ministry meeting, almost, over there in London, at their talkfest: Taylor, Morrison, Price, Pike, Antic, Joyce, Paterson, Tehan, Webster, Canavan, Hastie—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Prime Minister will use the correct titles for members.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In an article titled 'Tony Abbott and John Howard join Jordan Peterson-led group looking at "meaning of life"', it was exposed that they were paid for by foreign billionaire hedge fund managers—12 of them! The fact is that one in four Australian jobs depends upon our trade. I make no apologies for re-engaging and fixing some of the problems that we were left with. This is why we're dealing with supply chain issues, and it's why, with trade, we see the impediments in China being removed and it's why I will meet with President Biden, President Xi, Prime Minister Trudeau and Prime Minister Kishida—and all the meetings that have been scheduled over one day.</para>
<para>The fact is that this motion has been brought forward because this Leader of the Opposition is incapable of saying anything positive— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, members on my right! The time for this matter has expired. The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [15:04] <br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick) </p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>54</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                <name>Archer, B. K.</name>
                <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                <name>Birrell, S. J.</name>
                <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                <name>Broadbent, R. E.</name>
                <name>Buchholz, S.</name>
                <name>Caldwell, C. M.</name>
                <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                <name>Coleman, D. B.</name>
                <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                <name>Coulton, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Dutton, P. C.</name>
                <name>Entsch, W. G.</name>
                <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                <name>Goodenough, I. R. </name>
                <name>Hamilton, G. R.</name>
                <name>Hastie, A. W.</name>
                <name>Hawke, A. G.</name>
                <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                <name>Howarth, L. R.</name>
                <name>Katter, R. C.</name>
                <name>Landry, M. L.</name>
                <name>Leeser, J.</name>
                <name>Ley, S. P.</name>
                <name>Littleproud, D.</name>
                <name>Marino, N. B.</name>
                <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                <name>McIntosh, M. I.</name>
                <name>McKenzie, Z. A.</name>
                <name>Morrison, S. J.</name>
                <name>O'Brien, E. L.</name>
                <name>O'Brien, L. S.</name>
                <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                <name>Pearce, G. B.</name>
                <name>Pike, H. J.</name>
                <name>Pitt, K. J.</name>
                <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                <name>Ramsey, R. E. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Stevens, J.</name>
                <name>Sukkar, M. S.</name>
                <name>Taylor, A. J.</name>
                <name>Tehan, D. T.</name>
                <name>Thompson, P.</name>
                <name>van Manen, A. J.</name>
                <name>Vasta, R. X.</name>
                <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                <name>Wallace, A. B.</name>
                <name>Ware, J. L.</name>
                <name>Willcox, A. J.</name>
                <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                <name>Wolahan, K.</name>
                <name>Wood, J. P.</name>
                <name>Young, T. J.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>86</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Albanese, A. N.</name>
                <name>Aly, A.</name>
                <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                <name>Bandt, A. P.</name>
                <name>Bates, S. J.</name>
                <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                <name>Burke, A. S.</name>
                <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                <name>Burns, J.</name>
                <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                <name>Chalmers, J. E.</name>
                <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                <name>Clare, J. D.</name>
                <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                <name>Dreyfus, M. A.</name>
                <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                <name>Husic, E. N.</name>
                <name>Jones, S. P.</name>
                <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                <name>King, C. F.</name>
                <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                <name>Le, D.</name>
                <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                <name>Marles, R. D.</name>
                <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                <name>Mitchell, B. K.</name>
                <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                <name>O'Connor, B. P. J.</name>
                <name>O'Neil, C. E.</name>
                <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                <name>Perrett, G. D.</name>
                <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                <name>Plibersek, T. J.</name>
                <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                <name>Rishworth, A. L.</name>
                <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                <name>Shorten, W. R.</name>
                <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                <name>Zappia, A.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names />
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived. </p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask that further questions be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper.</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</title>
        <page.no>71</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Immigration Detention</title>
          <page.no>71</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I've 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:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The failure of the government to keep Australians safe.</para></quote>
<para>I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We have seen this government engage in the extraordinary action of releasing 83 hardcore criminals into the community. That includes, we understand from what the government has had to say, three murderers—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Sorry to interrupt, Manager for Opposition Business. The member for Warringah, on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Steggall</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There seems to be a misunderstanding. Today is the crossbench MPI.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's my understanding that there was no crossbench MPI lodged. If there was—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr Ryan</name>
    <name.id>297660</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There was an MPI lodged, Mr Speaker.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm advised by the clerk that the MPI was not lodged. Given that one has been accepted and that I have approved the MPI today, we will continue. I will investigate and report back to the member for Kooyong. I give the call to the Manager of Opposition Business in continuation.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We understand that three murderers and several sex offenders have been released into the community. The Solicitor-General told the High Court that those impacted by the decision included a number of people convicted of murder and serious sex offences against adults and children as well as drug offenders and people smugglers. It's known that those who have been released into the community include Aliyawar Yawari, a violent sex predator with the record of attacking elderly women in their homes so chilling a judge branded him a danger to the Australian community. Mohammed Rafiq was sentenced in April 2018 to seven years and six months in prison after pleading guilty to two counts of rape and one of sexual assault. Sirul Azhar Umar was convicted in Malaysia over the infamous 2006 murder of a 28-year-old Mongolian translator and model, Altantuya Shaariibuu.</para>
<para>It is for these reasons the opposition has been pressing the government to find out what its plan is in these circumstances to keep Australians safe. We've asked a series of questions of the minister for immigration and of the Prime Minister, and the answers have been deeply inadequate. The fundamental question that we have sought to get the answer to—and I want to commend the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for immigration for the very important work that they've been doing on behalf of the Australian people—is: what is the government's plan to deal with this matter and, in particular, why had it not prepared for this scenario? Why had it not examined the options for legislation?</para>
<para>What is remarkable is that the Prime Minister has just been given an opportunity to calmly and rationally explain to the Australian people what he intends to do in relation to that problem, how he is directing his ministers to develop and introduce as a matter of urgency legislation so that this matter can be legislated as quickly as possible. The opposition is absolutely prepared to support the government in whatever way is necessary. We've indicated we're prepared to be here for whatever time it takes as soon as this legislation is brought into the parliament, because this is fundamentally a matter of the safety of Australians.</para>
<para>It is not a novel proposition that the laws governing the matters of immigration, including the treatment of those who have significant character issues, that there are challenges in the courts to these laws. Indeed, it happens on a pretty consistent basis. Any competent government, any competent minister or any competent Prime Minister with a passion and a commitment to keeping Australians safe—which is, after all, the very first responsibility and priority of the Australian government—would have had legislation ready to go so that, in the event that there were to be an unfavourable decision from the High Court, there were options available to keep Australians safe other than the course of conduct which the minister has evidently taken, which is simply to throw up his hands and say: 'I've got no other option. I am releasing 81 dangerous, hardcore criminals into the Australian community.'</para>
<para>Indeed, we know from his update to the parliament today that that number has now reached 83. We've sought answers as to why decisions were taken in relation to that group and not the remainder of the 91. We're still seeking adequate explanations on that. But, based upon what has been disclosed by this government to date, what is abundantly clear is that the government was caught flat-footed. It did not have a plan. Frankly, it is shocking that on a matter that is so fundamental to the safety of Australians that the government simply did not have a plan and is now being left to scramble.</para>
<para>We did not get any clarity from the Prime Minister in his remarks. The opposition gave him an opportunity to reassure the Australian people that there was a clear plan, that they were calmly dealing with it. Instead, we heard the Prime Minister using a fair bit of that time to simply engage in political attacks against this side of the House. He entirely failed to live up to the moment and provide Australians the calm reassurance that they would want to hear, that there is a plan to deal with these 83 hardened criminals who have been released into the community after all of the evidence that's coming out. This includes what we've heard from the Labor Premier of Western Australia. He said on radio yesterday that seven of the 32 people dumped at a Thornlie motel on Saturday have had reporting conditions imposed on them by WA police. But it does raise a broader question about the rest of them. We've seen serious reports in the <inline font-style="italic">West Australian</inline> newspaper about what's now occurring at locations where these hardcore offenders have been released into the community—drugs, alcohol and many other things. It's the absolute opposite of a clear plan to keep Australians safe.</para>
<para>This is occurring at a time when we are also seeing shocking threats to public safety in Australia. In the Melbourne suburb of Caulfield we've seen a highly provocative, dangerous and threatening demonstration by Hamas sympathisers, deliberately held outside a synagogue at a time when a service was underway.</para>
<para>On the evening of 9 October, in Sydney, we saw the disgraceful scenes on the forecourt of the Opera House when the Opera House was, as was entirely appropriate, lit up in the colours of the flag of Israel to express the solidarity of the Australian people with the people of Israeli after the appalling Hamas terrorist attack which saw some 1,400 innocent Israeli men, women and children murdered, appalling reports of atrocious brutality and well over 200 Israelis captured and now held in captivity in Gaza. What we need to see is those hostages released as soon as possible. Of course, Israel has an absolute right to defend itself.</para>
<para>This is touching communities all around Australia. In my own community, in my own electorate, Masada College is a remarkable school and contributes richly to our community. It's a very welcoming institution. I've visited it many times. As well as having a large number of Jewish children, it has children of Korean background, Chinese background and many other backgrounds sharing education, which is in the very highest traditions of not just the Jewish community of Sydney's North Shore but the Jewish religion more broadly. This fine institution recently approached a business seeking to hire some games for children. The owner of that business refused in appalling terms and then posted that on social media. I've spoken to the principal. It's understandable that that school is very concerned.</para>
<para>These are the kinds of safety issues which are threatening and causing great concern to the Jewish community around Australia, and I think, more broadly, they cause concern to the community when we see the kinds of demonstrations that we've seen. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, we need to see the Prime Minister provide a lead and keep Australians safe.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'NEIL</name>
    <name.id>140590</name.id>
    <electorate>Hotham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll speak to the substance of the issue, but first I want to place on record how completely disgraceful I find the opposition's trying to link what is a really serious issue, antisemitism in our community, with a High Court decision which is profoundly and thoroughly unrelated to it and somehow trying to make politics out of this.</para>
<para>Surely we, as a parliament, and those opposite, as an opposition, are better than that. I find trying to take the human experience of people in our country who are seriously feeling under threat and are seriously being discriminated against and trying to use that to score points on the government disgraceful. I find that crass. I see some disgusting things in this parliament, but I have to say that this is right up there.</para>
<para>It tells us a lot about the way in which the opposition leader would run this country if he were ever given the opportunity to do so. What we know about the opposition leader is that the way this disgraceful politicisation has occurred in the chamber this afternoon is exactly on point with the sort of leadership that we have come to expect from him. What we see every day, throughout a 22-year political career, from the Leader of the Opposition is a constant instinct for division. That is what he tries to do every time an issue comes before this parliament. It's division, it's politicisation, it's hypocrisy and, frankly, in the work that I do, it is sheer incompetence. That is exactly what the country does not need right now. What I do agree with the opposition on is that there are serious issues in our country right now with social cohesion. The impact of the war in the Middle East is causing serious issues and deep-seated emotional reactions from people who are living in our country. They are reacting because of what they see overseas. They have deeply personal connections into this region, and it is affecting them and their lives here.</para>
<para>We heard about what happened in Caulfield on the weekend. Antisemitism has no place in our country. One of the beautiful things about Australia, one of the reasons that our nation is such a beautiful country, the very best in the world, is that we are able to live in a cohesive community yet celebrate those differences that make us so strong. We as a political party and as a government condemn antisemitism and stand with Jewish Australians as they experience what is an unspeakable rise in this horrible and one of the oldest forms of hatred in the world.</para>
<para>Many of us represent communities which have large Muslim populations, and I am one of them. The Islamophobia that is experienced by those communities is also real. If you want to hear about discrimination in this country, sit down with a woman who wears a hijab, and you will hear things that you would not believe are occurring in this beautiful nation: women being spat on on public transport; women being abused because they choose to wear a headscarf. We as a political party and as a government have a consistent principles based commitment: we oppose discrimination. We take it seriously. We know that to fight it we need leadership that brings our country together, and that is what the Prime Minister has shown us in the parliament this afternoon.</para>
<para>Let me turn to the issue that was also raised by the Manager of Opposition Business, and that is the question of the court case in the High Court that was decided last Wednesday. Let me share a little bit of background with the parliament. On Wednesday last week, the High Court overturned a 20-year precedent that has governed how successive Commonwealth governments in our country have managed the detention of noncitizens. What the High Court has told us is that it does not want ministers of any political persuasion in this country to make decisions that are akin to punishment. I make that point to the parliament. I want the parliament to understand that this was a full court decision of the High Court of our country, and it was made on a constitutional basis. The idea that our government has any choice whatsoever about whether we comply with the High Court's decision is absolute garbage. Anyone in the parliament or outside of it who is arguing any different needs to go back to grade 6 and take a little bit of constitutional law in.</para>
<para>Our system is built on the separation of powers. That means that, as a minister, just like anyone who is sitting in the public gallery, I am required to abide by the law of the land. The law of the land in this instance has been set down by the High Court, and our government has no choice but to follow it. The implication of this is that a group of people have been released from immigration detention. I don't mind telling the parliament that, if it were up to me, none of those people would have been released from immigration detention—none of them. It is not up to me. The High Court of Australia has given a direction to our government that we must release these people from detention, and we have no choice but to follow that direction.</para>
<para>When we undertake the following of that direction, we do so with one priority in mind: the safety of the citizens who elected us here to this parliament. That is why the way we are managing the release of these people from detention, something we did not want to do, is by following that dictum of caring about community safety. That is why people are being released with strict visa conditions. That is why we have set up a police response, Operation AGIS, a joint operation between the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Border Force, which is literally case managing each individual as they are removed from detention. As has been foreshadowed by other ministers, legislative options will be brought forward.</para>
<para>I want to address a number of falsehoods that have been raised by the opposition in this debate. The first is one that I've heard directly from the Leader of the Opposition. What he has come out today with is something which, just frankly and very directly, is incredibly stupid. He has come out today and said: 'Don't worry about the Constitution. Just pass a law to put them all back in detention.' I want to remind the Leader of the Opposition, who has been here for 22 years, that he knows and I know that the Australian Constitution and a full court decision of the High Court cannot just be overturned by a decision of this chamber. That is not the political system in which we operate. I know it and he knows it, and pretending any different is a plain falsehood.</para>
<para>The second is that, in some way, this a consequence of choices or decisions that have been made by our government, and I just want to make something really clear. We have been in government now for 18 months. Do you want to know how many of the people who've been released arrived while we have been in government? It is precisely zero. This range of people who arrived under former coalition governments of every political stripe is a problem that we inherited. I just want to remind the parliament that none of these people arrived while Minister Giles and I have been managing the migration system.</para>
<para>Finally, I just want to reiterate to the parliament that the assertion continues to be made by those opposite that this was somehow a choice of our government and the implication continues to be made that this somehow reflects a different view about the crimes that have been committed here, so let me be absolutely clear with you: the crimes that have been committed by some of these people disgust me. They disgust me; they disgust the Prime Minister; they disgust the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs.</para>
<para>I am a parent of three young children who are growing up in this country and I personally am deeply offended by anyone in this parliament who is suggesting that I have, in some way, a different view on child sexual abuse to that of the Leader of the Opposition or anyone else who speaks on this matter in this chamber. Let's show each other the most basic of human dignity and agree that child sexual abuse is an abhorrent crime. If it were up to me, I would put some of these people in jail and throw away the key forever. It is not up to me. That is because it is not the role of a minister in this parliament to decide how long people get shut away in prison. But the implication that somehow there's a different view about how to deal with child sex offenders is baseless, is debasing and should not be made in this parliament.</para>
<para>I have talked at length in this chamber about the record of the Leader of the Opposition in completely breaking our migration system, and that is a very important piece of context here. We have the Nixon review, the last in a series of pretty much relentless reports which tell us that the Leader of the Opposition profoundly mismanaged the migration system. They tell us that he built a public profile that saw him pretending to be a tough guy on borders, all the while allowing to come into the country people who set up criminal gangs, trafficked in humans and sexually and violently abused women. Then he went out to the public and sold a completely different public image. We have the reports. They are on public view. They are available for everyone to read.</para>
<para>Everyone should understand that, in the context of all the debates that we have about immigration in this country, the Leader of the Opposition ran this system for a long time under the previous government. He broke that system due to lack of focus, lack of energy, lack of attention and lack of resources. Now it is left for me and the immigration minister to fix up this disgusting mess, and that is what we are doing. That is why, in the 18 months that we have been in government, you have seen, essentially, a litany of significant reforms to this system to try to keep Australia safe.</para>
<para>Those opposite have had a go today—a pretty awful go—at trying to make politics out of this. I'd just say: get over yourselves. As a country, we have a real problem to fix here. We have a broken immigration system, and I'd like to see the parliament come together and work on those issues together.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I've seen levels of incompetence in my nearly 14 years in this place when it comes to immigration, especially in my first term. The incompetence was beyond belief. But I've got to say that the incompetence we've seen over the last week in the handling of this issue is absolutely extraordinary.</para>
<para>On Monday I asked the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs a very simple question. It went along these lines:</para>
<quote><para class="block">My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Under the Albanese Labor government, the decision to release 80 hardcore criminals will result in more violent crimes against Australians. Why hasn't this government drafted any legislation to keep Australians safe from these criminals?</para></quote>
<para>It was a fairly simple question. Now, I won't go through the minister's answer, but, needless to say, it was: 'Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.' Then, after an interjection on relevance, he said this:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We moved quickly to ensure that we issued visas to impacted individuals with appropriate conditions to ensure that community safety can be upheld …</para></quote>
<para>There are two points that need to be made about the complete incompetence of this government in dealing with this issue. Let's not forget that this issue is about the government's first priority—keeping Australians safe. The No. 1 priority of any government is keeping Australians safe. Now, let's go to the point about legislation. We have heard excuse upon excuse upon excuse from this government as to why they cannot legislate. Yet, today, we find out, because we've heard it in the Senate—not even here—that the government is going to legislate. Rather than having done their day job and being able to present to the parliament on Monday that legislative fix, they've made every excuse in the world as to why they couldn't—until today, when they have been shamed, absolutely shamed, into having a legislative fix, which we still haven't seen. I say it again: this parliament should not leave here this week—none of us should leave here this week—until that legislative fix is in place.</para>
<para>The second gross incompetence that we've seen is this claim that visas will be issued with appropriate conditions to ensure that communities are safe. It is complete and utter nonsense. Three times we asked the minister today about the visa conditions and whether it was true that these hardened criminals, or some of them, had been released without visa conditions. He would not answer the question. Three times we put it to him in three different ways, and he would not answer the question. What we found out was through, I think, outstanding journalism from the <inline font-style="italic">West Australian</inline>. A journalist actually went and stayed overnight in the motel with the detainees. What the detainees were doing under these so-called conditions of the visa, it seems, is boasting about how good it is to be smoking marijuana, how good it is to be drinking and how they were having a lot of fun heading into Perth at 2 am in the morning. There were young kids on their bikes driving into the motel and waving to the detainees, who were then abusing the young kids on the bikes. This is the level of protection the Australian community was being provided by this government. It is shameful. It is shameful, and we have to remember what crimes these hardened criminals have committed—child sex offenders; rapists; murderers. Those are the crimes that have been committed by these hardened criminals. This government has failed to keep the community safe from these hardened criminals.</para>
<para>The No. 1 priority of any government is to keep the community safe, and you have abysmally failed in doing that, for two reasons: (a) there is still not a legislative fix, and (b) your visa conditions were a joke.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KHALIL</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
    <electorate>Wills</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The sacrosanct duty of any government is to keep Australians safe and secure and to ensure our national security. It is odd to hear the confected outrage of those opposite, because, when they were in government, they failed miserably to do the work necessary to keep Australians safe. I'll provide you with the facts on cyber security, immigration, key national security laws: we inherited a wreckage. We inherited a wasteland littered with empty press releases, with zero substance, and a pile of botched laws. I can tell you, as everyone knows in this place, that unconstitutional laws do not keep anyone safe. Unlike those opposite, we listen to the experts and we listen to our national security agencies. The so-called tough guy on the borders, the Leader of the Opposition, is responsible for the mismanagement of dozens of cases and multiple pieces of legislation. He had two goes at writing legislation to strip citizenship from our worst criminals, and he failed both times. Those opposite didn't even bother to provide ongoing funding to the high-risk terrorist offender scheme, treating it as a terminating measure. That's a fact. Labor has now fixed this. This Labor government makes decisions informed by national security advice. This Labor government, in conjunction with our agencies, is working around the clock to ensure that Australians are safe. This Labor government will introduce a constitutionally sound citizenship loss regime as soon as possible.</para>
<para>I say this to those opposite: if you want to keep Australians safe, you actually need to do it right. You actually need to do the work—not the smoke and mirrors, the jumping up and down and the confected outrage. You do it quietly, well and effectively.</para>
<para>The Nixon review was a damning indictment of Australia's visa system under the Leader of the Opposition and those opposite. The review found that our government inherited a broken immigration system where abuse of Australia's visa system was rampant. There were abuses of sexual exploitation, human trafficking and other organised crime in our system. Peter Dutton, the Leader of the Opposition—first as Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and later as Minister for Home Affairs—presided over a migration system that was used to facilitate some of the 'worst crimes' in our society. That's a quote from the report. Here are some facts about the way those opposite did, or maybe didn't do, national security. Under the Leader of the Opposition there was an almost 50 per cent reduction in the number of compliance officers. Applications for onshore protection visas peaked in 2018-2019, with more than 40,000 on hand sitting with the department and awaiting a decision.</para>
<para>In contrast, this Labor government is building a better managed migration system. This Labor government is bringing forward the migration strategy, which will end the years of rorts and make our migration system fit for purpose. This Labor government has invested $50 million into migration compliance and building an immigration compliance division to tackle the rampant exploitation. Operation Inglenook has resulted in the cancellation of 45 visas of people working in criminal syndicates in Australia, including in human trafficking and sexual slavery. This Labor government is delivering a $160 million package of reforms to restore integrity to the system, to provide a fair go to genuine onshore asylum seekers and to work to break the business model of those who seek to exploit the system.</para>
<para>The Liberals opposite abolished a dedicated cybersecurity minister. The Liberals opposite failed to deliver stronger penalties to protect online privacy. Those opposite left a patchwork of inadequate policies and frameworks that failed to protect Australia's most sensitive data from cybercriminals.</para>
<para>This Labor government appointed Australia's first cabinet Minister for Cyber Security and our first National Cyber Security Coordinator. We set up Operation Aquila to enable the ASD and the AFP to fight back against cybercriminals. We've declared 168 critical infrastructure assets as systems of national significance. We've commenced the new cybersecurity National Exercise Program, we reformed the Privacy Act to bring penalties up to community standards and the finance minister has announced the National Strategy for Identity Resilience.</para>
<para>We are not going to take lectures from those in opposition, who, when they were in government, failed abysmally on national security. They talked a big game and they couldn't walk it. Now they come into this place and carry on with confected outrage, outrageously seeking to link antisemitism to the High Court decision. It is outrageous what they're doing. It's all about politics. It's all about politicising it. There is no substance on those benches opposite.</para>
<para>In contrast, we are working night and day to keep Australians safe. That is our duty as a government and we take it seriously and we're doing the job. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WARE</name>
    <name.id>300123</name.id>
    <electorate>Hughes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On the failure of the government to keep Australians safe:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The first responsibility of government is to provide for the safety and security of its people.</para></quote>
<para>These are not my words; these are the words of none other than Deputy Prime Minister Marles on 9 February this year. While I've been in this chamber I've heard the member for Wills on at least five occasions mention 'confected outrage'. He only mentioned the High Court decision on one occasion, and that is the subject of what we are here to talk about today. The first duty of a government is to keep its citizens safe and secure. Therefore, the first job of the Prime Minister must be to ensure that his ministers are carrying out their work to similarly ensure that Australians are kept safe and secure.</para>
<para>Following a decision of the High Court on 8 November this year, the Albanese government—through the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs—has released 83 hardened convicted criminals into the community amongst our citizens. The High Court has overturned a 20-year-old precedent that has underpinned the migration policy of governments on both sides. However, the issue the government now faces is we have people who were refused entry into Australia on character grounds being released into the Australian community. There is no confected outrage over here, Member for Wills; this is real outrage, and there is real outrage out of here, from this place, by ordinary Australians, particularly those in Western Australia.</para>
<para>During the court case, Solicitor-General Dr Stephen Donaghue told the High Court that the people that are the subject of this decision are criminals who have been convicted of murder, of rape and of child sexual assault. I do not for one moment suggest that the minister or the government have any control over decisions of the High Court; we were just subject to a fairly patronising lecture by the Minister for Home Affairs about the separation of powers. However, a responsible minister, a responsible government, would have been fully briefed on the issues and the hearing before the High Court, would have been prepared and would have considered: 'What if the High Court's decision is unfavourable? What next?' The minister did have that ability at his disposal.</para>
<para>There should have been a legislative response to this issue. There should have been a legislative response available earlier this week. We have said on this side that we will work with the government on this issue. We regard this as such an important matter. We will work with the government. The opposition leader has said we will sit all night if necessary to bring forth bipartisan legislation to keep Australians safe.</para>
<para>What higher order priority could the minister for immigration have than to have had that legislative response ready to address the High Court decision? I've been in question time this week, where the minister has been questioned about the way in which these people have been released into the community—questions that the minister, on most occasions, was unable to adequately address. The ABC has just reported that the minister released some of these detainees without visas, without conditions. We asked this question of the minister today, just over an hour and a half ago, and the minister was either unable or unwilling to give the Australian people any assurances over what conditions have been imposed. I further concur with the comments made by my colleagues the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for immigration that the parliament should not rise this week until the government brings forward this legislation.</para>
<para>If we just look very quickly at a couple of the facts around some of these people that have been released, there is one that is especially horrific—that is, a fellow who was convicted in Malaysia who shot to death a pregnant woman in the jungle just outside Kuala Lumpur and then blew up her body with explosives. The minister did not think that this was a matter of such importance that legislation should have been ready this week. The primary responsibility of a government is to provide for the safety and security of its people. The government, the Prime Minister and the minister for immigration have been found flat-footed here. The government, the Prime Minister and the minister for immigration have failed to plan, have failed to prepare and have failed Australians.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAXALE</name>
    <name.id>299174</name.id>
    <electorate>Bennelong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I've been a member in this place for around 18 months now. I'm a first-term MP, and I came into this place with my eyes wide open. But one of the craziest things I've witnessed here in my 18 months on a near daily occurrence is the collective amnesia of the Liberal and National parties of Australia. Near daily, they raise a matter of public importance with zero self-reflection about their own record. They raise topics about inflation and interest rates and never acknowledge their record in 10 years of government or that the highest quarter of CPI in a generation was under their watch. They raise topics about energy prices but conveniently forget to mention that they voted against energy price relief in December last year.</para>
<para>Now, today, the absolute gall of those opposite to say this is a government that isn't keeping Australians safe, when their record on immigration and cybersecurity is as it was, is just astounding. Those opposite will never acknowledge that Australians elected the Albanese government to fix up the mess left by them. Be it on inflation, or cost of living, or keeping Australians safe, those opposite failed. On cybersecurity, they failed to keep Australians safe. On immigration, they failed to keep Australians safe. And on key national security laws, they failed to keep Australians safe.</para>
<para>I remind those opposite that laws drafted and implemented by a former coalition government were the laws that were just ruled unconstitutional by the High Court. Unconstitutional laws do not keep Australians safe. While the Leader of the Opposition stands up and plays that 'tough guy on borders' role that we know he loves to play, he is the man that was directly responsible for the mismanagement of dozens and dozens of cases and multiple pieces of legislation.</para>
<para>We just need to look at the Nixon review to see in black and white how the Leader of the Opposition and the former government failed to keep Australians safe. The revelations uncovered by the Nixon review into migration are as confronting as they are infuriating. Our migration system should never operate like it did under the Liberals and Nationals ever again. Our migration system should operate for the benefit of all Australians. Instead, under those opposite, it operated for the benefit of criminals. <inline font-style="italic">R</inline><inline font-style="italic">apid review into </inline><inline font-style="italic">the </inline><inline font-style="italic">exploitation of Australia'</inline><inline font-style="italic">s</inline><inline font-style="italic"> visa system</inline> paints a stark picture of a broken immigration system, a system that was left to rot by the Leader of the Opposition in his role as the former Minister for Home Affairs. The review revealed a deeply flawed system that allowed criminal gangs from around the world to exploit vulnerabilities in the system for their benefit—tragically, at the expense of genuine migrants who would have otherwise reunited with their families or filled much-needed skills shortages.</para>
<para>Those opposite are responsible for a broken immigration system, where abuse of our visa system ran rampant. Those opposite presided over a migration system that was used to facilitate some of the worst crimes in our society, and they come in here today and say that this government isn't keeping Australians safe. Those opposite slashed immigration compliance officers by 50 per cent. Contrast their terrible record to what this government is doing to fix their mess. Unlike those opposite, we listen to experts and we listen to our national security agencies. Unlike those opposite, we do the work to keep Australians safe and we do it properly. Unlike those opposite, we will build a better migration system that serves our national interests but doesn't serve the interests of criminals.</para>
<para>We're investing $50 million into migration compliance. We're establishing an immigration compliance division. We've already cancelled 45 visas linked to criminal syndicates. Under the Liberals, criminals flourished; under Labor, we're closing the syndicates. That's even without going into the details on cybersecurity and the reforms the minister is doing. Australians don't get it wrong; they elected us to clean up their mess.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PITT</name>
    <name.id>148150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hinkler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The previous speaker, Mr Laxale, had quite the jumble of talking points. We're here talking about national security and keeping Australians safe, but the focus from those opposite is always on the Leader of the Opposition or the shadow Treasurer. How about you just tell us what it is you intend to do? That is what the Australian people want to know.</para>
<para>I got some correspondence to my office while I was here in question time, and I'll give a short summary of that correspondence because this is what the Australian people are saying. A constituent of mine wrote: 'I was at one of my craft groups this morning. We don't talk politics, but this morning everyone was absolute disgusted about murderers and rapists not only being released from prison but being given aid. We have people here, in this particular town, living in cars. Do they get this assistance? Do they get this accommodation?' In my view, that is the view of the majority of Australians, and this is what they are concerned about.</para>
<para>These are individuals with records such as this: a violent sex predator with a record of attacking elderly women in their own homes. Another individual, sentenced to seven years and six months, pleaded guilty to two counts of rape and one of sexual assault. Another individual was jailed 10 times over more than 20 years for drugs, driving and assault offences, including a 2½-year prison term for dangerous driving. More than 80 of these individual have been released.</para>
<para>I was here for the contribution from the Minister for Home Affairs, who said, effectively: 'We can't do anything, it's a decision of the High Court. What can we possibly do?' The first thing that the minister can do is improve the level of communication between the House of Representatives and the Senate, and between individuals in the Labor Party and the other individuals in the Labor Party, because we have a Minister for Home Affairs who is saying nothing can be done and yet we're hearing reports that legislation is planned, intended and will be delivered. Today is Wednesday. This court decision was last Wednesday. The parliament has been here all week. In fact, last night and tonight, the Labor government's priority is extended sittings for the closing the loophole bill so they can deliver on union commitments.</para>
<para>We are here, ready, willing and able, and if those in the government are not able to draft the legislation then we are very happy to assist. Give us access to the resources, give us access to the Public Service and we'll put it together. That's fine! There are always options. This is a matter of incredible importance to the Australian people. The idea that it's being used for some political purpose is nonsense. These are 80 hardened criminals who should not have been released; that is the bottom line. As the government, those opposite have tough decisions to make. There are times when you have to move quickly and we stand ready to do that—as we've said, as the Leader of the Opposition has said and as everyone on this side has said, 'If we need to be here, we will be here.' It can be adjusted, it can be fixed, it can be changed; there are ways to manage these issues. We've seen this previously: when something important in terms of national security, it's dealt with—the parliament works together. If we look at the issue earlier in the year around the former Russian embassy lease site, the opposition worked very closely, and swiftly, with the government to bring forward a resolution because it was in the national interest. There is no way these individuals should be in the community. This government have the opportunity to act, and should have acted on Monday morning at 10.00 when the House opened. They had from Wednesday to Monday to draft legislation, to prepare, to consult with the opposition and to talk to individuals. This happens all the time in government. It is part of being in government: you must deliver when necessary, and this is absolutely necessary right now.</para>
<para>So I say to those opposite: forget about attacking the Leader of the Opposition and ask the Treasurer to stop worrying about what it is the shadow Treasurer does or doesn't have to say. Question time is there to answer the questions put to you, and it's not just us who are asking these questions—these are questions from the Australian people, who are genuinely interested about their safety and the safety of their families from individuals they know should not be in the community. It's not now, not last week, not next week, not even today. Those opposite have the opportunity while the House is sitting to swiftly resolve this matter. They have all of the resources of the Public Service, they have all the budget that is necessary, they have all the advice that they need to find and they have all the specialists and expertise. That's part of being in government. Take the opportunity to address this issue, because the Australian people demand it of you. It is not going away, it needs to be addressed and it needs to be addressed now. It should have been done two days ago—shame on you for not acting! You should move, and move swiftly.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MILLER-FROST</name>
    <name.id>296272</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Once again, we have the opposition, made up of the remnants of the previous failed LNP government, pointing fingers to distract from their own record. I do hear from people that they're feeling less safe, but they feel less safe because of the cynical politicisation by those opposite of tragic events happening here and overseas—performing cheap political stunts, such as we saw during question time, is causing social disharmony and is not in any way making Australians safer, or making them feel safer. The Leader of the Opposition knows that and he doesn't care. That's because he, and those who stand with him, still put their own personal political benefit above the interests of the Australian community. What we saw in question time was disgusting, disgraceful and shameful, and pretending that this is in any way about increasing the safety of the community is offensive, because it is clear it's only about their own political fortunes.</para>
<para>But this is also about the record left by the previous government and the mess they left for this government to clean up. This is a desperate attempt to hide their failures, because the failures are significant. I'm not surprised they want to hide them.</para>
<para>The self-appointed 'tough guy on borders' was shown to be a nonsense in the Nixon review. This was more of the announcement-without-delivery that they were so fond of. The Nixon review was a damning indictment on Australia's visa system under those opposite. We heard how the immigration system under those opposite was broken and the abuse of the visa system ran rampant, with human trafficking, money mules, sex slaves and illicit drugs and tobacco. Organised crime took advantage of the hopeless visa regime overseen by those opposite to spread their misery, victimising Australians and those poor humans who were trafficked. That is what those opposite oversaw. That is what the 'tough guys on law and order' allowed to happen, through their inaction and incompetence. It isn't enough to tell the media that you're tough on law and order. You actually have to do something about it. And those opposite have proven they are not up to it.</para>
<para>So what did they actually do? Well, they cut the number of compliance officers by 50 per cent. As a result, the backlog of visa applications built up, and organised crime and individual criminals saw the opportunity and took advantage of those delays.</para>
<para>The Leader of the Opposition had two attempts at writing legislation to strip citizenship from our worst criminals—two goes, and he failed both times. He didn't bother to provide ongoing funding to the high-risk terrorist offender scheme, treating it as a terminating scheme. Perhaps—as with so many of the other measures they failed to budget for—they were putting their budget announcements ahead of keeping Australians safe. And of course the laws just ruled unconstitutional by the High Court, resulting in the release of criminals, were drafted by those opposite. Fail! That was the legacy of the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, under his watch: fail, fail, fail. They were putting their own interests ahead of the interests of Australians.</para>
<para>What have we done? We have invested $50 million into migration compliance, and we are building an immigration compliance division to tackle the rampant exploitation and abuse we saw under those opposite. Operation Inglenook has resulted in the cancellation of 45 visas of people working in criminal syndicates in Australia, including in human trafficking and sex slavery—people who were operating criminal enterprises, quite happily and unbothered, under the opposition leader's profoundly mismanaged immigration scheme. We are delivering a $160 million package of reforms to restore integrity to the system—an integrity sadly lacking under those opposite. We are working to break the business model of those who seek to exploit the system—those who flourished under those opposite, and particularly the Leader of the Opposition.</para>
<para>But they were not only incompetent on border security, in terms of keeping Australia safe; they also put Australians at risk in other ways. One of the things I hear a lot about in my community is cybersecurity and the rise of scams. I don't really have time to go into that, but they abolished the cybersecurity minister and they left a patchwork of laws that didn't work. And this is what we've had to fix again. So I was appalled by what I saw in question time.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There is certainly a collective sense of shock in the Australian community, that 83 hardened criminals have been released from detention and are living amongst Australians—our families—and fraternising with young children, potentially, and doing God knows what, because we have a circumstance where people that should absolutely not be in our community now are. That's obviously due to a decision of the High Court, and no-one is disputing the jurisdiction of the High Court, and no-one has criticised the reality that the High Court interprets our legislation and that High Court decisions should be honoured.</para>
<para>We now have a situation, therefore, where the government has to respond to a decision of the court. And governments should do this as a matter of course. They do it all the time. There are many famous instances of significant unanticipated High Court decisions, where governments have had to, therefore, step in and legislate. But there is a great deal of confusion as to whether or not that is what the government will even be doing whatsoever.</para>
<para>We had a circumstance during a debate during question time when the Prime Minister made a comment in the heat of the argument—and maybe he thought he was being clever—referencing the recent referendum and put it on the coalition by saying that we made arguments that you can't 'out-legislate' the High Court. He was invoking that principle here and now in this instance. He was saying to the parliament that it won't be possible to legislate to overcome this decision of the High Court and to get these people out of the community and back into a custodial circumstance where they belong. That line is completely inconsistent with other members of his government, who have intimated that legislation is being worked on, that they're working through the issues of how there might be some kind of legislative solution to this decision that's been made, and that, at some point, the parliament will be asked to deal with this matter.</para>
<para>We have a prime minister saying that no legislation is possible and that you can't legislate against the High Court. We have a deputy prime minister saying this morning that they're looking into avenues for legislation. Then we have two ministers—an immigration minister and a home affairs minister—who, in their public commentary, would make you think that this is all about people feeling sorry for them and the situation they're in as ministers responsible for a matter that they should be taking responsibility for and are not. They're indicating that it's all someone else's fault and that we should feel sorry for them. I feel sorry for the communities who have now got living amongst them these 83 high-risk individuals when both sides agree it is dangerous for them to be out in the community.</para>
<para>We've got someone who's been convicted of raping a 10-year-old boy. We've got someone who's been convicted of murder. Quite rightly, he is not being sent back to the country where he's been convicted because he'll face the death penalty. I support the fact that we don't extradite people to jurisdictions with the death penalty, but I don't support a person who's been convicted of murdering someone living in my community or in any other Australian's community. If you think about how this would be handled, if it were an Australian citizen rather than people in this circumstance, it is very much the case that, in my home state of South Australia, a paedophile might have served their sentence, but they are still not released back into the community when it is clearly the case that they are still a danger to the community. State parliaments have been able to legislate control order regimes to ensure that these people aren't free to move amongst the community and be a threat or be at risk of reoffending.</para>
<para>We're going to find out at some point whether there is a legislative solution to this or not, when the government, ultimately, brings something into the parliament. That will be the real revelation. If the government brings something into the parliament on this matter, what we will know is that there is a solution but that they didn't take the first opportunity available to them to put it in place. We all deeply, deeply pray that none of these dangerous people do anything to innocent Australians in our community while we wait for the government to take action, but the reality is that the government should have been prepared for this potential circumstance. If we find out that we could have legislated but that that legislation has been delayed for months and months and months while these people are out in the community, that is on the head of the two ministers responsible and this government for failing to act expeditiously.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MASCARENHAS</name>
    <name.id>298800</name.id>
    <electorate>Swan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to start with three principles. First of all, all Australian governments want to keep our citizens safe. That's something that I think both sides of this chamber can fundamentally understand. The other thing that I would say is that all lives matter. That's something that I think that we can agree as humans. Finally, what I would say is that words in this place matter, and they can be amplified, so we need to be really intentional about what we say in here.</para>
<para>Thank you for this opportunity to speak about this. I am a new MP, and I have been often proud of the 47th Parliament. I had thought that we had come a long way in this place, but here we are again with the Liberal Party back playing the 'tough on borders' game. That game didn't work. They failed to keep Australians safe. Laws that are unconstitutional do not keep anyone safe.</para>
<para>Look, the High Court, the highest court of the land, has made a decision. And one of the things I think all Australians would agree on is that law and justice are important and that nobody is above the law, including those people in this House. The High Court has the roles and functions to interpret the law and decide on important cases. We live in a system where courts make independent decisions, separate to the decisions or actions of the executive—or this parliament. I think it's fascinating that we're back here doing politics 101, law 101, justice 101. This is a fundamental essence of our democracy. It's important that we remember and reflect on this.</para>
<para>It's called responsible government and it's about separation of powers. These are concepts that eluded the member for Cook, and it seems to be contagious—maybe that's because the member for Cook is still a member of this parliament—as it appears the member for Dickson has the same affliction. He couldn't answer the question this morning at his press conference about why he had not deported the detainees when he was immigration minister. He couldn't answer it. Was he keeping Australia unsafe? I think that he knows it. He tried twice to write legislation to strip citizenship from some of the worst criminals you can come across, and twice he failed. And then his party defunded the high-risk terrorist offenders scheme. His party failed to keep Australia safe. Labor fixed that, and this is another mess that Labor has to clean up once again.</para>
<para>What the High Court has done on this occasion is perform its function, one that is independent of the executive and the legislative arm of the government. This decision has changed some of the ways in which Australia can hold people in detention. But we need to remember that the High Court has not released the full judgement yet, so we can only anticipate the full extent of the legislative response that is necessary to reflect that judgement. The government is doing what it can, as we heard earlier today. I understand, from listening to the debate, that the government is monitoring the changes brought down by the High Court and what the requirements of their visas should be.</para>
<para>We should all keep our communities safe. We all want to foster social cohesion and goodwill amongst the community, which is another reason why the words that we say in this place matter. It fundamentally does. There are moments in this place where I'm ashamed to call myself a politician and I think that we really need to look hard at ourselves and be really intentional about what we're trying to achieve.</para>
<para>You can choose division or you can choose unity. You can choose love; you can choose hate. You can choose disunity; you can choose peace. Our government is dealing with the decisions of the High Court, as we heard from the minister today, and this is a government that is acting without hysteria. I love Australia and I think everyone should have a sense of belonging here.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>81</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Human Rights Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>81</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>81</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
    <electorate>Macnamara</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled <inline font-style="italic">Human rights </inline><inline font-style="italic">scrutiny</inline><inline font-style="italic"> report</inline><inline font-style="italic">: report</inline><inline font-style="italic"> 12 of 2023</inline>.</para>
<para>Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I'm pleased to table the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' 12th scrutiny report of 2023. In this report, the committee has considered 123 new legislative instruments, commented on two and concluded its consideration of two. The committee has also considered 14 new bills, making no comment in relation to them, and has concluded its consideration of two bills previously introduced.</para>
<para>In particular in this report, the committee is seeking further information about the Migration Amendment (Resolution of Status Visa) Regulations 2023, a measure which largely applies to people who arrived in Australia by boat without a valid visa before July 2013. This regulation requires that, where a person on a specified temporary protection visa applies for a permanent resolution of status visa, the application must be refused if the person does not satisfy identity requirements. The refusal of such a visa may have significant consequences for the individual, and therefore the committee is seeking further information from the Minister for Home Affairs to assess its compatibility with these rights.</para>
<para>The committee has also concluded its consideration of two bills relating to identity verification services. These bills seek to establish a federal legislative framework with respect to existing identity verification facilities and services. The bills would authorise the Attorney-General's Department to develop, operate and maintain these facilities and to collect, use and disclose personal identification information. The committee is concerned that these measures may not represent a proportionate limit on the right to privacy and has recommended that a comprehensive review of the broader legislative framework be undertaken. The committee also considers that it's not clear that an individual would have access to an effective remedy for any violation of rights or that there are sufficient safeguards to mitigate the risk of data verification errors that may disproportionately impact on certain groups.</para>
<para>The committee has also concluded its consideration of the Social Security (Remote Engagement Program Payment) Determination 2023, which determines the arrangements between the Commonwealth and two Aboriginal corporations as remote engagement programs under a trial. Under this program, social welfare recipients may undertake a remote engagement placement, working at least 30 hours per fortnight, and receive $190 payment per fortnight on top of their existing payments. The committee considers the measures could promote a number of rights but has some concerns that, as there are no legislative constraints on when a remote engagement placement may be ended, this could risk impermissibly limiting the rights to social security and an adequate standard of living.</para>
<para>Further, if the placement were to constitute a form of employment under international human rights law, the rate of pay for a minimum 15 hours per week being $6.33 per hour is insufficient to amount to fair and equal remuneration. If the measure impermissibly limits these rights, it would also likely constitute unlawful discrimination, particularly with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The committee has made recommendations to assist with the proportionality of this measure and otherwise draws these human rights concerns to the attention of the Minister for Indigenous Australians and the parliament.</para>
<para>I encourage all members to consider the committee's report closely. I thank the secretariat for their work for this committee, not only for today's report but also for the fact that there have been 12 reports and a significant amount of work that goes into what doesn't go into the report as well. The secretariat of the Joint Committee on Human Rights is an outstanding group of people, and I thank them. I also acknowledge the member for North Sydney, who sits on the committee with me, along with many others. I thank all of the committee members for their collaboration. I commend the committee's <inline font-style="italic">Human rights </inline><inline font-style="italic">Scrutiny </inline><inline font-style="italic">r</inline><inline font-style="italic">eport 12 </inline><inline font-style="italic">of </inline><inline font-style="italic">2023</inline> to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Communications and the Arts Committee</title>
          <page.no>81</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>81</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRIAN MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>129164</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyons</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts, I present the committee's report entitled <inline font-style="italic">Connecting the country: mission critical—inquiry into co-investment in multi-carrier regional mobile infrastructure</inline>together with the minutes of proceedings.</para>
<para>Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRIAN MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>129164</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I rise to present the report <inline font-style="italic">Connecting the country: mission critical—</inline><inline font-style="italic">inquiry into co-investment in multi-carrier regional mobile infrastructure</inline>undertaken by the House Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts. The inquiry explored Australia's digital divide in mobile telecommunications services and how infrastructure might best be funded and deployed to improve connectivity and competition. Members heard from many people and stakeholders across the country. We received 43 submissions, held 17 public hearings and visited Adelaide, Alice Springs, Canberra, Geelong, Launceston, Perth and Sydney.</para>
<para>In a nutshell: where there's no coverage, people are desperate to receive it; and, where there is one carrier providing coverage, people would like more, to offer competition and choice. It's a given than more carriers in any given location should translate to better, more reliable and cheaper services as carriers compete for custom. The conundrum is how to encourage commercial enterprises to enter low-margin markets and remain there.</para>
<para>We heard a common refrain from industry stakeholders: expansion to regional and remote areas is becoming less attractive or less commercially viable. A central reason is that the cost to build and operate tower and related backhaul infrastructure can significantly outweigh the revenue such investments generate. The returns are stacking up less, especially when compared to the revenue that can be generated by redirecting those same investment dollars to more profitable markets. Demand for connectivity is rising fast, whether it's Davenport or Dubbo, but so are the costs, while revenues are flattening. This means the models that support regional investments from both private and public sectors need to adapt.</para>
<para>The most clear and obvious change the inquiry identified is for significantly increased levels of infrastructure sharing. The economic benefits of co-investment and spreading the costs of network deployments across multiple operators were clear from the evidence provided in hearings and submissions. A variety of models and approaches to enable increased sharing were presented. These ranged from active sharing of radio access networks and spectrum through to more modest increased co-location of passive equipment. Models were presented from across industry, including from model network operators, tower owners and public sector funders.</para>
<para>The committee has made a number of important recommendations in light of the evidence received. It includes a call for the government to increase targeted funding towards investing in shared infrastructure through trials and pilot schemes where active sharing is able to be proved out from both commercial and technical perspectives. A trial program to mandate open access to government funded infrastructure in non-urban areas is supported along with mandating potential licence terms for open access and active sharing.</para>
<para>The committee recommends strategies to improve planning for mobile infrastructure and allow co-location of carriers and efficient construction alongside energy transmission and transport development. The harmonisation of planning and environmental regulations is considered vital to avoid costly approvals. A re-evaluation of the Mobile Black Spot Program is recommended to ensure it remains fit for purpose. This is in tandem with a recommendation for a new contemporary universal service obligation to work in today's mobile environment. Also suggested are licensing provisions with time frames for unused spectrum holdings in non-urban areas.</para>
<para>The committee heard evidence from many business sectors and governments and individuals about how essential mobile coverage is to modern Australian life no matter where you live. A lack of access greatly impacts the livelihoods of regions, particularly Indigenous communities, remote farming communities and isolated tourist destinations. Many locations and the highways and roads that join them are peppered with black spots. Mobile connectivity is not a nice-to-have; it's a must-have. Government services are increasingly delivered digitally, and in many remote First Nations community the mobile is the most accessible medium to access services.</para>
<para>These communities bear a disproportionate impact on living standards due to scant or zero connectivity. This has led to innovative local solutions being developed to enable participation in modern service. While these local solutions don't provide a true mobile service, including for safe travel, the systems partially meet community need via wi-fi hubs and low earth orbit satellite. The committee recommends the Australia government fund place based solutions for reliable and secure telecommunication services in these communities, including land based infrastructure.</para>
<para>Finally, the committee heard of the vital importance of mobile connectivity and reliability in non-urban Australia during emergencies and natural disasters. The committee learnt of the possibility of mandating roaming between carriers during an emergency event, which would greatly improve safety and disaster responsiveness. The evidence was compelling, and its importance was not lost on the committee. This is an issue we believe requires urgent consideration.</para>
<para>I'd like to thank the many people and organisations who participated in the inquiry via submissions and through evidence at hearings. I thank my committee colleagues—I note Mr Coulton is in the House—and, of course, Deputy Chair Archer for their very constructive input and the committee secretariat for pulling it together. It's fair to say, the inquiry—perhaps a bit like this speech—ended up going longer and deeper than we'd first thought it might, but I'm very pleased with the results. I believe we've delivered a robust set of recommendations that provide a solid foundation for the minister to work with. It's a great shame the public doesn't see more of how these committees work. They do some of the best work I've been part of as a member of the House, with members from across the aisle and crossbench working together to find solutions for the common good. I commend the report to the House, and I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the House take note of the report.</para></quote>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 39, the debate was adjourned, and the resumption of the debate made an order of the day for the next sitting.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>83</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRIAN MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>129164</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyons</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>83</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>83</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7090" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>83</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>83</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
    <electorate>Eden-Monaro</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>83</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7089" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>83</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>83</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
    <electorate>Eden-Monaro</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Primary Industries (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>83</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7095" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Primary Industries (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>83</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>83</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
    <electorate>Eden-Monaro</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>84</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7091" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>84</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Maranoa be agreed to.</para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [16:29]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>58</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Archer, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Birrell, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, R. E.</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S.</name>
                  <name>Caldwell, C. M.</name>
                  <name>Chaney, K. E.</name>
                  <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Coleman, D. B.</name>
                  <name>Conaghan, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Entsch, W. G.</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                  <name>Gee, A. R.</name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Hamilton, G. R.</name>
                  <name>Hastie, A. W.</name>
                  <name>Hawke, A. G.</name>
                  <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Howarth, L. R.</name>
                  <name>Katter, R. C.</name>
                  <name>Landry, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Le, D.</name>
                  <name>Leeser, J.</name>
                  <name>Ley, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Littleproud, D.</name>
                  <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                  <name>McIntosh, M. I.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, Z. A.</name>
                  <name>Morrison, S. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, E. L.</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                  <name>Pearce, G. B.</name>
                  <name>Pike, H. J.</name>
                  <name>Pitt, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, R. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Stevens, J.</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, M. S.</name>
                  <name>Taylor, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Tehan, D. T.</name>
                  <name>Thompson, P.</name>
                  <name>van Manen, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Vasta, R. X.</name>
                  <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                  <name>Wallace, A. B.</name>
                  <name>Ware, J. L.</name>
                  <name>Willcox, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                  <name>Wolahan, K.</name>
                  <name>Wood, J. P.</name>
                  <name>Young, T. J.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>80</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Aly, A.</name>
                  <name>Ananda-Rajah, M.</name>
                  <name>Bandt, A. P.</name>
                  <name>Bates, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Burke, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                  <name>Clare, J. D.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Doyle, M. J. J.</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Husic, E. N.</name>
                  <name>Jones, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                  <name>King, C. F.</name>
                  <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                  <name>Lawrence, T. N.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Marles, R. D.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, B. P. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Perrett, G. D.</name>
                  <name>Phillips, F. E.</name>
                  <name>Plibersek, T. J.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Shorten, W. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.<br />Bill agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>85</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
    <electorate>Eden-Monaro</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>85</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7092" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>85</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, before you report the next message, I understand that, in the Federation Chamber, divisions were called on the next two second reading amendments. It may well be the case, as I'm advised—I'm happy to be corrected—that, if the question were put again to the House, the divisions would not be required. So, to suit the convenience of the House, could I maybe suggest, on receiving the issue, that you re-commit the question to the House and then see whether or not a division is required.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This is the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Bill 2023. I'm reporting from the Federation Chamber that it has been unable to complete its consideration. I need to present a certified copy of the bill, which I shall do. I understand it is the wish of the House to deal with the bill immediately.</para>
<para class="italic"><inline font-style="italic">Unresolved question—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">That the amendments be agreed to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 12), after the definition of <inline font-style="italic">animal</inline>, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Animal Health Australia</inline> has the same meaning as in the <inline font-style="italic">Primary Industries Levies and Charges </inline><inline font-style="italic">Disbursement Act 2023</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 22), after the definition of <inline font-style="italic">charge</inline>, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">emergency animal biosecurity response deed</inline> has the same meaning as in the <inline font-style="italic">Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Act 2023</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">emergency plant biosecurity response deed</inline> has the same meaning as in the <inline font-style="italic">Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Act 2023</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Clause 4, page 4 (after line 11), after the definition of <inline font-style="italic">plant</inline>, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Plant Health Australia</inline> has the same meaning as in the <inline font-style="italic">Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Act 2023</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Clause 7, page 6 (lines 19 to 22), omit paragraphs (3)(c) and (d), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) expenditure on activities, including biosecurity activities, that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) are undertaken by Animal Health Australia or Plant Health Australia; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) relate to the promotion or maintenance of the health of plants, animals, fungi or algae;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) expenditure on matters relating to a biosecurity response under:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the emergency animal biosecurity response deed; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the emergency plant biosecurity response deed;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Clause 10, page 8 (lines 17 to 20), omit paragraphs (2)(a) and (b), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) expenditure on activities, including biosecurity activities, that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) are undertaken by Animal Health Australia or Plant Health Australia; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) relate to the promotion or maintenance of the health of plants, animals, fungi or algae;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) expenditure on matters relating to a biosecurity response under:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the emergency animal biosecurity response deed; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the emergency plant biosecurity response deed.</para></quote>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
<para>Bill agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>86</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
    <electorate>Eden-Monaro</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Primary Industries (Services) Levies Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>86</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7093" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Primary Industries (Services) Levies Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>86</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>86</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
    <electorate>Eden-Monaro</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>86</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7072" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>86</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Frequently, in any business environment, being able to scale up and down as required can literally make or break your business, and, for this, flexibility is key. Why then make employment of temps, casuals and independent contractors harder across the board, especially if the real issue is something that largely is found in specific industries? Ultimately, there is little evidence in North Sydney of dissatisfaction with the employee-employer relationship. Rather, most people indicated to me that they were happy with the relationship they had with their employer and they appreciated their employer's willingness to offer them reliable, consistent hours on a casual basis so they could juggle personal responsibilities. Some acknowledged the potential for abuse of the labour hire model within some industries, but the resounding, consistent feedback was: 'Why not then simply tackle those industries, rather than assuming a one-size-fits-all solution is the answer?'</para>
<para>Small to medium sized businesses in North Sydney who work with labour hire have been quick to provide me with specific feedback, including the following: 'My business would be worse off.' Another said: 'I would close my business.' Another again said: 'It is not fair for other experienced and loyal workers that labour hire gets the same pay as them.' And another again said: 'Labor hire workers are surge workforce for busy times; they are not as skilled or as invested in my business. They should not earn what my valued permanent employees earn.' And a final one I'll quote said: 'My full-time employees are well looked after and invested in my business, as I am in them. To pay a labour hire person the same as these employees is ridiculous.'</para>
<para>The third point of concern in my community is the observation that the new definition of 'casual employee' creates fear where there was previously confidence, and will result in less reliable and predictable casual employment. In North Sydney, casual workers make up 45 per cent of the workforce in small to medium businesses. Statistically, we know that one in three of them will have regular and predictable working arrangements, because that's what they want. They value casual loading, but they want or need predictability in their hours. It is important that we acknowledge: these employers are not exploiting these individuals. The issue with the new definition of casual employment is that both employers and employees are now concerned that, to maintain their classification of 'casual', they're going to have to forgo predictability.</para>
<para>While the government argues the purpose of this change is to improve job security by replacing the existing definition with a fair and objective definition, when I asked small to medium sized enterprises what effect they felt this new definition would have on their businesses, I received the following responses: 'I would shut down;' and: 'I wouldn't hire casuals any more. It's all about being flexible and responsive to the needs of my customers, especially in child care;' and: 'I really don't see why the government is making it less flexible for employees and businesses to operate;' and finally: 'This change would effectively reduce my casuals' wages by 38 per cent, so I can't see what is in it for them and I can't see them seeking it. I am concerned, however, that a union may choose to get involved and try and create some sort of test case which would ultimately sweep them up, and I don't think that's in anyone's interests, except maybe the union's.'</para>
<para>The fourth concern that my community has is that the risk of getting it wrong is simply not worth it. Under this proposed legislation, the penalty for misrepresenting an employment opportunity as casual is sizeable and may be a significant cause of stress for those employers who are unable to access sophisticated human resource professionals. At a time when we need to focus on boosting productivity, we're instead debating a piece of legislation that threatens to decrease the flexibility in the workplace and harm Australians' capacity to earn additional income in a way that works for them. Add to this an overly complicated award system and the recent employment white paper, and many in my community just don't understand why the government is pursuing legislation they believe will disincentivise employers to hire more staff.</para>
<para>As a fifth point of concern, my community is worried that the right to work as an independent contractor must be protected. The key concern I have heard, time and again, is that this legislation effectively takes this form of service delivery and moves it from contract law into employment law. And the impact of this switch should not be underestimated. Almost 50 per cent of the small to medium sized businesses in North Sydney report they routinely use the services of independent contractors to complete work for them. According to Self Employed Australia, however, the passing of this bill would mean all self-employed independent contractors in Australia who seek to operate through a digital platform would be captured by this legislation and thus would need to be treated as employees, removing their right to be self-employed and to engage freely in commercial transactions through digital platforms.</para>
<para>The sixth and final concern in my community is that any new protections must ultimately support an innovative work environment. As stated before, my community generally supports the Fair Work Commission being given the power to set minimum standards. And we agree: gig workers deserve greater protection. But these protections must be offered in a way that firstly ensures their own employment needs are met in terms of the flexibility, capacity to earn and ease of opting in and out of platforms they wish for, whilst also ensuring we do not cause business innovation to grind to a halt, based on the belief that the employment terms of the 20th century are what 21st century workers want.</para>
<para>In closing, on behalf of the people of north Sydney, I say that, while some of the proposed reforms in this legislation are welcome, we fear the potential good work will, ultimately, be derailed by the fact it is buried in an omnibus of industrial reform which is simply too much too soon. Indeed, a recent Council of Small Business Organisations Australia survey found that 90 per cent of small businesses will be less likely to employ people if this current bill is passed. These are our newsagents, our barbers and hairdressers, our retailers, our post offices, live musicians, community pharmacists, grocers and direct sellers. To be frank, in this context, this bill has become the No. 1 risk to their business due to the uncertainty they now feel in the lead-up to Christmas.</para>
<para>Ultimately, I am committed to working with this government for the betterment of my community. As such I will work overtime to help businesses across my electorate navigate whatever is eventually passed in this place. But I ask the government to note that, while it claims this legislation will have limited impact and strikes a reasonable and balanced middle ground, I don't believe that claim has withstood scrutiny. I call on the government to amend this legislation. Pass those pieces of it that are uncontroversial, but then move forward in renegotiating legislative terms that offer the protections we all agree employees are entitled to, without stymieing innovation and unnecessarily burdening Australian businesses.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
    <electorate>Bruce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I was going to give the opposition a gift and not talk for very long, but they don't have another speaker here, so I'm giving them fair warning that, if another speaker doesn't appear, I may speak for 15 whole minutes on the bill. I'm perfectly happy—and able—to do so. Having put out that disclaimer, I'm wondering whether one of them is going to run out quickly and find another speaker, in the hope that I'll stop! I do have somewhere else I need to be.</para>
<para>However, I do want to make some remarks on this Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. It is important. Since coming into government, more than 500,000 jobs have been created already. That's more than any first-term government in Australia's history. And 85 per cent of those jobs are full-time jobs. Wages are now growing at the fastest rate in a decade. That's important in a cost-of-living crisis. I know those opposite don't understand this, and they don't like to hear it, but, in a cost-of-living crisis, it's not just about inflation and the way that prices go up. It's also about the money that comes into workers' bank accounts. It's about money that comes into the family or into the household, and that's why it's so important that we now have a government that has as its policy—as a deliberate design feature of our economic management—seeing wages grow.</para>
<para>But the truth also is that many Australians are not receiving the full benefits of this wages growth because of legal loopholes that allow pay and conditions to be undercut. It's also a shameful fact that, in this country now, a large amount of wages are simply stolen from workers. The McKell Institute analysis, based on Fair Work Commission data and audits, showed that Australian workers were underpaid nearly $850 million a year, ripping $330 million of economic activity out of the country. In my electorate of Bruce alone, estimates are that 8,000 people lost nearly $5 million in wage theft in just one year.</para>
<para>What does this bill do about it? It does four things, in simple terms. First, it makes wage theft illegal. If an employee steals from an employer, it's illegal, but it's not a crime when an employer intentionally steals from their workers. It should be. Second, it stops employers using labour hire agreements to undercut wages. Of course there is a legitimate role for labour hire work in Australia but not when a business uses it to blatantly avoid enterprise rates of pay. This is a loophole that the bill will close.</para>
<para>The third thing it does is improve the situation for casual workers. Many Australians work permanent regular hours, just the same as permanent employees, but they can't get any of the benefits of job security, even if they want to. This bill will simply allow casuals to choose. There'll be a new pathway for eligible employees to change to permanent employment if they want to. I stress that again: it will be the choice of the employee. Nothing in this bill forces casuals to take permanent work. Many casuals want to stay casual; that is absolutely fine. But many casuals workers want the benefits of sick leave and the protections that come with it. We saw that during the pandemic, when millions of workers were suddenly stranded. Although they'd been doing the same thing in the same job year after year, they had no sick leave when disaster struck. This bill will deal with that.</para>
<para>The fourth thing the bill does is set fair minimum standards for employee-like work for gig economy workers in the gig economy. Gig workers have no minimum standards, no minimum pay and no minimum conditions. That's a disgrace. Gig economy workers are exactly the sort of worker whom the Labor Party has always fought for. They need basic workplace standards. This loophole is a rort. It causes serious harm—physical harm, economic harm, social harm—to workers and it's not fair.</para>
<para>But these are not just statistics; they're real people right across Australia. Everyday Australians in every community, as well as vulnerable migrant workers, are being hurt and exploited because of these loopholes. And remember that, when migrant workers are exploited, it doesn't just impact other people; it impacts everyone in Australia because it drags down the pay and conditions of everyone else. I have one example in my electorate of Bruce. The Fair Work Ombudsman sanctioned a waste management company more than $375,000 after five vulnerable migrant workers were underpaid almost $200,000 over just 20 months in 2018-19. Do the maths. That's $2,000 per month per worker. They were employed to sort waste at facilities in Dandenong and Hallam. This example sums up the four main elements of the bill: labour hire loopholes, having their wages stolen, casual workers who actually want permanent regular hours, no minimum rates and minimum standards, and gig economy workers being ripped off.</para>
<para>It is worth reflecting on why these loopholes exist. There's a simple answer. For nearly a decade the Liberals, the former government, simply refused to do anything. They knew that these labour hire loopholes and rorts were growing. They had report after report that they failed to act on. They knew that, with digital technology, the gig economy forms of work were exploding. They had reports, they were told and they did nothing. And they knew that wage theft by unscrupulous employers—a minority of employers of course; most employers don't steal wages from their workers—was out of control. But the Liberals knew perfectly well that a small minority of bottom-feeder employers were doing exactly that, and they stood by and did nothing. It drags down wages for everyone.</para>
<para>I stress again that the McKell Institute analysis showed that the average Australian worker would've been earning $254 more a week if, under that mob in their wasted decade of decay, dysfunction and division, wages growth had simply continued at the same rate it had been at under the Rudd-Gillard government. Under Labor, under Rudd and Gillard, wages grew at 4.6 per cent on average. Under the Libs, it was 2.5 per cent. Real wages actually went backwards in their decade in office. But that was actually no accident. In one of those rare outbreaks of honesty under the former mob, then finance minister Mathias Cormann went on the television—it's still there; you can still google it and watch it—and said that low wages are 'a deliberate design feature of our economic architecture.' It was as though the Liberals thought: 'What's wrong with trying to lower wages?' That was actually their policy.</para>
<para>Again, independent analysis constantly exposes their policies. Liberals are to blame for suppressing wages, including through public sector pay freezes, an increase in the number of visas for temporary migrant workers, inaction on wage theft in the gig economy, failing to press the Fair Work Commission for bigger minimum wage increases and cutting penalty rates. At every turn they tried to cut wages.</para>
<para>I'm going to quote myself. I was having a bit of a google around and a bit of a look, because I knew there was something there in the back of my mind, and I found myself reported in the media. We've been talking about this for years, Madam Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou. I know you've been talking about it through the Joint Standing Committee on Migration. Finally in government, though, we are able to not just talk but do something about it. The media article said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Labor MP Julian Hill, a member of the joint standing committee on migration—</para></quote>
<para>with you, Deputy Speaker—</para>
<quote><para class="block">also blames the government's decision—</para></quote>
<para>that was the then government, the Liberals, not us—</para>
<quote><para class="block">to freeze the minimum rate of pay for workers on temporary skilled visas as a factor in wage suppression.</para></quote>
<para>Get the figures. When Kevin Rudd left office in 2013, the temporary skilled migration income threshold—that's the minimum rate of pay that you have to pay a temporary skilled worker if you bring them in on a temporary skilled visa—was $53,900. When the Liberals left office, it was $53,900. They didn't raise it one dollar in a decade. As the article quotes me:</para>
<quote><para class="block">From 2014 onwards every Liberal minister for immigration (initially Scott Morrison)—<inline font-style="italic">(</inline><inline font-style="italic">Quorum </inline><inline font-style="italic">formed)</inline></para></quote>
<para>Before I was so rudely interrupted, I was making the point that for a decade the Liberals left the minimum wage that a temporary skilled migrant needed to be paid stuck at $53,900. What do you think that does in a decade? It pushes wages down, and that was their deliberate policy. This government immediately raised it to $70,000 and we are further reviewing the migration system.</para>
<para>They lost control of the borders. Under the watch of the Leader of the Opposition, that hopeless disgrace of a Minister for Home Affairs, the tough-on-borders guy, nearly 100,000 fake asylum seekers came into this country by plane on a work scam. What does that do? It helps push down wages and exploits people.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Wood</name>
    <name.id>E0F</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On a point of order, that was a reflection on the opposition leader.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Bruce may wish to retract that reflection on—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It wasn't a reflection on his character. It was a statement of fact about his tenure as a minister and I'll stand by it.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Wood</name>
    <name.id>E0F</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I think he should withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Will the member for Bruce consider withdrawing for the sake of—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I would go to the <inline font-style="italic">Practice</inline><inline font-style="italic">—</inline>that it's not a reflection on his character. Describing the now Leader of the Opposition as a hopeless Minister for Home Affairs is an entirely fair comment. It doesn't go to his person. It's a description of the job he did as a minister. It's evidence based, and it's discourse that everyone else in the House has used. So, if they want to stop me speaking, that's fine, but I'd ask them to point to where in the <inline font-style="italic">Practice</inline> that's actually a problem. We've only got a minute to go. We could just finish this.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Wood</name>
    <name.id>E0F</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Deputy Speaker, those were different words to what he actually said.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Would it help if I withdrew 'hopeless' and said 'former failed'?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It would actually assist the House if the member for Bruce would withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll withdraw 'hopeless' and say 'former failed Minister for Home Affairs'.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Bruce can continue with his remarkable speech.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll close with quotes from the minister, because this implements our election commitments:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The businesses which use these loopholes are able to undercut Australia's best employers in a race to the bottom.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">If we want workers to be paid properly we need to close the loopholes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">If we want casuals to have a pathway to secure work we need to close the loopholes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">If we want enterprise agreements to determine minimum rates of pay at a workplace, we need to close the loopholes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">If we want gig workers and those in road transport to have minimum standards, we need to close the loopholes.</para></quote>
<para>The delaying tactics are obvious—the silly little quorum counts, the pathetic tantrums, the fake points of order. Those workers have waited long enough. So today the parliament should pass this bill.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Bruce's time has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr SCAMPS</name>
    <name.id>299623</name.id>
    <electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to address the government's second round of proposed reforms to industrial relations legislation—the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. At the outset I'd like to acknowledge that reform of workplace relations is typically complex and lengthy, and there are a broad range of competing interests and the potential for unforeseen impacts that have to be thought through and scrutinise carefully. I would like to thank Minister Burke for his consultation with the crossbench on various issues. He's taken the concerns and suggestions of the crossbench into account, none of which he is required to do, and I thank him for it.</para>
<para>Nevertheless, the crossbench again finds itself in a difficult situation—that is, we're being asked to vote on significant changes to industrial relations laws in circumstances where that legislation is far from being finalised. The lower house will vote. The bill will move to the Senate where it has already been determined an inquiry will take place. That inquiry will report in February next year and inevitably recommend a number of changes to the legislation, some perhaps significant, before the bill then comes back to this place for us to vote on again in its amended form. I raise this because I want to make sure that my community understands that my first vote on this legislation will not be my last.</para>
<para>I also want to point out the difficulties involved in being asked to vote on a large number of changes in one block on so-called omnibus legislation. With this legislation the government is trying to introduce many and varied reforms, some I may agree with and some I may not. Some need further scrutiny and debate, while others need to be passed as soon as possible. Regardless, I will be required to vote on an overall package as a whole. This is disappointing in circumstances where the bill could have been split so that important uncontroversial reforms could have been passed easily and quickly implemented for the benefit of all Australians.</para>
<para>I fully supported splitting the bills because silicosis sufferers should not have to wait to have their claims heard, because people who have been the victim of family and domestic violence should not have to wait to be free from discrimination in the workplace, because our first responders, police officers, paramedics and nurses, so frequently traumatised in the course of protecting us, should not have to wait any longer for changes to make it easier for them to make compensation claims.</para>
<para>Despite these issues, over the last several months I have carefully and methodically consulted with both my community and with a wide range of experts and stakeholders about the detail and impact of the proposed changes. I have spoken with local small businesses; employers and employees; and peak industry bodies and industry. In doing so, one of my key concerns has been to ensure that the interests of small businesses, who are doing it incredibly tough at the moment, are protected and balanced fairly against the interests of vulnerable workers. Small business, as we know, employs 6.8 million Australians, just under half of the employed workforce in this country. In New South Wales, 45 per cent of the private sector workforce is employed by small business. It's clear that the success of small business is absolutely vital to the continued prosperity and wellbeing of the Australian community.</para>
<para>As everybody knows only too well, small business has had an incredibly tough few years. If the existential difficulty of the COVID pandemic weren't enough, since then there have been significant interest rate rises, energy price rises, rent increases, supply chain challenges and labour shortages—a perfect storm of hard times which has been happening now for years. Any additional burden in the form of workplace law reform needs to be carefully considered against this backdrop. Changes must help, not hinder, our struggling businesses. At the same time, we know there are groups of vulnerable workers whose interests and conditions very much need protecting. When delivery drivers are dying—12 since 2017—when Qantas illegally sacks 1,700 staff and when 7-11 is able to engage in endemic wage theft from vulnerable, mostly migrant, workers, everyone can agree that something has to change for these people.</para>
<para>That takes me to consideration of the substance of the legislation. I will start with the reforms to the conditions for labour hire workers. This is the change that will allow unions and employees to apply to the Fair Work Commission for orders requiring labour hire workers to be paid the same as what employees at the host company are paid under their enterprise agreement. In approaching this, I'm very aware that in my electorate the backbone of our economy is small business and trade, and that over 20 per cent of people in McKellar are employed in the construction sector. So it is of course a concern of mine to do what I can to limit negative impacts on small business and the construction sector. The minister consulted with the crossbench and listened to our concerns, and it's pleasing to see that the current form of this legislation has incorporated several changes to address these concerns—firstly, to limit labour hire changes to businesses employing over 15 people only, and also only to labour hire contracts for periods over three months. These changes are very welcome—but are they enough?</para>
<para>Do these changes to the legislation ensure the right balance between ensuring labour hire workers are properly paid and that businesses can continue to benefit from the ability to bring in a surge workforce when genuinely needed? What is also particularly unclear in this bill is what 'same pay' in the term 'same pay, same job' actually means. The bill uses the concept of a protected rate of pay. The protected rate of pay is defined as the full rate of pay that would be payable to a labour hire employee if they were covered by the host business's enterprise agreement. The definition of full rate of pay includes any incentive based payments, bonuses, loadings, allowances, overtime and penalty rates, and other separately identifiable amounts. How this will play out in practice is far from clear. One example is where an enterprise agreement in place has been negotiated on terms other than just pay. What if employees at the host company agreed to sacrifice leave for more pay? Again, I look forward to seeing the recommendations of the Senate inquiry into this issue.</para>
<para>The casual workforce is another group of employees affected by the reforms. The government's changes would allow a casual employee, in circumstances where their working arrangements have changed and they no longer meet the definition of a casual, to ask their employer to convert their status to a permanent status. For employees in small business this can be requested after 12 months, and after six months for employees in large businesses.</para>
<para>In the above new legislation, this pathway to permanent employment would occur at the request of the employee. Employers may reject it on reasonable grounds. However, there is already an existing pathway for casuals to convert to permanent work, albeit one initiated by the employer. This extra pathway would mean there would now be three pathways for the casual conversion to permanency, with different rules for small and large businesses and after different lengths of service. It would have been simpler and easier for businesses to implement it if the change had resulted in only one rule under all scenarios. A recurring theme of the business community's response to this bill has been that it adds additional complexity and administrative burden for employers without sufficient corresponding benefits. When it comes to these changes for casuals, I agree with them.</para>
<para>Another of the government's reforms, which has caused much concern for the business community, is one which would allow the Fair Work Commission to set minimum binding standards for employee-like workers using digital platforms, the so-called gig economy changes. An 'employee-like worker' is one who works on a digital platform and either (a) has low bargaining power, (b) has low authority over performance of work or (c) is paid at or below the rate of employees performing comparable work. In effect, the change would require that gig economy workers be given a minimum set of standards that employees enjoy in other forms of work.</para>
<para>On this change, amongst others, I've been lucky enough to engage closely with Mackellar constituent Jordan O'Reilly, who is the co-founder and CEO of company Hireup. Hireup is an online platform connecting Australians with disability with support workers who fit their needs and share their interests. Hireup employs all its 17,000 disability support workers, who all find work through their app. The company's very proud to be proof that you can have the best of both worlds: modern, flexible, efficient technology with full employment rights, including entitlements and protections for workers—something most platform organisers say cannot be done.</para>
<para>Hireup, in its September submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment argued that modern convenience and flexibility is absolutely compatible with the framework of formal employee or employee-like legislation, but that most platform companies will not come to this conclusion on their own. Hireup considers that the gig economy reforms will provide clarity and certainty through uniform regulatory standards, allowing all businesses to operate and innovate on a level playing field while protecting workers rights, entitlements and dignity. They wholeheartedly support what they call the government's attempts to improve the industrial relations system in Australia through these reforms. Remember, this is a gig economy employer, not employee.</para>
<para>The aim of this legislation should be to achieve the best balance possible between the interests of big business, small business and employees in a way that guarantees what we all expect in workplace relations in Australia: fairness and safety, while not stymieing a thriving business sector and economy.</para>
<para>As a final point: if passed, I would like the government to take into consideration that companies will need time and resources to enable them to comply. Again, I thank the minister for his consultation on these reforms and I look forward to examining their final form when they return from the Senate. Thank you.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr O'CONNOR</name>
    <name.id>00AN3</name.id>
    <electorate>Gorton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, because this is a very important piece of legislation being proposed by the government and it's consistent with our view before the election to ensure greater security of employment for working people in this country. Indeed, not only does it reflect the commitments we made prior to the election, in some respects some of the provisions of this bill reflect commitments we made years ago, because we wanted to ensure that working people had decent, secure employment and that we did not allow technology to be a justification for changing what have been traditional relationships around minimum conditions of wages in this country, and to some extent that's what's happened.</para>
<para>Of course, we don't expect much from those that were supporters of WorkChoices legislation. We do expect them to oppose any piece of legislation that supports the rights of workers in this country. We do understand, and I happily concede, that I'm sure there are genuine concerns raised by some members of the crossbench in this place and the other place. However, I think they're unfounded, but I do respect there's a sincerity behind some of their concerns. But I have to say I don't at all believe that the opposition, the coalition, the 'noalition' are genuine when they say they're interested in the needs and aspirations and employment conditions of Australian workers, because their record shows otherwise. They have forever sought to diminish the standards of employment for workers in this country.</para>
<para>Yes, WorkChoices was one obvious piece of legislation where they illustrated their enmity towards working people, but, even through the entire time they were in government, the last nine years, they clearly set out to reduce in real terms the conditions and wages of Australian workers. When I was in the portfolio, I do recall the former finance minister Senator Cormann really let the cat out of the bag when he made it clear in an interview that the arrangements that were leading to wage recessions in this country was a deliberate design feature of their economic architecture.</para>
<para><inline font-style="italic">(Quorum formed)</inline> I was reminding the House that the previous government had, as its modus operandi, a policy that was ensuring wages were low. In fact, the former Minister for Finance made clear that it was a deliberate design feature of their economic architecture to keep wages low. That's why we saw a decade of wage growth falling in real terms. We saw, in many sectors of our economy, wages going backwards for the entire period of the previous government—for the nine years. It was the worst decade for wage growth in many a decade, because nothing was being done to attend to the problem in workplaces, where workers were not getting their fair share of the dividend.</para>
<para>We need to make sure we have profitable and productive companies, and a profitable, efficient and productive labour market. We also expect that working people get their fair share of that dividend. To do that, we have to make sure that there's some balance and capacity for them to bargain in workplaces, and that there are minimum conditions in this country. We're a relatively wealthy country. If people put in, invest and work hard, they deserve a decent wage and a decent life. That's what the Labor Party has always been about: ensuring that working people and their families have a decent standard of living, a decent quality of life and an opportunity to move forward.</para>
<para>I'm afraid to say that we watched, over the last decade, a deterioration of minimum conditions for too many workers in this country. That's why we made an election commitment to attend to the adverse impact on workers by the previous government by introducing legislation that would attend to those concerns. This bill is, of course, a significant part of our commitment to working people in this country, to ensure that we don't allow arrangements to be put in place to obviate obligations—in other words, to avoid awards or industrial instruments that apply to other workers.</para>
<para>Take, for example, the same work, same pay provision. Of course, if a person has the same skills; similar or the same experience; is undertaking the same work; and is working next to another worker, it is demonstrably unfair that they're receiving a significantly lower wage in that same workplace. It is quite unfair for that to happen. Labour hire was not originally used in that manner. Labour hire was there to supply additional labour during the peaks and troughs of work. For example: the principal employer could not employ people for the entire period because of the seasonal demands of the business or industry, and may well have brought in seasonal labour hire. Or they would bring in labour hire for expertise to meet a particular niche need of the company. But, over time, labour hire started to be used in a way to undermine the enterprise agreement or the industrial instrument—possibly an award—of those workers employed directly by that employer. That was cultivated and supported by the previous government for the entire period. No, they did not introduce WorkChoices again during the last nine years—but they didn't have to, because there were changes afoot within the economy that were allowing exploitation to occur and, provided they did not deal with that in this place, it would continue and get worse. And we have seen that occur in relation to too many workers in this country. The idea that, just because you sell labour over a digital platform, you can now avoid minimum conditions of employment is an anathema to the Labor Party and to this government.</para>
<para>So, as I say, this bill is an election commitment, we are absolutely behind it and we made this commitment. In many respects, we made the commitments that are contained within this bill prior to even the last term. In some cases these commitments were made some years ago. So it is entirely proper that the government seek to undertake the commitments it made to the Australian people to make sure we lift wages and that we improve security of employment where we can in this country, and that we provide opportunities for casuals who have been working for a significant period on a permanent roster to at least be able to request a conversion to permanent employment.</para>
<para>We know that there are casual employees who don't want to convert to permanent, and nor should they have to. But we do think that, if, for example, an employee is working on a casual basis but has a permanent roster, there's a point in time, if they're going on indefinitely, where they should have every right to expect and to seek some level of security of employment. These are people with full-time families and long-term mortgages, and they want to get some guarantee of employment. I believe that's a reasonable thing to be requesting.</para>
<para>We know also that there are casual employees who, because they're not converted to permanent, cannot get mortgages. We know the housing problems at the moment. We know there's a shortage of housing supply in this country, but even in those circumstances, or in better circumstances, casual employers are so often unable to get loans from banks because they are not able to say to a bank that they have a permanent job. In some instances it is people who have been in the same job for years and years and years. We don't believe that's a reasonable approach to the labour market and to the rights of working people in this country, and we want to get the balance right by ensuring a right to request a conversion from casual to permanent, in order to provide a decent standard of living and a decent, secure job for Australians in this country.</para>
<para>This bill is seeking to deal with these loopholes. It's almost by accident that you could find yourself without minimum conditions of employment, just depending on where you work. If you're working in some areas where there's an enterprise agreement in place, you've got conditions of employment. If you're working in some industries there's an award with minimum conditions. If you're in certain occupations, at the very least you're getting the minimum wages in this country set down by the Fair Work Act. But in other areas which are unregulated there are people being paid a third of the minimum wage per hour in some instances. That is just unacceptable. So we want to make sure that we define casual in the way it was always intended, which I think is a balanced approach, both for businesses and for workers.</para>
<para>We want to see two workers with the same experience, the same skills, undertaking the same work and working side by side, getting the same conditions of employment. What is wrong with that proposition? How could anyone disagree with that? We can have all the semantic arguments about, 'We're not sure how this will work and how that will work,' but, ultimately, it's a stalling game by the opposition.</para>
<para>I do accept that the crossbench here and in the other place have some legitimate questions. I'm not suggesting they are motivated in the same way as the opposition.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Chester</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Oh, they've got questions!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr O'CONNOR</name>
    <name.id>00AN3</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I think the reality is that they do look at the questions and make decisions based on evidence. I'm sure we will have the capacity to argue compellingly that, ultimately, this bill is something that needs to pass this parliament. Given the record of the coalition, of course they will always oppose any proposed legislation that looks to either increase the security of employment of Australian workers or increase the capacity for them to bargain at their workplace. For that reason, we completely reject their position.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms DANIEL</name>
    <name.id>008CH</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Goldstein is a diverse community—more diverse than some might think. Certainly, it's one of the wealthier electorates in this country, with residents who work in the corporate sector, but it has close to 17,000 small businesses, according to the latest data from the Bureau of Statistics, many of them employing 15 people or less. It also has growing numbers of lower paid professionals, close to 25,000 of them women in the feminised sector—nearly 8,000 of them working in the care economy, servicing hospitals, aged care and early childhood education and care, in and around Goldstein. All of them have a stake in this legislation, and my task is to make sure they benefit, rather than pay a price, should the many measures in it become law. The benchmark for these kinds of legislative decisions, in my view, is: do they deliver benefits for most people?</para>
<para>Several of the measures in this lengthy bill, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, are uncontroversial—indeed, they are to be applauded. I made it clear to the minister some weeks ago that the uncontroversial elements of the bill should not have been included in omnibus legislation. All governments do it, and it's disrespectful to the parliament, getting in the way of considered discussion of major policy initiatives and changes. None of us is elected by our community to wave through comprehensive changes to legislation without thought and scrutiny.</para>
<para>Among the measures that are uncontroversial and urgent are the proposal to make it easier for AFP officers, paramedics and firefighters to claim for PTSD, and measures to protect victims of domestic violence from being discriminated against in the workplace and to protect redundancy payments for workers who've been working for a larger business that has become only technically defined as a small business due to insolvency. Another priority is the measures to bring silica into line with asbestos under the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency. These are all measures that require implementation without delay, and in this I agree wholeheartedly with Senator Jacqui Lambie that, if these elements were separated from the bill, they could be resolved immediately without being subject to what will be a lengthy and complex debate and Senate inquiry, which will result in an undoubtedly markedly different bill by the time it passes into law.</para>
<para>In this, I would again say to the government, as I have previously, that chucking everything, including the kitchen sink, into one piece of legislation is not good practice. It's a political wedge approach—a deliberate habit of the major parties that means either voting for a bill that's in some way flawed or against a bill that has its positives. And, on that, I note that there are several measures in this multipart piece of legislation that are not simple.</para>
<para>I do welcome the extent to which the workplace relations minister has made himself and his staff available to me and other members of the crossbench, both before and after he introduced the legislation. That said, some of the measures in this bill remain easier to deal with than others. Wage theft—or chronic underpayment, if you prefer—for example, has become something of an epidemic, if not an operating principle for some businesses in recent decades, arguably helped by the watering down of union powers which, although disliked by business, may have caught both errors and deliberate rorting. Companies as big and as profitable as Woolworths, the Commonwealth Bank, Bunnings, BHP, Qantas, Domino's and 7-Eleven have all been caught out, as have several of our biggest universities, and, indeed, my old employer, the ABC.</para>
<para>The legislation offers a hierarchy of consequences designed to deal with underpayments, with the most severe penalties reserved for employers who have deliberately and knowingly underpaid staff, with lesser consequences for an employer who was aware of a substantial risk of underpayment but did so anyway, and lesser again for an employer who unknowingly underpaid. This is as it should be. Penalties are proposed to be the higher of the maximum penalty units available, or up to three times the amount of underpayment. They're intended to be sufficiently high to discourage the payment of penalties as a 'cost of doing business', as the department put it in its consultation paper. The department also says that penalties for a criminal offence in relation to record keeping are designed to be high enough:</para>
<quote><para class="block">to ensure it is not "cost effective" for employers to fail to keep records entirely in order to obscure evidence of underpayments.</para></quote>
<para>Previous efforts to create a disincentive to wage theft have failed, and the aim of this legislation is to set that higher bar of deterrence. My residual concern, though, is the impact on small businesses, those without HR departments, which may not have the time or resources to afford the investment in payroll systems as sophisticated as bigger companies, nor have ready access to information on relevant pay scales and the like. The government's now proposing that the Fair Work Ombudsman will develop a voluntary code with small business for small business which would offer those small businesses that sign up and adhere to its terms a complete defence against underpayments in most circumstances. Whether that would be enough to satisfy small business is as yet unclear. Certainly I don't know, because I haven't seen the amendment.</para>
<para>When it comes to large corporates—and this bill is designed to target the likes of Qantas and BHP—I do believe that most people would see it as unreasonable for workers doing exactly the same job to be paid differently. If they're equally experienced, that shouldn't be the case, and yet at Qantas, for example, the evidence is that flight attendants on the one aircraft can be paid at up to eight different rates. Meanwhile, BHP is warning that the same job, same pay provision would cost it $1.3 billion a year in revenue. It could be argued that, by saying that, the big Australian has inadvertently revealed the extent to which it is underpaying workers provided to it by labour hire companies compared with its regular staff.</para>
<para>Short-term surge requirements are one thing, and they're exempted under this legislation; labour hire workers who have the details of a year's work laid out ahead of them are quite another, and that's why I will be proposing an amendment to extend the exception from the requirement to pay the protected rate of pay from three to 12 months. In short, three months is too short. It would affect surge employment. It would potentially inhibit employment. It would potentially inhibit investment. It would slow down projects at a time when we need workers used as efficiently as possible to address the logjam in infrastructure projects in particular.</para>
<para>However, I have outstanding concerns regarding a number of other aspects of this bill. One is the so-called employee-like provision in relation to gig workers; the other is the redefining of casual work and the complexity that introduces at a time when the costs of doing business are so high that it may be easier for businesses to simply avoid hiring.</para>
<para>My biggest concerns relate to provisions for what the minister terms employee-like workers—in other words, the gig economy. In the gig economy, workers may not experience the same level of autonomy to set their prices and bargaining power as traditional independent contractors, and certainly all gig workers deserve minimum standards and protection. Whether this legislation achieves that result or overreaches is the question. The gig economy includes horizontal models, which is marketplace; and vertical models, which is on-demand. Horizontal models allow workers and consumers to connect for a service—for example, Airtasker. Vertical models control the terms of the service provided—for instance, Uber. The minister has insisted that it is vertical services that would impacted, not horizontal. That, however, is not the view of Mable, a company that provides a large number of gig workers for the care sector, including in my electorate of Goldstein. Mable argues that its customers welcome the flexibility its services provide both for the outfits it services and for the workers. Mable's Executive Director, Peter Scutt, argues that the legislation would restrict flexibility because a large number of Mable carer-client relationships extend across six months, relationships that mature with time, and would be inhibited by the provisions of the legislation. On the face of it, this is one section of this bill that requires modification before I could see my way clear to support it.</para>
<para>Young people, food delivery riders and the like do deserve health and safety protections like most of the rest of the workforce. Drive through the Melbourne CBD any lunchtime and you'll see delivery drivers on their bikes and scooters ducking in and out between vehicles, in and out of the bike lane, running red lights. Why? I would suggest because they need to get from job to job as quickly as they can to earn the money that they need. Currently, the legislation requires that a worker must satisfy one of three criteria to be classified as an employee-like person. While young people deserve protection, I believe this is too close to shoehorning the award system over and above gig work. In short, it's too broad.</para>
<para>That's why I will be proposing an amendment that, to be classified as employee like, a worker must satisfy more than one of the criteria, rather than one or more. I believe this should afford the protections that largely young workers deserve without the complexities of the award system. Likewise, I will propose another amendment to modify the minimum pay provision for employee-like workers so that the prescribed minimum rate of pay refers to a base level of pay, not including other award entitlements, penalties, leave and the like. I believe this is sufficient to minimise exploitation without inhibiting the flexibility that attracts gig workers and maintains the business models of the outfits they work for.</para>
<para>Finally, there is the question of casual conversion. It's certainly the case that casual workers who wish for the certainty and benefits of permanency should have a more reliable pathway. Not, however, at the cost of those workers, most of them young, who welcome the casual loading and the flexibility of working only when their other demands allow. We're told that this change to the legislation may actually only be taken up by five per cent of the workforce, so the question is: are we using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut? And there is an important issue that this massive piece of legislation does not address, and that's the impact of irregularity of work patterns for low-paid casual and part-time workers, the majority of them women.</para>
<para>A major study of 6½ thousand retail workers by the University of New South Wales found that one of their biggest concerns was the absence of any reliability of shift patterns. Sixty per cent reported that they had different shifts from week to week, 41 per cent reported unexpected shift changes and 10 per cent reported no regular work days. That may work for some, but for many female workers who need the money but have caring responsibilities, both for children and ageing parents—the sandwich generation, as they have become known—it causes major problems. Because they have no reliable shift patterns or are told of their shifts only days, or sometimes hours, before they're expected to work, they can't access early-learning programs or early childhood education for their kids or make alternative care arrangements for their parents. The study found that only nine per cent were able to use formal care and that 49 per cent had to resort to informal care—including using older children or neighbours to look after their children. These women are the precariat.</para>
<para>Early learning is recognised as having lifelong benefits; those who miss out will never have the economic and other benefits of those who don't. This not only means they suffer, but so does society and the Australian economy. They're likely to be less skilled, affecting both their own and the economy's productivity. They're more likely to exist outside the formal economy, making them more reliant on benefits, at a cost to their opportunities and to the national budget. We must act to give these women, and they're largely women, what has come to be termed 'roster justice': reliable work patterns and timely notice of the shifts they will work so that they have a fighting chance of getting access to the care that their children and, in many cases, their parents deserve.</para>
<para>So that pretty much sums up the bill: some important stuff missing, some very good and urgent stuff—some which may help workers and some which may not—and some which may make life harder for small business. In the end, once the Senate has dealt with it, the bill which returns to the House in a very different form is expected to come down differently to what we're being asked to vote for at this time.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms VAMVAKINOU</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
    <electorate>Calwell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise in support of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. The reforms contained in this bill are an important set of responses to the loopholes in our employment system that have increased injustice for many workers. That injustice has arisen with the balance of power and income tilting against those trying to make a living in an increasingly precarious economy and labour market. Globalisation, the gig economy and the undermining of institutions have fundamentally changed many of our economic and social relationships. In turn, we have seen income inequality grow dramatically.</para>
<para>The key themes of this bill are criminalising wage theft; properly defining what genuine casual work is; and removing loopholes in labour hire arrangements that undermine wages and conditions. The reforms encapsulated in this bill are not just necessary but long overdue. These are the sorts of measures that the Australian people expect from a Labor government. This is the historical and enduring responsibility of what Labor governments should be doing—to make and unmake social conditions in favour of the least powerful and, often, the most poorly paid workers, many of whom are in my electorate of Calwell.</para>
<para>The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations is to be congratulated for his stand on behalf of the government against the, at times, hysterical campaigns by powerful employer groups and sections of the media. These are, indeed, modest, yet important, social justice measures. However, the vehemence of the opposition to them—while perhaps unsurprising—is disappointing. It fits well into the predictable pattern of opposition to every measure designed to improve the pay, conditions, security and health and safety of working people. Again, many of them are in my electorate.</para>
<para>This bill seeks to provide guidelines for the Fair Work Commission in determining basic fairness and to provide minimum standards for employee-like wages and conditions. If somebody works like an employee or as an employee, is expected to be on call whenever needed, has been doing so consistently and would actually prefer to be an employee, then let's treat them like an employee, not call them a casual and think there are no further obligations to them.</para>
<para>This bill also strengthens the commission's capacity to deal with disputes in regard to sham arrangements for independent contractors. 'Casual independent contractor' is often a convenient label that can be used to avoid the proper responsibility to provide fair conditions, pay and security for workers. Further, the bill strengthens the workplace ombudsman's powers to examine underpayments.</para>
<para>Most significantly, however, the bill criminalises wage theft at a national level. This is another long overdue measure. The deliberate underpayment of workers should be criminalised as a basic fairness measure. We've seen the regular reports of many large companies suddenly discovering that they have underpaid their workers, in some cases for years. This needs to stop. On this side of the House, job fairness and job security are not just empty slogans. They are at the heart of Labor's policies and our commitment to standing up for the interests of working people, which is why I'm very proud of the fact that the Albanese Labor government will legislate to criminalise wage theft.</para>
<para>The figures reflected in recent reports show that the scope and scale of wage theft in Australia is rampant across the board. There is $1.35 billion in underpayment of Australian workers' entitlements every year. I'm particularly concerned about its impact on migrants, who are disproportionately affected, who are likely not to know their rights and who are likely not to be aware of what they are actually entitled to. Again, many of those people are my constituents.</para>
<para>Rather than ignoring this problem and playing political games, the opposition needs to support passing this legislation that establishes criminal penalties for employers deliberately involved in wage theft. This is about compliance and enforcement for intentional underpayments, not honest mistakes. There will be pathways to safe havens for small businesses who have tried to correct mistakes while paying their workers. There will also be avenues to show compliance with the new Voluntary Small Business Wage Compliance Code, to be developed by government in partnership with employer and employee groups.</para>
<para>An opposition that claims to want to gain the confidence of the Australian people, to govern for all Australians, an opposition that wants to claim it speaks for the true believers, cannot oppose policies that defend working people against systemic wage theft. This undercutting of everyday workers, who make the systems we rely on function, seems to prevail across nearly every sector of our economy. Labor hasn't forgotten its core promise to Australians: the promise of job security, better pay and a fairer industrial relations system that is central to Labor's job security plan.</para>
<para>The bill also provides additional protection for first responders—this includes firefighters, police and ambulance workers—from the effects of sustained post-traumatic stress disorder, an increasingly serious and life-changing impact directly attributable to work.</para>
<para>The bill provides a measure of protection for building workers from cancer-causing silica diseases. The people doing these difficult and often dangerous jobs are vital to our economic growth, our health, our safety and our functioning as a society. They absolutely deserve legislated protection from the harm, to as great a degree as we can realistically offer them.</para>
<para>Some employers will, and have already begun to, criticise the bill on the basis of too much complexity and expense. We do not accept that the country can't afford fairness. We can't afford to do nothing to ensure that fairness. We do not accept, on this side of the chamber, that so-called complexities in awards are a valid excuse for underpayments or for denying proper safety and security in employment. Ironically, it would seem that neither complexity nor expense are any problem when it comes to paying huge executive bonuses.</para>
<para>I always consult with my electorate constituents when speaking on bills that I know have a major impact on them and their daily lives and their families. I had an opportunity to talk to Aruna Wijetunga, who is a rideshare driver. He's been a rideshare driver for over 7½ years. Aruna, in particular, spoke about his experiences on the digital platform. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I've done 17,800 trips and my only recognition is a photo of a cake, delivered as an emoji, in the app. Things are getting worse because of the cost of living and fuel prices. We don't have any rights, no access to any claim beyond what's in the app. It's like we are removed from the concept of being a worker.</para></quote>
<para>Another constituent, Chandra, who is also a rideshare driver, shared his experiences with me. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The situation is that with regards to working conditions, we're creating a two-track economy when it comes to workers' rights, and this will have an impact on the entire industrial legislations system. We are second class employees. Everyone knows that we're not really a business, but conveniently hide behind notions of contract work. In any other industry, it wouldn't be accepted. We are letting technology drive us, without understanding its impact on workers and working conditions.</para></quote>
<para>When asked to respond to claims of how they are different to a tradesperson with an ABN, Chandra and Aruna put it quite simply:</para>
<quote><para class="block">An independent contractor can set their own price; they can factor in things such as superannuation contributions and other aspects into their consumer-facing pricing. We don't have any of that capacity at all.</para></quote>
<para>Chandra and Aruna explained that surge pricing is not based on the overall demand on the network; it's defined by location. So, if a driver is in a different location, the idea of penalty rates being substituted through surge pricing isn't the reality. Furthermore, time and kilometre ratios don't apply to rideshare workers. So, example, if they're stuck in traffic, they could be getting only a few cents per minute. Only distance is looked at and not the time that it took to get there. So they could, in effect, be earning less— <inline font-style="italic">(Quorum formed)</inline></para>
<para>I was talking about rideshares and the digital platforms. We've seen the recent announcement relating to rideshare companies, Uber and Lyft, who have agreed to a historic settlement totalling $328 million after being accused of withholding wages and benefits, such as mandatory paid sick leave, from their drivers. In a statement announcing the settlement, the New York State Attorney General said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">For years, Uber and Lyft systematically cheated their drivers out of hundreds of millions of dollars in pay and benefits while they worked long hours in challenging conditions. These drivers overwhelmingly come from immigrant communities and rely on these jobs to provide for their families. These settlements will ensure they finally get what they have rightfully earned and are owed under the law.</para></quote>
<para>As our own Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations said in the House the other day:</para>
<quote><para class="block">This government will not say to workers who are being underpaid that their concern is somehow not so controversial, that it's a second-rate concern and something that we would vote to delay. We're not going to say to gig workers, 'You can just wait as long as possible before you have any minimum rates.' We're not going to say to the families of people who have died at work, 'Oh, we'll just delay industrial manslaughter into the never-never.' We're not going to say to people who have their wages stolen deliberately by their employers that it's somehow not urgent or that it's too controversial to make wage theft a crime …</para></quote>
<para>The Fair Work Commissioner will be able to make a decision on fair and enforceable minimum standards, where there is a case put forward, with reference to defined characteristics. And again, as the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations pointed out:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The idea of this reform is effectively to give the Fair Work Commission the same level of flexibility that the platforms have …</para></quote>
<para>It's worth pointing out, considering some of the misinformation out there, that this legislation impacts employee-like workers only, which the commission can make a determination on. What it does not do is impact independent contractors who are not employee-like and/or do not perform work for a digital labour platform.</para>
<para>The growth in the gig economy has provided flexibility and convenience for many of us, but it has also contributed to an undermining of employment conditions, proper remuneration, job security and workplace health and safety for many. As a society, we need to find a balance to ensure that those delivering our goods and services are not exploited due to a complete erosion of conditions, rights and bargaining power. For those who suffer gross job insecurity, there is no bargaining power. And, to many people in my electorate who are members of the gig economy and who rely on the gig economy to make a living for themselves and their families, this legislation will bring them the relief, the justice and the rights that they deserve.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
    <electorate>Fisher</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 has got to be one of the worst bills that I've seen in my seven years in this place. It is dangerous, it's reckless and it's unnecessary. It is patently clear that this Labor government has entirely abandoned its base of hardworking, everyday Australians. Those opposite portray and claim that they're the workers party. Well, nothing could be further from the truth, because this is an attack on them. It's an attack on mums and dads in suburbs like Baringa, Nirimba and Caloundra West. It's an assault on small and family businesses from Maleny to Mooloolaba and from Conondale to Coochin Creek. Not one Australian is better off if Labor gets its way with this shonky offering to do its unions' bidding.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On a point of order, the member for Fisher, I want to remind you that you'll be speaking on the amendments only, as you've already spoken on this bill before. If you can confine your comments to the amendment, then that should be in order.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I've now been speaking for a minute and a half, so I should be provided some allowance of context.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Member for Fisher, it's just been brought to my attention that you have spoken on this bill before, so just confine your comments to the amendments if that's—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will do that, Mr Deputy Speaker. Those members opposite can continuously portray themselves to be these great pretenders—</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Fisher will be heard in silence.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There you go. That's much better! The great pretenders of the workers—but we know, and I know, when you look at the damage that—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The honourable Chief Government Whip.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Ryan</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Under standing order 69, the member for Fisher has spoken on the legislation previously, and I would ask the member for Fisher to contain himself to a discussion on the amendments.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This bill—</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Fisher will be heard in silence.</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! If members want to talk, they can talk outside the chamber, and I'm happy to eject anyone that does want to. The member for Fisher has the call. He will be heard in silence.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Chief Opposition Whip.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr van Manen</name>
    <name.id>188315</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If it assists the House and those opposite—who I know are having a bit of fun with this—the member for Fisher hasn't spoken on the substantive legislation. He spoke on the Senate amendments the other day. It's a completely different thing. So he hasn't spoken on this and he's free to speak.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the Chief Opposition Whip, but I have been told that he has spoken on the bill on 6 September—unless the Clerk has spoken differently. I will give the member for Fisher the call, and he will be heard in silence.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The amendment that's before the House is concerning the industrial legislative landscape as one that is already complex and difficult for small-business employers to navigate. Construction industry workers across this country—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I know the member for Moreton's voice, so you will be warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The construction sector across this country is already dealing with a very difficult legislative and regulatory environment. In fact, it is one of the most overregulated industries in this country. Every time this government introduces legislation and regulation, it makes builders' and subcontractors'—the same subcontractors who this government wants to drag in, by virtue of this legislation, and take away their true independence as independent contractors—lives more and more difficult, because of the regulatory burdens that this government is trying to introduce.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Perrett</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The amendments!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm speaking on the amendment, member for Moreton. Every time this government tries to introduce legislation, what it's doing by overregulation is making the lives of small-business people in this country more and more difficult. Do you know what it does?</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Do you know what it does, the member for Banks? It increases the cost of living. It increases the cost of living for Australians. This lot on the other side of the chamber—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Sorry, the member for Fisher will pause, and I call the honourable member for Wills.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Khalil</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The entire conduct of the member for Fisher has brought the House into disorder. He's obstructing the proper working of the House.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Wills is warned, and the member for Fisher will be heard is silence.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Those members opposite can try and shut me down, but I am here in this chamber to hold this hopeless, hapless government to account. For you, it's all a game. But let me tell you: Australians are hurting badly because of your economic policies, because of this government's economic policies. To you it's all a big joke, but Australians are hurting. Their mortgages have increased. Their rents have increased. Their rates have gone higher. Their electricity has gone hire. Their fuel has gone higher. Australians are doing a tougher because this government is driving up inflation. But why is it driving up inflation? It's driving up inflation because of its regulatory conduct. It is increasing—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Swanson</name>
    <name.id>264170</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I again draw your attention to the main conduct and concept that is being delivered by the member opposite. We are at the point in time when we have allocated time in the House to hear an explanation of and support for the amendments that have been put forward by the crossbench.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the honourable member. The member for Fisher will confine his comments and his speech to the amendments.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That is exactly what I am doing. If those members opposite care to read the first paragraph of the amendment, that is exactly what I am doing.</para>
<para>An honourable member: You should read it. You should read it again.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I've already done it; I've already read it.</para>
<para>I enjoy the opportunity to stand here and defend workers' rights in this country. Your government, the federal government, is making the lives of workers in this country very, very difficult. What you're also doing is increasing and driving up the cost of living for everyday Australians. And we're seeing that every day; the proof is in the pudding. Look at what has happened over the last 18 months, or is that a big joke? Is it a big joke that Australians are out there hurting? They are hurting because of this government's reckless regulatory policies, which are driving up the cost of doing business.</para>
<para>Every time a business has to pay more money, do you know what? That means that the end users, the customers, have to pay more money. Ultimately, customers, everyday working Australians, are bearing the brunt of this government's regulation, this government's absolute insistence on ensuring that it is constantly in the back pockets of every business in this country. Australians want this government out of their lives as quickly as possible. This opposition, on this side of the House, will be doing everything we possibly can to make sure that this term of government is as absolutely short as humanly possible.</para>
<para>I've had an opportunity to talk briefly about some of the pains that this government is forcing upon Australians, but I want to talk specifically about the building and construction sector. Those members opposite might know I was a chippie and a builder by trade for a number of years.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hill</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You should go back to it!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I take that interjection by the member for Bruce. It's almost encouraging today, but there you go! The construction sector in this country is built on independent contractors. I'll say that again: the construction sector in this country is built on the backs of independent contractors. And what this government wants to do is, effectively, to overhaul the way that independent contractors and subcontractors are dealt with, under this legislation. What that's going to is to make it very, very difficult for small businesses—like the small businesses that are operating in my electorate on the Sunshine Coast.</para>
<para>Now, independent contractors choose to be independent contractors because they want flexibility. They want to be able to take holidays when they like. They want to be able to choose who they work for and when they work. But this government wants to continuously regulate. And why? Because they don't like independent contractors. They don't like subbies. They don't like tradies. They want everybody who works in the building industry to be members of the unions, so that they—</para>
<para>An honourable member interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll take the interjection—that those members opposite don't think that independent contractors don't want to be members of the union, because—</para>
<para>An honourable member interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Independent contractors do not want to become members of unions, by and large. They do not want to be members of unions. They want to get on and do their own business. They want to be able to get on and do their own work. They want the opportunity to be able to do the work that they're engaged to do.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Fisher will confine his speech to the member for Mayo's and the member for Fowler's amendments.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And that is exactly what I am doing, Mr Deputy Speaker. This government continues to make life difficult, through its regulations, through this particular bill. It is trying its level best to overregulate industries like the building industry. What it is going to do, through its overregulation, is to have a significant impact on the cost of living of everyday Australians, because, ultimately, it's everyday Australians that pay the price for this government's overreach and overregulation. And everyday Australians will hold this government to account at the next election.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONAGHAN</name>
    <name.id>279991</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to rise for the very first time to speak on this bill—</para>
<para>An honourable member: Are you sure?</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONAGHAN</name>
    <name.id>279991</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm positive! The focus of any workplace relations change should be to add more certainty for workers, to streamline processes, to be easily understood by business owners and employees alike, and, ultimately, to create more jobs and higher productivity. In my view, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, in its current form, places additional cost and complexity on small business and it will only add to the cost of living. In fact, it doesn't reward—it devalues—tenure and experienced workers in many jobs in my electorate. It doesn't foster productivity. It doesn't enhance competitiveness or agility in the market. And it risks the very jobs that this government claims to be protecting.</para>
<para>I should note, however, that there are portions of the bill that we generally agree on. We saw that on Monday, when those four bills came before the House. Those four bills related to supporting first responders with PTSD, the application of charges related to silica diseases, discrimination against people suffering from family and domestic violence and ensuring that employees do not miss out on redundancy payments. I'm reminded of the words of the former New South Wales Premier Mike Baird, who asked, 'What does a good day in parliament look like?' Is it cheap political pointscoring over your opposition, or is it getting something done? What happened in this place on Monday, in terms of those four bills returned from the Senate, was simply this government getting cheap political pointscores. What they could have done with elements of their own bill which were unchanged was to pass them through this parliament. Instead, they decided to oppose their own words. That delayed these important measures in an attempt to get cheap political points. So when they sit across there and say, 'We care about the workers,' why didn't they pass that on Monday? Why didn't they do that?</para>
<para>I can imagine speaking to a taxpayer in my part of the world, in my electorate, and if he or she asks what happened on Monday I'll say: 'The government had a bill that had some really good parts in there. And it had some bad parts, so the coalition opposed it. But it went to the Senate and a couple of senators managed to extract the good parts from the government's bill and sent them back down to the House of Representatives. But the government, in an attempt to somehow embarrass us or get cheap political points, decided to vote against them and therefore delay their own bill.' I can assure everyone that the taxpayer would be scratching his or her head and wondering exactly what we're doing. In any event, we're still here and we're still talking about this bill.</para>
<para>I've been—at least, I was—in business for almost two decades, so I feel that I can adequately represent people from my electorate as an employer and manager of a team of professionals. I feel justified in being able to do that through my own lived experience. In my electorate of Cowper, small businesses are quite literally the backbone of our local economy. Locally owned and locally run enterprises make up the majority of employers in my region, from tourism to tax consultants, farmers to fashion retailers, health services and construction companies. Similarly, that's where the majority of the employment opportunities are for those of working age. Small businesses in my electorate are often family run, with many being handed down through generations of hardworking business owners. They work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, managing staff levels, stock, pricing, BAS, insurance updates—you name it. Currently—and both sides of the floor know this—they're walking a tightrope of increasing outgoing costs which are forcing them to drive up prices to consumers, who are also doing it tough. It's a very thin rope. Push prices up too far and you lose sales. Keep them as they are and your margins erode to the point of being unable to pay yourself a wage or keep people employed.</para>
<para>As the parliament, we should be making things easier for these businesses, and yet this legislation seeks to add a mind-bending amount of complexity to an already-changing system. Just take the definition of a casual worker. The definition alone is three pages long and includes 15 factors to determine whether an employee is a casual. The permanent casual loophole has already been closed. This is nothing new. All casuals currently have the right to change to permanent after a 12-month period if they work regularly rostered hours. Those across the floor are patting themselves on the back for this when, in reality, casual workers already have the choice, and many of them would rather stay at the higher hourly rate in order to make ends meet, which, in the current cost-of-living crisis, is increasingly understandable. So why is it necessary to add a new right after six months and a three-page definition? Why does the six months conversion require a test with 11 factors and four proposed sections and seven proposed subsections of legislation? In fact, this bill is discouraging small businesses from hiring casuals at all. I can tell you with some certainty that there are hundreds, probably thousands, of casual workers in my electorate who would not be able to afford rent and food on the table if that occurred.</para>
<para>Small businesses will need to contend with the unfettered expansion of union powers, opening the door to union action that many are simply not equipped to contend with. The fact that to gain entry to any workplace a union only need to assert to the Fair Work Commission that they 'suspect' a case of underpayment is unfathomable. Even a police officer has to have 'reasonable suspicion'. There is no reasonable suspicion needed here for the unions to go to the Fair Work Commission. They just have to suspect. So these small-business owners will have to open their doors. They don't have a room full of lawyers. They don't have time to fight these union Goliaths and, rather than providing an easy-to-navigate road map to industrial relations law to help them to avoid inadvertent underpayment or misrepresentation, we are handing them reams and reams of documents and expecting them to go through that whilst running a business.</para>
<para>Everybody here would have heard of Akubra in Kempsey. I recently attended a leaders forum at Akubra. That was attended by business and industry leaders with the predominant purpose of discussing this very bill. I can tell you that they were terrified. They were terrified of the effect it is going to have on their businesses. One of the main issues that employers took up was same job, same pay.</para>
<para>Steve Keir, the owner of Akubra, fourth generation, simply said: 'Why am I paying somebody who has been with me for six months the same amount as somebody who has been a loyal, hardworking part of the family for 20 years? Why is the government making me do this?' I can tell you that he pays all his workers well. He treats his workers like family, as most Australian business owners do. But the last thing they want is for government to tell them how they should run their businesses and what they should do in terms of the treatment of their employees when they are treating them well in the first place.</para>
<para>In conclusion, I can't express strongly enough my disappointment in the government's underhanded tactics to push this legislation through. In addition, the way it was dealt with, with the political pointscoring on Monday, I think will be reflected on by the Australian people. They will see what's happening. They will understand what's happening. Rather than focusing on meaningful policies to address the cost-of-living crisis, this government continues to place priority on areas that appease their major donors—the unions—to the detriment of every Australian family's budget. They're out of touch, but, as it's genuinely hard to find a member on that side of the floor who has ever owned or run a business, it's not surprising.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 is 284 pages long. It's explanatory memorandum is 521 pages long. I thank the minister for the briefings on what is complex and detailed legislation, but forming a view on this bill is far from straightforward or simple, despite what the minister may say, and ironically, in closing loopholes, one must be alive to new pitfalls.</para>
<para>Parts of the bill intend to close loopholes in working conditions that some businesses and employers exploit, to the detriment of workers. These can mean underpayment, unsafe working conditions and insecure work. I support the intent to close those loopholes. I unequivocally do not defend those loopholes. But the law to close them is so complex that, in my consultation with employers and employees alike—farmers, farm workers, small and medium-sized businesses—there is persistent uncertainty and confusion, therefore many reservations remain for me. This bill will impact a lot of people, and it's really important that we get it right.</para>
<para>I support strong protections and better conditions for workers. In Indi there are more than 11,000 workers in the healthcare and social assistance sectors, more than 7,000 workers in the construction industry and more than 5,000 workers in the accommodation and hospitality industries. In Indi more than 3,000 people work in the retail trade and more than 5,000 people work in the agricultural sector. All of these industries have very high proportions of casual workers and labour hires—employment arrangements targeted by this bill. It's with these workers and the local people who employ them in mind that I approach this bill. Both groups are my constituents. They all deserve to work in a safe, secure, fair and prosperous workplace.</para>
<para>Before I address the controversial parts of the bill, I want to address the sections that I wholeheartedly support and that I think should be passed without delay. Firstly, I back the provisions which implement presumptive liability for first responders who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD. This means that a person who experiences PTSD and has worked as a police officer, a paramedic, a firefighter or an emergency services communicator can have their employment recognised as a contributing factor to this awful, debilitating mental illness, simplifying the process for receiving compensation and care. Our emergency services are critical to keeping us safe and helping us in our most desperate moments. Local and international evidence is clear that there is often a heavy personal toll for people in these professions, sometimes, sadly, in the form of PTSD, and the onus of linking PTSD to their work should not rest with emergency workers. These provisions of the bill should pass immediately, especially as we're already in bushfire season.</para>
<para>Secondly, I support the parts of the bill which expand the functions of the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency to include matters relating to silica related diseases. Thirdly, I support the parts of the bill which will protect redundancy payments for workers who have been working for a large business that has technically become a small business due to insolvency.</para>
<para>Fourthly and very importantly, I support the domestic and family violence discrimination provisions of the bill. They amend the Fair Work Act to protect employees who have been or continue to be subjected to family and domestic violence from discrimination. This means an employer could not take adverse action against an employee on the basis of family or domestic violence and would prohibit modern awards and enterprise agreements from including any discriminatory terms.</para>
<para>These four important measures in the bill should pass immediately, and I back Senators Pocock and Lambie, my colleagues in the Senate who have introduced private senators' bills which carve these parts out. Last week, as we know, they passed unanimously in the Senate, and we must do this again in this place. I urge the government to support these bills. But I do say to the government: don't corner members of the crossbench on this bill. Don't force us to vote against workplace protections for those experiencing family or domestic violence or against better supports for emergency services workers just because we ask genuine questions and have legitimate concerns about other unrelated parts of this bill. Don't play these political games. The Australian public deserve much better than this from their parliament.</para>
<para>I now want to address the parts of the bill where I do have concerns. There are five main parts of the bill that I'll address that are controversial and are causing real anxiety in the communities across Indi, where I've been consulting with many, many people. First, the bill changes the definition of 'casual' to ensure that it looks at the real substance, practical reality and true nature of the working relationship, not just the contract. Second, the bill provides a new pathway for casual workers to convert to being permanent workers. The aim is help workers find secure, permanent work when they want to. Third, it provides that labour hire workers must be paid at least the minimum rates as per the host employer's enterprise agreement. These are the 'same job, same pay' provisions.</para>
<para>Fourth, the bill aims to improve the working standards for gig workers. It creates a new category of employment called 'employee-like', which means the Fair Work Commission can set minimum standards to do with things like pay, safety conditions and insurance for workers on digital platforms that provide services like rideshare and food delivery and for the road transport industry. It will also create a new process for dispute resolution for workers who have been deactivated from these platforms. Fifth, the bill changes the definition of 'employer' and 'employee' so that these terms are now defined by ascertaining the real substance, practical reality and true nature of the relationship. So it's not just the written words in a contract that will be looked at to determine if you are an employee or an independent contractor. What your actual work is like, how frequently and how regularly you work, how directed you are in your work—these factors are all looked at.</para>
<para>There are many other parts of the bill that deal with industrial manslaughter, wage theft, rights of union delegates to enter workplaces and much, much more. These parts of the bill need work too, Despite having 15 minutes to speak on this bill, it isn't nearly enough to address each and every part. This goes to the point that I made at the beginning about how complex this bill is and what close scrutiny it deserves. The act it is amending is even more complex. It is worthy of detailed and diligent scrutiny, and the job of a conscientious legislator is to do that scrutiny, to understand what questions need to be asked and to safeguard against unintended consequences. As an Independent, I review each bill on its merits. I seek to understand deeply the problem and the ways in which we're trying to solve it. I seek the evidence for the legislative remedy proposed, and I weigh up those factors as best I can with the interests of the people of Indi and the interests of Australia at the forefront of my mind—certainly not the politics of it.</para>
<para>This government has consulted on these measures for many months, and I acknowledge that this process is much improved compared to the 'secure jobs, better pay' bill that we tried to work through earlier this year. But, unfortunately, this bill still falls short of giving resolution to the many questions that remain. If I am to support this bill, I need to explain to my constituents how this bill will impact them and assure them that the bill is in their best interests. As it currently stands, I can't do this with certainty. In my own consultations with many local businesses and with employer groups, there is deep uncertainty about the impact of some aspects of this bill. I thank those groups, which do include the Business Council of Australia, the National Farmers Federation, the Master Builders Association, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, COSBOA and others, for meeting with me in my office to discuss the complexities. I also thank employee groups like the Australian Council of Trade Unions for meeting with me to explain this bill and what it could mean for workers.</para>
<para>In relation to the new definition of 'employee', I hear concerns from the construction and building industry that independent contractors may now be classified as an employee with the actual terms of the contract being overridden. The construction and building industry are worried that this new test will create a disincentive and barrier to those who want the control of being their own boss. They need certainty that this will not be the case. In relation to the changes relating to casual employment, I'm concerned that there may be unintended consequences of changing the definition of 'casuals' and the creation of a new pathway to convert from casual to permanent. Casuals are an important form of employment. Casual work provides flexibility to many cohorts—students, parents and carers who want to balance their working and non-working lives—and I don't want to see that option taken away.</para>
<para>I've heard from local businesses that they may employ fewer casuals to avoid perceived legal risks that come with new provisions, penalising employers that misrepresent contracts as casual contracts when in fact they're not. I've heard confusion at the creation of a new additional pathway to convert to permanent employment when one already exists in the legislation. I'm thinking about the small and medium-sized hospitality and manufacturing businesses in Wodonga, Wangaratta or Benalla, who may struggle to understand their legal obligations under these new provisions. This bill must be improved so that employers have certainty when they're hiring a casual and so that this doesn't come with risks or confusion later down the track.</para>
<para>To the government's credit, they have responded to some of these concerns by committing to amend the bill to address them, and this is an important step in the right direction. However, I'm yet to see these amendments, other than in media reports, and the government has not said if they'll be moved in this place or the other place. That leaves me in a difficult position and one where I simply can't support a bill based on media reports of potential amendments.</para>
<para>On changes to labour hire—the same job, same pay provisions—I'm concerned again that there may be unintended consequences for workers and employers alike that will impact labour hire. Like casuals, labour hire is a legitimate and important component of our employment landscape, especially for the building, agricultural and food-processing industries. Labour hire providers are confused as to whether, under the new provisions, they must ignore their enterprise agreements in favour of host employer agreements or whether they must apply the agreement with the higher standard. There's also uncertainty about whether 'same pay' means bonuses or other incentives or benefits. Importantly, I've heard that these new provisions will mean labour hire employers won't want to negotiate penalties and loadings in their enterprise agreements if they have to pay these same benefits to host employers.</para>
<para>If the government have clear responses to these uncertainties, I implore them to make this clear in the legislation. For example, if it only captures the rate of hourly pay under the enterprise agreement, make this clear. If it doesn't capture service contractors, make this clear. The government say these provisions are to target large corporations like Qantas, who have behaved totally unethically in undercutting workers, but they need to make sure it's not impacting on the much smaller businesses that won't attract the small-business exemption as they have more than 15 employees. Indeed, there are almost 1,500 businesses with between five and 19 employees in Indi. They are very much small businesses, with limited capacity to understand and manage these proposed law changes.</para>
<para>Going now to the provisions of the bill creating new rights for employee-like workers, also known as gig workers, as well as road transport workers, I recognise the need for reform, but builders in my electorate have written to me really worried about these new provisions. They're worried this bill will capture contractors and subcontractors who've worked hard to establish their businesses, build relationships and enjoy the freedom to choose how they operate—freedom which could be taken away with minimum-standards orders. It's really important that this bill does not stifle the work of service subcontractors, who are vitally important right now as we are building much-needed—desperately needed—homes to address the housing supply crisis.</para>
<para>I'm sorry to say that, at this time, I cannot support the government on this legislation. I genuinely hope it works constructively with the Senate on these issues, to make further amendments that address the many concerns that I and many, many others have raised. In that time, I will continue to engage, in good faith, with those most affected by this bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>124514</name.id>
    <electorate>Flinders</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Payday for the Australian union movement has finally come, and what a golden pot of power this bill, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, bestows on them. This bill has been called radical, extreme, interventionist, heavy-handed, costly, complex and economically damaging, and rightly so. The recently departed CEO of the Business Council of Australia, Jennifer Westacott, said it:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… represents one of the most radical overhauls of Australia's system in decades and will impact every worker, contractor and business at a time of rising economic uncertainty and a cost of living crisis</para></quote>
<para>The head of the Minerals Council of Australia, Tania Constable, described its context thus:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The nation's ongoing prosperity is under assault.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">So why now would it be wise to place even greater restraints on the Australian economy? Why would it be prudent, at this very time, to increase the burden on Australia's productive workplaces and threaten investment and job creation?</para></quote>
<para>The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry calls it as they see it, as the greatest invasion of the place and progress of business by the union movement. Their CEO, Andrew McKellar, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The government is seeking to deputise union delegates, establishing them in proxy law enforcement roles</para></quote>
<para>But more important to me than the views of ACCI, BCA and the Minerals Council are the views of my constituents in Flinders. Two weeks ago today, Senator Michaelia Cash, our shadow minister for industrial relations, came down to my electorate and met with around 30 local Flinders businesses, ranging from the local Bakers Delight franchise to the global-leading industrial enterprises located on the Mornington Peninsula. Over a couple of hours we talked through the proposed reforms contained in this bill, many of which those who gathered had heard absolutely nothing about. Others were already in the trenches, trying to navigate the vast damage that this bill will do to their business model and employment practices—mostly to meet their employees' needs and preferences but also to meet customers' demands, to stay globally competitive and to sustain Australia's manufacturing base.</para>
<para>Others had no idea of what was coming their way, so busy are they meeting the day-to-day demands of running their businesses. The Mornington Peninsula economy survives on seasonal, casual and contractor employment. The offer of casual rates is often the only way to get young people to work through the peak summer season. The use of contractors is how we sustain our services sector in aged care, retirement living, health, education and child care. Each and every day, hundreds of workers are being bussed from the northern suburbs to meet the demands of our local businesses.</para>
<para>If you ask any employer already, they will tell you that wages are already unaffordable, worker accommodation is impossible to find and there is next to no public transport so both travel and travel time must be funded by the boss. Business loan interest payments are soaring and their home mortgage, against which the business is often guaranteed, is also soaring. They are drowning in red tape and, now, this. At a tourism round table I held last week, I heard that many are just trying to get through the summer season to see if they can make it through to the end of the financial year. But at our IR round table two weeks ago, as we sat in the modest, but magnificent, Westernport Yacht Club looking out to a grey ocean, I watched as my constituents' faces turned similarly pale. Quietly, afterwards, someone said to me, as many others have said in other contexts, 'Has anyone in this Albanese government ever run a business?'</para>
<para>The head of the Master Builders Association came to see me yesterday; I always welcome them with open arms of course because Flinders, in any given year, is more likely than not to hold the enviable crown as the tradie capital of the nation. That means the highest number of people employed in the construction industry. We were pipped by Casey last year, and I'm sure the member for Casey will come in to remind me of that, but I'm sure we will resume that crown at the next count. Either way, some 15 per cent of total employment in my electorate relates to the construction industry, with some 10,000 people engaged and almost 2½ thousand small businesses in the building and construction industry across Flinders. You can see them every morning, lined up at the Tuck Shop in the Rosebud Industrial Estate or the Koonya General Store in Sorrento, the Lil Tuckshop in Dromana—an endless procession of youths grabbing the nation's best egg-and-bacon rolls at dawn. The lucky ones have already had a surf in the morning before a long day on the tools.</para>
<para>The Master Builders Association represents so much of the trading community in my electorate and they have been clear about the impact of this bill on them. Denita Wawn, the CEO, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The majority of the amendments will negatively impact the over 440,000 businesses that operate in building and construction and the 1.3 million people they employ.</para></quote>
<para>In Wawn's words, it:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… represents a fundamental upheaval of many tried and tested components of Australian workplace laws … and is simply bad law and policy.</para></quote>
<para>There's more:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It is complex, complicated, costly and unnecessary. It will hurt small business and undermines people's rights to be their own boss.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It will be a lawyers picnic and despite comments suggesting it won't impact building and construction, the Bill as introduced very clearly opens the door by taking a general approach of 'you are in, unless you can argue your way out.'</para></quote>
<para>When I started my professional career I was an IR lawyer. In addition to private practice with Corrs as an articled clerk and then with Freehills as a senior associate, I spent a number of months seconded to the former Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business in the city, working on the second iteration of Howard-era workplace reform under the late, great Peter Reith as our minister. Today, just the explanatory memorandum of this bill is larger than the entire Workplace Relations Act 1996, which I worked on at the time.</para>
<para>This bill, if implemented, will cripple Australian businesses, small to large alike—smashed by heavy-handed red tape, backbreaking complexity and immeasurable cost. The bill offers no improvements in terms of productivity, and adds to the cost-of-living pressures already felt by Australian businesses, families and workers. It will unquestionably add billions to the wage bills of small to large businesses alike, while offering little in terms of uplift and flexibility for workers, who will find themselves stuffed into one-size-fits-all suiting with union overlords looking over their shoulder.</para>
<para>Modest estimates to the cost to business by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations suggest it will add $510 million a year if just 66,000 labour hire workers fall under the new Fair Work Commission orders. The additional cost for digital platform workers will be $4 billion over a decade. Conservative maths says this bill will cost employers more than $9 billion over a decade and lead to scores of job losses.</para>
<para>This bill is yet another, but perhaps the most egregious, aspect of this government's war on all Australian business. Even the government's favourite, Qantas, hates this bill, recently saying to the Senate inquiry on it that it would 'compromise the viability of services, particularly regional ones, undermine job security and create market distortions by way of an unlevel playing field in circumstances where competitors will not be captured by the proposed reforms', according to Nathan Safe, who gave evidence to the Senate.</para>
<para>Let us look at some of the most concerning provisions of this bill in closer detail. Let me start with union entry rights, because it's clear from those provisions alone who exactly the Albanese government is putting at the centre of the Australian workplace. In providing advice to business, my former firm of Freehills described it thus:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill forms part of a specific policy framework which seeks to reinvigorate participation in both trade unions … and the enterprise bargaining regime …</para></quote>
<para>Their colleagues at Ashurst were blunter, stating the bill:</para>
<quote><para class="block">builds on the already significant changes made in December 2022 to further entrench the role of unions in Australian workplaces …</para></quote>
<para>Union organisers will get reasonable access to the workplace and paid union training. Going forward, all awards and agreements must enshrine these rights. Yet, 'reasonable access' is nowhere clearly defined, no doubt leading to endless disputation between workers and unions over exactly what is allowed. Moreover, unions are given extraordinary powers to enter workplaces without any notice whatsoever if it has a reasonable suspicion that a union member is being underpaid and to inspect employment records, including those of non-union members.</para>
<para>The provisions once known as 'same job, same pay' will act as a handbrake to productivity and flexibility in the workplace, and demonstrate just how out of touch Labor is. The AI Group has indicated that the ambit of this new provision potentially interferes with a raft of other commercial arrangements between businesses that haven't traditionally been considered labour hire. Again, my old firm, Freehills, warned that the new provisions are not necessarily confined to traditional labour hire. For example, they could 'potentially extend to service contractors and internal group entities' that supply labour within a corporate group. Furthermore, the scope of the regulated labour hire regime is also not limited to employers who are based in Australia and applies regardless whether or not the host employers are themselves currently subject to the Fair Work Act.</para>
<para>The exemption for three-month surge or seasonal workforces falls far short of the more realistic and flexible 12 months sought by business groups and certainly far short of any seasonal work done in my electorate. It also requires the employer to convince the Fair Work Commission that exceptional circumstances exist to justify the order.</para>
<para>I now turn to Labor's war on casual employment. The provisions of this bill are designed to complicate and disincentivise casual employment, even though we know that the vast majority of casuals choose casual employment to suit their life circumstances, especially for the 25 per cent uplift on their hourly rates. The bill sets out a conga line of criteria that is three pages long, with 15 factors, to work out whether a relationship is truly casual or not. It is largely characterised by an absence of a firm advanced commitment to continuing and indefinite work. Even then, when the test for casual is met, in a much more complicated way than is currently the case, the casual is a casual until a casual is not a casual when a specified event occurs. What does the lucky dip selection of special events look like? 'By election of the employee': that's straightforward enough and available now. Then there's 'converted by order of the Fair Work Commission' or 'converted by an industrial agreement' or, better still, especially for the union movement, both the employee and the employer throw their hands up in frustration and convert the employee to ongoing for lack of a better alternative.</para>
<para>My old former colleagues Chris Gardner and Henry Skene recently wrote in the <inline font-style="italic">AFR</inline>:</para>
<quote><para class="block">This bill proposes extensive changes to all casual employment from commencement. Changes unnecessary to address the "permanent casual" loophole the minister aims to close.</para></quote>
<para>…   …   …</para>
<quote><para class="block">Unless what the government really wants is to stamp out casual employment more widely. And this is an old-school bait and switch: using the example of the "casual" truck driver with a 12-month roster … to substantially restrict something the government and unions dislike …</para></quote>
<para>They conclude:</para>
<quote><para class="block">These measures, however well-intentioned, risk having precisely the opposite effect. Driving uncertainty and insecurity for those people who actually want, and feel well-served by, casual employment.</para></quote>
<para>Finally, the bill's provisions will stifle the ever-growing and diversifying gig economy. With the changes this bill makes to gig economy work, you can say goodbye to an affordable Friday night. Uber Eats, Deliveroo, Menulog, DoorDash, Uber, Shebah and Ola will all be more expensive. Today, young people, students, part-time workers and, indeed, retirees in my electorate are making some extra money working the hours they want, when they want, through app enabled work. They're on multiple apps simultaneously. Labor hate them. A year ago, in August 2022, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations told the job summit:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Gig work drives down wages and has been spreading like a cancer through the economy …</para></quote>
<para>Well, gig economy, here comes the chemotherapy for the cancer you supposedly caused.</para>
<para>Under the bill, the Fair Work Commission will be given new jurisdiction to set minimum standards via minimum standard orders and guidelines for those working on digital labour platforms with low bargaining power. A new digital labour platform deactivation code will be developed. I know it sounds like 'Ministry of Love' speak, but it will dictate the circumstances in which a gig worker can be exited from a digital platform, sort of like unfair dismissal from a workplace into which the gig worker never actually walks. The department has a document called <inline font-style="italic">Minimum standards and increased access to dispute resolution for independent contractors Annexure A—</inline><inline font-style="italic">supplementary analysis to impact analysis equivalent </inline><inline font-style="italic">process</inline><inline font-style="italic">. </inline>I kid you not. That is actually a thing. It says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">If the Fair Work Commission determines that a 'deactivation' is unfair, it will be able to order reinstatement to a digital labour platform and where appropriate, make an order to restore lost pay.</para></quote>
<para>To say there is massive uncertainty about the provisions and their impact is an even greater understatement. In a world in which technology and specifically generative AI will change every iota of every activity with which this place concerns itself, including nowhere more so than the world of work, this war on the future is just madness. The legislation is confounding, confusing, cumbersome and chaotic. How on earth are normal business operators like those who work in my electorate, run off their feet as it is trying to make ends meet, to understand what they are meant to do next? My old friends at Freehills were blunt: 'Make friends with a good IR lawyer; you will need them.' This is nothing but a Christmas stocking stuffed to the brim for the Australian union movement and a Christmas nightmare for all Australian businesses.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VAN MANEN</name>
    <name.id>188315</name.id>
    <electorate>Forde</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's always a pleasure to rise in this place and speak on legislation that, on first blush, has many principles that you could, to a degree, agree with. We want to see workers get home safely. We want to see people paid properly. We want to see higher wages so that people can meet the cost-of-living crisis that we're seeing today. We want to see people have good wages so they can live a standard of living that we now expect in this country. I don't think anybody in this place has an issue with those principles. But, when I look at this Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, I say, 'How is that going to be achieved?'</para>
<para>I spoke in the Federation Chamber earlier today about the value and importance of small business in our communities. Small businesses employ nearly 50 per cent of our workforce and represent some 97 per cent of businesses in this country. They are the engine room of innovation and dynamism and are creating the future for this country. I see nothing in this bill that is going to assist those businesses—nothing whatsoever.</para>
<para>As I look at this bill I see nothing but more regulation, more red tape and more uncertainty for our small-business owners and more distraction from their core job of running their businesses and employing people to having to focus on IR and industrial relations issues, to the extent that many do not even know what is coming down the track. I was speaking to several members of one of our chambers of commerce last week about these upcoming IR laws and to say that the level of knowledge was poor would be an understatement, and there is much in this bill that they should be seriously concerned about. There is much in this bill that the government has actually made no reasonable case for.</para>
<para>Business groups and employers have said that the proposed IR changes will smash productivity, investment and job creation. We're already seeing issues in the space of productivity and in the space of investment. Increasingly I'm hearing stories of businesses that are not employing more people but are starting to lay people off, particularly in the construction sector. In my electorate of Forde, that probably represents nearly 14 per cent of the workforce.</para>
<para>The government's own estimates state that over the next decade these changes will cost employers an additional $9 billion. How is that additional cost going to be offset by productivity improvements when those businesses are going to be weighed down by a bureaucratic IR system with red tape? It's going to be like an anchor holding them back, and that is not what we need at this time. We need an open, flexible, dynamic economy that can compete with the rest of the world. Should that ensure that people get paid properly for what they do? Absolutely. Should that ensure that people can go to work and come home to their families safe, well and healthy? Absolutely it should. But I believe there are existing mechanisms and processes in place in existing systems at both a state and a federal level that can achieve those things.</para>
<para>One of the things I do find in this space is that there are many, many rules and regulations already in place. It is not a lack of rules and regulations that is the problem; it is a lack of enforcement of those rules and regulations that is the problem. If we spent more time actually focusing on ensuring that our regulators, whether it be the Fair Work Commission or others at a state level—our various state industrial commissions—enforced the rules and regulations that are already in place, I suspect that many of the provisions in this bill would not be required.</para>
<para>Nearly 30 per cent of the employees in my electorate are engaged in part-time or casual work, and the current provision, which the coalition put in place when we were last in government, effectively has a test with three limbs to assess whether a person moves from casual to permanent employment. Yet we see that the bill before us proposes a roughly 15-step process. Is it really necessary to make that so complex? Many people I talk to wish to stay in a casual employment relationship because they enjoy that flexibility. More importantly, in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, they enjoy the extra income. Whilst with that flexibility goes, in many cases, a reasonably stable work schedule, they also appreciate that. But that is, by individual discussion, an agreement with their employers. In the current employer environment, I do not know a single employer in my electorate that isn't seeking to ensure they retain their current workforce. They can't get additional employees to grow their business, so there is very little incentive for them to treat their existing employees poorly; they want to look after them very well. I know many businesses who are paying well over the award to their employees and providing them with additional conditions, such as maybe working from home one day a week or even, in some cases I'm aware of, a four-day working week. All of that is being done without this draconian legislation, because employers want to retain their workforces and get on with what they do, which is produce goods and services for the Australian economy.</para>
<para>As I look at this bill, all I see is the average Australian losing out from most of these measures, and the government has admitted as much. Businesses will be forced to pass on the extra costs through higher prices to consumers or other third-party businesses throughout the supply chain. We will see an increased cost for consumers for everyday services they have come to rely on. With so many of the concerns throughout those bills, who do these changes actually support? I thought the member for Flinders summed it up very well in her closing remarks, about this bill being a Christmas stocking full of gifts for the union movement. We know, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I know that you know, with your background in the trucking industry, there are many, many independent trucking operators that operate that way because that's the way they want to conduct their business and they have the flexibility to do so. But I also know, in the construction sector, having family members in the building industry who operate as independent contractors who work for a number of different builders, whether they're electricians, ceramic tilers, plumbers or brickies, and from my discussions with the Master Builders Association yesterday, that this bill puts that arrangement at risk. It means that those people now become employees.</para>
<para>One of the important attributes of the building sector, with it being so reliant on independent contractors, is that those people get to choose which builders they work for and what hours and days they work. Importantly, it also gives the building companies flexibility to meet the ebbs and flows of the building sector. As we all well know, the building sector operates up and down. It fluctuates with the economy and economic conditions. I know that many of the big building companies that I've spoken to recently and over the years have not employed tradespeople for that very reason—there was no consistency in the project flow for large projects that made it attractive for them to employ people on a full-time basis. I know that some have now changed that view, given that they have a long tail of projects to come down the track, and they feel that, in the current employment environment, it is actually better for them to start to employ tradespeople on their books. But that's a business decision that they have made for the best interests of their business. That shouldn't be forced on every building business in the country, irrespective of their size. These are large businesses that can carry that. But what about the small project builder that maybe only builds three or four homes a year? Does he want to have a sparky, a plumber, a brickie, a concreter, a painter and a roofer all employed on his books all year when he's doing homebuilding projects? I would say no. I would say equally those tradespeople don't want to be employed on his books either, because they want to be able to do work for other builders. This bill stops that dead in its tracks, and for what benefit to our economy? Zero; no benefit whatsoever.</para>
<para>All I can think is that this is about seeking to extend the tentacles of the union movement further into the construction sector. Now, we have seen the consequences of that at the big end of town. The cost of those big projects has now skyrocketed far beyond what was originally costed, and in part that is driven by state government and union policies in terms of wages and conditions which are far in excess of the award. For these and a range of other matters which have been well canvassed by other colleagues in this place, I cannot possibly support this bill.</para>
<para>Do we have a system that needs some tweaks and a bit of reform to streamline it and make it easier and clearer for business and employees to understand and make it function more effectively? I think that's a reasonable argument. But this bill doesn't do that. It doesn't even come close to doing that. What we need is an industrial relations system that is streamlined, effective and fair for all involved and focused on generating productivity in our community, focused on creating the incentive for business to employ people. It is true that business employing people generates wealth and generates economic activity. Not only does it generate wealth and economic activity; it generates wellbeing for those people who are employed and working in a job that they want to work in and be engaged in. It builds community relationships, friendships and relationship, and we all know that people who are in work have far better personal life outcomes than those that aren't. I am seriously worried that this bill fails on all of those fronts.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. I should say that the title is a little misleading. To say 'closing loopholes' ignores the broader range and scope of this legislation amendment. It is, in essence, the second omnibus industrial relations change legislation put forward by the government. It is concerning that in a time of stress on business and uncertainty in the industrial relations space the government is introducing a significant amount of change. We know that for small businesses, in particular, increased amounts of red tape, administrative processes and compliance is incredibly difficult. It really adds to operational costs and puts many small businesses at risk.</para>
<para>This legislation is an omnibus bill. It proposes a huge number of changes across the industrial relations sphere. The key changes include changes to the definition of 'casual worker' and changes to the definition of what constitutes a contractor. It makes intentional wage theft a criminal offence and further empowers the Fair Work Commission to set standards across parts of the gig economy. It introduces reforms to the test for claiming post-traumatic stress disorder so that Federal Police, ambulance officers, emergency services, communications officers and firefighters can claim entitlements for post-traumatic stress disorder without first having to prove that they have acquired the disorder from their job. This is a non-contentious inclusion that should be passed quite separately, and I will come to that. It proposes protection for victims of domestic violence from being discriminated against in the workplace by their employers. Again, that's very non-contentious and should be passed separately.</para>
<para>The bill proposes protection of redundancy payments for workers who might be working for a larger business where the business has technically become a small business due to insolvency. This is slightly more technical but, again, fairly straightforward and shouldn't be caught up in the omnibus aspect of this legislation. It proposes recognition of silicosis so that it is dealt with in the same way as asbestos under the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency and includes coordination on silica safety and silica related diseases. Again, I believe this one would have the support of the House. It is incredibly needed and, again, it raises that question of why such important and fairly urgent pieces of amending legislation are being caught up and put in this omnibus style of legislation.</para>
<para>I am concerned that this is a bit of a trend by the Albanese government across a few sectors, and I anticipate that there is more proposed legislation of this nature, where quite disjointed and different issues are all pulled into one piece of legislation, to come. I believe it's in the hope of wedging those who have issues with certain areas of substance in the proposed legislation, because if you're unhappy with one part you're then caught up in whether you should be supporting another. It's really just playing politics instead of looking at the merits of the proposed legislation and particular elements of it.</para>
<para>I should say that it's been disappointing this week that the government had the opportunity to deal with those four more urgent aspects of the bill that have support across this place and were passed in the other place and came back here for consideration. But the government preferred, ultimately, to play games on those areas of the bill. So, where fairly urgent financial assistance could have gone to first responders and victims of domestic violence and payments could have been in effect from 1 January 2024, they instead will be held up by the remainder of this bill.</para>
<para>The government's stated aims in relation to this omnibus bill are clear enough—to close current loopholes in the Australian industrial relations landscape that can allow for exploitation or even harm of employees. There's no dispute that the system is far from perfect and that there are areas of concern that do need dealing with. But what can be seen in this bill is the taking up of a sledgehammer where taking a hammer to a nail probably would have been enough. It is the overreach in relation to some of the provisions that is causing the greatest concern. The stated purposes are noble aims, and many in this place can agree with them in principle. We absolutely want to see fair employment and pay conditions and we certainly should never see the stealing of wages from employees. These are provisions that are long overdue.</para>
<para>There's no doubt that reform of the gig economy is needed, but how it is done matters because we do need to make sure we maintain the flexibility and the ability to have a dynamic business and industrial relations environment so that our businesses are competitive. It is a global marketplace. We see that across many sectors for businesses of all sizes, and unless they can be competitive they will ultimately pay a price. I have urged during briefings, and I would urge the government, to tackle these issues one at a time, individually, so that they can stand, be debated and really be dealt with on their own merits.</para>
<para>Again, I do feel that this omnibus style of legislation is incredibly disappointing in relation to such an important area, especially when policy changes of such magnitude are stuffed into a large bill which just is not going to bring about the considered policy changes that we should be working on in this place. The bill doesn't pay respect to the stakeholders who want to make real and meaningful change in the industrial relations area, in particular those who do need help sooner.</para>
<para>I note the bill has been referred to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee. The committee's report is due in February 2024, so I do have a procedural complaint with the government—that is, it is requiring the bill to pass through this place when we know that it's not the final form this bill will take. So, essentially, following the inquiry, there will be amendments and there will be movement, but, rather than us having the opportunity to consider a bill in a more final stage, it is a process of pushing it through here. It will get amended, and we don't have the benefit of the findings or of any of the recommendations that will be made by that committee.</para>
<para>I do have concerns about the current drafting of the bill and the impacts it will have on many Australians, employers and employees alike. In particular, the definition of 'casual employee'. The definition of 'casual' and the related provisions introduce a degree of rigidity into the employment environment which may well have unintended consequences. Small- and medium-sized businesses, because of their size, are particularly vulnerable to market fluctuations, and they need to be nimble. As a result, they need a significant degree of flexibility in their staffing arrangements. So I'm concerned, and the feedback I have received is of grave concern, around the proposed amendments, that they don't contain a sufficient degree of flexibility for either of those, employers or employees, and, accordingly, some of those businesses may well suffer.</para>
<para>The rigidity also affects the question of whether workers are independent contractors or employees. The economy, particularly the building and construction industry that many in this place have talked about and is quite prevalent in many of our communities, already faces significant stresses relating to this issue and where the workers can legitimately set themselves up and operate freely and flexibly as independent contractors.</para>
<para>Another consequence of this reduction in flexibility may well be the risk of businesses knowingly shrinking their workforce in an attempt to ensure that they do not fall foul of these more rigid work arrangements. So what is proposed may well discourage the engagement of casual workers, and that, I think, would be a really disappointing consequence to industrial relations changes. Similarly, employees of such businesses are often attracted to working for them for the reasons of flexibility and responsiveness of those employers to their particular situations and needs. If that is lost, again, that is not good thing.</para>
<para>Warringah constituents are concerned that this change to the definition of 'casual worker' is likely to result in very negative consequences and not ones that I think add to the benefit of the sector. I would say Warringah is an electorate like many others in the country where there are a number of small businesses, and they boast an entrepreneurial spirit amongst many of its residents. All too often in small businesses it is the small-business owners that underpay themselves to ensure the viability of their businesses. Whilst we've dealt with other legislation to assist small businesses, recognising the challenge they are under, we then have this type of legislation that's likely to make their trading circumstances all the more difficult.</para>
<para>The feedback from small businesses is the uncertainty. The changes that continually occur, the increased requirements and the administrative aspect—it is incredibly difficult for them, as small workforces, to be able to cope with the constant changes in an environment where they're feeling immense stress from the aftermath of COVID, where they've often incurred increased borrowings to stay afloat, have delayed rents which are now due and have increased, have increased operating costs and reduced consumer confidence in too many situations and have staff and labour shortages. So small businesses in Warringah are constantly telling me they don't need a more complex business environment in which to operate, and this bill does do that on a number of fronts.</para>
<para>The gig economy—we hear a lot about the reasoning for the government in relation to the changes proposed. It is a key aspect and a key area of justification, and there's often the latching on to incredibly dramatic and sad events and accidents that have occurred. But there's a real difference between looking at safety when it's on road safety and the link that is claimed in relation to pay. The feedback that I've had from various stakeholders is that it's good in part and that they do welcome minimum standards for gig work; it's a good thing—from Uber to DoorDash, they've expressed such sentiments. But there are concerns within the industry, and those concerns include the scope of the terms and conditions that could potentially be included in minimum standards orders remaining way too broad, leading to significant uncertainty for platforms and to flow-on impacts for gig workers, consumers and businesses. The government could assist by providing much greater clarity and direction as to minimum standard orders and what would be expected of industry participants on this front.</para>
<para>There are complex questions that need addressing for parts of the gig economy that deal with care workers. Companies such as Mable, an online platform that connects Australians looking for disability and aged-care support with independent support workers, are on the record as saying that the proposed reforms would drive up costs for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and cause workers to quit the platform. So, at a time when we have staff shortages in these key areas—in particular, in regional sectors—it's hard to understand why the government would go down a course to make it more difficult.</para>
<para>I appreciate that, on the other side of the argument, recent research from the Australia Institute highlights that care and support gig workers treated as independent contractors are in highly insecure work and without minimum standards. So it's clear that a balance needs to be found, but many are concerned that the balance is not as it's currently found in this legislation, and I would urge the government to consider delay and further consultation to arrive at a better outcome. We do need to make sure that gig workers have safe environments where they are not exploited but are able to maintain the flexibility this sort of employment affords to them.</para>
<para>I believe that the Fair Work Commission's power to make orders is too wide. For example, it will be able to make orders for a minimum number of hours worked per shift, which might not align with how platforms such as Uber and others may well operate. The government should take the considered feedback on board and further look at how this bill proposes to change the role of the Fair Work Commission.</para>
<para>So I have a number of concerns about this omnibus bill as it stands, and I must say I am disappointed with the approach the government has taken in presenting this style of omnibus bill. We were promised better procedure and better conduct than the previous government. Whilst I acknowledge that, in some aspects, things are better, in others we're seeing much of the same, with really political games being played in relation to very important questions of policy. So I urge the government to take more time to consider complex aspects of policy change and not to overcomplicate the industrial relations sector, because we cannot afford to have small businesses, in particular, overburdened and a system that loses flexibility and dynamism, because it is an incredibly competitive market out there and our businesses need to remain competitive.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the honourable member for her contribution. The original question was that this bill now be read a second time, to which the honourable member for Bradfield moved as an amendment that words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. Subsequent amendments have been moved by honourable members. The question before the House now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mayo be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We'll now go to the next amendment, because there are a number of them to rip through. The original question was that the bill now be read a second time, to which the honourable member for Fowler moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. Subsequent amendments have been moved by that honourable member, and the question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Fowler be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The original question was that this bill be now read a second time, to which the honourable member for Kennedy moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. Subsequent amendments have been moved by honourable members. The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Kennedy be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The original question was that this bill be now read a second time, to which the honourable member for Bradfield moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. Subsequent amendments have been moved by honourable members. The question is now that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Bradfield be agreed to. A division having been called, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until the first opportunity of the next sitting day. The debate on this item is therefore adjourned until that time.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>112</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7094" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>112</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SUKKAR</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
    <electorate>Deakin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We will be opposing the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee Bill 2023. The Australian people watching at this late hour were not promised before the election by the then opposition leader, now Prime Minister, Mr Albanese, an economic inclusion advisory committee. Why, then, are we here, using precious time in a threadbare legislative agenda from a government who has spent most of the year focused on the Voice referendum? We're here because of a dirty deal done with Senator David Pocock, a deal done to try and get the government's very troubled industrial relations agenda through the parliament. The first tranche of destructive industrial relations changes from this government were able to get over the line partly because of a dirty deal done with Senator Pocock to establish this economic inclusion advisory committee.</para>
<para>I remind those members opposite that, at a time when Australians are increasingly struggling to buy their groceries at the supermarket, struggling to pay for their fuel and struggling to pay their mortgages and rent, Australians would be very disappointed that as part of a dirty deal done with Senator Pocock we as a nation are going to be spending $8.7 million on this absolute charade of a committee, a committee made up of fellow travellers from the Labor Party and chaired by a former Labor minister, shadow minister and member in this place: Jenny Macklin, who was just administering the Labor Party in Victoria, I think, from memory. She has gone from administering the Labor Party to now being the proposed chair of an economic inclusion advisory committee that's going to cost Australians $8.7 million. Just like the $400 million spent on the Voice referendum, Australians would much prefer that that money be spent on things that would make their lives a little bit easier, particularly when you're talking about an advisory committee who, quite frankly, the government has ignored anyway.</para>
<para>The first round of requests made by this committee before being legislated have been completely ignored by this government. What on earth is the government saying—that they need a legislated committee that's going to cost taxpayers nearly $10 million in order to understand social policy in this country? Are you serious? Are the members opposite joking? Do any of them actually spend any time in their electorates if they need somebody else, another body that is going to cost taxpayers even more money, taking more money out of Australian taxpayers' pockets, to fund a group of fellow travellers—former Labor MPs, union leaders and others—to give them recommendations that they will then ignore? What an utter embarrassment for this government. And at a time when we should be debating other more important things—</para>
<para>Debate interrupted.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>113</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Labor Government</title>
          <page.no>113</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CALDWELL</name>
    <name.id>306489</name.id>
    <electorate>Fadden</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise this evening to speak to the great, growing divide between what this Labor government preaches it will deliver for Australian families and the reality of the hardship those families are experiencing right now. Prior to the 2022 election, the Prime Minister and his Labor colleagues were on a media jaunt, flaunting their fake economic credentials and their ability to solve the problems of real wage growth and to raise living standards. We called out the Labor Party and their lack of detail. We could see what was coming and, sadly, we've been proven right time and time again.</para>
<para>As parliament has heard this week, the latest CPI data shows that, for example, food is up 8.2 per cent; housing costs, up 10.4 per cent; insurance, up 17.3 per cent; and gas, up a massive 28 per cent. Every home and business has to pay for their electricity, and the Prime Minister famously flaunted a $275 reduction in power prices—not just once, not even twice, not even three times, but over and over again. But the latest data shows that Australians are copping an 18.2 per cent increase in their power bills. Parents in my electorate are being forced to make a decision between whether they will keep the lights on at night or keep the kids' lunch boxes full for school the next day. Will there be a Christmas ham on the table or just presents under the tree?</para>
<para>A local cafe at Paradise Point is now paying twice as much for their wholesale food supplies, but they are reluctant to pass on those costs. Their friendly customer base quite frankly can't afford it, so instead that business is going without themselves. There is genuine pain out there in the community, and those being hurt hardest by this Labor government are Australian families, households and small businesses.</para>
<para>Labor having talked a very big game prior to the election, there are only two options that have led us to where we are today. Either this out-of-touch Labor government have deliberately broken numerous promises and commitments to the Australian people or they have recklessly and incompetently made decisions each and every day since they were elected. When challenged to explain his government's plant to actually deliver cost-of-living relief, the Prime Minister just talks about the coalition and former members of parliament. The Prime Minister has now been in charge for 18 months, and people know that they are worse off now than they were when Labor formed government. He's not fooling everyday Australians. The voters are feeling the results of poor policy. It's hurting their hip pockets.</para>
<para>Labor has added $188 billion to spending, with not much to show for it, compounding the inflationary problem that we see in the economy. Interest rates rise because inflation is too high, and Australia's inflation is higher than in almost every other major advanced economy. Like Australian families and businesses which are making tough decisions about their own budgets, Labor need to make tough decisions about theirs.</para>
<para>The reduction in living standards is a clear by-product of the pain of the interest rate rises, which affect the mortgage repayments of Australians who are simply trying to put a roof over their families' heads. Since Labor came to office, the RBA has hiked rates 12 times. A family with a $750,000 mortgage is now paying another $24,000 per year—a thousand dollars a fortnight after tax. Families quite simply can't afford it. Interest rates are now at the highest levels they have been since Labor was in office back in 2011. There is a common thread here: Labor governments equal higher interest rates. The circumstances are no better for renters. They're suffering as well. Families are going without the necessities because this government has taken its eyes off the ball. Higher inflation means higher rates. Higher rates mean higher mortgage repayments and rents, meaning less money in your pocket.</para>
<para>While Labor flounders in government once again, the coalition remains steadfast in its support of the best interests of our country.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Medicare, Wages, Pensions and Benefits</title>
          <page.no>113</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHESTERS</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
    <electorate>Bendigo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In my adjournment speech tonight I want to focus on some positive things that are happening: reforms from our government and the real difference that they are making to the people in my electorate and, in fact, all electorates. I felt I needed to say something positive at the end of this parliamentary day, after quite possibly the ugliest question time that I've sat through, and I've been in this place for 10 years. Just when I thought that the opposition couldn't get any worse, they did. I do want to apologise—not that I was part of it—to all of the Australians and all of the school students that may have been watching question time, because that was not our parliament at its best. Whilst I really respect the speech the Prime Minister made, in defence not just of his career but of what we are doing as a government, the behaviour of the opposition in question time, I believe, was a new low.</para>
<para>But there are very good things that this parliament does each and every day. One of the very good things that this parliament has done is to triple the Medicare incentive for doctors that bulk-bill their patients. This is so exciting for the people of my electorate. It came in just a few weeks ago, and, since that measure has come in, I am seeing doctors and clinics return to bulk billing. For the ones that always were, 1 November was a big payday—and thank you for what you did—but for those who've returned to bulk billing: thank you. It essentially says to those families who were doing it the hardest, those who are on a concession card or have children under 16: if your doctor chooses to bulk bill you, you will not have to pay a gap fee. I encourage all the doctors in my electorate to take up that initiative.</para>
<para>I also wanted to acknowledge this week that what we have also learnt is that wages are growing at their fastest in a decade. That hasn't happened by accident. That is because our government has made sure that the lowest-paid workers got a decent pay rise. The reason why wages are growing at their fastest rate is that we have increased the wages of aged-care workers. We have ensured through the Fair Work Commission that those workers who are on the minimum rates of pay, the award wage, have got a decent pay rise. It is good to know that wages are increasing at the fastest pace in a decade and that it's the lowest-paid workers who are catching up. That is what a real government does. That is what a Labor government does. That is what you do to help people tackle the cost of living: you look at the levers that we have in government that we can move, and one of them is wages. Unlike those opposite, when they were in government, who made it a deliberate design feature of their economic policy to keep wages low, we believe it is one of our pathways out of these circumstances that we have.</para>
<para>The other change that this government has made is to try to help people who are on fixed incomes by lifting the social security net, and those changes are starting to flow. Every week that I am out in my electorate and every day that I am talking to people, I am stopped by older women, quite often single women, who are benefiting from the changes that we made. They are saying thank you. Single parents, predominantly mums, are saying: 'Thank you for those changes to the social security safety net. I am now not panicked about trying to find work. I can continue to be a full-time mum and carer for my children because that's what they need right now.'</para>
<para>During the break that we just had it was show season in the Bendigo electorate, and I was at the Bendigo show. This beautiful woman who I've known for over a decade came up to share her story. I hadn't seen her in a while. The very first time I met her, her little daughter, Paige, said to me: 'I don't know where I'm going to sleep tonight. I'm homeless.' I thought, 'What can we do?' This was a decade ago. But because of the social security net that we had, and because of the support that she got from the state Labor government, she found secure housing and she was able to help her daughter to finish school. She is now doing quite well—she is working in aged care. She came up to share her story and to say thank you for the wage increase, 'Now, not only am I doing a job that I love and feel like I'm giving back to the community that took care of me I'm also earning what me and my colleagues are worth.'</para>
<para>This is the good that a government can do; this is what Labor governments do. This is the stuff that we should celebrate at the end of our day. Forget what happened today in question time; focus on the good that this parliament can do and what the Labor government is doing for the Australian people.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Casey Electorate: Remembrance Day</title>
          <page.no>114</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
    <electorate>Casey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Like many across our country and in this House, on Saturday I had the opportunity to attend multiple Remembrance Day events in my community. These were on Saturday and also in the week leading up to it. It is an important day: an important time for us to stop, pause and reflect on those who have gone before us, the service they gave our country and the sacrifice they gave for our country and for the freedoms we're so lucky to enjoy today. And it's not just those who serve but their families and their loved ones also, and the impact on the community. It was a pleasure and an honour to join the Lilydale community at the Lilydale RSL memorial event, paying tribute to those soldiers. I also had the opportunity on Friday to visit Lilydale Primary School for their Remembrance Day service. It was a touching tribute to our fallen soldiers, so thank you to Lilydale RSL for their service and also for supporting the primary school.</para>
<para>I spent Wednesday afternoon with Richo, the former RSL president, selling poppies in one of our stores. I am proud to be a member of the RSL—my grandfather served in World War II. What is amazing when you spend time with any veteran—Richo is a Vietnam veteran—is the respect that people have when they come to buy poppies. A number of people said, 'I've already got one but I'll grab another one,' because they knew they were supporting the RSL, an important cause. But it was also the admiration they had for Richo, and saying thank you to him for his service. I was honoured to spend some time with him and in our community, selling those poppies.</para>
<para>I had the opportunity on Thursday night to do the 'Dining In Night' at the Dandenong Ranges-Sassafras RSL with my wife. It was a great night. I learned a lot about the dining services and the different ways that the Army, Navy and Air Force do that. Again, it was a great tribute to our veterans and it was wonderful to see so many veterans there, commemorating and spending time with their loved ones. It was an honour to attend that and I want to thank Bob Richards, the RSL president at Dandenong Ranges-Sassafras for inviting me and for hosting a wonderful evening.</para>
<para>In my community of Casey we're blessed to have many towns and communities that run their own events. Obviously, with Remembrance Day ceremonies being at the same time, at 11 am, I couldn't attend them all. But I want to thank all those who laid wreaths on my behalf. I also thank all the RSLs and community groups which organised those services: Yarra Glen RSL, Mount Evelyn RSL, Seville Township Group, Wandin Rotary, Upper Yarra RSL, Healsville RSL, Monbulk RSL, Warburton RSL, Upwey-Belgrave RSL, Dandenong Ranges-Sassafras RSL, Millgrove Residents Action Group and the Montrose Township Group. Thank you for the work that you do in our community in organising those important services, and thank you again to those volunteers who laid wreaths on my behalf.</para>
<para>I want to touch quickly on the Montrose community and the Montrose Township Group, who have worked very hard, with the support of Max Lamb, the former president of the Montrose Men's Shed, to get their war memorial back up to a standard where it's a fitting tribute to our community and our veterans. Unfortunately for the Montrose community, last Saturday morning they woke up to find their memorial had been vandalised—destroyed by those who seek to stir hatred and division within our community. I am not going to give any due to what was written or said, because that's what those who did it would want me to do—they would want me to amplify their message. So I'm not going to repeat the message, but I will say to them: you did not sow hate and division in our community. You created the opposite effect. The Montrose community came together. Rob Earney, the butcher, noticed the vandalism early in the morning. He called the Yarra Ranges Council emergency line. The Yarra Ranges Council, to their credit, came out. The community rallied to clear that graffiti off the memorial to make sure that the Remembrance Day service at 11 am could go ahead. That is the best of our community.</para>
<para>At this time, when tensions are high for many people and when many people are pained, we need to stop, take a deep breath and pause, and remember that we are all humans. We hold our positions passionately, but we must do it respectfully and focus on what brings us together, not on what divides us.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Vocational Education and Training</title>
          <page.no>115</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms FERNANDO</name>
    <name.id>299964</name.id>
    <electorate>Holt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today, I would like to address the chamber on the Albanese Labor government's commitment to strengthen and transform our vocational education and training—the VET sector. Particularly, I would like to commend the Minister for Skills and Training, the Hon. Brendan O'Connor, for his exceptional work in spearheading the creation of the National Skills Agreement. This five-year landmark initiative represents a monumental step forward in fostering national cooperation in the vocational education and training sector. It builds on the government's employment white paper for an inclusive labour market in which everyone has the opportunity for secure and fairly paid work.</para>
<para>I did not have the privilege of attending university—just like nearly 80 per cent of those aged 15 years and over in my electorate of Holt. My journey to this esteemed House was shaped by my early years as a shop assistant. I diligently stacked shelves and navigated the bustling aisles of the various Woolies stores across the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne. Thanks to the VET sector, I was able to upskill and transition into the world of culinary arts. I earned a Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery from Box Hill TAFE and diplomas in hospitality management and patisserie from the William Angliss Institute. This allowed me to pursue a passion for baking and move into bakery departments at Woolworths. Even though this change in position increased my hourly wage by only a few dollars, knowing that I was skilled in a trade gave me a sense of security. My story is like so many more from the community I am proud to represent, and that is why the National Skills Agreement is significant to me on a personal level.</para>
<para>To those in Holt who wish to pursue vocational education to either skill or upskill themselves, the Albanese Labor government has your back. Under the leadership of the Albanese government, a groundbreaking $12.6 billion investment is set to revolutionise access to TAFE, enhancing training quality and addressing crucial skills needs. This commitment, combined with contributions from the states and territories, surpasses the unprecedented $30 billion investment over the next five years. The federal government's commitment includes an additional $2.4 billion in flexible funding designed to support state and territory skills sectors. This flexible funding aims to address crucial and emerging industry needs in Victoria, such as clean energy, sovereign capability, care services and digital capability.</para>
<para>To complement this investment, up to $1.3 billion of Commonwealth funding will be available to implement key reforms, reflecting our commitment to achieving the objectives outlined in the National Skills Agreement. These reforms include a $325 million investment in establishing nationally networked TAFE centres of excellence. These centres will foster partnerships between TAFEs, universities, jobs and skills councils, and industry to ensure a collaborative approach to skills development. Moreover, a $100 million allocation will support the growth and retention of the high-quality vocational workforce, recognising the pivotal role educators play in shaping the future of our workforce. An additional $250 million will be focused on improving VET completions, with a specific emphasis on supporting women and those from marginalised backgrounds. This significant investment is built upon the foundation of an additional $440 million already committed for the delivery of 300,000 fee-free TAFE places from 2024.</para>
<para>This agreement marks a departure from the previous government's approach and highlights the commitment of the Albanese Labor government to work together with states and territories. It reflects our acknowledgment that partnership, cooperation and a long-term agreement are essential to implement much-needed quality and capacity reforms. In conclusion, the National Skills Agreement represents the federal government's commitment to ensuring that no Australian is left behind. As our economy undergoes structural changes, it embodies our dedication to unlocking the full potential of our skilled workforce, driving economic prosperity and building a brighter future for all Australians.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Forde Electorate: Schools</title>
          <page.no>116</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VAN MANEN</name>
    <name.id>188315</name.id>
    <electorate>Forde</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Frequently, over the last little while, we've heard an awful lot about the crisis of youth crime, not just in my state of Queensland but, as I have seen, in other parts of the country. One of the great things about this time of year is that we get to go and attend our school graduation evenings, particularly at our high schools. As I said to many of those students at those graduation evenings, thank you for being the people that you are. The vast majority of our young people are terrific people who have enormous skills, enormous talent and enormous capability. We should spend far more time celebrating that. That's what I would like to focus on tonight in my contribution. It's always an honour to join the teachers and students who are the foundation of our future at these special occasions. In particular, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all of the year 12 students across my electorate of Forde and, by extension, across the country who are graduating high school this year. As I said, I have had the privilege of attending several graduation ceremonies over the past few weeks and look forward to attending a few more next week—or even later this week—when I'm back in the electorate.</para>
<para>These evenings mark such an important milestone in the lives of our graduating students. It's a tremendous time, to see the culmination of the efforts they've put in over 12 years of schooling. As I look back—I've said this previously—at my old high school, Kingston State high school, if you'd asked me when I was graduating in 1982 if I would have been in this place, I would have said, 'You are kidding, aren't you?' But those are the opportunities that we have in this country, and these are the opportunities that I speak to those students about. You can never say never to anything, because you just never know where life can take you. I want to congratulate them for their efforts and say that completing high school education is also not possible without an incredible team behind each and every one of those students. I also recognise that this has been a time of learning, exploring and contemplation. Importantly, they've made friends and, possibly, lost friends along the way, as you do as a teenager. Many of those peers will become life-long friends, and, sadly, others you may never see again. But all have been a tremendous influence on your development.</para>
<para>I would like to thank the teachers, the principals, the school volunteers, the parents and the carers in my electorate for their hard work and dedication in supporting the graduates of 2023. We have some enormously talented students across my electorate who are achieving amazing things. Among them are leaders of the future, CEOs, innovators, inventors, athletes, academics and advocates, all who have the potential to change the world for the better. I have the privilege of sponsoring a number of awards through the schools across my electorate, and I'd like to read out some of the winners of those awards.</para>
<para>The School Leadership Award at Beenleigh State High School went to Harmony Te Hau. The Community Spirit Award at Calvary Christian College went to Julia Lang. The Middle School Leadership award at Chisholm College went to Rachael Senini. The Achievement in Arts award at Coomera Anglican College went to Annabelle Stone. The Above and Beyond Award went to Milla Vidakovic Milic at Loganlea State High School. The School Spirit Award at Marsden State High School went to London Anae, and, for the senior years, the School Spirit Award at Marsden High went to Clarah Tuimavave-Gerrard. The Community Service Award at Parklands Christian College went to Akshath Nadan and Florentina Mariuta. The Resilience Award at Park Ridge State High School went to Jacqueline Tran. The Positive Community Contribution Award at Rivermount College went to Harry Boulter. The Junior Dux at Shailer Park State High School went to Kate Whitman. The Influence Through Action Award at St Stephens College went to Lily Grimes. The Junior School Citizenship Award at Upper Coomera State College went to Maya Kotoda. The Senior School Citizenship Award at Upper Coomera State College went to Anton Manser. The Above and Beyond Award at Windaroo Valley State High School went to Kurt Blackburn. The Above and Beyond Award at Beenleigh Special School went to Lucas Emmott.</para>
<para>Congratulations to all of our fabulous students across the electorate of Forde and across the country for their efforts in graduating in 2023.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian National Internships Program</title>
          <page.no>117</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr FREELANDER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
    <electorate>Macarthur</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm a big believer in education and in empowering the youth of today to become the leaders of tomorrow. I've really enjoyed my time in politics, and one of the reasons I've enjoyed my time in this place is that I'm proud to host students from the Australian National University's Australian National Internships Program, including our current student, Alex Jackson.</para>
<para>Alex joined us in July, and since then he's become more than an interning student; he's become an honorary member of our parliamentary office. I'm very proud to host him and very grateful for that opportunity, because from him I've learned a lot.</para>
<para>As part of his program and as part of the programs of the other students that I've worked with, Alex has been conducting a research report on lobbying in this federal parliament, including the rules—or lack there of—of lobbying. Alex has presented his final report to me, and it is a very valuable one. I will be talking about it more in the next sitting week. I'm very proud of his efforts. It is a detailed, well researched report totalling 35 pages with some very important information.</para>
<para>The main takeaway from the report in Alex's opinion and in mine is that the 'current lobbying regulations are not conducive for the transparency that is necessary for successful and sustainable governance' in this place and that, if recommendations were to be implemented, including those suggested by the Grattan Institute or the Australian National Audit Office, they 'could seek to address concerns regarding transparency, inadequate definitions and self-regulation.'</para>
<para>Both Alex and I agree that the ability to advocate or lobby is part of the democratic process, and that's being the ability to meet with representatives from groups, communities and organisations to discuss policy, funding and legislation. It can assist parliamentarians and ministers in understanding issues better in the community and enhance their knowledge of the implications from government actions or lack there of. It is important to me, and I do learn from the various lobbying groups that see me. Some of them are philanthropic, some of them are from businesses and many of them are in the health industry. These interactions can provide lobbyists and their clients with important insight into how parliamentarians feel and their thoughts on the same issue, which can assist in navigating the thoughts and intentions of this parliament.</para>
<para>What we both believe, too, is that it should not be an unruly influence over the direction of the nation, let alone detrimental to the betterment of our country, but rather to enhance it, and to do that there needs to be transparency. We can see groups, including those lobbying for tax exclusions or environmental exemptions and those lobbying for a variety of industries, including the mining industry, the power industry, the health industry, the education industry and many others. Many of these lobby groups are powerful and well connected and wealthy. The <inline font-style="italic">Sydney Morning Herald</inline> reported that the mining industry spent over $22 million in six weeks in 2011 lobbying against the Rudd government, equating to $3.6 million per week and a significant decline in public support for that particular measure.</para>
<para>On the contrary, lobbying efforts can lead to positive change, including changes to the healthcare system by patient groups or environmental legislation, thanks to the efforts of grassroots organisations, many of them philanthropic.</para>
<para>I thank Alex again for his hard work and his time working alongside myself and my chief of staff, Todd Steele. I would like to thank our ANU student from last year, Will Salkeld, who also did a wonderful job and is now working in the Department of Education. I think he really taught me a lot about the workings of education in this country.</para>
<para>I'm very grateful for all the students that have worked with me. It's been a really positive experience, not just for me but I hope for the students and for my staff and the wider parliament. It's been a wonderful experience. The things that I have learnt have been very important to my practice in this place and to my understanding of the parliamentary process.</para>
<para>Alex, who is working with us at present, is a fine young man, a credit to himself and to his family and a credit to the university. It's been an absolute pleasure working with him, and I hope very much that he stays in contact with my office. He is truly a leader of the future, and I know all who have come in contact with him have appreciated his interaction. He's been very helpful with many of the health groups that I've been helping with policy work in the parliament, and I know that they have found him an absolute pleasure to work with.</para>
<para>I'm very grateful for the experience. I'm thankful to the Australian National University. The internship program is a wonderful program. I would encourage all my parliamentary colleagues to take it up whenever they can, and I'm sure they will benefit from the experience.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Howarth</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Hear, hear!</para>
<para>House adjourned at 20:00</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>118</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>118</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
  <fedchamb.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-MCJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-MCJobDate">
            <a href="Federation Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 15 November 2023</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">DEPUTY SPEAKER </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">(</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Mrs Archer</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">)</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>took the chair at 09:30.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>119</page.no>
        <type>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Banking and Financial Services</title>
          <page.no>119</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WILKIE</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
    <electorate>Clark</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last year Australians lost over $3 billion to scams—an increase of 80 per cent on 2021. In other words, scams are impacting a lot of people and they are increasingly devastating. For instance, one of my constituents recently lost $100,000 to a remote access scam, where the money was taken via multiple payments to unknown accounts. Yes, she quickly contacted MyState Bank and the authorities, but the money was already gone. After a lengthy complaint process, MyState finally offered this customer a token goodwill payment of just $5,000, while accepting no responsibility. Another constituent lost $250,000 to an investment scam, where the scammers went to great lengths to impersonate financial advisers from ING. Yes, he had gone into his bank beforehand in an effort to do his due diligence, but he was told that Bendigo couldn't check the account details for him, and they transferred the $250,000 anyway. The customer later discovered that he'd deposited the money into an unrelated scammer's account, but, again, it was too late and the money was long gone.</para>
<para>These losses are growing, not because Australians are somehow becoming more stupid—as banks seem to imply—but because scams are becoming increasingly complex and difficult for our protections to combat and for ordinary Australians to identify. Banks used to be safe places to put your money, but their drive towards online services and frictionless payments has pushed many of the risks and responsibilities back on to their customers. Moreover, the banks now often engage in scam victim blaming and take no responsibility themselves. Indeed, a recent ASIC report found that in 2021-22 the big four banks only reimbursed about 11 per cent of the scam victims—and, even then, at a rate of only between two and five per cent of their losses. This is at a time when the big four banks made a combined profit of about $30 billion. Best I repeat that: the big four banks only reimbursed 11 per cent of scam victims, and then at only two to five per cent of their losses, while making a combined profit of about $30 billion. Good grief! The banks are more than happy to raise interest rates, close branches, reduce services and push customers online, but they are stubbornly unwilling to invest in adequate scam protections or to support the vast majority of their regular customers who fall victim to increasingly skilled scammers.</para>
<para>The current self-regulation of Australia's banking industry is clearly failing. To fix this, the government must act decisively and place a meaningful, positive obligation on banks and other industries to raise their standards in scam prevention and to reimburse victims of scams when these victims have not been grossly negligent or involved in fraud. The UK has done this, and we should too.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Vocational Education and Training</title>
          <page.no>119</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I want to talk about the real importance of vocational education as part of our training system. I know that many young people, as we approach the high school graduation season, are aspiring to take up opportunities in vocational education. That's why I'm so pleased about the work that our government is doing to make vocational education and TAFE more accessible for more students.</para>
<para>After a decade of neglect of the VET sector by the former Liberal government, our government has successfully negotiated a five-year agreement with states and territories, providing stability, funding certainty and much-needed focus on quality and capacity to make sure that our vocational education and training is the best it can be. We committed to, and are funding, over 300,000 additional TAFE places from the start of 2024, which will give so many young people, and also older people that are looking to retrain, the opportunity to start a new career.</para>
<para>I am so pleased that the Albanese government is supporting an additional 15,000 fee-free TAFE placements in South Australia.</para>
<para>Many people in my electorate will benefit. Many are already benefitting. We're seeing students taking up opportunities under the free courses in building and construction, early childhood education and care, information technology, dental assisting, mental health, disability, nursing and cybersecurity. The list goes on. These are really exciting opportunities that people in my electorate are taking up to do a new vocation or a new career.</para>
<para>Now, the training has been carefully targeted to make sure it meets the skills that businesses, government and industry need. I just want to share a couple of stories. Laura, who lives in my electorate at Hackam, said: 'Fee-free TAFE for my Certificate IV in Allied Health Assistance makes studying achievable on my disability support pension, giving me independence without breaking the bank. I am looking forward to giving back to the profession that has helped me so much after a lengthy stay in hospital.' Then there's Owen, who lives in Woodcroft. He's enrolled in a certificate IV in interior design, thanks to the fee-free opportunity. He said: 'This course helped me to develop sought-after skills and expanded my job prospects in my chosen field. The course will have been out of reach if not for fee-free TAFE.'</para>
<para>This is the difference that our government is making through our commitment to make vocational education more accessible. I look forward to many more students taking up this opportunity in my electorate.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Remembrance Day</title>
          <page.no>120</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ANDREWS</name>
    <name.id>230886</name.id>
    <electorate>McPherson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Remembrance Day is a very important and a very significant day for our nation. It continues to represent a time when Australians can stand together alongside our veterans, our service personnel and their families to remember those who have lost their lives serving in wars, conflicts and peacekeeping operations. On Saturday, my community on the southern Gold Coast came together at many services, including those at Currumbin, Burleigh Heads, Coolangatta and Mudgeeraba, to honour the memories of those 103,000 men and women in our history who made the ultimate sacrifice.</para>
<para>We are all acutely aware of the conflicts that are taking place elsewhere in the world at this present time, in the Middle East and in Ukraine, and, of course, these conflicts impact Australia and Australians.</para>
<para>Last Saturday, the Ukraine Ambassador to Australia and New Zealand, Vasyl Myroshnychenko, attended the Remembrance Day service at Currumbin RSL, and I had the opportunity to speak directly with him about the courage and the bravery of Ukrainians as they fight to defend their nation against the invasion by Russia. I also had the opportunity to speak with him about my recent trip to Sweden and the UK, where I saw firsthand Ukrainian volunteers being trained to fight for their nation. Their bravery, quite frankly, is beyond words, as they face the very real prospect that they will die as they fight for their nation. It gave me an opportunity to reflect on what those people are facing, but also on what those many brave women and men of Australia have faced in many conflicts and peacekeeping operations around the world. Their bravery is also beyond words.</para>
<para>We all recognise, particularly here in this place but also more broadly throughout the Australian community, what it is like for those people as they train and as they face conflicts where they know there is a very real prospect that they will be disabled, perhaps permanently, or that they will die, and the impact that that will have on their families as they face a future without them.</para>
<para>We need to be very conscious of everything that is happening around the world at this point in time and remember the great efforts that many people undertake to ensure that their nation remains as free as it possibly can be. On Remembrance Day this year, it was an opportunity for us to reflect on that, and I seriously encourage all people to continue to remember every single day the veterans and our serving personnel here in Australia. Lest we forget.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Lalor Electorate: Community Events</title>
          <page.no>120</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's been a busy time in the electorate of Lalor, and I'd like to thank the community, our Indian diaspora, for some fabulous events celebrating Diwali that have happened across the last two weeks. I was thrilled, on Sunday 5 November, to attend two Diwali events, including one by the Australian Social and Humanitarian Association Global Foundation. Thank you to Sumar Betty, the operations manager, for the kind invitation. It was a pleasure to join this multicultural group and multicultural organisation to celebrate one of our most vibrant festivals. That evening, I joined Diwali Mela in Tarneit. Our incredibly vibrant Punjabi community came together to celebrate. This event was organised by Reena Rana and Indian Women in Australia. It was an absolutely fabulous event. I joined the mayor and almost every local councillor at that event, as well as the local state members, the Indian consul general in Victoria and Viv Nguyen from the multicultural commission. It was an amazing event. The dancing in the crowd and on stage was incredibly athletic and vibrant, and I make no apologies for making all of the invited guests dance along with the crowd.</para>
<para>That takes me to last weekend—and thank you to the member for McPherson. I attended a Remembrance Day service coordinated by the Werribee RSL. It was a moving service, and I followed it up by attending the RSL to celebrate the unveiling of a new display cabinet, which was provided by a grant from the federal government, that had been damaged through rain damage previously. I want to note the words of president, Daryl Ryan: the display cabinets and the memorabilia at the Werribee RSL do not glorify war but give rise to reflection and commemoration. I think that's a really important point to make. I want to thank the RSL for their commitment and volunteer hours from all of their committee members.</para>
<para>From Remembrance Day, I went directly to the rose and garden show at the Werribee Park Mansion, where I joined the volunteers, the supporters, of the rose garden who work year round, looking after that rose garden; doing the planting, the pruning and the fertilising; and making sure that all is fit for purpose for the fabulous rose and garden show. I want to thank David, in particular, for the guided tour of the magnificent and varied roses that they look after every week. I remind the community that Lalor Heroes is coming up. If you know a volunteer who needs to be celebrated, please get in touch with my office.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>121</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHESTER</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
    <electorate>Gippsland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to talk about infrastructure and road funding, and, inevitably, when you raise these subjects, you're talking about numbers. Before I start, I want to make a simple point. We have a second-class infrastructure minister doing a first-class job of making sure regional Australians have third-world roads. If you see a crane, a bulldozer or a grader at work in regional Australia today on a major infrastructure project, I can assure you of one thing: the current minister had absolutely nothing to do with that project. The current minister hasn't funded, budgeted or delivered a single thing since being in office for more than 18 months.</para>
<para>To make matters worse, yesterday the minister spoke at the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Financial Review</inline> Infrastructure Summit, and she confirmed our worst fears in regional Australia. She's only interested in building city projects. At a time when regional road trauma is increasing, the minister announced she's going to cut funding to regional road projects. In her speech, in her own words, the minister confirmed she is committed to abandoning the eighty-twenty funding split between the Commonwealth and state governments. The eighty-twenty funding split was the only way the previous coalition government could get the states to sign up to major regional road projects in your state of Tasmania, in my state of Victoria, in New South Wales and in Queensland. Projects like the Pacific Highway duplication work, including the Coffs Harbour Bypass, were funded eighty-twenty. That's 80 per cent from the Commonwealth and 20 per cent from the state. The Bruce Highway major upgrades, saving lives every day of the week, were funded by an eighty-twenty funding split.</para>
<para>In my electorate of Gippsland, we had to fight Dan Andrews for two years to get him to put up 20 per cent for the duplication of the Princes Highway. What chance would we have had of getting him up to 50 per cent? Not a hope in hell. This minister, this second-rate minister, who's committed to third-world roads in regional Australia is going to cut funding for road safety at a time when road trauma is increasing in regional Australia. The only way we'll get life-saving work started in these regional projects is if we maintain the eighty-twenty funding split to get the states on board for these major road projects.</para>
<para>It's not just me saying this. The Victorian roads minister said yesterday:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It would be concerning if the federal member for Ballarat, Minister King, sought to walk away from regional Victoria, that would be concerning and disappointing … Generally the projects that tend to be funded 80-20 are more regional and rural projects.</para></quote>
<para>Even Victorian Labor ministers understand that the 80-20 funding split is the only way we're going to get these life-saving projects underway in regional areas. This minister announced a 90-day review of infrastructure spending 200 days ago, and we still haven't seen the outcomes. This minister needs to get on with her job and build the road safety projects that will save lives in regional Australia.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Hunter Electorate: Sport</title>
          <page.no>121</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr REPACHOLI</name>
    <name.id>298840</name.id>
    <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Hunter is a breeding ground for young athletes. We have young people who are gifted and skilled in all kinds of sports, and it's an honour to be able to help a few who compete at an elite level by giving them a small amount of money to cover some of their expenses through the Local Sporting Champions grant scheme. Through this round of the Local Sporting Champions and Local Para Champions grants, I was able to help an amazing 25 young sports men and women who were competing at state, national or international level.</para>
<para>Khai Zenith represented Australia internationally in water polo in Germany; Joel Beashel represented Australia at the sailing world championships and the UK nationals; Samantha Clifton went to the Asian youth championships for tenpin bowling, as part of the national tenpin bowling team; Jake Riley competed in the 2023 all-schools golf championships; Ella Scaysbrook competed in the 2023 School Sport Australia 18 years and under golf championships; Ryvrr-lee Alo competed in the Australian Secondary Schools Rugby League under-18s championships; Lachlan Morris competed at the Australian junior motocross championships in Darwin; Emma Dundas represented Northern NSW Football in the NTC challenge; Jacey Coote went to the Australian Karate Federation national championships in Western Australia; Bailey Wilton was selected for New South Wales in the under-16s national championships for basketball; Kobi Hodges was selected for New South Wales in the national state championships for water polo; Ameka Melmeth went to the School Sport Australia national basketball championships; Zane Burke competed in the Australian championships for BMX and won—well done, Zane, and keep up the good work; Riley Burgess competed in the Australian championships for motorcycling; Koby Kattau, representing Greta Workers Club, went to the NSW state junior championships for bowls; James Allerton competed at the same state championship; Xander Webber also competed in bowls and went to the state junior pairs and fours championships; Hailee Gibson competed in the Grafton under-15s state championship for hockey; Max Smith played rugby league in the New South Wales junior rugby union state championships; and Holley Burgess competed in the Tamworth Inter-Schools Horse Extravaganza.</para>
<para>Our para-athletes were represented strongly in swimming, with Emilee Pratt and Lexie Phillips competing at the national championships in Queensland and Porscha Jimmieson and Jakob Thompson competing at the Virtus Global Games in France. I look forward to seeing you at the Paralympics one day. The Hunter is also lucky to have Mackenzie Wills, who represented Australia in basketball at the world championships and the Virtus Global Games.</para>
<para>Congratulations to all the young athletes that competed and achieved so much. I hope to continue to watch you in the future, and I look forward to seeing your progress.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Banks Electorate: Community Events</title>
          <page.no>122</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>241067</name.id>
    <electorate>Banks</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On 15 October I attended be feast day at St Luke's parish in Revesby. It was a wonderful day. It started with a mass, and there were broader celebrations in the school grounds afterwards. About a thousand people were there, celebrating 74 years of St Luke's and celebrating Luke the Evangelist, after whom the church was named. I'd like to thank Father Dariusz Basiaga, for all his work in our community, and particularly the parish secretary, Pauline Sahyoun, who does so much work. St Luke's is an absolute bedrock of the community. It does an enormous amount of work in providing support through the church community and through broader community activities as well. Congratulations and thank you to St Luke's.</para>
<para>For some 40 years, a Vietnamese language school has been held at Bankstown Girls High School, just outside my electorate. It was great to attend the 40th anniversary celebrations on 21 October. There were wonderful performances by the kids. It was great to see Trong Ho. There were so many parents there, teachers from the school. Long-term supporters, such as Mr Quang Luu AO and Mr Thuat Van Nguyen, who of course is so well known for founding the Sydney children's festival. It was a tremendous day, and a great testament to Bankstown Girls High School as well for supporting the Vietnamese language school for some 40 years.</para>
<para>Lugarno FC is a legendary club in our area, and it was great to attend its presentation morning on a very hot Sunday morning on 22 October. Sue Dick, the club's president, has been involved in the club for decades and is a tremendous pioneer for football generally and for women's football in our community. It was great to see Sue there. The irrepressible Bec Harrison, the registrar, was there. Former president Michael Jarevski was there, as were so many others—people who come together to make Lugarno FC the very special place it is. Congratulations to all the kids who received awards on the day, and well done Lugarno FC for another great year.</para>
<para>On 24 September, a new event was held at Connells Point. The Connells Point Community Markets Day is the brainchild of Patrick Wedes, who's a busy man because he's also president of the Pinnacle club in South Hurstville where he's overseeing a major renovation. In his spare time, he set up this fantastic market day that was attended by hundreds of people. There were rides for the kids; there were lots of great stalls; there were farm animals—the whole thing. There were lots of people having lots of fun. It was a great thing for Connells Point. Well done Patrick and the community, and I look forward to this being an annual event.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australia: Bushfires</title>
          <page.no>122</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>157125</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We are fast approaching our summer months with elevated temperatures predicted along with the very real possibility of an extended bushfire season. Sadly, communities around the country have already experienced the devastating loss of lives and many homes have been destroyed due to bushfires. It is very important to be bushfire ready, and I am urging everyone, not only in my electorate of Pearce but Australia-wide, to start preparing if they have not already done so. It is not too late.</para>
<para>Simple steps to follow: know the fire danger ratings and the Australian warning system, which is three levels: advice, watch and act, and emergency. 'Advice' means an incident has started. There is no immediate danger, but it's wise to stay up-to-date in case the situation changes. 'Watch and act' means there is a heightened level of threat. Conditions are changing and you need to start acting now to protect you and your family. 'Emergency' is the highest level of warning. You may be in danger and need to act immediately. Any delay now puts your life at risk.</para>
<para>There are some basic tasks to undertake now to prepare your home. Cleaning out your gutters, clearing or reducing vegetation around your house and being aware of the circumstances. Prepare a plan for what you would do if a fire starts near your home, and do not forget your pets or your animals on your property. Have an emergency kit prepared as this means there is less stress if a bushfire hits, as you may need to leave your home, your local town or your local service area at short notice. Know who to ring: your primary source for the facts should be your first call for information. In WA that is the Department of Fire and Emergency Services.</para>
<para>In Pearce, we are fortunate to have four committed and dedicated volunteer bushfire brigades: the Wanneroo Central brigade, the Quinns Rocks brigade and the Two Rocks brigade. We also have the Wanneroo Volunteer Fire Support Brigade that provides operational supports in the forms of communications and logistics at emergency incidents. These brigades have helped to keep us safe over the years, and I want to take this opportunity to sincerely thank the hardworking volunteers for their commitment and for the work they undertake on behalf of the community. It has not been unnoticed and it is very much appreciated.</para>
<para>I am aware that over the past year some of our local firefighters have been deployed overseas. Their experience, their knowledge and their wisdom have helped contain wild bushfires that have raged in the Northern Hemisphere's scorching summer months, and their efforts are to be commended. All who work to prevent loss of life and property in often extreme conditions are absolutely our real heroes.</para>
<para>The Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions has a legislated responsibility to protect people and communities from the impact of bushfire and to apply planned fire as a management tool to maintain and enhance the natural environment. I believe we can learn a lot about our native ecosystems by listening to and working with our local First Nations people who have expertise in this area and have managed safe burns throughout the ages. This is a message to get bushfire ready and to support those who support you, and a huge thank you to them. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Domestic and Family Violence</title>
          <page.no>123</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONAGHAN</name>
    <name.id>279991</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Sadly, in October five women were murdered at the hands of their partners in the space of 10 days, and I know that the thoughts and prayers of everyone in this place go out to the families and friends of those five women. But the fact is, on average, one woman is murdered every single week at the hands of somebody who says he loves her. That is a national tragedy. This is despite the fact we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year in the budget on the response to, and recovery of, domestic violence victims. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be, and I'm certainly not being critical of any government, because this issue should be bipartisan and be above politics, but the reality is that 17 per cent of those hundreds of millions of dollars goes towards prevention of domestic violence. Think about that. We are funding the reaction rather than funding the response, and, until we fund the prevention, nothing is going to change and we'll continue to see these statistics of one or more women a week being killed. As the assistant shadow minister for the prevention of family violence, I have travelled the country, I've been to all the states and territories, I've met with the agencies and I'm being told the same thing: we are not funding enough for preventative measures, such as men's behavioural change programs.</para>
<para>Only recently, Logan and Rockhampton were using funding from another stream to fund a small behavioural change program for men. They don't have enough staff or qualified professionals, and there are men who have self-referred or who have been referred from agencies or courts who cannot get on these programs to change their behaviour, to change the way that they think. And we need to change that because if we don't change that we will perpetually be the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. So I'm urging the government: let's work together, let's change the funding model, let's change the way Australia is and let's protect vulnerable women and children.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Breast Cancer</title>
          <page.no>123</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROWLAND</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
    <electorate>Greenway</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Like many Australians, breast cancer awareness is a cause close to my heart. It's the most commonly diagnosed cancer amongst women, with around 57 Australians diagnosed every day. Concerningly, over half of women aged 50 to 74 in Western Sydney are overdue for a mammogram. A couple of weeks ago I held my annual Greenway Pink Ribbon morning tea in The Ponds. There our community gathered to raise funds and awareness for the National Breast Cancer Foundation, and it was our most successful pink ribbon event to date. We shared pink treats from Premium Lovely Sweets, from Kings Park, over cups of tea. We heard from the director of BreastScreen NSW, and thanks to the help of the Lions Club we raised over $3,500 for the cause. We had BreastScreen NSW in attendance so guests could book their free mammograms on the spot. We did all of this because we share the same vision: to achieve zero deaths from breast cancer in Australia.</para>
<para>The Albanese government shares this vision too. That's why I'm so pleased that, since 6 November, women diagnosed with an aggressive form of breast cancer have access to new treatment through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. As the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Mark Butler, said, women battling metastatic cancers can pay up to $425,000 per course of treatment. Thanks to the government's listing, these women will only have to pay a maximum of $30 per script. Earlier this month the government also introduced the Medicare rebate for genetic testing of breast cancer to assist with earlier detection. Together with our community, businesses, volunteer organisations and government, we are collectively making a real difference to breast cancer awareness and bringing breast cancer deaths closer to zero. I'm so proud to represent a community in Greenway and a government who see this as a priority.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>282237</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>124</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 2023, Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Bill 2023, Primary Industries (Services) Levies Bill 2023, Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2023, Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Bill 2023, Primary Industries (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>124</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r7091" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 2023</span>
                </p>
              </a>
              <a href="r7092" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Bill 2023</span>
                </p>
              </a>
              <a href="r7093" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Primary Industries (Services) Levies Bill 2023</span>
                </p>
              </a>
              <a href="r7090" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2023</span>
                </p>
              </a>
              <a href="r7089" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Bill 2023</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r7095" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Primary Industries (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>124</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SWANSON</name>
    <name.id>264170</name.id>
    <electorate>Paterson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The agricultural levy system is a longstanding partnership between industry and government to invest in industry priorities that could not be funded by primary producers on their own. This is the ultimate in collaboration for agriculture, and I am so pleased to say that it was established by the Hawke Labor government in the eighties. People like John Kerin and others who had a very proud record in agriculture were part of this, and the levy system has allowed our agricultural, fisheries and forestries industries to collectively invest in research and development, marketing, biosecurity and residue-testing since the 1980s. You can only pause to reflect on some of the wonderful technological advancements that have been made in agriculture.</para>
<para>I was talking to a colleague about this last week, and he said, 'You know, Meryl, my grandfather used a horse-drawn plough.' I went so far as to say, 'My father used a hay scythe.' Think about those things, and how much development has been made in agriculture in one quick generation or so. Now we think about friends of mine who are on properties who are harvesting in enormous pieces of machinery. My own daughter is out driving chaser bins and doing things that her grandfather would not have dreamt she would do, and it's all because government and industry have worked together to progress the industry, to increase production like we have never seen before, to increase the science behind agriculture.</para>
<para>You can think about a Constable painting with wheat about this tall, golden and swaying in the breeze, but thanks to modern agricultural research and science, the wheat doesn't grow that tall these days. It's green, but that's a good thing because it means we can harvest more of it, we can export more of it, we can feed more of the world and our farmers have benefited enormously. That is the key to what this bill really is about.</para>
<para>Before I go into more detail about the bill, people often quote Darwin and the theory of evolution to me. I'm a great fan of Charles Darwin. I think his theories were fabulous, but in his latter years there was something that Charles Darwin wrote a lot about: he said it wasn't just about competition and survival of the fittest—the big thing was about cooperation and collaboration between the cells. We have learnt more about that as we have learnt more about biology, epigenetics and how cells interact and cooperate with each other. I think that's the key here. This is all about cooperation. I want to extend that hand to our agricultural industry and our farmers and say, 'Thank you for walking on this journey with us.' We can point fingers and we can say, 'What's the government ever done for me?' or, 'What did the Romans ever do for us?', but I've got to say that a lot has been achieved since the eighties. I know the opposition will be saying that we're raising levies and we're making it harder for farmers. Whilst I'm a good friend and a solid colleague to the member for Riverina, who joins us here in the chamber today, I think if he was absolutely being square and honest with us about this, he would say that this levy system did need to be modernised. We did need to catch up over the past 10 years.</para>
<para>I don't want to be one of these people who harks on about the last decade of delay and denial and yadda yadda yadda. That's all great, but, if we're going to look solidly at this issue, it did need to change. If we want to keep our farmers competitive, if we want to keep them absolutely at that cutting edge of being able to work cooperatively and be the best in the world, then this levy system did need some cleaning up.</para>
<para>Levies and charges from farmers, producers, processors and exporters are very important, and they are collected from those groups. New levies or amendments to the existing levies are often established at the industry's request. That's a very important point to add as well. They require a majority of levy payers to agree to the levy.</para>
<para>Each year, 15 research and development corporations—RDCs as they're commonly known—like Plant Health Australia, Animal Health Australia and the National Residue Survey, receive around $600 million in levy funds. That's really important for the work that they do. Plant Health Australia are doing some fantastic work. That contributes more than $300 million to ongoing development. That's so important. The Australian government contributes more than $300 million to the RDCs for industry research and development through matching payments for eligible expenditure up to specified limits.</para>
<para>This is really the nub of this. Yes, industry pays its way, and the government shares that, and the sum of their parts is greater. Industry knows it couldn't go it alone. The government knows it can't go it alone. We've got to do this together, and this legislative package will streamline and modernise the agricultural levies and charges. The package is going to make it easier to understand and administer agricultural levies That's one of the things a lot of farmers say to me: We want less red tape. We want less green tape. We want less brown tape. We want to be less bound. We don't want to be tied up doing paperwork. We want to be out there farming. We want to be able to research the new technologies. We want to be seeing what's at the cutting edge. That's what these levies fund.</para>
<para>The package will enable levies to apply to some agricultural services, which is important because we know that the service industry across the ag sector is growing rapidly. It's going to standardise and simplify the disbursement of levy funds to the RDCs. It's going to reduce complexity and inconsistency of matching funding arrangements for the RDCs. Again, that's very important. It will reduce the number of acts and regulations people need to read—if you've got insomnia, some of these regs will put you to sleep in no time—to understand their levies and their obligations. It's also going to provide greater flexibility in addressing compliance matters and allow for more proportionate responses to noncompliance. That's very important. Farmers don't want to do the wrong thing. They don't want to be non-compliant. But, firstly, we've got to help them understand what compliance means, which this act is going to do, and then we've got to have a sensible response if they are found to be non-compliant.</para>
<para>The key features of the levy framework are unchanged in many respects, and industry will continue to determine what levies are needed. That's the important part. We are working with industry. Please do not let anyone try and hoodwink you into thinking that we're not. Matching payments from government for research and development expenditure up to specified limits will continue as per current arrangements. We're not cutting any funding. We're actually keeping the current arrangements going and we're making it easier.</para>
<para>The draft legislation has been informed by consultation, and there's been plenty of it. I know that Minister Watt has consulted widely. Let's not have this idea of consultation being some sort of tick-and-flick exercise. The minister has consulted deeply and widely, and he wanted people to understand what was before them. That's one of the really important things. There are—dare I say it—a few departments that could look and learn from this process. Consultation should not be a tick-and-flick exercise: 'We've done what's required by the legislation.' No. We need to reverse the onus and we need to have communities feeling as though they have been consulted. That's something that I feel quite passionate about actually. The proposed legislative framework will enable levy payers to better understand their levies. We're happy to pay our way—it's the same for everyone. We just want to know how much we have to pay, why we have to pay it and what the money's going to do. I think that's the standard human response. We're all happy to pay our bills; we just want to make sure that the money's not being spent erratically or without industry.</para>
<para>Industry bodies need to be able to pursue new levies and amendments when issues arise. That's very important, and we've seen that through a raft of biosecurity things that have popped up, particularly in the last 18 months. The research and development corporations have an increased investment certainty. I think this is really important. This goes back to talking to scientists about their work and what they're doing. I know there's sometimes a healthy amount of scepticism about research and development—how it all pans out and how scientists bid for money—but if an RDC is regularly funded and researchers know where that money's coming from then they're able to really focus on the research and development, rather than spending the majority of their time panicking about where the funds are going to come from for the next tranche of work they want to do. I think that certainty is really critical, and I'm pleased that we're looking at that.</para>
<para>We're going to reduce the regulatory burden for levy payers and RDCs, and the Office of Impact Analysis has assessed the final impact analysis on the proposed legislative framework as good practice. We've had a fair office look at it, and they say that it is good practice. I'm pleased that the opposition has informally advised that it's going to support the legislative package. I really welcome that. Again I say to those opposite: we can do so much good in ag. We have to increase production. We also know that we want to feed our country and that we're playing a role in feeding the world. We've got to work together, and I think farmers want that to happen.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">A division having been called in the House of Representatives—</inline></para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 10:12 to 10:24</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SWANSON</name>
    <name.id>264170</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I think the nub of these changes, in terms of levies for agriculture, is that we are going to be condensing over 50 pieces of legislation—50!—down to five bills and subordinate legislation to create this new structure. These bills are going to provide a solid foundation for the ag levy system to grow and respond to opportunities and challenges in the future. Let's face it: nothing sums up our country and our ag system like opportunity and challenge. Our farmers face it every day. Through these levies and this bill, we are making it simpler and we are standing shoulder to shoulder with them. We are here for the challenges and we want to make sure they get every opportunity.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the outset, I want to thank the member for Paterson for much of the content within her speech. When she talks about protecting Australia and Australian farmers' ability to grow food and fibre, she is right. When she talks about the ultimate collaboration, she is correct. When she talks about the importance of forestry, agriculture and fisheries, I am right behind her.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Swanson</name>
    <name.id>264170</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Hear, hear!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>'Hear, hear!' the member for Paterson says as she leaves the chamber. I know she's busy and has a meeting with the member for Nicholls. I admire her passion, because it is difficult when you are on the Labor side, let's face it, to always be spouting what Labor is doing to help and protect our farmers.</para>
<para>One of the most difficult roles in a Labor government is to be the agriculture minister. I know Senator Murray Watt is doing the best he can do under sometimes difficult circumstances. I appreciated the fact that he called me very early the other morning to let me know about additional assistance, $50 million of Commonwealth money, for flood affected shires—Cabonne, Parkes, Forbes and, particularly, Eugowra. That is so important. Lachlan, of course, is also in those local government areas mentioned. That is alongside his role as agriculture minister—he's also the emergency services minister—but it does tie in because when areas such as those regions I mentioned get flood affected it affects farm production.</para>
<para>The Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 2023 and the customs and services bills that we're debating in cognate are important. I listened very closely to the member for Paterson, and she talked about deep and wide consultation. Credit to her that she did mention—or concede, perhaps—that that doesn't always take place. We've seen so many areas that Labor now oversees where the consultation hasn't been deep and hasn't been wide. More is the pity. Last night I went to the Pharmacy Guild annual dinner, and they were complaining about the fact that consultation about 60-day dispensing was not there. I know I digress, but we have to have, as the member for Paterson quite correctly pointed out, increased production for our farms.</para>
<para>Whilst Labor will take the credit for streamlining and modernising the primary industries excises and levies, the streamlining and modernisation of these levies in this legislative framework began, started, under the former coalition government back in 2017-18. It's not a new thing. Labor can't come to the table and say: 'This is all due to us. This is all our work. All credit goes to the now government.' This began under the coalition government in 2017-18. The legislation was reviewed. It included targeted consultation with 70 stakeholder groups. That's important because consultation is imperative. If this is going to ultimately help our farmers, I applaud it. If this is going to mean that they have to do less paperwork, I'm all for it—and so are the opposition.</para>
<para>We need to ensure that we do take the onerous burden of more volumes of paperwork off and from our farmers. They're great at what they do, they're the best in the world at what they do—and that's growing food and fibre—but they shouldn't have to get off their scarifiers, off their seeders, off their sowers, off their harvesters, off their tractors or out of their truck cabins and go home at night, get volumes of paperwork and read, sift, through them. That is not how it should be.</para>
<para>I know that consultation has continued, with the release of the draft bills for public consultation. The government hasn't made all the submissions public at this time. I know the coalition committed $7.2 million in 2020-21 over four years to modernise the framework into a business-friendly, fit-for-purpose and easy-to-use legislative framework as part of the deregulation agenda. I also thank our accountants, who worked so closely with farmers to make sure that they do all the paperwork and to make sure that they get all the necessary bureaucracy correct. The member for Paterson mentioned that it is a user pay system of sorts, and again she is correct. She is absolutely right in that. There are six bills related to modernising the levy system. They include three imposition bills, a collection bill, a disbursement bill and a consequential amendments bill. They are important. They don't bring into existence the biosecurity protection levy announced in the 2023-24 budget. There are no substantial changes as to how the levy system will operate. However, a number of current functions will be devolved to subordinate legislation, such as setting the levy rates.</para>
<para>Our farmers are under pressure like never before. I know how important it is to take the burden of paperwork from them. But put yourself in one of these farmers' boots. They've got perhaps another drought on the way. Our long-range weather forecasters are predicting just that. Farmers have had to endure an infrastructure pause of 90 days, which has now stretched out to nearly 200 days. Some might say, 'What has that got to do with this bill?' It's another burden on our farmers because the money that the Commonwealth spends through states and certainly through LGAs filters down to those ungraded roads that farmers use to get their grain to silos, to get their grain to rail bulkheads and to get their grain to port. Those first miles—and last miles—count a lot. When roads go ungraded because the funding isn't there for the councils to spend, it has an effect on our farmers. Then, of course, you've got seasonal changes. Let's face it, our farmers have endured much in recent times: floods, fires and droughts. Of course the last drought wasn't so long ago that it's gone from our memories. These are tough times for farmers. It is difficult enough for our farmers without them having to do more paperwork.</para>
<para>If these bills, brought together, absolutely take the burden of paperwork from our wonderful landowners who produce the food and fibre, then that has got to be seen as a good thing. I know the Australian government matches the industry investment in research and development up to legislated limits by providing payments to the levy recipient bodies; they're known as the research and development corporations, RDCs. I know what an impact they can have and what a good role they can play with farm production, with farm bodies and with agriculture. Let's face it, when the Treasurer talks about the things we sell overseas, he doesn't narrow it down to exactly what those things are. One of the most important things is agriculture, whether it's in Asia-Pacific or it's in Europe. Whatever the case might be, we know that our produce that is sold overseas—one of the things that we sell overseas—is the best, freshest and greenest it can be.</para>
<para>When the former coalition government came to office, about 24 to 25 per cent of trade arrangements were covered by free trade agreements. When we left office, it was up to 80 per cent. Trade is important. We are a trading nation. One in four Australian jobs relies on trade. Let's ensure that these bills are what they need to be. Let's ensure that those bodies which are engaged and are key stakeholders in this bill, whether it's Plant Health Australia or Animal Health Australia, can be the best that they can be. Let's make sure that our biosecurity is what it needs to be because our farmers rely on it and our farmers are looking to the government to ensure that every pathway to their success is met.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NEUMANN</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
    <electorate>Blair</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to support the streamlining and modernising agricultural levies legislation—the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 2023 and related bills. This deals with primary industries, excise levies, customs charges, services levies, the collection of these things, the disbursement and some transitional legislation as well.</para>
<para>The agriculture, fisheries and forestry sectors are major contributors to our Australian economy. The combined gross production is expected to reach $86 billion in 2023-24. It's an extraordinary contribution to the economic, social and environmental fabric of our nation. These sectors contribute 12.1 per cent of our exported goods and services and employ 2.2 per cent of the total Australian workforce. More than 300,000 Australians have jobs in agriculture, fisheries and forestry, and a further 229,000 are employed in the food and beverage manufacturing sector. This government recognises the importance of these sectors and the contribution they make to our rural and regional communities and the overall national interest. In my own electorate, Blair, in South-East Queensland, which is an agricultural region, I know that there are a broad range of agribusinesses which employ thousands of locals.</para>
<para>According to Regional Development Australia, in 2020-21, the total agricultural output in the Ipswich and West Moreton region was $819 million. The largest commodity produced were vegetables, which account for 34 per cent of the region's agricultural output. Not far behind was livestock slaughtering, which represents 30 per cent. In fact, I have two of the largest meat processing plants in the country, JBS at Dinmore and Kilcoy Global Foods. Meat processor JBS is the single biggest non-government employer in the city of Ipswich. Recently I visited its Dinmore processing facility, when they announced that they would implement a second shift starting from next year, creating 500 new local jobs and taking the total number of onsite workers up to 1,800.</para>
<para>Just last month, in conjunction with JBS, I invited local high school principals and staff to visit the Dinmore facility to learn about the exciting opportunities available to their students as part of the jobs announcement, including school based traineeships and pathways to employment for school leavers in the agricultural sector and the manufacturing of food. There's a lot happening in the agricultural food processing sector, and this government, the Albanese Labor government, is right behind it.</para>
<para>We're focusing on the critical areas of climate biodiversity, workforce and trade to benefit the sector in rural communities. This will help strengthen the competitiveness and productivity of agriculture, fisheries and forestry to keep them on a path towards the goal of $100 billion by 2030. Having an effective agricultural levy system is critical to the goal. The system is a longstanding successful partnership between industry and the Australian government to facilitate industry investment in strategic activities that could not be funded by primary producers on their own.</para>
<para>The levy system was created by the Hawke Labor government in the 1980s, under the late, great primary industries minister John Kerin, our longest serving agricultural minister and arguably our best ever, who sadly passed away earlier this year. The system allows primary industries to collectively invest in research and development, marketing, biosecurity activities, residue testing and biosecurity responses. These investments are managed by 15 rural research and development corporations, RDCs, along with Plant Health Australia, Animal Health Australia and the National Residue Survey, which sits in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">A division having been called in the House of Representatives—</inline></para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 10:39 to 10:51</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NEUMANN</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I was talking about the RDCs. Each year, these bodies receive about $600 million in levies from farmers, producers, processors and exporters. In addition, more than $300 million is provided on average each year by the Australian government to the RDCs in matching funding for research and development. These bodies are the cornerstone of the agricultural innovation system, and their investments are helping to capitalise on significant opportunities which exist within the sector: new products, new markets and more sustainable emissions practices. ABARES advises that, for every dollar invested in agricultural R&D, there is close to an eightfold benefit to farmers. I'm sure many businesses would like to get that kind of return. Continuing to invest in R&D will be even more important in the coming years, as we ramp up our efforts to reduce emissions and adapt to a changing climate.</para>
<para>The work of Plant Health Australia, Animal Health Australia and the national residue survey is critical to our biosecurity system and our access to international markets. The levy system, in its current form, has been in place for decades and is really accepted around the world as one of the world's best. It allows the government to collect levies at industry's request that can be invested in priorities that could not be funded by many primary producers on their own. However, the complexity of the framework that supports the system has grown inconsistent and is making it difficult to understand and administer it. There are than 50 pieces of legislation covering 110 levies across 75 commodities and 18 levy recipient bodies. A 2018 review of the whole sector, and the legislation that covers it, found that the framework is necessary for a successful industry-government arrangement but the current situation is ineffective in meeting industry's needs now and in the future. The previous government was in power at the time.</para>
<para>The package of the agriculture levies bill will replace the existing framework with a more contemporary, flexible and efficient system which will better support the agricultural sector. The new framework, once enacted, will condense over 50 pieces of legislation down to five acts and associated subordinate legislation. It will provide the RDCs with more certainty in terms of matching the funding as well. It will provide more flexibility in proportionate compliance measures supporting levy collection. By allocating all levies detailed in subordinate legislation, the new framework will make it easier for industries to seek and establish a new levy or to adjust the settings of their existing levies. The legislation also operates separately from the new biosecurity protection levy, and the new framework will also provide a solid foundation on which to base any future reform.</para>
<para>But the key features of the framework will remain the same so industry has certainty. The new framework will not change existing levies or charge rates and will continued support the fundamental principles of industry led system. This is critical in terms of the sector. The new bills are critical in terms of consultation with the sector as well. There are many imposition bills and there are two accompanying bills to this particular legislation. The separate bill, the consequential amendments and transitional bill, is being introduced to manage the consequential changes and arrangements. This package of bills is the result of extensive consultation over several years to ensure a new framework meets the demands of those who benefit from the system. We're about reducing regulatory burdens for levy payers and the RDCs, and I note the Office of Impact Analysis has assessed the proposed legislative framework as good practice.</para>
<para>I welcome the opposition's broad support for the package of bills and I welcome the comments from the Leader of the Nationals and member for Maranoa in his contribution about how our nation's agricultural levy system is something we should be proud of. Growers, producers and industry stakeholders all agree it has been a resounding success over the many decades since it was introduced by the Hawke government.</para>
<para>In relation to the amendments proposed by the member, the reasons for not explicitly referring to Animal Health Australia, Plant Health Australia or animal and plant disease deeds is to ensure legislation remains flexible, adaptable and fit for purpose in the future. Subordinate legislation can deal with a lot of those issues. That is the whole intent of the modernised agricultural levy package. The explanatory memorandum makes it clear on page 13 that the relevant clauses that the member seeks to amend are covered by a levy funded by the operations of AHA and PHA. If the amendments were to be accepted, for spending to be permissible, AHA and PHA would need to undertake biosecurity activities using levy funds. In practice, only some of the activities described will be undertaken by AHA and PHA, and in many cases these bodies may contract third parties to undertake activities. Where appropriate, R&D activities will be undertaken through an RDC. The proposed amendments could unnecessarily limit spending of biosecurity activities and biosecurity response levies and charges. The current proposed provisions in the bills provide an appropriate level of flexibility in relation to the scheme, and the AHA and PHA can, in consultation with industry measures, decide how biosecurity activities and biosecurity response charges and levies will be spent.</para>
<para>Together, these bills establish a new legislative framework, providing a more effective and efficient system, and I commend the legislation to the chamber.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BIRRELL</name>
    <name.id>288713</name.id>
    <electorate>Nicholls</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 2023 and cognate bills. These bills are the culmination of a lengthy process started by the coalition to streamline and simplify the levy system that underpins primary industry in Australia, including in the electorate of Nicholls that I represent.</para>
<para>In 30 years of operation, the levy system has allowed farmers to collectively pay for research and development, marketing, biosecurity activities, national residue-testing, and responses to exotic pest or disease incursion. The system had become complex and unwieldy—more than 50 pieces of legislation existed governing more than 110 levies over 75 commodities and 18 levy recipient bodies—and this seeks to streamline and simplify the process. The coalition recognised the need for reform, and the streamlining and modernisation of the agricultural levies legislative framework commenced under the former coalition government back in 2017-18. The legislation was reviewed and included targeted consultation with 70 stakeholder groups. The review found that the legislative framework serves the objectives of the agricultural levy system but that the current legislation was ineffective in meeting industry needs now and into the future. It is also overly complex, there is a lot of duplication and it is inconsistent. So the coalition committed $7.2 million in 2020-21 over four years to modernise the framework into a business-friendly, fit-for-purpose and easy-to-use legislation framework as part of the deregulation agenda.</para>
<para>Why is the levy system so important? The agricultural levy system is a longstanding partnership between industry and the Australian government to facilitate industry investment in strategic activities, research and development, marketing, biosecurity activities, and residue-testing, and the government collects and disperses the levies on the industry's behalf. I have had personal experience of agricultural research in my profession before I came to this place, and some of the research and development that's done by Australian agriculture is truly impressive and fascinating, and keeps our farmers at the forefront of being competitive globally, maintaining our reputation as a clean and green place to grow healthy food.</para>
<para>I'll give a couple of examples about the sort of research and development that these levies fund that I have been personally involved in. One is mating disruption in fruit crops. Mating disruption is basically using a nontoxic, chemical way of controlling pests in horticultural crops. The research I was involved in was around the oriental fruit moth and the codling moth in apple crops. I don't think that moths having sex has ever been spoken about in this place before, but I'd like to bring it up. What we were able to do was use research and development funds to put pheromones into trees, which confused the moths into fertilising what they thought were eggs but weren't. This brings the moth population numbers down and reduces the need for us to spray what were then some toxic chemicals onto our fruit crops. It's a great innovation and the sort of stuff that this levy work does. Also, I've been involved in the efficient use of water drip irrigation, with some great technology from Israel that I was talking to the member for Berowra about earlier. It's great Israeli technology that uses water much more efficiently, where it is delivered subsurface and via drips with the fertiliser actually in the water. These are great advances and are examples of some of the things that these levies contribute to.</para>
<para>The Australian government matches the industry investment in research and development, with a target investment in R&D equivalent to one per cent of the gross value of production. In 2021 and 2022, the department disbursed around $600 million raised from levies and charges imposed on industry. Over the forward estimates, in 2026-27 similar amounts of levy and charge funds are expected to be disbursed each financial year. However, this is farming, so there will be year-to-year variation because production, the commodity market and some technological advancements vary. We're supportive of the changes these bills will make to the levy system, and we want increased transparency for levy payers. They deserve to know where their money goes and how it's spent. It's very hard for farmers in some industries to earn money. They deserve to know, and for it to be very transparent, where that money goes. Easier adjustment of levies can be made through a consultative process with levy payers, capturing agricultural services, such as bee pollination, and allowing for the coverage of horse disease without the need for additional specific legislation. The process is being supported by industry as the current levies legislation is too convoluted and too complex, as was identified by the previous coalition government—and I give credit to the member of Maranoa, who is in the chamber, for his proactive work on that. The increased ability to collect levies will increase compliance and make sure that there is more money for us to spend on these critical research and development projects.</para>
<para>This tranche of legislation does not include the biosecurity protection levy announced by the government in the May budget. This biosecurity protection levy will impose a compulsory levy on all levy payers, at a rate of 10 per cent of their 2020-21 rate, and that varies between industries. Ninety-two per cent of those agricultural industries have a levy, and those industries that do not will have a similar levy put in place as part of the biosecurity protection levy. The interaction between this biosecurity protection levy legislation and these bills is not clear yet. Logically, the new levy will be collected in the same way as industry imposed levies, although the collection agents who currently collect the industry imposed levy will do that with no funding. I can inform the House that across my electorate, and in the agricultural sectors that I talk to, jaws drop at the concept of producers being asked to pay a biosecurity levy to protect themselves from imports that compete against their products on our supermarket shelves. If you think about it, you're out there working really hard to grow clean, healthy Australian fruit for Australian consumers, and you've got to pay someone who wants to import some fruit from another country to compete with you on supermarket shelves. That's not the way that our levy system should work at all. Those who create the risk, the importers, are the ones who should be funding the biosecurity compliance, to eliminate that risk to Australian producers. The producers shouldn't have to pay for it themselves. They're paying too much as it is. They're going to be paying more for water, too, if the current restoring our rivers bill goes through. They shouldn't be paying a biosecurity levy to their competitors to help their competitors compete against them. Heads are shaking in the agricultural sector and amongst the producers in my electorate at the concept of that. It's unbelievable.</para>
<para>The industry imposed levies contribute funding to Plant Health Australia and Animal Health Australia. PHA and AHA facilitate a national approach to enhancing Australia's plant and animal health status through government and industry partnerships for pest and disease preparedness, prevention and emergency response and management. Plant Health Australia has 39 industry members, and Animal Health Australia has 14 industry members. The bill will remove references to the PHA levy and AHA levy, and it will be renamed the biosecurity activity levy.</para>
<para>The coalition started and funded a process to streamline and simplify the levy system, but this government is planning to add some complexity and confusion back into it. We're opposed to that. Once the biosecurity protection levy comes into force, there will be three types of biosecurity levies: a compulsory biosecurity protection levy, to be introduced by the Labor government to pay for departmental biosecurity functions; a voluntary biosecurity activity levy, for biosecurity projects identified by industry as priorities undertaken by Plant Health Australia and Animal Health Australia; and a biosecurity response levy, referred to as emergency animal disease response or emergency plant pest response levies.</para>
<para>While the coalition aim for greater transparency, this will become a bit more opaque. There's a lot of confusion in what I just said there, and the producers are seeing this as confusing as well. They're seeing the removal of references to Plant Health Australia and Animal Health Australia as confusing. They see that as removing the transparency of where the levy funds are going. The levy payer will likely become confused when paying a biosecurity activity levy, a biosecurity protection levy and a biosecurity response levy. It's important that levy payers understand exactly where their funds are going, and that's why we wanted the amendment relating to transparency. As I said earlier, it's very difficult to run these agricultural businesses with drought, flood and all sorts of challenges.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">A division having been called in the House of Representatives—</inline></para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 11:07 to 11 : 15</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BIRRELL</name>
    <name.id>288713</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Before the suspension I was able to give my own examples of drip irrigation, fertigation and moth-mating disruption, which was good to talk about here; I enjoyed that. But, in summary, these are necessary legislative changes, so that there is transparency and ease of use and so that we maximise the amount of levy money for this important research and development.</para>
<para>The streamlining of the levy process is supported by the National Farmers Federation. It is a result of lengthy consultation that the coalition commenced, and it reduces complexity and increases compliance. It can be improved. If we have all gone to the trouble of making this levy system simpler and more transparent, we shouldn't be inadvertently or deliberately masking the portion of the levy that goes to support Plant Health Australia and Animal Health Australia. As I said earlier, the amendment to increase transparency is really important. It's challenging enough for farmers at the moment. They're generally 'happy' for this levy money to go to these necessary research and development and protection areas, but they want where that money is going, who's spending it and how they're spending it to be absolutely transparent. That accountability is really important.</para>
<para>I commend the bill with the amendment to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
    <electorate>Eden-Monaro</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Australian agriculture levy system is critical to supporting the agriculture sector's productivity, sustainability and competitiveness in global markets. Through the levy system our agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries can collectively invest in strategic activities such as research and development, marketing, biosecurity measures, biosecurity responses and residue testing.</para>
<para>There are over 110 levies, across over 75 commodities, which are spent by 18 separate bodies. This package of bills will modernise and streamline the legislative framework so that the levy system can continue to grow and help industry to respond to opportunities and challenges in the future. The bills will establish a new legislative framework that will make it easier for levy payers to understand their obligations and for industry bodies to pursue new levies or amendments to existing levies. Research and development corporations will also have increased funding certainty.</para>
<para>There are currently more than 50 pieces of legislation supporting the levy system. These have been condensed to five bills, each with associated subordinate legislation. The bills will simplify the administration of the levy system by reducing complexity and inconsistencies. The three imposition bills—the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill, the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Bill and the Primary Industries (Services) Levies Bill—will provide a consistent framework for excise levies, customs charges and service levies by including equivalent provisions for common matters such as definitions. The imposition bills will increase the levy system's responsiveness to industry by locating all operational levy details in subordinate legislation. This will make it easier for an industry to locate and understand their levy settings and to request that government adjust the settings of an existing levy or introduce a new levy. The imposition bills will also allow new levies for agriculture services such as the long-called-for levy on pollination services.</para>
<para>The government does not support the opposition's proposed amendments to the imposition bills. The amendments would reduce the flexibility and responsiveness of the levy system. In his speech to the House yesterday, the member for Maranoa noted the importance of the agriculture levy system and the need to ensure that these bills do not adversely affect this important system. As previous speakers have noted, the bills already provide an appropriate level of flexibility to Animal Health Australia and Plant Health Australia, in consultation with their industry members, to decide how biosecurity activity and biosecurity response levies and charges will be spent.</para>
<para>This is the whole intent of the modernising agriculture levies package. If the amendments were to be accepted, for spending to be permissible AHA and PHA would need to undertake all biosecurity activities using levy funds. In practice, only some of the activities described would be undertaken by AHA and PHA. In many cases, AHA and PHA may contract third parties to undertake activities. Where appropriate, R&D activities may be undertaken through an RDC. The proposed amendment could unnecessarily limit spending of biosecurity activity and biosecurity response levies and charges.</para>
<para>Given the breadth and diversity of Australia's agricultural fisheries and forestry industries, it is crucial that the imposition bills can adapt to deliver the levies requested by industry members into the future. The proposed amendments would risk limiting industries flexibility to request biosecurity activity and response levies that meet their needs, especially in new and emerging parts of the industry.</para>
<para>The Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2023 will replace the Primary Industry Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991 with a framework that will be easier for participants to understand and to comply with. It will introduce infringement notices and civil penalties, reserving criminal penalties for only the most serious of offences. The bill will also provide for the appropriate use and disclosure of information while ensuring effective safeguards for sensitive information. The Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Bill 2023 allows rural research and development corporations to operate with greater funding certainty by streamlining the calculation of matching payments by government for research and development. Importantly, the Primary Industries (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 will ensure continuity for levy and charge payers, collection agents and bodies that receive levy amounts from the repeal of the existing acts and commencement of the new legislation.</para>
<para>I'll conclude by addressing some of the member for Maranoa's remarks about the government's approach to biosecurity. The government's historic $1 billion investment in a sustainable biosecurity funding model, something the industry has wanted for years, demonstrates Labor's commitment to protect and to grow our vibrant agricultural, fisheries and forestry sectors. We've achieved this where the previous government comprehensively failed. They thought it was a good idea to provide short-term terminating funding for our essential biosecurity services. They thought they could do biosecurity on the cheap, locking in biosecurity funding cuts of over $1 million a year. It was the Albanese Labor government that put a stop to that by locking in permanent long-term funding at a sustainable level to ensure our pest and disease protection remain strong.</para>
<para>The member for Maranoa continues to talk a big game about making so-called risk creators—that is, importers paying more towards the cost of biosecurity—but it has taken a Labor government to deliver it. The member had over 1,300 days as agriculture minister, but in that time he did nothing to make importers pay their fair share. Nothing changed between 2015 and 2022. He had 1,300 days to deliver the container levy that he holds up as a silver bullet. It was supposed to raise more than $100 million a year but did not raise a single cent.</para>
<para>In contrast, this government has done the first comprehensive review of importer fees and charges since 2015. As a result, importers are now paying their fair share after the first full review of their fees and charges since 2015. So far this year importers have paid over $132 million, well over the amount that the failed container levy was supposed to raise. That's money that goes directly to biosecurity, protecting our agricultural industries, protecting our rural communities and protecting tens of thousands of jobs from the threat of pest and disease outbreaks.</para>
<para>The Australian agricultural levy system is widely supported. The key features of the levy system that make it so successful will remain the same under the new legislative framework. Levy settings will generally continue to be industry initiated and led. Key settings for existing levies such as levy rates will not change as part of bringing in this new legislation. Passage of these bills without amendment will ensure the continuation of a successful industry-government partnership under a more effective and fit-for-purpose legal framework.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>132</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LITTLEPROUD</name>
    <name.id>265585</name.id>
    <electorate>Maranoa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 12), after the definition of <inline font-style="italic">animal</inline>, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Animal Health Australia</inline> has the same meaning as in the <inline font-style="italic">Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Act 2023</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 20), after the definition of <inline font-style="italic">aquaculture</inline>, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">emergency animal biosecurity </inline> <inline font-style="italic">response deed</inline> has the same meaning as in the <inline font-style="italic">Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Act 2023</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">emergency plant biosecurity response deed</inline> has the same meaning as in the <inline font-style="italic">Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Act 2023</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Clause 4, page 4 (after line 15), after the definition of <inline font-style="italic">plant</inline>, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Plant Health Australia</inline> has the same meaning as in the <inline font-style="italic">Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Act 2023</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Clause 7, page 6 (lines 19 to 22), omit paragraphs (3)(c) and (d), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) expenditure on activities, including biosecurity activities, that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) are undertaken by Animal Health Australia or Plant Health Australia; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) relate to the promotion or maintenance of the health of plants, animals, fungi or algae;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) expenditure on matters relating to a biosecurity response under:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the emergency animal biosecurity response deed; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the emergency plant biosecurity response deed;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Clause 10, page 8 (lines 17 to 20), omit paragraphs (2)(a) and (b), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) expenditure on activities, including biosecurity activities, that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) are undertaken by Animal Health Australia or Plant Health Australia; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) relate to the promotion or maintenance of the health of plants, animals, fungi or algae;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) expenditure on matters relating to a biosecurity response under:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the emergency animal biosecurity response deed; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the emergency plant biosecurity response deed.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Clause 13, page 10 (lines 23 to 26), omit paragraphs (2)(c) and (d), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) expenditure on activities, including biosecurity activities, that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) are undertaken by Plant Health Australia; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) relate to the promotion or maintenance of the health of plants;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) expenditure on matters relating to a biosecurity response under the emergency plant biosecurity response deed;</para></quote>
<para>It's crucial that Australia's national agricultural levy framework operates as effectively as possible. A big part of this is the need to maintain and protect the levy system's transparency, which is what these detailed amendments go directly to. This set of amendments will add to the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 2023 by clarifying, affirming and solidifying the essential roles that Animal Health Australia—the AHA—and Plant Health Australia—the PHA—have within our levy framework. The AHA represents 14 livestock industries while the PHA represents 39 plant industry members. They need to remain important players in this space. These two levy organisations are levy recipient bodies, and they are responsible for facilitating industry-government partnerships for pest and disease preparedness, prevention, emergency response and management. However, under the provisions of the government's bill, references to the AHA levy and the PHA levy have been renamed as the 'biosecurity activity levy'. These amendments, circulated by the federal coalition, will ensure that Animal Health Australia and Plant Health Australia are formally recognised in relation to this biosecurity activity levy.</para>
<para>We are doing this because we believe removing references to the AHA and PHA have the potential to cloud transparency of the levy framework. It's important that levy payers, farmers and producers have a proper line of sight into where their levy funds are going. These amendments will do this. Also, for the biosecurity response levy, our amendments will recognise that the levy funding will go to expenditure under the emergency animal response deed managed by the AHA or the emergency plant response deed managed by the PHA. These deeds are activated in the event of a pest or disease incursion into Australia.</para>
<para>Another reason we are moving this set of amendments is that they will help minimise confusion among levy payers by inserting clarity into the framework. When combined with the government's proposed biosecurity protection levy, the creation of the broadly named 'biosecurity activity levy' under this bill will eventually bring the number of security levies to three. Having Animal Health Australia and Plant Health Australia appropriately recognised in the biosecurity activity levy and the biosecurity response levy will give confidence and assurance to the agricultural industry. With this change, farmers can feel secure about where they levies are being directed to without causing disruption to a system that has worked well over many years.</para>
<para>There are two more sets of amendments which the coalition will be moving for the other two imposition bills, which are the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Bill 2023 and the Primary Industry (Services) Levies Bill 2023. I advise the chamber that the intent and effect of this particular set of amendments is essentially identical to the amendments the coalition is moving to the next two imposition bills. These amendments are all about securing the transparency of Australia's agricultural levy system. On that note, I commend them to the chamber.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
    <electorate>Eden-Monaro</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I said in my summing-up speech, these amendments would go against the intent of modernisation and would risk unintended consequences. The government opposes these amendments.</para>
<para>Question unresolved.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>230886</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, and in accordance with standing order 195, the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>133</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7092" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>133</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>133</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LITTLEPROUD</name>
    <name.id>265585</name.id>
    <electorate>Maranoa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move amendments (1) to (5) as circulated in my name together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 12), after the definition of <inline font-style="italic">animal</inline>, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Animal Health Australia</inline> has the same meaning as in the <inline font-style="italic">Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Act 2023</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 22), after the definition of <inline font-style="italic">charge</inline>, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">emergency animal biosecurity response deed</inline> has the same meaning as in the <inline font-style="italic">Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Act 2023</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">emergency plant biosecurity response deed</inline> has the same meaning as in the <inline font-style="italic">Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Act 2023</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Clause 4, page 4 (after line 11), after the definition of <inline font-style="italic">plant</inline>, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Plant Health Australia</inline> has the same meaning as in the <inline font-style="italic">Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Act 2023</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Clause 7, page 6 (lines 19 to 22), omit paragraphs (3)(c) and (d), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) expenditure on activities, including biosecurity activities, that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) are undertaken by Animal Health Australia or Plant Health Australia; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) relate to the promotion or maintenance of the health of plants, animals, fungi or algae;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) expenditure on matters relating to a biosecurity response under:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the emergency animal biosecurity response deed; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the emergency plant biosecurity response deed;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Clause 10, page 8 (lines 17 to 20), omit paragraphs (2)(a) and (b), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) expenditure on activities, including biosecurity activities, that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) are undertaken by Animal Health Australia or Plant Health Australia; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) relate to the promotion or maintenance of the health of plants, animals, fungi or algae;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) expenditure on matters relating to a biosecurity response under:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the emergency animal biosecurity response deed; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the emergency plant biosecurity response deed.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
    <electorate>Eden-Monaro</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I referred to in my summing up speech, the amendments would go against the intent of modernisation of the bill and the government opposes those amendments.</para>
<para>Question unresolved.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>230886</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195, the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Primary Industries (Services) Levies Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>134</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7093" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Primary Industries (Services) Levies Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>134</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>134</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LITTLEPROUD</name>
    <name.id>265585</name.id>
    <electorate>Maranoa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4) as circulated in my name together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 12), after the definition of <inline font-style="italic">animal</inline>, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Animal Health Australia</inline> has the same meaning as in the <inline font-style="italic">Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Act 2023</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 20), after the definition of <inline font-style="italic">aquaculture</inline>, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">emergency animal biosecurity response deed</inline> has the same meaning as in the <inline font-style="italic">Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Act 2023</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">emergency plant biosecurity response deed</inline> has the same meaning as in the <inline font-style="italic">Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Act 2023</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Clause 4, page 4 (after line 11), after the definition of <inline font-style="italic">plant</inline>, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Plant Health Australia</inline> has the same meaning as in the <inline font-style="italic">Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Act 2023</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Clause 7, page 6 (lines 24 to 27), omit paragraphs (3)(c) and (d), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) expenditure on activities, including biosecurity activities, that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) are undertaken by Animal Health Australia or Plant Health Australia; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) relate to the promotion or maintenance of the health of plants, animals, fungi or algae;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) expenditure on matters relating to a biosecurity response under:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the emergency animal biosecurity response deed; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the emergency plant biosecurity response deed;</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
    <electorate>Eden-Monaro</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I said in my summing up speech, the amendments would go against the intent of the bill, which is to modernise the levy system, and we oppose those amendments.</para>
<para>Question unresolved.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>230886</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195, the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>134</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7090" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>134</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>135</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7089" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>135</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Primary Industries (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>135</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7095" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Primary Industries (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>135</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>135</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7081" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>135</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COLLINS</name>
    <name.id>HWM</name.id>
    <electorate>Franklin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Albanese government is delivering a better deal for small businesses, easing current cost pressures and helping them to improve their long-term resilience. This bill delivers on two key elements to support small business.</para>
<para>Schedule 1 will implement a $20,000 instant asset write-off for businesses with a turnover of up to $10 million. This will help small businesses to invest and grow, for example, through buying a new piece of machinery, or upgrading their assets. The $20,000 threshold will apply on a per-asset basis, so small businesses will be able to write off multiple assets. Assets that are first used or installed, ready for use, between 1 July 2023 and 30 June 2024 can be immediately deducted under this measure. Whether it's a coffee machine for a cafe, a computer to manage a business or a trailer for a tradie, this measure will provide real support for small businesses. We estimate this will provide around $290 million in cash flow support to small businesses right across the country.</para>
<para>Schedule 2 of the bill will implement the Albanese government's small business energy incentive and complement the instant asset write-off. This is a 20 per cent bonus tax deduction to help small and medium businesses invest in energy efficient assets and upgrades to improve their long-term resilience and to save on their energy bills. We estimate up to 3.8 million businesses with a turnover of up to $50 million will be able to claim a 20 per cent tax deduction for total expenditure of up to $100,000. This will help pay for upgrading heating and cooling systems, installing batteries and switching to energy-saving electrical goods, such as efficient fridges and induction cooktops.</para>
<para>This incentive helps ensure small and medium sized businesses share in the benefits and opportunities of the energy transition that's now underway. It will support investments that deliver ongoing power bill savings for businesses, while at the same time helping Australia lower our emissions. Eligible assets or upgrades will need to be either first used or first installed and ready for use between 1 July 2023 and 30 June 2024. This measure is expected to provide around $310 million in support to SMEs over the forward estimates. The incentive has been specifically timed to help small businesses lay the foundations for their future growth. These are targeted, responsible support measures to help Australia's small businesses continue to grow.</para>
<para>This builds on a range of measures that we're taking to support small businesses more generally: targeted energy bill relief of up to $650 for around one million small businesses, in partnership with the states and the territories; making unfair contract terms illegal so small businesses can negotiate fairer agreements with larger partners; the $23 million that we've put aside to help small businesses build their resilience to cybersecurity attacks, through a new Cyber Wardens program; $18.6 million to help small businesses adapt and build resilience through digital technology, through the latest round of the Digital Solutions program; $15 million for small-business owners across Australia to access free mental health and financial counselling support; and ensuring small businesses get a bigger slice of the $80 billion the Australian government spends each year on contracts, with a 20 per cent target for government procurement.</para>
<para>This year I have met with small businesses in every state and territory, in the cities and in the regions. I've already brought together small-business ministers on three occasions to ensure we're working together to support Australia's small businesses. Our last meeting, which was held in Cairns last month, was the first one hosted outside a capital city. This is after the previous government failed to hold such a meeting for eight years. This just shows how our government is delivering and working with states and territories to deliver a better deal for small businesses. I'm proud that the measures we're introducing today will directly help many businesses. Backing in small businesses is part of the Albanese government's plan to build a stronger, sustainable and more resilient economy that delivers more opportunities for Australians. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOWARTH</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
    <electorate>Petrie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This instant asset tax write-off is inadequate. We've just heard the minister say how great it's going to be for small business, but it is not high enough—$20,000 is not high enough for small business. You cannot buy a vehicle; you can't do a whole lot of things. The previous instant asset tax write-off was $150,000, and they're bringing it down to 20 grand! What's that going to get businesses? Not a lot. It wouldn't cost the Albanese Labor government a lot of money to adopt our amendment and raise the write-off to a higher amount than $20,000. I say to the minister: go and see your boss, the Prime Minister, and raise it a little bit higher. It's not going to cost a lot of money at all. It's actually very modest.</para>
<para>You cannot buy a vehicle for 20 grand. A lot of companies need a vehicle, right? I know you mentioned a coffee machine, but, come on—20 grand is not going to get you much at all. The truth is that Labor are pretty well antibusiness, particularly small business. Small and family businesses—they don't care about them. When it comes to tax, industrial relations and energy, it's leaving small and family businesses behind. That is the absolute reality. Small business employs almost half of Australia's private sector workforce and represents over 97 per cent of all Australian businesses. The issue is that, since the Albanese Labor government came to power just 18 months ago, small businesses have all but been abandoned in Labor's draft national platform and are very much an afterthought in each budget: What can we throw in there? What bone can we give them?</para>
<para>Labor's national platform, 114 pages long, mentions small business just five times. Labor have consistently turned their back on this community. In total, Labor, including the member opposite, voted against tax relief for small and medium businesses 15 times in the last parliament. They voted against it and denied tax relief to millions of small and family businesses around Australia. Now the current Treasurer, Treasurer Chalmers said at the time that the small-business tax cuts that the coalition government was putting in to help small and family businesses were 'not worth the money' and that Labor was 'proud to oppose these tax cuts'. That's from the Treasurer. The reality is that the Treasurer of Australia was proud to oppose tax cuts that would have benefited hardworking small and family businesses. Why? It's because their friends in the union movement, who are the real government of Australia, don't like small and family business, because they can't unionise it. Even in this bill, we see a special deal for big super funds that the unions run that don't apply to small self-managed super funds and some of the other funds.</para>
<para>Under this Prime Minister and this Treasurer, small and family businesses are suffocating. The <inline font-style="italic">S</inline><inline font-style="italic">mall </inline><inline font-style="italic">b</inline><inline font-style="italic">usiness </inline><inline font-style="italic">m</inline><inline font-style="italic">atters </inline>report shows that 43 per cent of small and family businesses are making zero profit—the worst rate since the last time Labor was in government back in 2012—and about 75 per cent of small-business owners earn less than the average Australian wage, despite working longer hours.</para>
<para>When people run a small business, you want them to earn a wage just like PAYG employees and just like we do in the parliament. You want them to earn a wage, but you also want that small and family business to make a profit after all their expenses, after their rent, after the wages for their staff, after their superannuation, after they buy their goods, after their insurances, after their electricity that's going up under the Albanese government—the list goes on and on and on. You want them to make a profit so that the profit can (1) be reinvested and (2) provide a dividend.</para>
<para>On this side of the House, we will look after small and family businesses, because many of us on this side have experience in the private sector. We haven't just gone from uni to working for unions or straight into parliament like many of those opposite have. The coalition values reward for effort. We thank small and family businesses for employing Australians. While this bill has some measures that we can support, quite frankly it doesn't make up for Labor's broken promises and lack of support and bad attitude to small and family businesses as a whole.</para>
<para>This year we saw a huge tax blow that's going to see tradies and small businesses across Australia pay more, and I'm talking specifically about the instant asset tax write-off. The chief economist of Judo Bank, Mr Warren Hogan, said that 'you will see some parts in certain industries really struggle' under this government.</para>
<para>The Albanese government has slammed the brakes on the amount small businesses can claim in relation to the instant asset write-off, down, as I said before, from $150,000. In fact, during COVID, it was unlimited. Before COVID, it went up to 150 grand. They're bringing it all the way down to $20,000, and the minister, who just spoke, comes into this place and makes out that it is some sort of win for small businesses. No, it's not. It's not a win. Twenty thousand dollars is not high enough.</para>
<para>If I think about businesses in my own electorate—I was talking to Wayne Treloar from Ray White Aspley and Ray White Bridgeman Downs group, who in the last financial year, when they could claim up to $150,000, bought four cars for their rental property business. Each car was $22,000. Under this minister, they won't be able to write that off. It'll take them years to depreciate.</para>
<para>Photocopiers—do you know what a photocopier costs in a business now? Given inflation, particularly under this government, it costs 25 grand for a decent photocopier. You can't write that off under Labor's instant asset tax write-off. That's what that Ray White business bought in my electorate, and they were able to write it off under the coalition's reforms.</para>
<para>Designer Life is another local business. They're not operating now under the NESM scheme in my area of Somerset, but they are in other areas. When I was talking to them last year, when I was assistant minister in this space, they bought cars as well. They spent $30,000 to $32,000 on a car. You can't get a car for 20 grand, in case the minister hasn't worked that out. They had to buy computers in bulk order when they had 20 staff and everything. They spent $74,000 on their computer system. Under the coalition's system, that was written off straightaway. Premier Pet in Narangba is another business in my electorate. It is a pet supplier to pet shops all around Australia. They put in commercial air conditioning for their staff, and it cost $25,000. Once again, they could write it off. Then these guys come in here and get up and speak as though $20,000 is some sort of a win for small and family business. It's not.</para>
<para>The point that frustrates me is that they could adopt our amendment to raise it to $30,000. We're just talking $10,000 more. We're not asking for it to go back to $150,000, where it was under the former coalition government. We're asking for it to go up just $10,000. It would not cost the Treasurer much at all—very, very little—but it would have a big impact during this cost-of-living crisis that small and family business and people are experiencing under Labor. That would make a difference. For once do you think the minister might be able to think: 'You know what? We could raise it by just $10,000. That's not a bad idea.' It's not a bad idea, but, from her speech when she was in this chamber just a minute ago, it doesn't seem like she wants to listen. It just shows how out of touch the Labor government is with what's going on in Australia right now, not just in Australian families, who are doing it tough, but in hardworking small and family businesses throughout the country.</para>
<para>The shadow Treasurer, Angus Taylor, understands small business and family business, and he was shocked to see in last year's budget that the extension of the instant asset tax write-off was gone. It was just gone—wiped. Then they come back in here a few months later and say, 'We're giving them a win.' No, you're not. This is a big deal for small and family businesses. If this is the government's version of refining the tax system for small and family businesses, they should be deeply worried. Australians need a government that focuses on the economy first, not on distractions like the Canberra Voice, which not one state in the country voted yes to. The coalition's amendment restores the instant asset tax write-off to levels introduced in the 2019 budget. The amendments will mean that 26,500 businesses with an aggregated turnover of up to $50 million will be eligible for a higher instant asset write-off of up to $30,000, and that would benefit them. It also, as I said before, is a very, very modest cost. It will drive productivity at a time when we're seeing historic collapses under the Albanese Labor government, and it stands in stark contrast to the extra $188 billion that the Labor government are spending, which is putting extra pressure on inflation, which families know about through increased rent and housing costs.</para>
<para>I want to quickly touch on their superannuation tax changes as well. This bill doesn't make up for Labor's broken promises. We know that members opposite were elected to this House on the promise that there would be no changes to superannuation. It was broken within the first 18 months. They somehow want the Australian public to believe, 'We're legislating it now, but it doesn't kick in until the next election.' No. There will be no changes to super. That's what you looked down the barrel of the camera and said, Prime Minister. He also said there would be a $275 reduction in electricity costs. Guess what? They've gone up 18.2 per cent. The minister comes in here and says, 'We're going to give small business a little bit of a benefit to upgrade some of their electrical costs and to put in lower lighting or solar,' or whatever. That's great, but that's not what you promised before the last election. You promised households a $275 reduction.</para>
<para>There wouldn't be one member opposite who would get up in this place right now and say, 'We're going to achieve that $275 reduction.' For a little while they were saying it would happen 'by the next election' in May 2025. None of them believe that. It's gone up 18 per cent. Gas has gone up 28 per cent. People are coming into my office. They're feeling the cost of living, but the government has been focused on the Voice for 18 months. Then, all of a sudden, they're like, 'We're concentrating on the cost of living.' Meanwhile, everyone's rents have gone up. Their mortgages have gone up. Their electricity has gone up. Their groceries have gone up. The government are slashing instant-asset tax write-offs for small businesses. This is what you get under a Labor government that doesn't care about small and family businesses and are focused on themselves.</para>
<para>So it is disappointing, and it doesn't end there. They promised lower mortgages. Minister Conroy, when it comes to the defence industry, said, 'We want to see more Australian manufacturing in the defence industry.' We just had the biggest three-day show in Australia for the Navy in Sydney last week. He knew about it for a year and couldn't even be bothered to show up. This is the defence industry minister, who can't be bothered to show up to his own show and talk to people in relation to the defence industry. Minister Husic pretty much abandoned the space industry. You would know about that Deputy Speaker Andrews—you were a former minister there, where a lot was done.</para>
<para>The government's proposal has three flaws. It's a broken promise from before the election, where Prime Minister Albanese explicitly ruled out changes to super. It is an index, which affects young Australians like my children, who are 21, 19 and 17—and many of us have children that age and represent people. The reality is that this will bite them, because, by the time they retire at 67 and with the way inflation is at the moment, they're all going to be getting less in their super. They're going to be getting way less. Even the Treasurer and his own department have shown that a 20-year-old today earning an average wage over their lifetime will pay higher taxes under this scheme.</para>
<para>Finally, it is taxing unrealised capital gains, which means that retirees and superannuants will face tax bills on money they haven't even earned yet. People invest in super; they might have a self-managed super fund. The price of their property has gone up, and they haven't sold it. Normally when you sell the asset, you pay tax on it—not under this government, under Albanese. What they want to do, under this Prime Minister, is make you pay tax on unrealised capital gains before you have even sold it.</para>
<para>It's a complete change to the way things are done. It would be like someone in this parliament or one of our constituents having a rental property—owning that rental property—and there being a 50 per cent capital gains discount so that, when you sell it, you pay tax on half the profit. Under this one, they'll just say: 'Your rental property has gone up during COVID. Give us $100,000 now, an unrealised capital gain.' I'm surprised that any member on the Labor side can get up with a straight face and say that this is good for Australians in the middle of the worst cost-of-living crisis that we've seen in generations.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MASCARENHAS</name>
    <name.id>298800</name.id>
    <electorate>Swan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to call the member for Petrie up on a couple of misnomers and fact check him. The thing that I would say is that, when I was campaigning in the last federal election, the three top issues for businesses were skills shortages, supply chains and action on energy and climate change.</para>
<para>On supply chains, what we saw during the pandemic is that the nation was broken because we had nine years of a coalition government that wasn't interested in investing in the skills and capabilities of the nation. The thing that we saw during the pandemic was that we did not have the ability to—</para>
<para>An opposition member interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MASCARENHAS</name>
    <name.id>298800</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm talking about manufacturing—</para>
<para>An opposition member: How would you know? You weren't even there.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MASCARENHAS</name>
    <name.id>298800</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I was in Australia, and I have firsthand lived experience, okay. What we saw in Western Australia was that we didn't have enough face masks in our hospitals. Do you know who built them? We couldn't get them from overseas. We had local manufacturers that decided to actually do that. So what we're in the process of doing is building up our advanced manufacturing capability.</para>
<para>The other thing that we also saw was skills shortages, and the truth is that what we saw under the coalition, from an immigration perspective, was that skills were cut out of the department. We had a reduction from 1,200 to 800 staff members. What did we see in the immigration system? We saw a massive backlog, and that's something that we've been actively working on.</para>
<para>The other thing that we saw was a coalition government that was denying that climate science was a reality and that we needed to act on our energy policy. That's something that this government did within the first two weeks of government. We went in and we basically said that we wanted to see action on climate change. We legislated that we would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 43 per cent. If we had had a government 10 years ago investing in renewable energy and offsetting some of the issues that we have seen with gas prices in the Ukraine, we would have been in a better position. What this government is doing is investing in our energy infrastructure to make sure that small businesses, large businesses and households can have a decarbonised electricity grid that is not dependent on the opinion of a dictator over in Russia.</para>
<para>What I would also say is that when we saw these issues across Australia we said that we wanted to bring community groups, small businesses, large businesses, unions and the governments together—and we had a Jobs and Skills Summit. It was the first time that we had brought these disparate groups across Australia, and we went: how can we make Australia better to make sure we have great businesses with great jobs, with the skills that we need to deliver? So we did that.</para>
<para>The truth is that what the Albanese Labor government want to do is make sure that we support small businesses. That's why I'm very excited to speak in favour of the treasury laws amendment bill, which is about support for small businesses and charities.</para>
<para>There is no doubt that small businesses are the engine room of the Australian economy. Small businesses employ a huge number of Australian people, and this is why this government is delivering significant reforms to support small businesses across Australia.</para>
<para>The reforms announced by the government in last year's budget will help to boost resilience for small businesses. The range of practical new measures contained in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill will help small businesses across the nation to prosper. When small businesses prosper, families prosper. When small business prospers, the economy prospers. When small business prospers, the whole nation prospers. But small businesses have a unique challenge that the government is aware of. That's why the government is taking proactive action to support small business with important measures.</para>
<para>Schedule 1 of this bill will implement a $20,000 instant asset write-off for one year. The new measure will operate to improve cash flow and reduce compliance costs for small businesses. What it means is that small businesses will aggregate annual turnover of less than $10 million and be able to immediately deduct eligible assets costing less than $20,000. This will be effective from the 2024 financial year. The $20,000 threshold will apply on a per asset basis. This means that small businesses can instantly write off multiple assets. It's targeted, it's responsible and it will help small businesses continue to grow—and growth means stability and jobs and security.</para>
<para>Schedule 2 of the bill will introduce the small-business energy incentive. The incentive was also announced in the 2023-24 budget. The measure is designed to help small businesses and medium sized businesses electrify and save on their energy bills. The new measure will affect up to 3.8 million small to medium sized businesses with an aggregated annual turnover of less than $50 million. These businesses will have access to a bonus 20 per cent deduction for eligible assets supporting electrification and more efficient use of energy. The truth is the thing that we're going to see, as electricity prices are reduced because the amount of renewables that we have in the grid, is that there will be a shift in businesses from using gas to using electricity. So the electrification of these businesses is really important, and it's also a step in the right direction to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.</para>
<para>The new tax incentive applies from the 2024 financial year. Up to $100,000 of total expenditure will be eligible for the incentive, with a maximum tax bonus of $20,000. The new small-business energy incentive builds on the Albanese government's measures to help small businesses become more energy efficient. The program will ease pressure on their energy bills. It's another example of the Albanese government ensuring that we're supporting many Australians with expenditure relief so that they can enjoy the rewards from their work.</para>
<para>The Albanese government are taking action where the previous government didn't. The previous government overlooked the needs of small business. It didn't foster an environment for growth. Instead it stifled productivity through inaction, apathy and indifference—indifference to the needs of small businesses, indifference to the needs of Australian families and indifference to the needs of the nation. We now have a government that's responsive, proactive and focused—focused on the needs of small business, focused on the needs of Australian families and focused on the needs of the nation. We will continue to incentivise the nation's growth and make real benefits for all Australians.</para>
<para>This bill also introduces measures to support charities, and I think that all of us in this place can agree that we need to support charities better. In my electorate of Swan, there are over 400 charities. They range from religious organisations to those supporting the homeless, animal rescues, Indigenous support organisations and RSLs. Charities not only provide a valuable resource for vulnerable people; they also play a role in bringing the community together. They are an outlet for people to overcome loneliness by getting involved in volunteering.</para>
<para>The government recognises the importance of charities across the country, not just in Swan, and it has set itself a goal of doubling philanthropy by 2030. To do this, it needs a legislative framework to achieve this goal. Schedule 3 of the bill provides a pathway for up to 28 community foundations to be endorsed by the Commissioner of Taxation as deductible gift recipients. Their endorsement will be subject to them complying with ministerial guidelines setting out the purposes for which these gifts may be used. They will support foundations to undertake important work in their communities.</para>
<para>Schedule 4 of the bill amends the income tax law to specifically list Justice Reform Initiative Ltd and Transparency International Australia as deductible gift recipients and extends the existing listing for the Australian Sports Foundation Charitable Fund and Victorian Pride Centre Ltd. The Australian Sports Foundation is a valuable pathway for grassroots organisations to fundraise. It has significant success in supporting many local clubs and individual athletes achieve their dreams of competing on the national and international stage. I welcome the amendment that will further extend the capacity of organisations, such as the Australian Sports Foundation, to support our local clubs and junior athletes. This encourages philanthropic giving and supports the not-for-profit sector, as donors may claim income tax deductions for donations to organisations with DGR status.</para>
<para>Schedule 5 of the bill extends the Global Infrastructure Hub's income tax exemption for an additional year. It will mean that it will be extended from its current expiry date of 30 June 2023 to 30 June 2024. The extension will ensure that contributions and other income that the GI Hub received during the FY24 period will be exempt from income tax. Tax exemption status is granted to avoid subjecting these payments to income tax, because the GI Hub is funded by contributions from G20 members. This one-year extension will cover the GI Hub while it utilises current funding from its G20 members.</para>
<para>Amendments to the income tax law with respect to general insurance, to maintain broad alignment between accounting and tax, are implemented by schedule 6 of the bill. It's a provision that avoids the income tax compliance burden on the general insurance industry. The burden would be caused by the misalignment between the new accounting standard and the existing tax requirements. However, the government anticipated the impact and addressed the problem. It is a thoughtful, responsible and well-managed reform.</para>
<para>The current non-arms-length expense rules for superannuation entities is replaced by schedule 7 of the bill. It's a measure contained in the bill that will introduce new arrangements for general expenses and better target the application of these provisions. I'm pleased that these measures will operate to address the potential for very disproportionate outcomes. But, importantly, at the same time, it maintains the broader integrity of the superannuation tax system. Again, they are thoughtful, responsible and well-managed reforms.</para>
<para>The last provision, in schedule 8, clarifies the authority and jurisdiction of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, AFCA, to consider complaints that relate to superannuation. The measure is required to provide a legislative response to the Federal Court's decision in MetLife v AFCA. Consumers will gain greater access to external dispute resolution, and I will say this: they're thoughtful, responsible, well-managed reforms, with the consumer at the forefront.</para>
<para>These measures form part of a reform package that will incentivise and foster growth among small businesses. This is a package that will support the role of community foundations and allow them to grow and explore new opportunities for funding and donations. These are foundations that are reliant on donors for their survival, to fund the important work they do in the community. Many of them are supporting vulnerable community members. This bill is an example of the Albanese government thinking broadly about the flow-on effect for the wider community, with smart, effective reforms.</para>
<para>Being responsive to the needs of the Australian people is what this government is about. What this government is not about is sitting back and doing nothing, which I feel is what the previous government did. It coasted at the expense of all Australians. This is a government that acts. These reforms will help small businesses, charities and community foundations continue to grow, to support jobs growth and support families. The bill will help contribute to stronger communities and better services, through small business and supporting our local clubs and charities. This is a goal for this government, and we are committed to achieving it. That's why this legislation is here today.</para>
<para>I commend the government for its advocacy and efforts to make sure that we respond to the needs of Australians, not sit back on our hands like the previous government did. I congratulate the ministerial team who have brought this forward today. I commend the legislation to the House, and I look forward to contributing further to the debate on this important legislation by a government that's not afraid to take action and make Australia a better place.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023, in particular schedule 2. Schedule 2 relates to the government's small-business energy incentive, which is a bonus tax deduction equal to 20 per cent of the cost of an energy efficiency or electrification improvement. The incentive is designed to help small and medium businesses electrify and save on their energy bills. This temporary measure applies from July 2023 to June 2024. It aims to help small businesses make investments, like electrifying heating systems, pumps or motors; upgrading to more efficient fridges or air-conditioners; installing heat pumps and batteries; and devices to shift electricity consumption to off-peak hours.</para>
<para>There are 3.8 million businesses across Australia, with an annual turnover of less than $50 million, that are eligible for this tax deduction. In my electorate of Indi, almost 15,700 businesses will be eligible, and I'm excited for them. I strongly welcome this schedule within the bill, as for years now I've been calling for wideranging assistance to help businesses and households improve their energy efficiency and electrify. Energy efficiency and electrification are our best options for reducing our energy bills and reducing emissions.</para>
<para>As an Independent MP, I'm committed to smart action on climate change, not just because it's good and needed for our planet but because we know that renewables and electrification mean people save money. In my communities, people are really struggling. For small-business owners, the rising cost of living hurts twice—in household bills and in the bills and costs of running a business. They want to keep their prices down and they want to be more efficient and innovative, and I back them in on that 100 per cent. This measure will help small-business owners, many of whom are mums and dads who work hard and employ others in our communities, to save money.</para>
<para>Reducing the costs of a battery and more efficient equipment could be transformational for businesses like the IGA in Euroa. Last year, I spoke with Tim Burton, who's taken over the business from his dad. With costs rising all the time, keeping power prices down is one of the biggest issues for Tim. Tim told me that, due to the poor power network in Euroa, their supermarket has blackouts at least once a month. They've put so much solar on the roof that they've run out of space, and they've had to add a backup diesel generator to deal with blackouts and brownouts. Assistance to purchase a battery could help Burton's IGA use their solar to run fridges at night and during blackouts, while more efficient fridges would help reduce bills and the reliance on the weak local grid, or indeed on their diesel generator.</para>
<para>Right across Indi, businesses like Tim's are telling me that rising electricity bills are making running a small business increasingly challenging. There's a clear hunger for incentives to help businesses reduce their energy bills. This hunger was validated by the flood of applications for the recent energy efficiency grants for small and medium enterprises. Across my electorate of Indi, 24 local businesses will share in $554,906 as part of the energy efficiency grants for small and medium sized enterprises program. These businesses will use the money to replace or upgrade existing equipment to improve energy efficiency and reduce costs. Financial support, such as the recent energy efficiency grants and the small business energy incentive in this bill, empowers small businesses to manage their energy use and to reduce their overall power bills.</para>
<para>Many businesses across my electorate have solar, such as Burton's IGA in Euroa, and I hope this bill will assist these businesses to install technologies that will help them make the most of that solar by shifting more of their electricity use to the middle of the day or by installing a battery to store electricity from their solar for use throughout the day and night. For the many wineries, dairies, orchards, food processors and hospital venues across Indi, fridges, chillers, water heaters, pumps and other motors are the biggest users of energy, and there are major opportunities for energy efficiency improvements across all of these energy users. For example, Dal Zotto winery, in the King Valley, will be using the grant funding received by the energy efficiency grants for small and medium sized enterprises program to insulate tanks and piping, reducing the energy used to run fridges and chillers and allowing more solar to go back into the grid.</para>
<para>Now, while this incentive in this bill is exciting for small businesses across Indi and indeed across Australia, it's really disappointing that this measure is temporary and will only apply for one financial year. With just over seven months remaining until 30 June 2024, the deadline for equipment to be installed and ready for use—this is just too short if a business is to receive this tax offset. Given constrictions in supply chains and access to skilled labour in our regions and the uncertainty to date over whether this tax offset would actually be legislated, many small businesses won't be able to access this support or will deem it too risky to initiate a project without certainty that they'll be able to receive the tax offset. This should be a long-term measure that allows small businesses to make investment decisions they can plan for over much longer time horizons. Anyone who's ever run a small business would know this, and they would know that big investment decisions, like those incentivised in this bill, aren't rash and aren't last-minute calls; they form part of years of business planning. So making a measure like this temporary and applicable for such a short amount of time honestly feels half-hearted.</para>
<para>Beyond making this a long-term measure, we know the government must do much more to support households and businesses reduce emissions, reduce bills and increase efficiency. The Grattan Institute, the Climate Council the Climateworks Centre, Rewiring Australia, the International Energy Agency and almost all other expert bodies are unanimous: households and small businesses must increasingly electrify if we're to have any hope of getting to net zero carbon emissions by 2050. This might seem like an impossible task, but it's not. It's a big task, it's a difficult task, but we do have the solutions in front of us. This requires electric cooktops, electric heat pump heaters, water heaters and electric vehicles, as well as batteries in our homes and businesses to store the electricity these appliances need to run. This must happen in houses, apartments and businesses. It must happen for landlords and the one-third of households who rent, for businesses that own their premises and for those that lease. It must happen in the cities and it must happen in the regions. And it must enable low-income people and small family businesses to share in the benefits of this transition.</para>
<para>There are multiple benefits to homes and businesses in electrification. Firstly, importantly, in this cost-of-living crisis that we face, energy efficiency and electrification reduce bills. Analysis by energy entrepreneur Dr Saul Griffith shows that a fully electrified household would save $5,000 a year in petrol costs and power bills. Businesses are set to save even more. Electrification is also healthier: we know that using gas releases pollutants that cause asthma and other problems, but with high upfront costs, we can't expect individuals and businesses to electrify on their own. The government can and must do more to support households and businesses to do this, and that's why I support this bill and will continue pushing for additional measures and for the government to do better for small business.</para>
<para>People across my electorate of Indi are aware of the benefits of electrification and energy efficiency. With the interests of my constituents—and of people and businesses across Australia—always front of mind, I have consistently called on the government to do more to unlock the opportunities of electrification and energy efficiency, and I've proposed legislation and engaged constructively with governments of the day—before and now—to do so. I introduced my private member's bill, the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Cheaper Home Batteries) Bill in 2022 and again this year. My bill aims to lower power bills for Australian households and small businesses, reduce emissions, and improve energy security by adding small-scale batteries as eligible technology to create certificates under the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme. The SRES was originally developed for rooftop solar so that when you buy solar you earn certificates to on-sell to electricity retailers, who are required to purchase them. This drives down the cost of installing solar and creates a financial incentive for individuals and businesses to purchase renewable energy. The SRES has now also expanded to small-scale wind and hydro systems, solar water heaters, and air-source heat pumps. However, perplexingly and astonishingly, it continues to leave out batteries, and this needs to change.</para>
<para>Current market and government expectations and aspirations are that the renewable energy share of our national electricity grid will reach 82 per cent by 2030. Increased storage capacity on the grid via batteries is critical to enabling this high penetration of renewables into Australia's electricity mix and to maximising the benefits of electrification. However, a lack of financial incentives for small-scale batteries has resulted in a significant gap in the current residential and small-business electrification landscape. Around three million Australian homes have solar panels; however, only 180,000 have a battery. According to green energy markets, the 82 per cent target assumes that the cost of small-scale batteries will be subsidised this decade, so I say to the government: get on with this. If small-scale batteries are included in the SRES, the price of a battery is reduced by about $3,000, depending on the size of the battery. This would incentivise many Australian homes to take up batteries and reach the 82 per cent target. I welcome the government's proposition in this bill to include batteries as eligible technologies for a 20 per cent bonus tax deduction for small and medium businesses. A 20 per cent bonus tax deduction on the cost of a small-scale battery would reduce a business's taxable income by around $3,000. For many businesses, such deductions could tip the balance in favour of investing in batteries and other technologies. I'm optimistic about what improvements this new tax incentive can unlock and how it can set up local businesses across Indi to cut costs, cut emissions and thrive, but I want to see the government extend it.</para>
<para>This incentive is a step in the right direction, but it is by no means enough to address the energy bill pressures that businesses and households are facing, and it is by no means enough to enable Australia to meet its emissions reduction targets. We need much more than temporary measures; we need permanent incentives to help businesses and households electrify and improve their energy efficiency, including households and businesses that don't own their own homes or premises. With these incentives we need to include all technologies that can reduce emissions, including electric vehicles, and we need to ensure—we absolutely must ensure—that low-income households are not forgotten.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STANLEY</name>
    <name.id>265990</name.id>
    <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to make my contribution to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023. The bill contains a comprehensive package of measures to continue the government's substantial support for Australian small businesses. The Albanese government knows that small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy and of many communities across the country, including Werriwa. These measures build upon the significant support provided to small businesses in the last budget to invest in the security and certainty of operation that we know small businesses need to grow. Incentives in this package will help ensure that small businesses—the tradies, restaurants and hairdressers that make up the backbone of all of our communities across the country—share in the economic benefits of the transition to cleaner and more efficient energy.</para>
<para>The amendments are contained in eight separate schedules. Schedule 1 extends the instant asset write-off threshold to $20,000 until 30 June 2024. This was announced by the government in the 2023-24 budget. This will improve cash flow and reduce compliance costs for small businesses. From 1 July 2023 until 30 June 2024, small businesses will be able to immediately deduct eligible assets that cost less than $20,000 if they have had an aggregated turnover of less than $10 million. Small businesses will be able to instantly write off multiple assets, as the $20,000 instant asset write-off will apply on a per asset basis. Assets that cost greater than $20,000 may continue to be placed into the small business simplified depreciation pool. This allows an asset to be depreciated at the rate of 15 per cent in the first income year and 30 per cent for each income year after that. This instant asset write-off measure will provide significant cash flow support and the benefits of simplified compliance to up to 3.8 million small businesses. The measure is estimated to decrease receipts over five years, from 2022-23, by $290 million, which represents a nearly $300 million investment directly into small businesses across the country. This is a significant sum that will appreciably boost the growth of small businesses.</para>
<para>Schedule 2 provides further cost-of-living relief for small businesses by implementing the small business energy incentive the Albanese government announced in its recent budget. It will help small and medium sized enterprises electrify and save on their energy bills. Those 3.8 million small businesses will be eligible to access the small business energy incentive to help support investments that will provide long-term and ongoing electricity bill savings. Additionally, it will help Australia lower emissions by helping small businesses make investments in batteries, electrification of heating and cooling systems, and upgrading to more energy efficient assets such as fridges and induction cooktops. Businesses with an aggregated turnover of less than $50 million will have access to an additional 20 per cent tax deduction for a broad range of eligible assets that support electrification and the more efficient use of energy. The measure will begin on 1 July 2023 and end on 30 June 2024. The measure is estimated to decrease receipts over five years by $310 million and similarly represents a substantial investment in small business and emissions reductions.</para>
<para>Schedule 3 of this bill gives up to 28 community foundations the opportunity to be endorsed as deductible gift recipients by the Commissioner of Taxation. Foundations will be eligible for DGR endorsement if the charity is registered with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, has purposes that are consistent with general DGR guidelines, complies with the ministerial guidelines created for the purposes of this measure and is subsequently named in a ministerial declaration. Ministerial guidelines clarifying the purposes for which the foundations may apply for this status and the specifications of the minimum annual expenditure on charitable purposes and grants to other organisations will be released following consultation and will be subject to parliamentary oversight and scrutiny. This will provide organisations and supporters with clarity and certainty in relation to their DGR status. Under schedule 4 of the bill, Justice Reform Initiative Ltd and Transparency International Australia will be specifically listed as having DGR status. The existing DGR status of the Australian Sports Foundation's charitable fund and the Victorian Pride Centre will also be extended. The income tax extension granted to the Global Infrastructure Hub will be extended for an additional year, from 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2024, under schedule 5 of the bill. The GI Hub is funded from contributions made by G20 members. To avoid those contributions being subject to income tax, this exemption is granted.</para>
<para>The government is proposing further amendments to income tax law in schedule 6 of the bill with respect to general insurers to provide alignment with the AASB 17 accounting standards. This measure was also announced in the government's 2023-24 budget. The measure will alleviate the compliance burdens for general insurers from maintaining two different systems of record keeping, one for the purpose of tax and the other for accounting purposes. It will have effect for the income years commencing on or after 1 January 2023. The current non-arms-length expense rules for superannuation entities are replaced by schedule 7 of this bill by introducing new arrangements for general expenses and better target the application of these provisions. The current rules contain the potential for disproportionate outcomes that will be addressed by the measures in the bill while maintaining the broader integrity of the superannuation tax system.</para>
<para>There are additional concerns that when general expenses of a fund are determined to be non-arms-length, all fund income would be taxable at a 45 per cent rate. The measures in this bill will limit the amount of income which can be taxable at the 45 per cent rate due to a non-arms-length expense to a proportionate amount for self-managed superannuation funds and small APRA regulated funds. Large APRA regulated funds will, however, be exempted from the non-arms-length expense rules. This is to account for lower tax integrity concerns with this class of fund and additionally will lower their compliance burden. The rules were first introduced in the 2018-19 income year, and these changes will apply from the same income year.</para>
<para>The government is clarifying that the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, AFCA, has the jurisdiction to consider complaints that 'relate to superannuation'. It was held in MetLife v AFCA [2022] by the full court of the Federal Court that AFCA did not have jurisdiction over complaints relating to superannuation unless the complaint was specifically listed in section 1053 of the Corporations Act as a 'superannuation complaint' rather than simply relating to superannuation. This restrictive interpretation of section 1053 is not one that reflects the original policy intent of the section. The intention was to provide AFCA with the statutory power in relation to the types of superannuation complaints in section 1053, not to severely restrict the range of complaints relating to superannuation that could be heard by AFCA. The bill contains significant financial incentives for the small businesses that the Albanese government understand are the lifeblood of our community. It continues to provide substantial support for tradies, restaurants, hairdressers and all the other small businesses to have a greater share of the economic opportunities in our country. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
    <electorate>Casey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Small business is the heart and soul of the country and of my electorate of Casey. Small businesses are crucial to the Australian economy due to their contributions to employment, innovation, regional development, diversity, entrepreneurship, customer choice, tax revenue, export opportunities, community engagement and overall economic resilience. Supporting and nurturing the small business sector is essential for a healthy and robust Australian economy. This bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023, implements a range of changes to small business tax incentives, charity tax arrangements, superannuation complaints, superannuation transfer price rules and tax treatment for insurance.</para>
<para>I want to concentrate on the elements around small business. When I put my hand up to be a member of parliament, it was for many reasons, including to represent my community that I grew up in and dearly love. But it was also to bring small business knowledge and experience to this place to make sure laws were made to support small business, to protect small business, to nurture small business and to ensure the voice of small business is heard in this place. Labor's anti-business agenda on tax, on industrial relations and on energy is leaving small and family businesses behind.</para>
<para>Unfortunately, insolvency and bankruptcy are on the rise. Business is facing a challenging time of rising costs, rising inputs, supply chain pressures and decreasing revenue. Since Anthony Albanese has become Prime Minister, small business has been all but abandoned in Labor's draft national platform, and it is an afterthought in each budget.</para>
<para>The small-business community has been feeling invisible for the last 18 months. The unfortunate reality is that the Minister for Small Business has never run a small business and she rarely engages with them. It's symbolic that today, when the minister spoke, she had 15 minutes to talk about small business in this place and she spoke for five minutes. It's not always about quantity, but the quality was lacking as well. To spend five minutes talking about small business in our country sums up what the Minister for Small Business really thinks about the industry. How would she have any idea how to support small business through this inflation and cost-of-living crisis?</para>
<para>We've seen Labor consistently, time and time again, turn their back on small business. But small business employs almost half of Australia's private sector workforce, and it represents over 97 per cent of all Australian businesses. Despite running to 114 pages, Labor's platform mentions small business five times—only five times in 114 pages.</para>
<para>Given that a small business is most vulnerable to increasing costs and declining revenue, due to limited cash reserves, governments play an important role in supporting them: firstly, by creating strong economic conditions and, secondly, by creating legislation and regulation to make their life easier—and, dare I say it, even looking to remove red tape and regulation where possible. The reality is that a small business that has to close employs no-one.</para>
<para>There are many things in this bill that are lacking, but a great example of this is the energy incentive that the government touts and talks about. Again, this is classic Labor policy, where the political spin does not match the reality on the ground. They'll throw out the headline that it's a $100,000 reduction for a business, but it misses two points: a business has to actually have the money to invest in that energy saving, which in the current climate, they don't; and, to actually claim the full $100,000, which those opposite talk about, that business needs to earn a profit of $500,000 in the year. That small business has to earn $500,000 after investing all that money. It's a good headline—it's good spin—and they'll stand up and talk about how they're supporting small business, but it's actually not making a difference on the ground for business, and it shows again how this government just don't get it.</para>
<para>When I look through this bill, it has the words 'support for small business' in its title, but it actually decimates the instant asset write-off, depriving 26,500 medium-sized businesses of access to accelerated depreciation. This is and has been an important measure to support business investment. It was an important support that kept business and the economy going through COVID. It's a cancellation that will drive down investment, productivity and jobs. This is bad economic policy at a time when Australian families and small businesses are struggling under Labor's cost-of-living crisis. It's another example of this Prime Minister and this government making the wrong decisions and the Australian people having to pay.</para>
<para>While the coalition believes that this isn't a great bill, we will support it. But the reality is it doesn't go nearly far enough. The coalition will move amendments to recognise Labor's failure to support small and family businesses and extend the instant asset write-off back to the levels seen in the 2019-20 budget.</para>
<para>This means that the 26,500 businesses with aggregate turnovers of up of $50 million will be eligible to use the instant asset write-off. The asset threshold will increase from $20,000 to $30,000, allowing businesses to claim the depreciation on a wider range of assets. The reality is, and the member for Petrie wonderfully gave some great examples, $20,000 doesn't do a lot for a small business. This is a high-inflation environment where, unfortunately for small businesses, if they're fortunate to have $20,000 in the bank today, it's not worth the same as the $20,000 they had in the bank 18 months ago because of inflation caused by this government. They just don't get it. It aligns the eligibility with a small business company tax rate, and Labor's small business energy initiative measures, which are contained in this bill. It's a modest additional cost in the forward estimates, compared to Labor's measure.</para>
<para>After 18 months, the Australian people have worked out the Albanese Labor government. They know the government doesn't have a plan to improve the economy or to support small business. But we, the coalition, on this side of the chamber are focused on a back-to-basics economic agenda that will put fighting inflation and driving productivity growth at its centre. Inflation, overregulation and low productivity are aspiration killers. The coalition are committed to backing the aspirations of families, backing the aspirations of small businesses and backing the aspirations of Australians to succeed. The coalition will put the economic interests of Australians first, by focusing on strong economic management that brings down inflation, reduces debt and deficits and increases prosperity for all Australians. This requires a focus on supporting small business and entrepreneurship, delivering lower, simpler taxes and cutting red tape to drive innovation. It requires supporting technology uptakes in business and in the digital economy and in areas such as artificial intelligence and quantum.</para>
<para>I was disappointed to learn in an InnovationAus article this week that a US firm has been approached and is considered the frontrunner in the tender process to supply up to $200 million worth of quantum technologies to the government. This would be the government's largest single investment in quantum. Complicated by national security and defence interests, quantum is one of the four priority technologies that Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom have committed to process by 2025, under AUKUS pillar 2. Many in the local tech sector were surprised and disappointed. InnovationAus reported on the weekend:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… an expression of interest … process was started in August, with local and international firms hand-picked by the government invited to pitch their offerings and to put forward proposals for the financing of the plan.</para></quote>
<para>Companies in the process have been bound to strict non-disclosure agreements that keeps the process out of the public view. As the shadow minister for the digital economy said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Australia has established itself as a world leader in quantum computing and it's disappointing to hear that such a massive amount of taxpayer money could be invested without a tender and competitive process.</para></quote>
<para>The EOI was issued in August, after the release of the National Quantum Strategy, which focused on building sovereign capacity and local expertise. InnovationAus went on to say the US company:</para>
<quote><para class="block">PsiQuantum is considered a front-runner among the firms, with several sources claiming … that the EOI had been written in a way that benefits the company and its fusion-based approach to quantum computing.</para></quote>
<para>My understanding from the article is that PsiQuantum has deep connections in the defence department, with the former chief of staff of defence minister Richard Marles lobbying on behalf of the company, according to the government's register of lobbyists. What a coincidence. Unfortunately, this is what the industry has come to expect from this government. They're criticising the government for its lack of transparency in its approach to the local market and industry and the way it is seemingly discounting our local, world-renounced quantum sector bursting with potential and opportunities. What message does this send to other countries and international investors? Why is the government yet again ignoring our own country's innovation and skills? What opportunities are we wasting by automatically looking overseas for solutions before exploring the potential here at home? This is another example of why governments should not look to pick winners in industry policy but create an environment where the best products and businesses will succeed.</para>
<para>Australian small business is suffering because this PM does not understand small business, and, when he's making decisions that impact small businesses, he's always making the wrong decisions. When you look at the government's economic team, not one of them have worked in or with a small business. It's hard to find many across the aisle that have spent any time working in and with small business. I will acknowledge the member for Parramatta had one. He's in the chamber. So there's one. He's a lone wolf over there. I look forward to his contribution next.</para>
<para>We talk a lot about family businesses. I want to talk quickly about a great business I was able to visit in my electorate, Hop Hen Brewing. Mike and Jodie are the owners. They're teachers and they decided to follow their passion and start their own brewery. They started that from nothing but a dream, but they now employ over 14 locals in hospitality and manufacturing jobs. There's an ecosystem that they've created in our community and in Lilydale. They sponsor community organisations like the Mount Evelyn Football Club and the Mount Evelyn Cricket Club. That's what small businesses do. They create local jobs, they create local opportunities for young people and they support local community organisations, and that's why we need to continue to support them. That's why the coalition's amendment will restore the instant asset write-off to the levels introduced in the 2019 budget. It's why we will continue to focus on policies that will drive productivity at a time when it has experienced a historic collapse under Labor and that will grow the economy and support Australians.</para>
<para>Australians need a government that supports aspiration, not attacks it. Australians need a government that backs business to create jobs and doesn't fight it. Only a Peter Dutton Liberal government will deliver the strong economic management that will support Australian jobs, bring down inflation and fund the essential services Australians deserve.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHARLTON</name>
    <name.id>I8M</name.id>
    <electorate>Parramatta</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is true that small businesses are incredibly important for Australia. In fact, small businesses make up 98 per cent of all businesses in Australia. They make up more than 60 per cent of all employment in Australia, and they make up more than half of all GDP in Australia. This is a sector which unquestionably powers the Australian economy and accounts for many of the livelihoods of the people in my electorate and electorates right around Australia. So it is incredibly important that we have coherent and positive policies to support the small-business sector. Now, that starts with understanding the small-business sector, and, unfortunately, what we have from the other side is a series of policies which are a world away and completely irrelevant to the daily challenges that small businesses face.</para>
<para>The member for Casey had the temerity to refer to the 'back to basics' policy of the shadow Treasurer. Back to basics is an interesting term for an economic policy. I don't know if the shadow Treasurer is fully up to speed with what 'basic' means in the slang amongst young people, but he certainly hit the nail on the head if he is, because it's a policy that has almost no substance and no relevance to small businesses. It's full of high minded philosophical concepts like fiscal policy, debt, inflation and productivity but nothing of the nuts and bolts of actually running a small business and nothing of the practicality of going in, day in, day out, and opening up the shop, employing the workers, serving the customers, closing the door and keeping those doors open. These are the realities of small business for Australians. These are the nuts and bolts issues that they want support with. The idea of some complex, back-to-basics, high-level analysis of the macroeconomy does not speak to their experience.</para>
<para>The member for Casey came in here. In his speech about small business, the big issue that he wanted to address was quantum computing—the issue on the mind of every Australian small-business owner! Whether it be a cafe or a pub, they're all interested in quantum computing. You don't hear about anything but quantum computing when you go and talk to small businesses. When you go to the shops, the pubs and the hairdressers, it's on the tip of their tongue: quantum computing! The member for Casey went on and on about PsiQuantum and the proposal for a tender, which he has some beef with, from an article that he'd read in the newspaper this morning. The truth is it has absolutely nothing to do with the daily realities of small businesses.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHARLTON</name>
    <name.id>I8M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm going to take a lot of interjections from the member—I don't really know what you're saying, but I can hear you mumbling over there.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Howarth</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Can you get a ute for 20 grand?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHARLTON</name>
    <name.id>I8M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's your question? It's a great question. The instant asset write-off—the one policy that was referred to by those opposite—is actually a policy that was introduced by Labor in 2008, and it has been copied and perpetuated by the opposition. So far, their ideas are: back to basics on fiscal policy—snore from the small-business sector; some bizarre obsession with quantum computing—totally irrelevant to the small-business sector; and a policy that Labor began and the coalition perpetuated. Terrific support there for small business from the coalition! They're a dollar short and a day late when it comes to actually understanding and helping small businesses with the realities they face every day.</para>
<para>Let me tell you a little bit about the challenges that small businesses really face, that they're really struggling with. They're struggling with the regulatory burden of hiring new workers. It is true that the hardest worker for any business to hire is the first worker. Going from having no workers in your business—a start-up just run by you—to employing your first worker is an enormous challenge and a big hurdle for many small businesses. The research suggests that it can take more than 20 hours just to set up the basic administration: paying the worker, providing superannuation, meeting OH&S requirements, record-keeping obligations and tax.</para>
<para>The truth is that most small businesses, when they start out, do not have the systems in place to make those early employment decisions and to employ people in a way that is efficient and simple for them. Most of those businesses have an enormous regulatory and compliance burden when it comes to hiring that first worker. Whether it be their legal status, their contract, their pay-as-you-go withholding or their understanding of the award rules, these are real challenges that businesses face when they hire their first employee. It is a big impediment to small businesses in Australia when they take that step forward towards growth and they start to open up the doors, grow their business and take on their first workers. For a small business, the compliance cost of making those early employment decisions can be five times higher than for larger businesses. That's a real burden that small businesses face and a real constraint on employment in this country, because small businesses employ two-thirds of all Australians. That's a real issue that small businesses are grappling with.</para>
<para>Another issue that small businesses grapple with is red tape. Small-business people are busy serving their customers, running their business, managing their workforce and controlling their cash flow. On top of that, they have a significant compliance burden from government. A recent study found that excess red tape was costing Australian businesses $9.3 billion every year. That's just small businesses. More than two-thirds of this compliance cost was tax compliance. That's $6.2 billion for small businesses just on tax compliance activities. That cost, per business, is more than 200 times larger than for large businesses in Australia. Even though that small business has a much smaller workforce and a much smaller P&L, it still has to do many of the same things that big businesses have to do, albeit with much restricted financial capacity.</para>
<para>The regulatory burden that we place on small businesses is something that we must be deeply conscious of. It is a real issue that keeps small-business owners away from their customers, keeps them away from their business and keeps them away—in many cases—from their families. That's where that time comes from—it comes from the time at the end of the day or early in the morning, when they should be going home and living their lives. The doors of the shop are closed, the business is finished for the day, but they have to start their compliance activities for government.</para>
<para>This is another real challenge, a challenge the opposition has presented no solutions for. Of course, the biggest problem every small business faces is the daily grind of cash flow. Knowing that money is going to come through the door so it can pay its workers, keep the lights on and pay its bills—that's the stress that every small business in my electorate lives with every single day. A recent study found that one of the biggest issues that small businesses face in terms of cash flow is late payments from larger businesses. This has a massive impact on small businesses. With all the services they provide to larger businesses, they end up waiting 30 days, 60 days or, in some cases, 90 days for the money to come in. A recent study found that 60 per cent of small-business owners across Australia had experienced cash flow problems last year. In order to get through a period of poor cash flow, 27 per cent of small-business owners had resorted to using their personal savings for their business. They dipped into their own savings, extended the mortgages on their homes, and borrowed from family and friends. A third of small-business owners are doing that because of the cash flow challenges they face today.</para>
<para>One of the biggest issues—one we can be addressing in this parliament—is late payment and trade credit terms from large businesses. A recent study from Xero found that $216 billion paid by large firms to small firms was late—that's $200 billion of money owed to small businesses that is not being paid to them on time. That is a creating a cash flow crunch for those businesses. Half of that money was late. Half of that money was due to the small businesses under the contractual terms provided by the big businesses, and it was late. That's $115 billion in late payments, meaning that small businesses are losing $7 billion in working capital every single year. In 2023, the situation hasn't improved. Xero's report <inline font-style="italic">Money </inline><inline font-style="italic">m</inline><inline font-style="italic">atters</inline> indicates that 24 per cent of small businesses find themselves spending time chasing overdue payments, having to call up the big businesses—recognising a huge imbalance of power between the small business and the big businesses—begging those big businesses merely to pay on time the money that they owe. This is the crunch that small-business families face every single day. They're worrying about getting that money in just so they can pay it out to the workers and the bills that are rolling through the door.</para>
<para>There are lots of opportunities for us to support small businesses, and this bill contains a lot of them. One of those opportunities is supporting small businesses with digital capability. This really is a revolution in the way that small business works. As we get into the detail, I note that the interjections have wound down because I think we have exhausted the knowledge of the member opposite. But I'm still going to go through some of this detail because I think it's important.</para>
<para><inline font-style="italic">An opposition member interjecting</inline>—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHARLTON</name>
    <name.id>I8M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There we go, I've provoked you. Terrific—it's good to see you wake up. The key opportunity here for small businesses is the digital economy. It used to be the case that IT systems that supported business were available only to large businesses. They required big mainframes, large IT investments, big network investments, and those were simply out of reach of most small businesses. But today, with the benefit of cloud computing and a range of new apps, suddenly a lot of those technologies are available to small businesses. Technologies that enable small businesses to engage in online marketing, to do e-invoicing, to run their accounting in the cloud, to manage suppliers and HR in the cloud—all of this means is that digital technologies which were once not available to small businesses now are available and can help them with all of the tasks they have to do in the management of their business. That's why this bill is so important.</para>
<para>This bill provides a lot of support for small businesses. It provides incentives to help small businesses save on their energy bills, and, under this proposal, small businesses with an aggregate turnover of less than $50 million per year will be able to claim an additional 20 per cent tax deduction for eligible assets that enhance electrification and energy efficiency. This is real support for the cash flow of businesses when they're trying to do the right thing. They're trying to support the energy transition and reduce their own energy bills, and this bill gives them the help they need to get over the upfront hurdle of that cost. Right now, at a time when energy bills are so high, I couldn't think of a more valuable support for Australian small businesses, which are struggling with their cash flow and struggling to make ends meet in a difficult environment. This initiative will help restauranteurs, manufacturers, tradies and hairdressers. It will enable up to 3.8 million small businesses to share in the energy transition that is now underway.</para>
<para>Of course, there are many more challenges that small businesses face. They face the challenges of cash flow and red tape. They face challenges in hiring and managing workers, particularly when they employ their first worker, whose compliance, in many cases, can be so burdensome to control. This bill doesn't address all of these challenges, but it contains a series of important and concrete steps to take us forward. These concrete steps have been no more important at any time than they are today, at a time when small businesses are struggling with so many of the elements of a difficult and complex financial and economic environment. That's why I commend this bill to the House.</para>
<para>Sittings suspen d ed from 13:02 to 16:0 2</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VAN MANEN</name>
    <name.id>188315</name.id>
    <electorate>Forde</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's always a pleasure to rise in this place and speak about small business. Small businesses are the backbone of our community right across this country. They employ nearly half of the Australian workforce; they make up 95-plus per cent of businesses in Australia. It is so important that they have the opportunity to be dynamic, that they have the opportunity to grow, that they have the opportunity to employ people and, most importantly, they have the incentive, because they can see value in the future, to do all of those things. It makes our country a better place for everybody.</para>
<para>The bill before us, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023, touches on a range of measures, including, in schedule 1, a $20,000 instant asset write-off for businesses with a turnover up to $10 million. Schedule 2 implements a bonus for small business energy incentives for small to medium businesses. Schedule 3 deals with a new class of DGR recipients. Schedule 4 make some specific DGR listings. Schedules 5, 6 and 7 deal with some other tax and superannuation related matters. Schedule 8 deals with a matter in relation to a MetLife decision codifying the applicable responsibilities of AFCA to adjudicate on certain claims within super funds.</para>
<para>I want to focus on the small business component of this bill. Once again, it shows that the Labor Party don't support small business and haven't done so for a long time. We see before us at present in the House an IR bill that is only going to do more damage to small business. But let's have a look at Labor's record on small business.</para>
<para>They've consistently turned their backs on the small-business community. When they were last in government they abolished the entrepreneur tax offset and failed to deliver a promised tax cut for small business. Labor opposed the coalition government's enterprise tax plan when first legislated, denying tax relief to millions of small-to-medium businesses. The now Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, said at the time that small-business tax cuts were not worth the money and that Labor were proud to oppose those tax cuts. The now Finance Minister, Katie Gallagher, called the legislation of small-business tax cuts an absolute disgrace. In total, Labor voted against tax relief for small-to-medium businesses 15 times in the last parliament. Labor went on to promise $387 billion of extra taxes at the 2019 election. Since Anthony Albanese became Prime Minister, we have seen businesses all but abandoned under the Labor's draft national platform, and they are an afterthought in each and every budget.</para>
<para>Small business employs around half of Australia's private sector workforce and represents over 97 per cent of all Australian businesses. Despite running to 149 pages, Labor's platform makes only five mentions of small business, compared to 98 mentions of the union movement, 25 mentions of regulation, 28 of renewables, 15 of tax, eight of uranium, eight of the United Nations and 11 of nuclear weapons. Labor just show they simply do not understand small business. As we look at the IR bill before us in the House, there is no more evidence than that.</para>
<para>The coalition will support this bill, but we don't think it goes far enough. This bill decimates the instant asset write-off that the coalition brought in to assist small-to-medium business in cleaning up their balance sheets so they didn't have to run depreciation schedules and a whole bunch of paperwork and expense with their accountants each and every year. They were able to buy an asset and write it off instantaneously, thereby providing some tax incentive as well as, importantly, saving on their bookkeeping. We have moved an amendment to this provision of the bill to increase the threshold from $20,000 to $30,000, allowing businesses to claim the accelerated depreciation on a wider range of assets, and I think that is a very sensible move. It reflects our support of and encouragement of small business.</para>
<para>In all of this, it's important to consider the economic circumstances we find ourselves in. As we stand here today, we hear much debate about households and the cost of living for households, which is a very important issue. But our small-to-medium business sector is impacted by these cost increases as well, and we hear far less about that. Yet these are the businesses that are employing our mums and dads who are struggling with the cost of living. It's a double whammy in many cases because many of these small-to-medium business owners also have their house on the line each and every day. They're turning up and opening their doors and employing people, and more often than not the small-business owner is the last person to be paid. They pay their employees and they pay their suppliers and they are the last one to write out a check on a Friday afternoon for them and their household. I have spoken to any number of my local small businesses over the last little while about the increased cost of electricity, rent, input costs and transport costs. I was talking to a business only last week whose freight costs have gone up from about $75,000 a year to nearly $175,000 a year with no great increase in turnover or revenue. This is not even being considered when we are talking about these issues for our small businesses.</para>
<para>We accept that in this bill we are seeing small businesses potentially benefit from a small-business energy incentive measure. That's a modest measure to allow businesses to acquire more energy efficient appliances, put solar panels on their roofs and do all those sorts of things. All of those are sensible measures, but at the end of the day, if businesses are struggling to make ends meet, where are they going to get the money for these things in the first place? They are busy trying to keep their doors open, and we see no effort whatsoever by this government to reduce the rate of inflation and reduce interest rates so that these input costs to small business that they are paying a very high price for—and it's important to remember they generally pay a higher interest rate on their finance than people who have a mortgage do. So those small-business loan costs have had a major impact on their bottom line.</para>
<para>As I said before, small-business lease costs have risen in many cases around seven per cent. That is a very significant impact on their cost of doing business. At the same time we're seeing the cost-of-living crisis continue to bite into household expenditure, so a lot of these small to medium businesses—maybe they're a retail business, a cafe or a local restaurant—are seeing their customers hit by these cost-of-living increases and therefore their revenue, patronage and sales falling at the same time their costs are increasing. That is never a position you want to be in in small business. If your costs are increasing, you want your revenue to be growing at the same time, but they're not seeing that.</para>
<para>In addition, we have seen productivity fall over the past year by nearly four per cent. We've seen a range of cost increases on small business, and, added to that, there are increasing regulatory impacts on small business, which is also a cost that has not been quantified anywhere. At the same time we have seen this government distracted from the real job of dealing with these issues, whether it's household cost-of-living increases and the issues that arise from that or it's these issues facing small to medium business. These measures in this bill, whilst going a little way to support small to medium business, do very little to offset the actual economic impacts that are being delivered by this government not addressing the issues of rising interest rates, rising inflation, rising energy costs and a range of other measures. I think it is incumbent on this government to get back to basics and focus on the job that they need to do to deal with these cost-of-living issues.</para>
<para>In comparison, the coalition government had a great track record in supporting small business with energy costs. The coalition had ensured affordable and reliable power for small business and recognised it was critical to enable them to prosper, grow and create more jobs in the Australian economy. In office, the coalition delivered tailored advice to help small business find the best energy deals available and use energy more efficiently. The current government scrapped it. Reducing energy prices for small business by introducing the default market offer was another measure of the coalition government to ensure small businesses were protected from excessively high prices and had a reference price when searching for an energy provider.</para>
<para>The coalition government provided small family businesses with grants of up to $20,000 to help them with their energy costs and invest in technology to reduce their energy consumption. The coalition helped high-energy-using businesses to improve their energy efficiency and save on energy costs by delivering grants of up to $25,000. The coalition invested in future energy technology that would support jobs, strengthen our economy and reduce emissions. This not only cut emissions but also delivered reliable energy for Australia, which it needs to ensure that you have a continued reduction in the price of electricity and that the cost of electricity to businesses and households continues to fall. They are just some of the measures that the coalition government put in place to ensure that we supported small to medium businesses not just through the tax system but through the energy system and ensure they are able to meet their commitments to be successful and employ the Australian people.</para>
<para>As I said, we're not going to oppose this bill, but we are proposing an amendment to increase the threshold for accelerated depreciation from $20,000 to $30,000, and I commend that amendment to the House. More importantly—and I want to finish on this note—once again we are seeing that it is the coalition that is standing here, making amendments to a bill in order to improve outcomes for small to medium sized businesses. Those opposite in the government do not understand small business, don't care for small business and are beholden to their unions. Through other bills in this House they will seek to continue to damage small to medium sized businesses well into the future. The sooner we have a coalition government back to look after small to medium sized businesses, the better for this country.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MILLER-FROST</name>
    <name.id>296272</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023, contains a number of measures, but today I'm going to focus on schedules 1 and 2 and what these measures mean for small business in Australia.</para>
<para>The Albanese government knows that small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy and our communities, and our budget invests in the security and certainty they need to thrive. There are approximately 86,000 small businesses in South Australia, and they provide important goods and services to the community and to other businesses across all sectors of the economy.</para>
<para>Ninety-seven per cent of businesses in Australia meet the category of 'small business', and small business is a major employer. Businesses defined as 'small' by the ATO—that is, those employing 19 or fewer employees—collectively employ over five million people across the country, and this accounts for about 42 per cent of the workforce. Small business also employs about a third of young Australians and about 40 per cent of apprentices, so it's a really important part of our economy.</para>
<para>A thriving small-business sector means a thriving economy, and that can only benefit all Australians either through their employment or through the goods and services available to them. I've had the pleasure of visiting many small businesses in my electorate both as a customer and, more recently, as their local MP, from food businesses like award-winning Kytons Bakery, an Adelaide institution, and the many fantastic restaurants across Boothby, wineries like Patritti wine, retail shops, wholesalers, manufacturers and health businesses, through to high-tech modern manufacturing, including, recently, Infinitus Aero, which is making electric aeroplanes—I wasn't brave enough to go up yet—electronics manufacturer REDARC, and Micro-X, which makes equipment for stroke ambulances and portable X-rays, some of which have been sent to Ukraine.</para>
<para>Each of these businesses is driven by passion and expertise and the entrepreneurial spirit and each is committed to contributing to their local community. But small business has been doing it tough over the past decade. When I spoke to small businesses during the campaign for the 2022 election they talked to me about the rising costs of doing business. They talked to me about the skills shortage across all sectors of the economy. They talked to me about the increasing red tape that stood in the way of them doing business and growing their businesses. They told me that for all of the rhetoric they heard from the former Liberal-National government—that the Liberal-National government supported small business—that was not what they experienced on the ground. They told me what was actually happening, and that was that the Liberal-National government only supported the big end of town, the big businesses. The small businesses told me that they had felt ignored.</para>
<para>I heard what small businesses told me during the campaign, and I'm here to tell them that this Albanese Labor government heard their concerns and that we understand. This government is making a number of changes to provide an environment where small businesses can grow and thrive. This bill provides some more support for small businesses, and I welcome it.</para>
<para>Schedule 1 to the bill increases the instant asset write-off threshold to $20,000 until 30 June 2024, to improve cash flow and reduce compliance costs for small businesses. The $20,000 instant asset write-off was announced in the 2023-24 budget, and small businesses with an aggregated annual turnover of less than $10 million will be able to immediately deduct eligible assets costing less than $20,000 from 1 July 2023 until 30 June 2024. Importantly, the $20,000 instant asset write-off will apply on a per-asset basis so that small businesses can write off multiple assets instantly. Assets costing $20,000 or more can continue to be placed in the small-business simplified depreciation pool and be depreciated at 15 per cent in the first income year and 30 per cent in income years thereafter. The $20,000 instant asset write-off will provide cash-flow support and simplification benefits for up to 3.8 million small businesses.</para>
<para>Many of the businesses I talk to tell me they want to grow, and this instant asset write-off will help them with some of the additional equipment required to do this. Others are simply needing to replace equipment that is reaching its end of life or being superseded. Some will use this to make their businesses more efficient, and this will help with the required retooling. While businesses budget for operational costs of doing business, the capital costs and capital replacement costs of expensive assets can be a budget blip that puts financial strain on the business, hence they can be delayed or cancelled. Enabling the instant asset write-off will free up cash flow so that businesses can invest to be more efficient, to grow or simply to meet a changing market. This government is committed to ensuring that small businesses have every opportunity to thrive and grow, and this instant asset write-off is an option that I am sure will be very welcome.</para>
<para>The second schedule is the small-business energy incentive. This helps small to medium businesses electrify and, therefore, save on their energy bills. We know that energy bills have been rising over the past decade—a decade when we should have been transitioning to renewables, the cheapest form of power, instead of remaining reliant on fossil fuels and being exposed to international energy market prices.</para>
<para>In South Australia, we've already provided $650 for energy relief for eligible small businesses and we know that wholesale energy prices have started to come down thanks to the work of Minister Bowen and will in time flow through to retail prices. But many businesses, many entrepreneurs, want to be the masters of their own destiny in this area as well. They want to participate in the transition to cheaper renewable energy and they want to cut their carbon emissions. So schedule 2 in this bill, the small-business energy incentive, will enable businesses to invest in electrifying heating and cooling systems, to invest in more efficient appliances and to participate in the energy transition through installing batteries and heat pumps.</para>
<para>These assets will enable businesses to minimise their power bills through more efficient energy use, both now and into the future. They will also be able to cut their carbon emissions, something that many of them are passionate about and that, increasingly, many of their customers and consumers are interested in. Assets like batteries also have additional benefits in enabling businesses to be blackoutproof. So, when a local blackout occurs—such as what we see time to time from storms, with damage to local power infrastructure—the battery continues to provide power and protect valuable assets such as those that require refrigeration.</para>
<para>To the detail: businesses with aggregated annual turnover of less than $50 million will have access to a bonus 20 per cent tax deduction for eligible assets supporting electrification and more efficient energy use on 1 July 2023 until 30 June 2024. Up to $100,000 of total expenditure will be eligible for the incentive, and the maximum bonus tax deduction will be $20,000. A broad range of depreciating assets as well as upgrades to existing assets will be eligible, and it will help small businesses make investments in electrifying heating and cooling, upgrading to more efficient fridges and induction cooktops, and installing batteries and heat pumps.</para>
<para>Tradies, manufacturers, restaurants, hairdressers, real estate agents and other small businesses are the backbone of the communities across Australia, and this incentive helps ensure businesses share in the benefits and opportunities of the energy transition that's now finally under way. It will support investments that deliver ongoing power bill savings for businesses while at the same time helping Australia lower emissions. Up to 3.8 million small and medium businesses will be eligible to access the small-business energy incentive and the benefits it provides.</para>
<para>Small business is a vital part of the economy, a vital part of the employment market and a vital part of the community, and it provides so many goods and services that make our way of life here in Australia. We thank them for their part in all of this and for their part in growing the economy. The Albanese Labor government is committed to providing an environment where small businesses can grow and thrive. This bill provides two such measures, which I'm sure will be welcomed by them.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I welcome this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023, to better support small businesses to improve cash flow and reduce compliance costs, including the many small businesses in my electorate of Warringah. Small businesses make up a staggering 97.3 per cent of businesses in Australia. They are literally the backbone of our economy—</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">A division having been called in the House of Representatives—</inline></para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 16 : 25 to 16 : 37</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Small businesses make a staggering 97.3 per cent of businesses in Australia. They are literally the backbone of our economy and make my electorate of Warringah a vibrant hub of economic activity. In Warringah alone there are more than 8,000 small-business employers. From 2020 to 2021, more than five million Australians were employed by small businesses, and small businesses contributed some 33 per cent of Australia's total GDP. But small businesses are facing yet another crisis following the devastating impacts of COVID over several years. Only in August this year, data showed give per cent of Australian businesses failed in the previous 12 months—the worst rate since the global financial crisis in the late 2000s. Half of the businesses that started in 2019 were permanently closed by June this year, according to ABS data.</para>
<para>A few months ago I met with the Treasurer to discuss with him the perfect storm of challenges being faced by businesses in my constituency. These include: the cost of living and high interest rates; high levels of stress following the COVID-19 pandemic; high levels of borrowing; increased levels of debt; rent rises, with increased interest rates and landlord-deferred rents coming due; and the impact of inflation, meaning consumers are spending less. Raising interest rates is seeking to curb inflation—one of the highest we have seen for decades—but this comes at the expense of our small businesses. From cafes to boutiques, clothing stores to local hardware stores and family-run grocery shops, fewer people are coming through the door, and those who are spends less than they have in the past.</para>
<para>If ever there were a time to support small business, it is now. Small businesses face a unique set of operational challenges, particularly managing cash flow and disproportionately high regulatory costs. I welcome this bill and the support it will provide to small businesses with the provision for greater value to be applied to asset write-offs. It provides additional support for writing off assets that support them in energy efficiency. This helps further reduce increasing electricity costs faced by businesses, which are inflationary in themselves. These two initiatives are to be applauded.</para>
<para>The $20,000 instant asset write-off was introduced several times by the previous coalition government, including during the COVID-19 pandemic. The impact when it ended was felt by many small businesses. So how does it work? Assets costing $20,000 or more can be placed into the small business simplified depreciation pool and depreciated at 15 per cent in the first income year and 30 per cent each income year thereafter. During my consultations in relation to this bill, both in my electorate and with industry bodies such as the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia, it became clear that businesses need greater certainty. Robyn Jacobson from the Tax Institute says it best: the 'constant tinkering' of the scheme has made it difficult for businesses to keep on top of current laws and what is on offer to help ease the burden on them.</para>
<para>This bill, I would argue, is too limited, providing only for the 2023-24 reporting year, half of which is now almost gone. It provides limited opportunity for businesses to take advantage and make capital decisions. It undermines the utility of the bill in achieving its objectives. We know from the COVID-19 pandemic that, while the uptake of this initiative was initially slow in its first year, with many small to medium enterprises unaware of the increase, the scheme quickly grew in popularity through the pandemic. So it's likely here that, because half the year has already gone, there just won't be the opportunity for the full uptake. It's clear that increasing the amount of the write-off would provide even greater support for the economy and small businesses, allowing businesses to continue to invest when necessary to ensure their resilience. The support offered by this bill will provide life-saving support for businesses struggling to make ends meet and turn a profit right now. The Council of Small Business Organisations Australia noted recently:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Almost 43 per cent of small businesses are not breaking even and the majority of owners are working longer hours than average and paying themselves less than the average wage to protect their business—</para></quote>
<para>and support their employees.</para>
<para>I also welcome the small-business energy incentive in this bill. It will help businesses address the other major issue they face: the rising cost of energy proportional to their cash flow. The June 2023 energy consumer sentiment survey recently released by Energy Consumers Australia reveals that 59 per cent of small-business people are more concerned about paying their electricity bills than they were a year ago. We know for a fact that decoupling from fossil fuels is anti-inflationary. We can get price certainty by moving to renewable energies and assisting small businesses in doing that. So we need to support small businesses and homes to electrify and benefit from an ever decarbonising grid and become more energy-efficient to reduce their energy consumption. The small-business energy incentive will support small and medium businesses to electrify, improve their energy efficiency and save on their energy bills. The bonus deduction applies to the cost of eligible assets and improvements up to a maximum amount of $100,000, with the maximum bonus deduction being $20,000. It will help small businesses with buying heat pumps, cooling systems, batteries and more efficient appliances, like fridges, and replacing LEDs. There are a number of energy efficiency measures open to them.</para>
<para>The task of decarbonising of our economy rests heavily on our homes and businesses, and governments should be providing support to accelerate the transition and deliver cost savings to homes and businesses. This is a huge, long-term task, one that is not going to be addressed by this bill, which is limited to simply 12 months, six of which have already gone by. I'm concerned that most businesses will not even know of its existence this side of Christmas. By the time they do, it will probably be too late to really plan to take advantage of it in the final quarter of the financial year. By the time they do, there will be insufficient time to consider, scope and cost potential opportunities to make use of this incentive. Small-business owners are busy running their businesses, which are under immense pressure at the moment. They need more time and awareness to make use of these opportunities provided for in the bill. I would say to the government that, if they are genuine in providing this assistance to small businesses, then the time frame in which these measures are available must be extended. I'll be supporting this bill, but I will also be moving amendments to increase the amount for the instant asset write-off and the energy incentive to extend it for another year, because, if we are going to be genuine about these measures, we have to put them within a time frame where businesses will actually be able to make use of them. If not, it is window dressing and posturing.</para>
<para>It is also really important that the responsible minister should report back to the parliament on its effectiveness in assisting small businesses. Too often in this place, big business has a very loud voice and very quick and easy access to government, but not often enough do we hear and consider the impacts of policies on small business. That is an important aspect that the government should take on board, and it should do better reporting in that respect. The bill is a good start, but I think it can be better, and I urge the government to increase the asset write-off caps and the period in which they are available to small businesses.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs PHILLIPS</name>
    <name.id>147140</name.id>
    <electorate>Gilmore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm absolutely delighted to rise today in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023. In regional areas, like my electorate of Gilmore on the New South Wales South Coast, small business is what keeps the heart of our community pumping. Run by local people for local people, these businesses put in the hard yards every single day to make their communities better. They're our neighbours, our friends, our family. They often feel like family even when they are not: the local corner store, the newsagency, the grocery store, the swim school, the dairy farm, the winery, the brewhouse, the bakery, the pub—I could go on. Many started in local families, who have held onto those businesses and grown them into tourism meccas, international drawcards or just the go-to spot for local people to hang out. It didn't happen overnight, and it wasn't easy.</para>
<para>I grew up on a dairy farm, which is still there today—a small business that has grown. My husband, a carpenter, runs his own small business as well, as he's done for many years. I know the struggles small businesses face. I've been there as well, like so many people. That's why I am so incredibly proud to be part of a government that is working to support small businesses to grow, to diversify and to meet the challenges of a changing energy market.</para>
<para>We all know that energy prices have been rapidly going up, pushed by global challenges and a former government that spent a decade without a cohesive energy policy. We've seen it in our homes, and this government has worked to do what it can to bring those prices down. At the same time, we've supported eligible households with $500 in energy bill relief, a fantastic support that is helping millions of households right across Australia to deal with the cost of living.</para>
<para>Small businesses have probably felt this brunt more than others—no shock there. Their outputs are higher, their energy needs are higher, and so, of course, are their costs. To help them, this bill introduces the small-business energy incentive, to help small and medium sized businesses electrify and save on their energy bills. Businesses with an aggregated annual turnover of less than $50 million will, from 1 July until 30 June next year, have access to a bonus 20 per cent tax deduction for eligible assets supporting electrification and more efficient use of energy. Up to $100,000 of total expenditure will be eligible for the incentive, with the maximum bonus tax deduction being $20,000. This incentive will help small businesses to make investments like electrifying their heating and cooling systems, upgrading to more efficient fridges and induction cooktops and installing batteries and heat pumps. Not only is this going to help with the upfront cost or depreciation of these assets; there will also be the long-term impact on electricity bills, helping small businesses to save in the long run as well.</para>
<para>It has been clear for a long time that businesses have been working to make some of these changes themselves. Small-business owners can see the benefits in upgrading their equipment, making it more modern, easier to use, easier to maintain, better on the environment and, most of all, cheaper. Of course they can. But they've spent a decade without the right government support to help them do that. That's what we are trying to do—give businesses incentives, give them support and help them deal with the global economic climate that is driving up electricity prices. As a happy bonus, this will also help to reduce their impact on the climate. Up to 3.8 million small and medium-sized businesses will be eligible. How great is that? This is just one way we are helping businesses with their energy needs.</para>
<para>I want to briefly touch on another program that I have been so delighted to support as part of the Albanese government, which is helping small businesses with practical support to reduce their energy costs. The Energy Efficiency Grants for Small and Medium Sized Enterprises program is a $62 million grants program designed to help businesses become more energy efficient, to ease pressure on their energy bills and to reduce emissions. The program provides grants of between $10,000 and $25,000 to SMEs in all industry sectors to help them undertake energy-saving measures such as upgrading or replacing existing air conditioners with high-efficiency units, replacing gas-heating boilers with heat pumps, or purchasing tools to monitor energy use—and more. There is so much opportunity.</para>
<para>I was absolutely delighted to see local businesses in my electorate of Gilmore on the New South Wales South Coast benefit from this fantastic program. Hubert Estate, one of those family run tourism drawcards that I mentioned earlier, a truly beautiful winery in the Ulladulla area, has taken many steps to improve its energy efficiency and reduce its impact on the environment. I was really happy to deliver $25,000 as part of that program to Hubert Estate for a compressed air system. Meadows Swim School in Nowra, another locally owned and run business, was successful under the program for a heat pump upgrade worth $25,000, which was a big help for a small local swim school. Dungowan Erowal Bay, a beautiful waterfront holiday accommodation in stunning Jervis Bay, received $25,000 to replace inefficient air conditioning units with modern high-efficiency units, helping the business, helping boost tourism and helping the environment—win, win, win. Another fascinating small business, <inline font-style="italic">Cyber Heroes</inline>, a podcast hosted by two local fellows giving guidance on protecting yourself from cybercrime and becoming cybersavvy, received more than $12,000 to replace non-LED lights and add automation control. This is a small business helping people around the country with one of our great modern challenges, so we're helping them.</para>
<para>The diversity of these recipients and what they have chosen to put the grants towards is simply fabulous and demonstrates our government's commitment to working with small business to give them the support they need now and into the future. They're just a couple of examples on the energy front of how we are supporting small and medium-sized businesses, and it's great to see this bill extending that even further.</para>
<para>That's not all this bill does. Another part of the changes we are introducing today is something else I know will be welcomed with open arms by local small businesses—the $20,000 instant asset write-off. Schedule 1 of this bill increases the instant asset write-off threshold to $20,000 until 30 June 2024, to improve cash flow and reduce compliance costs for small businesses. This is something we announced as part of the 2023-24 budget, and I'm delighted to see it being delivered. Small businesses with an aggregated annual turnover of less than $10 million will be able to immediately deduct eligible assets costing less than $20,000 this financial year. It will apply on a per asset basis, so businesses can write off multiple assets—simplicity, reducing red tape, as they say, and increasing cash flow when it's needed most. Music to small business ears, I'm sure. That's what we are delivering today, because we know it's what they need and want and we know that it will make a difference. Of course assets over $20,000 can continue to be placed into the small-business simplified depreciation pool, depreciated at 15 per cent in the first income year and 30 per cent each income year thereafter.</para>
<para>On top of support for small businesses, this bill is also supporting registered charities. The bill provides a path for up to 28 community foundations to be endorsed by the Commissioner of Taxation as deductible gift recipients, providing an incentive for donations to these foundations for the important work they do in our community. This is working towards our government's goal of doubling philanthropy by 2030.</para>
<para>I will always do everything I can to support local businesses, to celebrate them and to thank them for the work they do in our community. We've seen the difference small businesses make to communities. There's no better example than during the 2019-20 bushfires, when small businesses stepped up to support our recovery, donated goods, acted as community hubs, stayed open for incredible hours and were just simply there for local people and tourists alike through some of our hardest times. We thank them so much for that. In amongst all the tragedy and hardship we were surrounded with, it was a beautiful display of the true South Coast spirit, and we genuinely thank them from the bottom of our hearts for that.</para>
<para>Small businesses are the lifeblood of our regions, and we need to do everything we can to help them through some of these hard economic times. That's what this government is doing, and this bill is just one piece of that puzzle. I am proud to be supporting it. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SHARKIE</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate>Mayo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. Anyone who doesn't think that in this parliament really hasn't surveyed their community, because, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics in June 2023, businesses with zero to 19 employees, defined as small businesses, accounted for 97.3 per cent of all Australian businesses. If we include medium businesses—those with, say, 20 to 199 employees—the total number of small to medium businesses represented 98 per cent of all businesses in this country.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Federation Chamber is now suspended until quorum is present.</para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 16:56 to 17:01</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">(</inline> <inline font-style="italic">Quorum formed)</inline></para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SHARKIE</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As I was saying, businesses with zero to 19 employees are defined as a small business, and they account for 97.3 per cent of businesses in Australia. If we include medium businesses—those with 20 to 199 employees, which can be your average IGA—the total number of small and medium businesses represents 98 per cent of all businesses in this country, of which 98.3 per cent have an annual turnover of $10 million or less. One distinction we always need to make, when talking about turnover, is that turnover is not profit. When we're looking at businesses and we're defining a small business, we shouldn't just look at turnover. As I mentioned before, service stations and IGAs—those with very small profit margins—can tip over that $10 million. Ninety-two point seven per cent have an annual turnover of less than $2 million, and it is this economic metric that I wish to pay most attention to. As shown by the ABS figures, most businesses in Australia have a relatively small turnover. Hence, if we apply the Australian Taxation Office definition of 'small business'—those businesses with a turnover of $10 million or less—we can safely say that more than 98 per cent of all businesses in Australia are indeed small businesses.</para>
<para>This bill seeks to increase the instant asset write-off from $1,000—which was really just embarrassing—to $20,000. It's a temporary measure to support small businesses to improve their cash flow and reduce compliance costs. This is a targeted measure, and while I support it and recognise the significant impact it will have on thousands of small mum-and-dad businesses that struggle with cash flow, I do have some reservations. Firstly, $20,000 is really a very small amount. I have a lot of small-business food manufacturing in my electorate, and just one machine in that area can be well over $100,000. The COVID response threshold lifted it up to $150,000, and that was later lifted again, providing small business with the opportunity to acquire what they needed, without limitation, to move into the next century. I've got to say that many businesses in my community really scrimped and saved and got some loans to be able to afford to buy that equipment. Secondly, the measure is only available for assets acquired between July 2023 and June 2024. Again going back to my food manufacturers, many of their pieces of equipment are just not made in Australia. They're made overseas—Germany, Italy and the like—and so there's a very long delay in getting that equipment, once ordered, into Australia. I think this is quite short-sighted, given our current environment, and the time frame really should be extended.</para>
<para>To be frank, businesses are finding it incredibly challenging. I've talked to so many small businesses right across Mayo—those in viticulture, food production and construction. Right across the board there are huge challenges felt because it is tough doing business in Australia. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission reported that 7,942 Australian companies entered external administration in the 2022-23 financial year, and this represents a nearly 50 per cent increase on the previous year. That should be ringing alarm bells in this place. In the construction sector, some jurisdictions have reported a 73 per cent increase in companies entering external administration or having a controller appointed. Importantly, ASIC identified inadequate cash flow as a leading cause of company failure. Given this, I urge the government to reconsider both the threshold and the time limit in providing those instant asset write-offs. We really want small businesses to thrive in our nation. We want to give them every opportunity and every environment to do so.</para>
<para>Schedule 2 of the bill will provide small and medium businesses with access to a bonus deduction of up to 20 per cent of the expenditure on assets—or improvements to existing assets—that support electrification or more efficient energy use, with a maximum claim of $20,000. Like the instant asset write-off, I support this measure and acknowledge the positive impact it will have on small-business cash flows, extending beyond the initial expenditure. We know that small businesses and consumers more generally are struggling. Increased cost and, in particular, rising energy costs are having a profound effect on the sustainability of businesses and households. I visited a small business in my electorate just a week and a half ago, and I asked, 'How are your power prices going?' They said they were in negotiations for a new contract; their three-year contract was just expiring and they were not sure what they were going to do, because their new contract was 50 per cent more. How can a business absorb that? We've got to do more in this place. We're just driving people out of business with those sorts of energy prices.</para>
<para>I have raised my concerns about the cost of living and energy prices on several occasions in this place. When we talk about the cost of living, we're talking about the cost of covering all of your bills. We're talking about the cost of buying food and putting petrol in your car. Everything has gone up. It's a crisis, and I just don't think there are enough of us talking about it. This needs to be a matter of public importance every day. I will support any policy that will mitigate some of the increased costs experienced by businesses, because those small businesses employ people in my community. When people have a job, they can take some steps towards covering the cost of running their household. Without those small businesses, there are no jobs.</para>
<para>As with the instant asset write-off provisions, I urge the government to consider increasing the maximum amount of the bonus deduction and making that initiative ongoing. And let's not forget that, again, we need to have a longer lead time. One year is not enough if you're a small manufacturing business and you're ordering in equipment from overseas. We don't manufacture a lot of large-scale commercial stuff, such as fridges, freezers, ovens and stills for distilleries; all of that generally needs to come from overseas. I support the schedules in this bill and implore the government to do everything within its powers to work towards reducing the cost of energy and other spiralling costs that are hurting businesses in our community.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to support the motion moved by the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services, the honourable member for Whitlam, who, I point out, is also a loyal, long-suffering Dragons supporter. I'm wearing a Dragons tie, so I share his pain. But I digress.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government is taking action to reduce the cost-of-living impacts for Australian small businesses. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023 has a raft of measures aimed at giving Aussies a fair go, from increasing the instant asset write-off for small businesses to $20,000 to providing incentives for small businesses to electrify and save on their energy bills. This bill also adds a new class of deductible gift recipients, making it easier for Australians to give back to their local community organisations.</para>
<para>Our government, unlike the coalition governments that came before us—the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison progression—is dedicated to a fair go for all. This bill is directly aimed at ensuring our small businesses and community organisations are not left behind. Small businesses are so critical to our economy and communities, but, after a global pandemic, the war in Ukraine and nine years of coalition governments that focused on the top end of town, small businesses are hurting. They do deserve a fair go.</para>
<para>This bill allows small businesses to instantly deduct eligible assets worth up to $20,000. They can deduct multiple assets, and businesses with assets worth over this increased write-off limit can still use the small-business simplified depreciation tool to claim that 15 per cent reduction in the first year and 30 per cent each year thereafter, so it's quite beneficial. This asset write-off will provide vital cash flow support and simplification benefits to many businesses in Moreton and, obviously, right across the country.</para>
<para>Small businesses are so much more than the services they provide. These people are deeply embedded in and promote a sense of community that brings people together—where 'community' and 'customer' are not simply words but are at the core of any small business. Obviously, this is in contrast to the big-name brands, who feel entitled to squeeze every penny out of hurting Australians. Under the guise of inflation, large corporations are ramping up prices. They're listing record profits at the expense of hardworking Australians while telling consumers that $9 for jar of Vegemite is the new normal.</para>
<para>Those opposite have, sadly, too often been in bed with big business. Labor governments are dedicated to a fair go for all and to ensuring small businesses have equal opportunities to succeed. We believe in fair dinkum markets, not those coercive duopolies. You would never see this completely unfair, greedy profiteering from small businesses. In fact, you see the opposite.</para>
<para>In my electorate of Moreton, over the course of the 2022 Brisbane floods, many residents experienced profound devastation—especially a lot of businesses throughout Rocklea—and went for days without power. Amidst that suffering, a local pizza restaurant, Tocco Italiano in Chelmer, provided free pizza for impacted locals. To all the small businesses that are struggling, the Albanese government hears you and is working on your behalf.</para>
<para>In addition to the increases to the instant asset write-off, this bill introduces the small-business energy incentive to help small and medium-sized businesses electrify and save on their electricity bills. Eligible businesses will receive an extra 20 per cent tax deduction for certain energy-efficient assets from 1 July 2023 through to 30 June 2024. This comes just a few months after the joint state and Commonwealth funded Energy Bill Relief Fund was announced, which saw eligible small businesses in my electorate receive as much as $650 in energy rebates.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government will always back our small businesses. We know that they're the backbone of our communities in places like Moreton. This government is helping small businesses combat the costs of living and ensuring that they get a fair go. And, obviously, if their customers have more dollars in their pockets, through pay rises and the like, supported by this side, that means they spend more money in small businesses.</para>
<para>These incentives support small businesses to upgrade or invest in more energy-efficient assets, helping them save money and ensuring that all businesses benefit from the clean energy revolution. Assets like heating and cooling systems, induction cooktops and energy-efficient appliances will all be included. This measure will help the 3.8 million eligible small and medium-sized businesses, including those in my electorate, to save at the shop counter. Delivering ongoing support for energy bill savings is vital to ensuring the stability of small businesses while simultaneously doing our bit to help Australia lower its emissions. This bill is delivering a fair go for small businesses and a fair go for our environment—win-win.</para>
<para>This bill also provides vital pathways for up to 28 community foundations, to be endorsed by the Commissioner of Taxation as deductible gift recipients—or DGR, as most people know it. These organisations are the lifeblood of communities across Australia, and the Albanese government is committed to ensuring they are given the support to flourish. The bill specifically names Justice Reform Initiative Ltd, a critical organisation dedicated to criminal justice reform and working to reduce Indigenous incarceration rates. It also mentions the Australian Sports Foundation Charitable Fund, something I am particularly keen to support because it gives so many in the sporting area a break. Under current arrangements, taxpayers can claim deductions for gifts valued at two dollars or more given to DGRs, and expanding DGR status to these community organisations ensures that they continue to provide their services. This reform will provide clarity to donors and recipients alike, and help to encourage philanthropy within communities. It will assist in achieving the government's goal of doubling philanthropy by 2030.</para>
<para>All Australians are proud of that great concept of mateship. The Albanese government is dedicated to ensuring that helping others in the community is as easy as possible. Whatever your particular passions are, you should be able to send your money towards those community groups. This bill ensures that the next generations of Australians learn that times tradition of what mateship is: digging in your pocket to help someone out who is doing it tough. It's important we continue to incentivise and encourage the work that not-for-profits do around Australia. They took a hit during COVID, with the number of volunteers a cross most community organisations basically all but halving. We want to make it simple for donors and foundations alike to benefit.</para>
<para>Strong and stable government creates strong and stable communities. We don't want people focused on division. That is not a good thing for our society. The bill ensures that community groups across Australia know the Albanese government will always look to support groups who are dedicated to building a fairer country. This government is also extending the global infrastructure hubs income tax exemption for another year. Central to Labor foreign policy has been international cooperation and economic independence. We are a middle power, but we like to make sure that we do more than other nations when it comes to our region in particular. Now, in this difficult world, it is more than ever vital to strengthen and protect the effectiveness of our global institutions.</para>
<para>This bill amends the current income tax law with respect to general insurers to provide good alignment with the new accounting standard. It will help to avoid the compliance burden for general insurers maintaining two different recordkeeping system for tax and accounting purposes. This change aids in streamlining the business process and helps to make the Australian economy more efficient—like those red tape days. Remember them? They were good times, weren't they? Furthermore, this bill strengthens the Australian superannuation tax system by making it fairer and more holistic. The current superannuation tax system allows for disproportionate outcomes across funds under the non-arms-length rules. By limiting the amount of taxable income at the top marginal tax rate to a proportionate amount for self-managed funds and small APRA-regulated funds, our superannuation tax system will be fairer for all Australians while still maintaining the broader integrity of the system—a system that the Labor Party instigated. Now we have over $3 trillion in funds—an amazing initiative.</para>
<para>This government is committed to strengthening our institutions by ensuring AFCA has sufficient authority to consider complaints relating to superannuation. This measure brings the policy in line with its original policy intent—for AFCA to have jurisdiction to hear all superannuation-related complaints. Superannuation represents Australians' future, and it's important to protect it at all costs. We on the side of the House have always endeavoured to defend Australian superannuation, while those opposite seem to undermine the institution and raid Australian super every chance they get—then they miss out on the benefits of compounding interest. AFCA's role in arbitrating financial compliance is vital in terms of giving peace of mind to all working Australians.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government is committed to taking action to support small businesses. Sadly, too many of those opposite have sided with big business over small, at the expense of everyday Aussies. This bill can really be summed up in one word: fairness. It makes things fairer for small businesses, fairer for self-managed super funds and fairer for charitable foundations. The Albanese Labor government will continue to take action to support the communities that keep Australia moving, and I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have appreciated listening to the contributions on the debate, particularly from those in the government that have indicated how much they understand that small business is a vital part of our economy. I have to say that you wouldn't know it based on the agenda that they have been pursuing since they came to government. They might have a messaging problem on that point, because I can tell you that the small businesses in my electorate are not beating a path to my office to tell me how much they appreciate the way in which the Albanese government is supporting them. In fact, it is quite the reverse, because all businesses, small in particular, are really struggling under this government, whether it's through skyrocketing prices on electricity, other business costs or these IR changes that are all about punishing small business and making it difficult to employ people and grow our economy, which is what all small businesses are looking to do. That benefits all of us, particularly the people that work in those businesses.</para>
<para>Businesses are not the enemy, and governments shouldn't be about amending industrial relations laws and other laws to treat small businesses as if they're looking to exploit people—their workers. They care about their workers. They genuinely cherish the opportunity to not only employ people and grow their business but also give someone a job in our economy. I've also got to say that the lowest paid workers in our economy by far are small-business owners. Some of them earn hourly rates way below the minimum wage. Some of them open businesses on weekends and staff them themselves, and, when they look at what their turnover is for opening on a Saturday—a small newsagent or whatever—compared to what they should have been paid for working those hours, it's nowhere near the minimum wage. But they put their capital on the line, they contribute to the economy and they work hard. We would particularly like them to succeed, grow and employ more people. Certainly, what the Liberal Party and the coalition are all about is doing exactly that.</para>
<para>There are two elements to this bill I want to briefly touch on. The first, of course, is the instant asset write-off. In the second reading amendment we've made it very clear that, whilst we're supporting this small initiative of the government—the instant asset write-off—we think it should be much more significant and we would like to see the value increased and the eligibility increased.</para>
<para>I commend my good friend the member for Riverina, who is here in the chamber, who sat around the cabinet table that brought in that instant asset write-off and dramatically expanded it in those very desperate times when we needed to give business a huge amount of confidence to open up the chequebook and make decisions that would get economic activity supported through those tough times. We are the party of the instant asset write-off, and this is a bit of a pale imitation of what we did in government. So we would like to see this figure be much higher than $20,000. We would like the eligibility to be much broader.</para>
<para>The second point I would just like to make is on the energy rebate—schedule 2. It's very curious that, for the instant asset write-off, eligible businesses are those with a turnover of up to $10 million and that, miraculously, it increases for the energy rebate. That businesses with up to $50 million should be eligible for one but not the other seems blatantly unfair and very peculiar.</para>
<para>It's also just sloppy that the government are bringing this through our House in November. This is a scheme that is meant to currently be operating and meant to be eligible up to 30 June next year. It will probably move through our House this week. No-one knows what will happen to it in the Senate, but in the best case it might pass just before Christmas. For businesses to take advantage of this, they've got a precious six months to do so, by 30 June next year. I think that it's very unfortunate that, if there's merit in this proposal that the government is putting forward, they haven't been expeditious in legislating the thing so that businesses can actually take advantage of it. That's very disappointing.</para>
<para>I commend the second reading amendment from the shadow Treasurer. The government should look very closely at how they can do a lot more for business than this. Nonetheless, we won't stand in the way of the passage of this bill. It is a meagre support to business. It is a pale imitation of what we did in government, but if this is all the government's prepared to put forward then of course we will support it. I commend the second reading amendment to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAXALE</name>
    <name.id>299174</name.id>
    <electorate>Bennelong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's my great pleasure to rise today to speak in support of this Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023. It's an important bill that shows Labor does care about small business and the not-for-profit sector.</para>
<para>In my time as the mayor of Ryde, while I worked for my family's small business and grew it, and now as the member for Bennelong, I've spent a lot of time talking with small-business owners. The important role they play in Bennelong and across Australia is clearer than ever. The small-business sector is vital to our economy and our wellbeing; it's a sector that remains very close to my heart.</para>
<para>Small businesses play a crucial role in local job creation. In Macquarie Park I've seen agile small businesses and start-ups develop innovative products and solutions. In West Ryde I've seen new family businesses open up, serving the tastiest of foods for our local community, and in Eastwood I have worked with small businesses over the years to shield them from the worst impacts of the pandemic. A strong, resilient and diverse small-businesses sector means a strong, resilient and diverse Australian economy.</para>
<para>In talking to small-business owners like Grace, who runs a small newsagency in Ryde, it has been abundantly clear that the last few years have been very tough. The impact of the pandemic and economic uncertainty have left small businesses struggling. We had supply chain disruptions and we had closed borders and labour shortages. It is, therefore, critical that the House acts to further support what the minister rightly calls the 'engine room of the Australian economy'. Thankfully, the last budget has funded these two important mechanisms to provide support—those mechanisms in this bill.</para>
<para>This bill delivers significant, new and practical measures to support resilience in both the small business and the not-for-profit sectors, helping them both prosper and deliver through challenging conditions. The first mechanism—as we have heard through other speakers—is the implementation of the $20,000 instant asset write-off, which will help improve cash flow and reduce compliance costs for small businesses. This instant asset write-off will apply on a per-asset basis so small businesses can instantly write-off multiple assets. It could be new point-of-sale software, kitchen equipment, machinery, manufacturing equipment or new telecommunication systems—whatever that needed asset may be. For growing small businesses or those who need to digitise, this bill should make it easier to access them.</para>
<para>Small businesses with an aggregate annual turnover of less than $10 million will be able to immediately deduct eligible assets costing less than $20,000 from 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2024. It will help restaurants, cafes, grocers, hairdressers, tradies, accountants and small retailers. The mechanism outlined in Schedule 1 also addresses investments greater than $20,000. If an asset is over that amount, it can continue to be placed into the small-business simplified depreciation pool and depreciated at 15 per cent in the first income year and 30 per cent each year thereafter. This will help small businesses with their cash flow and simplify compliance for up to 3.8 million small businesses across Australia. If this bill doesn't go through, that $20,000 will fall to its default level of $1,000.</para>
<para>The second important mechanism in this bill is the mechanism which incentivises small businesses to electrify and invest in renewable energy technology. Given the inflationary pressure on electricity prices, this line of support will provide much-needed assistance to the ongoing operation—particularly high-energy-use small businesses. Businesses with an aggregated turnover of less than $50 million will have access to a bonus 20 per cent tax deduction, supporting electrification and more efficient use of energy in this financial year. That will include solar panels, batteries and heat pumps. If you run a restaurant, you can electrify your cooktops and ovens. It will help businesses drive down their electricity costs. It'll also help to get a reduction emissions, which is really important to this government. Up to $100,000 of total expenditure will be eligible for the incentive, with a maximum bonus tax deduction of $20,000. It will encourage and support investments to drive down everyday business costs. Up to four million small and medium businesses will be eligible to access this scheme.</para>
<para>These mechanisms that support the resilience of small businesses complement the extra $1.5 billion in new tax incentives that the Albanese government introduced earlier this year. There is the technology investment boost, the skills and training boost, this renewable energy incentive and the instant asset write-off; these are all measures which we put into place, under the Albanese government, to help small businesses get through a really tough time. There's quite a bit there on simplifying compliance for not-for-profits, and I commend the relevant ministers for their really hard work. This is a comprehensive bill, one that will help small business across Bennelong and across Australia.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WOLAHAN</name>
    <name.id>235654</name.id>
    <electorate>Menzies</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you to those who have come before me. We have had other omnibus bills in the other chamber. Of the fair work omnibus bill in particular we were quite critical because it included things that were related to the headline but weren't really related to the purpose of the bill. We made the point that they were designed to create more of a wedge. But this omnibus bill is not about that; this omnibus bill seeks to put together a variety of small-business related matters that can be included only in a lumped-up bill as we have here.</para>
<para>The coalition will be supporting the Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023 but, as my colleagues have said before me, it does not go far enough. It does not go far enough in particular measures that are within the bill, which we will be putting amendments forward to fix. My colleagues have also, quite rightly, spoken about the lack of proper support to small business, and I can single out two areas.</para>
<para>Firstly, many before me have noted that 42 per cent of people in this country who are employed are employed in small businesses, and the percentage of businesses that are small is in the high 90s. It is a huge section of our economy and of society, and most small-business owners have dreams and aspirations of being medium and maybe even large businesses. Most large businesses started, once upon a time, as a small business—even big companies like BHP and Qantas were small businesses at one stage. We would like to think that, in 100 years from now, the Stock Exchange will be full of companies that may be small businesses that started about now. We have to ask what barriers are there for individuals and families choosing to make those decisions of whether to establish those businesses, to put their own capital and effort on the line?</para>
<para>One of the barriers that all sides of politics need to look at is the sheer volume of law and regulations across local government, state government and the Commonwealth. In the other chamber, in another debate, I noted the sheer volume in just some of the relevant provisions included in the Fair Work Act, at almost 1,100 pages. Now, with the 'closing loopholes' omnibus bill, we're seeking to add another 278 pages, with an explanatory memorandum that goes to 305 pages. I spoke about the almost 4,000 pages of the Corporations Act and the almost 5,000 pages of the Income Tax Assessment Act. The GST act is almost 700 pages—and on and on it goes. It cannot be the case that anyone looking to start a business must freeze and engage expensive lawyers just to understand what's going on and what their obligations are. We should be removing that burden rather than adding to it. For small businesses and aspiring medium and large businesses, even the recent changes to the definition of 'casual', 'work' and 'employment' in the other chamber are prohibitive. The definition of 'casual' in the bill goes to three pages, and there are 15 factors, and if you get it wrong, there are prohibitive and serious legal consequences. The definition of 'employment' goes to seven pages. For a small-business owner or someone who works in a small business, they should be terms that have common meaning—a plain English meaning.</para>
<para>We know, with the rising cost of living, that the benefit of casual employment isn't one just for the employer; it's also for the employee. We are hearing of many people who are taking on second and third jobs just to meet their ongoing cost-of-living obligations. These are people who might have a full-time job but now require other work just to pay the bills and to meet the $24,000 extra a year they now need to find on a $750,000 mortgage. That's after-tax money. You need to almost get $50,000 a year to meet that. For those who have that obligation now, the only way to do it is to take on extra casual work. When we talk about supporting small business, we really need to turn our mind to how we are putting further barriers in the way for people to be employed casually and how small-business operators can engage in a business that relies upon the flexibility of casual work. It is not good enough that we have an omnibus bill here that seeks to tinker at the edges. It doesn't actually deal with the substantive issues that are there for people.</para>
<para>There are a few other exceptions in here, and credit was properly given to the previous government about the instant asset write-off. That was a really important reform that made a difference to businesses. It should be extended, and that will be one of the amendments that we are seeking to do. In conclusion, the coalition will be supporting this bill. It doesn't go far enough, and we will be making the amendments.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr MULINO</name>
    <name.id>132880</name.id>
    <electorate>Fraser</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to rise in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023. This is a bill that contains a wide number of measures, but, at its heart, it is a bill that is there to support small business and to support charities. I won't go through every single measure in this bill, but I will work through a number of the key measures and identify how it helps to support the government's broader agenda when it comes to both small business and charities. The major items in this bill relate to easing the tax pressure for small businesses, helping them with cash flow and helping small businesses to electrify and, in that way, to be part of the broader transition of the economy and our society to a cleaner future.</para>
<para>Schedule 1 of the bill amends the Income Tax (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 to increase the instant asset write-off threshold to $20,000, until 30 June 2024, to improve cash flow and reduce compliance costs for small business. Under the measure contained in schedule 1, small businesses with an aggregated turnover of less than $10 million will be able to immediately deduct eligible assets costing less than $20,000, from 1 July 2023 until 30 June 2024. The $20,000 threshold will apply on a per asset basis so that small businesses can instantly write off multiple assets. This is a significant measure for businesses looking to invest in their capital or their infrastructure. Assets costing more than $20,000 can be placed into the small-business simplified depreciation pool and depreciated at 15 per cent in the first income year and 30 per cent each income year thereafter.</para>
<para>Schedule 2 of the bill amends the Income Tax (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 to introduce the small business energy incentive to help small and medium businesses electrify and to save on their energy bills. Up to 3.8 million businesses with an aggregated annual turnover of less than $50 million will have access to a bonus 20 per cent tax deduction for eligible assets supporting electrification and the more efficient use of energy. This is something that will be good for businesses in that it will reduce their energy bills or their reliance on energy, but of course it will also be very important for the transition of our economy as a whole. The new tax incentives will apply from 1 July this year until 30 June 2024. Up to $100,000 of total expenditure will be eligible for the incentive, with the maximum bonus tax deduction being $20,000.</para>
<para>Small business is the engine room of our economy. It's both the engine room of the economy and, in a sense, the canary in the coalmine. It's the engine room of the economy not only because it employs so many people—5.2 million people—but also because it gives so many people their first go in the labour force. It gives so many people their opportunity to gain experience and to step on the first rung of the employment ladder. Small business is also so important because it gives so many people in our community a chance to be entrepreneurial and a chance to follow their dreams. It's absolutely critical as a driver of employment in our economy. There are hundreds of thousands of small businesses right across all sectors of our economy, and they drive innovation, entrepreneurialism and technology diffusion right across the economy.</para>
<para>So small business, as I mentioned, is the engine room. But small business is also vulnerable in many ways. It's the canary in the coalmine because small business, more than large business, is often subject to short-term cash flow constraints. Moreover small business in many contexts can be subject to risk. Whether it be a natural disaster risk, a business related risk, a business cycle risk or whatever it might be, small businesses often find it more difficult to diversify those risks. Small businesses can be much more exposed to those risks than larger businesses. So, on the one hand, small businesses are incredibly important to our economy. They employ, I think, almost half of the total labour force, and, as I said, they give so many people their first chance and give so many people the chance for independence and entrepreneurialism. However, on the other hand, small business has its vulnerabilities.</para>
<para>That's why these two measures are so important. These two measures go to the cash flow issues and some of the risks that I talked about and provide material assistance. Schedule 1, the instant asset write-off extension, is particularly important as a way of helping small business to manage some of those cash flow risks that larger businesses are often more able to absorb. In my electorate of Fraser, small businesses are thriving and critically important right across the electorate. There's the Migrant Cafe in West Footscray and Big Sams Market in St Albans and Footscray Market. Within each of those markets, they have a whole range of individual food and other suppliers. They're such vibrant, dynamic parts of the economy. There's Bell Industries, an incredibly innovative and dynamic manufacturing firm, and many other manufacturing firms right throughout the electorate. There are also, of course, the many thriving, multicultural shopping strips full of small businesses, cafes and restaurants. They are incredibly important, and that's why for me this is such an important bill.</para>
<para>These measures were announced in the May budget, so it's wonderful to see that these are now coming into force. The small-business energy incentive will be extremely important in helping small businesses to invest in the transition of the economy to a clean energy future. For me, this is a particularly important initiative. This is one of those win-win situations where the measure will not only benefit the business by reducing their bills in the future and by reducing their exposure to energy price risk but also benefit millions of organisations employing millions of people. It is absolutely central to the overarching transition task that our economy faces. Many of the peak industry bodies have been calling for exactly this kind of assistance. For example, in Victoria, VCCI, in their report <inline font-style="italic">Achieving a net-zero economy</inline>, has called for this kind of assistance for small business to be able to invest.</para>
<para>I want to go back to that cash flow issue that I talked about earlier. Often, investments for longer term savings, including moving towards greater electrification and better managing energy usage, require significant upfront expenditure, and it's for exactly that reason that this measure is in place—to help small businesses deal with the challenges of managing cash flows over the medium and long term so as to be able to take advantage of those benefits.</para>
<para>There are a whole range of other measures that the government has put in place. I want to identify them because I think it's important to put this Treasury laws amendment bill in the context of what else we're doing to help small business. Of course, there's targeted energy bill relief already for around one million small businesses, with $650 coming directly off their energy bills, in partnership with the states and territories. We've already got a range of measures in place to help them deal with some of the cost-of-living challenges. There are already initiatives in place, but this will be an additional measure, which will help small businesses to invest for their longer term energy security and efficiency.</para>
<para>There's $15 million for free mental health and financial counselling support so that small-business owners and directors, who have done it so tough over recent years, get support where they need it. Then there's a range of procurement mechanisms, which I think are particularly important. These procurement reforms will ensure that small businesses can access more of the tens of billions of dollars of procurement that the government undertakes. There was a significant increase in the target for small-business procurement, which will flow through to small businesses and, again, help them with a lot of their cash flow. The government is also committed to a range of measures to ensure small businesses are paid on time, which is a critically important issue for small business. Given those cash flow issues that I mentioned, being paid on time can be so critically important in so many areas.</para>
<para>As I mentioned earlier, this bill also contains a number of measures to support charities. It provides a path for 28 community foundations to be endorsed as deductible gift recipients. In particular, the Justice Reform Initiative Ltd and Transparency International Australia are listed as new DGRs under this bill, and the existing listings of the Australian Sports Foundation Charitable Fund and the Victorian Pride Centre are extended. There are many worthwhile organisations that are identified. I wanted to pick out the Justice Reform Initiative and Transparency International to dovetail that with the government's broader initiatives around greater transparency and probity in government. I think it's really important that this bill gives them DGR status.</para>
<para>To conclude, I'd say this is a TLAB that provides for a number of important measures. Small business lies at the heart of our economy. It employs 5.2 million people—almost half the workforce—and it provides so much more than that. It provides people with opportunity—to work, to be entrepreneurs, to be business owners and to live dreams. But small businesses can also be vulnerable on occasion. Measures like this are vitally important to give small businesses the supportive environment they need to be able to thrive. I very much support this bill and look forward to seeing its passage through this House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
    <electorate>Longman</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023. It has been said by many colleagues on both sides of the House that small business is the lifeblood of our economy, and I couldn't agree more. But, yet again, the small-business community has been let down by a Labor government. Unfortunately, Labor governments really don't have much of a clue when it comes to small business.</para>
<para>Let's look at the different components of this bill that are meant to help small business. When you're in small business, cash—and cash flow—is king. You need it to invest, you need it to put on more staff, and you need it to buy equipment. As governments, it's our responsibility to make sure that businesses have as much cash as possible so they can invest in their business. First, we have the reinstatement of the coalition's instant asset write-off initiative for purchases of equipment with a value of up to $20,000. The only issue with this figure is that the coalition introduced the same figure in 2015, and I reckon that what you can buy for twenty grand in 2024 is probably a little bit different to what you could buy for 20 grand in 2015. As far as I'm concerned, there should be no limit on the instant asset write-off for small business, because it helps cash flow, and I want to take the time to explain why I know this would benefit our country.</para>
<para>Many people who aren't in business or haven't been in business simply don't understand what an asset write-off is, which is fair enough because it doesn't affect them—they don't think it affects them, but it does affect them indirectly. A business that buys a piece of equipment for that business has to depreciate it over a certain number of years. In most cases it's four, but, depending on the industry and the equipment purchased, it can be up to 10 years. To put it in layman's terms, this is akin to a wage-earner who has to buy tools or clothes for work, which they can claim as a legitimate deduction at tax time. Say you bought goggles and tools for a thousand bucks. If you were a small business, under the small-business rules you would have to depreciate that. In other words, of the $1,000 you outlay this year, you would be able to claim $150 the first year and then, for the next three years, you would be able to claim up to $300. It would take you four years to get that tax benefit, even though you'd actually outlaid the $1,000 this year. That's what small businesses have had to endure for years in this country. It seems unfair, right? That's because it is.</para>
<para>It also affects the economy in general because many small businesses operate through a trust. A lot of the time it's a husband-and-wife operation and they pay each other equally, which is fair enough because they put in an equal effort. The problem is that, say the trust earns $200,000 in a year, they have to pay tax on that $200,000 whether or not they take it. I can tell you from personal experience that, as a small-business owner, you don't take that money out of there. You take enough to live on and you leave the rest in there because you know that, ahead, you might have to buy equipment, you might want to expand your business by putting on new staff or you might need to soften the blow next time there's a Labor government in power. Because they are not able to write off the entire amount immediately after making the purchase, small businesses put off making large purchases until they know they have some type of cushion.</para>
<para>The problem is that, when the Treasury or the PBO give advice to the government of the day, they only talk about the immediate effect on the government. In only allowing small business to depreciate the purchase of assets over four years, instead of all in one year, they are concerned about the cash flow deficit to the Commonwealth, and I get that. However, they don't factor in that, if you allowed small businesses to write off the entire amount immediately, they would make larger purchases more often. The government would collect GST on that. The businesses supplying the goods would make a profit on those goods and pay taxes on those profits. They'd need to employ more people to meet the extra demand of businesses purchasing extra equipment, and those employees would pay personal income tax. All of that would more than make up for the cash flow issue created by the instant deduction.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Given that quorum is not present, the chamber will suspend until quorum is returned.</para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 17:54 to 17:59</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">(</inline> <inline font-style="italic">Quorum formed)</inline></para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>201906</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The other benefit we have now is that, because we had a trial during COVID where small businesses were able to write off large purchases immediately, we don't have to guess anymore. That resulted in record tax receipts, which was a major contributor, along with record contributions from the mining and resource sectors, to the surplus created by the previous coalition government that this Labor government have, of course, taken the credit for. It's kind of ironic that the industries that this government despise and don't support—coal, gas, agriculture and small business—are actually going to supply the funds for them to waste on all the non-income-producing industries like renewables et cetera.</para>
<para>The other issue with this bill is the 30 June 2024 cut-off date. Many small businesses will only find out about this initiative when they go to their accountants to do their tax for the 2024 financial year, and that will be too late for them to take advantage of it. The date needs to be extended until at least 2025—or it should have no expiry date—giving small business certainty.</para>
<para>Sadly, we've just found out that five per cent of small businesses shut during the last year, which is the worst result since the GFC. One common denominator between the last 12 months and the GFC is a federal Labor government. Having been in small business since 2001, I can say that between 2001 and 2006, under John Howard, my business grew 300 per cent. From 2007 to 2013, it grew less than five per cent. From 2013 to 2019, when I entered this place, there was a 45 per cent increase. This was purely because of the government of the day.</para>
<para>Business confidence is something that you cannot buy. Small-business owners that I associate with, that I talk to and that I know personally all have the same attitude—that is, when Labor is in we batten down the hatches and prepare for the worst. You don't spend and you don't invest, because there is no trust.</para>
<para>Let's talk about the electricity incentive. It's a great idea in principle, but, again, unless you've been in small business, you wouldn't understand that it doesn't really help most small-business owners unless they own the premises that they're operating out of, and as we know most businesses rent the premises. So, in offering them incentives to upgrade the equipment, that would be the landlord's equipment; it wouldn't be their equipment.</para>
<para>In the 20 years that I rented premises, I wasn't really interested in upgrading the landlord's equipment, as when I left the building he would enjoy the benefits. If you really want to get serious about this then you need to make sure that the landlord, not the business owner, is the one who's getting the benefit of upgrading the equipment. So, either you're doing this because you know that it won't be taken up, because you don't want to spend the money, or you really just don't understand business. I don't know which it is.</para>
<para>On superannuation, 20 years ago a local smash repair business bought a shed, which he operates out of, with his self-managed super fund, for around $500,000. Of course, real estate has gone up a lot over the last 20 years. Now it is valued at over $3 million. Under the new rules proposed by this government, he will now have to pay tax on the $2½ million gain even though he hasn't actually sold it. He hasn't received any money. So my question is: if the real estate market tanks in the next two years, after he has paid this tax, and it goes back to being worth $1½ million, will there be a refund? You cannot possibly tax people on money they haven't earnt.</para>
<para>It's just absolutely incredible to go down that path—not to mention farmers, many of whom have self-managed superannuation funds and own property that they run livestock on. They're going to be slugged with these bills because the property has now been valued at over $3 million. They're going to have to sell those properties, which means that they won't be able to run as much livestock, which is going to create a shortage and increase prices to the end consumer. It just goes on and on. There is just no business acumen at all in this government. Only the coalition understands small business, and small business only ever thrives under coalition governments. Those, ladies and gentlemen, are the facts.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LE</name>
    <name.id>295676</name.id>
    <electorate>Fowler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Locally owned small businesses are the backbone of the community, and it is imperative that measures are taken to ensure the continuity of their success and livelihood. Throughout Fowler, you will find a multitude of small businesses, ranging from family grocers, family run restaurants, family run banh mi bakeries and special novelty shops that are a critical source of employment and income and a space for interaction. This comprises 99 per cent of the businesses in the Fowler electorate. Therefore, I see the uplifting and empowerment of these small businesses and their growth as a fundamental and necessary action to demonstrate appreciation for their contribution to the community at large.</para>
<para>My electorate of Fowler has over 16,000 small businesses, and undoubtedly this number well continue to grow exponentially, with a number of migrant and refugee families settling here over the decade. Many of these families rely on their self-owned business for their livelihood and as a means of employment. It is my understanding that this bill hopes to provide a pillar for small businesses in Australia through various schemes that seek to ease financial pressure and provide incentives that ensure the future of small businesses in a post-COVID world.</para>
<para>The instant asset write-off of $20,000 is presented as a philanthropic and adequate measure to advance the endurance of small businesses. Over these few years, the available instant asset write-off for small businesses has been in flux, ranging from $1,000 to $150,000. During the pandemic, the government at the time had implemented an instant asset write-off of $150,000 for businesses turning over up to $500 million. These measures, while drastic compared to previous years, were a necessity to keep our economy moving during difficult and unprecedented times. With these measures ending on 30 June 2023, I'm glad that the government was proactive in ensuring this did not fall by the wayside.</para>
<para>However, in the 2019 financial year, pre COVID, the instant asset write-off for small businesses was $30,000. But this new measure has been reduced to the 2016 level. We live in a vastly different time to 2016—a time when hardworking families and small businesses are struggling with a cost-of-living crisis. Inflation is on the rise. Food, fuel and property prices are going up and so are the costs of running a small business. Equipment costs are going up and so are electricity and water bills. That is not even including the other administrative costs of running an SME.</para>
<para>Despite economic conditions for small businesses seeing a slight improvement, there is still an air of uncertainty, considering that small businesses were disproportionately affected by COVID. It is undeniable that the devastating impacts that this pandemic brought still linger, and small businesses face the brunt of this. I know that the small businesses in Fowler are still recovering from the pandemic and are struggling to stay afloat. Now that we are seeing a 13th interest rate rise, I have no doubt that this will cause further pain to many in our community and Western Sydney.</para>
<para>A constituent Venessa Tang, who owns a homeware shop in Cabramatta, says she is concerned about the accumulation of normal tax, GST tax and income tax that small businesses are burdened with amidst rising interest rates and increasing prices conjured by the pandemic. She highlights the challenges of small-business owners, who are struggling with the cost of living and doing business like petrol, saying that these increased prices have negatively affected her business turnover and add to the risk of her losing her business.</para>
<para>If it's apparent that small-business owners like Vanessa are struggling, why is the amount of instant asset write-off being reduced? It is not drastic to say that the assumption that small businesses will bode well in the coming years, following this bill, is disillusioned foresight. Furthermore, this incentive is great if small businesses want to buy smaller goods, like kitchen facilities or computers, but it is not sufficient for those who may need to grow or expand their business with better, yet more costly, equipment or machinery.</para>
<para>In their submissions to the Senate inquiry, the National Electrical and Communications Association and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry have both called for the instant asset write-off to be increased. NECA, who represents over 6,000 people within the electrical contracting industry, has urged the government to increase the instant asset write-off to $50,000 dollars. As they have rightly said in their submission, any high-tech equipment and hardware within the sector would exceed $10,000. If the instant asset write-off were increased, SMEs and contractors would be able to recover more of their investments. I urge the government to listen to those who have the lived experience of running a business and support any measures to increase the return on investment for small businesses; otherwise we could see detrimental impacts on the SME economy in the long term.</para>
<para>A similar issue was raised in the submission from the Institute of Public Accountants, where 75 per cent of their members work with and advise small businesses. Their submission focused on the temporary nature of the tax deduction scheme, where the government seems unable to commit to granting certainty for small businesses, preventing them from being able to plan for the long term. Additional certainty encourages sustainable business growth, creating an incentive to invest in technology and equipment. If the intent of the policy is to foster the growth and productivity of small businesses, making the write-off permanent at a higher threshold is the optimal solution.</para>
<para>The submission from the Mortgage and Finance Association of Australia reiterates the burden of economic pressures, inflationary pressures and the increased cost of living on small-business owners. The reduction of the instant asset write-off will place a heavier financial burden on small businesses. This struggle, in conjunction with the challenges of rising operational costs and market interest rates, will exhaust the funds of these businesses and could lead to worker lay-offs, reduced wage growth and, in the worst case, businesses ceasing to operate.</para>
<para>According to the ABS, the rate of business closures is at its worst, with more than 15 per cent of businesses failing in the last 12 months alone. This is the highest it has been since the global financial crisis. Half of the Australian businesses that started in 2019 were permanently closed by June this year, and small businesses are undoubtably at further risk of this, with 60 per cent of sole traders closing their doors. Therefore, Fowler's unemployment rate of nine per cent may see a dramatic surge in the coming years. With this increase in unemployment, more people in the electorate will have to rely on welfare payments from the government, placing a heavy burden on the government's social security and welfare expenses. At the same time, according to the RBA's findings in 2021, small businesses face more challenges in accessing funds through equity and obtaining funding through banks. With inflation on the rise, customers are struggling and hesitating to spend impulsively. Business owners are also struggling, trying to cut costs where possible. It's the government's duty to facilitate the recovery of small business in a post-COVID world, yet the bill fails to take into consideration the context and reality that small businesses face.</para>
<para>A considerable number of small businesses in the Fowler electorate are entrepreneurial ventures founded by minorities—immigrants, women and people without higher education. Support from government policies, without a doubt, can empower and facilitate entrepreneurship and reduce financial risk for these groups of people, who do not have the qualifications to seek employment elsewhere. Reducing the instant asset write-off serves as a disincentive, creating great financial risk and greater uncertainty for small-business owners that come from working-class backgrounds.</para>
<para>The social cost of rising unemployment affecting these particularly vulnerable groups is far too great to ignore. Without continuing efforts to effectively help small businesses retain operations, prolonged unemployment for these groups of people will have a harsh impact on their quality of life as well as their mental and physical health. The loss of self-identity and confidence resulting from unemployment not only compromises their relationships with families and social networks but also exacerbates the dwindling sense of membership in the community. These psychological impacts and other factors, such as insufficient education or English skills, operate as barriers to reemployment. Notably these work to further the problems of inequality within our area and between regions.</para>
<para>As I have mentioned, many small businesses within the Fowler electorate are family owned, which makes it incredibly vital that the source of income for these families is not economically affected. The pervasive ramifications of COVID-19 on the economy dictate that, with the reduction of the instant asset write-off, many working-class households will struggle to provide for their families at a sufficient level. With the median weekly income of families in Fowler naturally decreasing from $1,529 following this level of instant asset write-off reducing to the levels of 2016-19, the standard of living of these households will be reduced.</para>
<para>The Australian Automotive Dealer Association, a representative body for car dealers in Australia, which includes family owned small businesses, similarly advocates for a higher threshold for the instant tax write-off for small businesses in 2024. In their submission, they note that the amount proposed in the amendment is insufficient to support the investment decisions of enterprise in this industry. In Fowler, many of these small businesses are family owned by migrant families and refugees, with 77.3 per cent of families with parents born overseas. These families, who have come from diverse backgrounds, have demonstrated entrepreneurship to create a life for themselves in Australia and should have adequate measures implemented to support their livelihood.</para>
<para>The lax attempt to revive and provide relief for small businesses makes it harder for them to survive. The implementation of this bill may see the closure of many small firms in the education, healthcare, retail and social assistance industries that do not have sufficient working capital or cash flow to maintain operations as they recover from COVID-19. This issue is especially critical for ancillary services provided by small businesses in Fowler's substantial migrant community, such as legal, medical or financial services that focus on providing services for residents of Fowler that struggle with English. This niche differentiation of small businesses in this area is paramount to the vitality of 76.7 per cent of households in Fowler that do not speak English in their household.</para>
<para>The foundation of our community infrastructure may collapse if we lose small businesses and their imperative function. Moreover, the ongoing operations of small businesses stimulate competition, keeping prices low and simultaneously keeping levels of innovation high. Curtailing the extent of support that small firms receive will intensify their struggles to compete with larger businesses. This will engender a less diverse market for goods and services, creating an environment where larger businesses will dominate market segments and small businesses will be unable to compete. In many ways, this bill fails to provide significant relief for owners of small businesses and serves as a barrier for smaller firms to effectively maintain growth. It instead serves to further exacerbate the financial concerns in this period of economic uncertainty.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Brilliantly timed as always, Kim Houghton from the Regional Australia Institute has just texted me. He didn't know that I was going to be rising to speak on this very important bill, but he's let me know that new figures were released just today. There are 92,500 regional vacancies for October. As he says, that has remained flat over the past 12 months and has been at near-record highs since October 2022. Those are the regional job vacancies. He, like so many others, are concerned that these vacancies just aren't being filled.</para>
<para>The Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023 is integral to small-business success. The coalition has put forward a worthy amendment to this particular bill, which I very much support, but I note with great interest that those opposite have all got to their feet, walked to the despatch box and talked about how small businesses are the heartbeat of the economy. Each and every one of them who utters those oft-used words is absolutely correct. It doesn't matter whether they come from a metro or a country electorate, I would like to think that each and every one of the other 150 representatives in the House of Representatives—including me, of course—knows that small business is the heartbeat and the lifeblood of the Australian economy, because it is.</para>
<para>I come here with a bit of skin in the game—a lot of skin in the game, in fact. I was a small-business owner and operator before coming to this place. Our business ran for eight years and continued with my two family colleagues after I entered parliament. It is a very successful printing and publishing firm in Wagga Wagga—MSS Media Services. I worked at a medium-sized business in Wagga Wagga, the <inline font-style="italic">Daily Advertiser</inline> newspaper, which at its zenith in the late 1990s and early 2000s employed more than 230 people. It was a good business which had a lot of union representatives from different industries—Printing and Kindred Industries Union, the Media Entertainment Arts Alliance, which was previously the Australian Journalist Association, of which I was a member for 21 years. So I come here with a balanced experience, knowing the value of unions, knowing the value of small business and knowing, as so many government members have said, that small businesses are the lifeblood of the economy.</para>
<para>I also want to point out that, while in government, we put in place the Australian Small Businesses and Family Enterprise Ombudsman. I know the job that Kate Carnell did in that role. I know the work that Bruce Billson carried on in that role. I would say to any small-business operator to have a look at that website—asbfeo.gov.au—because it is a very good and valuable source of information for everything from dispute resolution to wages, what is a 'casual', updated industrial relations, and mental health support. That's so important to a small-business owner and operator. The member for Menzies spoke earlier about the absolute burden—I welcome the Assistant Treasurer to this debate—of paperwork that small-business owners and operators do. I know we had various deregulation days where we tried to cut through red tape. While the Assistant Treasurer joins us, I will praise him. I have, publicly, in my electorate, praised him about what he is doing with cyberscams and nefarious characters who prey on our small businesses. I thank him and the member for Greenway, the Minister for Communications, for what they are doing because white-collar crime is such an impost on our small businesses. I think the member for Whitlam and the member for Greenway for building on the work we did in government to eradicate or at least reduce the amount of traffic that small businesses have to endure in this regard—unnecessary criminal activity.</para>
<para>Talking of the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman—ASBFEO—it was established in March 2016. As I say, it is a valuable resource for small business. On its website, ASBFEO indicates that 97.5 per cent of Australian businesses are small businesses. Why wouldn't you want to support those small businesses?</para>
<para>Between 2020 and 2021, more than five million people—more than 42 per cent of the private sector workforce—were employed by small business. In that same financial year, small business contributed a third of Australia's gross domestic product. In 2021-22, there were 2½ million small businesses operating nationally, and the number of small businesses increased by seven per cent.</para>
<para>I am alarmed by the number of small businesses that have closed their doors in the past 12 months. I am alarmed by the amount of red tape that small businesses are having to wade through. I am alarmed by the high costs of energy for those small businesses. Appreciating the fact that Labor is putting in place an incentive for the instant asset write-off, and appreciating the fact that Labor claims that it was the originator of the instant asset write-off, way back—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Jones</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>2012.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister—but also acknowledging the fact that this increased, and during COVID it was unlimited for businesses of a certain size, I note with some alarm—I was going to say derision, but I'll be a little kind—the fact that it's only $20,000. We heard the member for Mayo talking before about the number of food manufacturers in her South Australian electorate. As she indicated, you can't buy much for $20,000 when it comes to a piece of machinery that's going to be used in a food-manufacturing business.</para>
<para>Likewise, many of our small-business owners and operators are farmers. They're already worried about the appreciation test by which, if their farms somehow become more valuable over the course of 12 months, they're going to be taxed on the gain of that property before they actually even sell the property. That is a spectre looming large over those small-business operators who are farmers. But when you think about the sorts of farm machinery implements that are going to cost less than $20,000, to help your business become more productive, there are not that many. I know when we had it as an unlimited rate, when it was even higher than $20,000—up to $50,000—tradies were able to buy a ute, and that was such a boon for them. But under this measure, under the Labor measure, $20,000 for an instant asset write-off is not going to be much at all.</para>
<para>I appreciate that this bill was part of the May budget announced by the member for Rankin, who, just as an aside, didn't mention infrastructure, for the first time in a quarter of a century, in the first reading of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) on budget night, which was amazing in itself. But it is now 15 November. This measure runs out at the end of the financial year, on 30 June. For any farmer or business owner who is going to purchase a piece of equipment, and prospectively import it from Europe, or elsewhere overseas, and expect it to get here on time and be installed in their firm, their factory or their small business and operating in time to meet the measures according to the legislation—well, good luck. Good luck, because that is going to be a near impossibility. If you don't meet the 30 June deadline, tough luck. You don't get to have that instant asset write-off applied to that 12 months.</para>
<para>That simply isn't good enough. Let's face it: we're six weeks out from Christmas, and we know that in a lot of industries and a lot of sectors, not much happens leading up to Christmas and not much happens in the month after Christmas. So you're looking at a business deciding in February to make an investment in something worth up to $20,000 and having to purchase it, pay for it, potentially import it and have it installed—all by 30 June. Good luck! How's that going to happen?</para>
<para>Maybe in May next year, when the Treasurer gets to his feet and does his next budget, he will extend it. Maybe he'll roll over the instant asset write-off measure that's part of this bill for another 12 months. But those businesses that are wondering what to do between February and May are not going to know what's in the Treasurer's mind. They're not going to be able to second-guess him. For businesses, that uncertainty is quite disturbing. I appreciate, too, that there is a provision in this bill in relation to deductible gift recipients and charity status. We should do anything we can to ensure that businesses that are eligible can get DGR status. I know the member for Whitlam has had oversight of this and I know he goes out of his way to make sure that that is all as correct and accurate as it can be, so I thank him and commend him on that.</para>
<para>Small business for my own electorate—all politics is local—is very, very important. Just with the new instant asset write-off measure, we've got 19,600 small businesses that are going to rely on this measure. But I cannot understand—and I'm pleased that the minister is in the room—why it's only up to $20,000. That just defies logic. I know that we as a coalition government put it in as a COVID measure. I was around the cabinet table. I was around the Expenditure Review Committee table. I was very much part and parcel of all that decision-making as the Deputy Prime Minister. When we made it an unlimited instant asset write-off, I know that we received record tax receipts. It's like the old business axiom that you have to spend money to make money. It does cost government money. I get that; I appreciate that. But why wouldn't we want to be more productive?</para>
<para>Labor comes to office and talks about fee-free TAFE and about manufacturing in Australia. I say to the government: live up to what you are talking about. Don't just be a government of words; be a government of action. Put in place measures that, prior to May 2022, you said you were going to put in place. Put them in place now and live up to your promises, please. Do it for the sake of small businesses and for the sake of the economy, because you're not doing it at the moment. We were promised power price relief. It hasn't happened. Businesses expected that the government wouldn't put in place onerous industrial relations laws, and they have materialised. Businesses were promised they were going to get the instant asset write-off extended, but the amount is only $20,000. You can't get much of a ute, let alone a piece of harvesting equipment, for $20,000. While I appreciate that for accounting firms, law firms and other small businesses of white-collar fame you might get a photocopier, a shredder or something for 20,000 bucks, you ain't going to get much of anything that drives on wheels.</para>
<para>So please re-examine this. Please impress upon your Treasurer, who perhaps hasn't been to a farm anytime in recent months or years, that this is important. It's important for the farmers I represent. It's important for the farmers the member for Kennedy represents. These regional small businesses were the ones that kept us going during COVID. The government owes them that. It owes them the respect, it owes them the dignity and it owes them a fairer and better deal on these measures.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's good to follow my friend the member for Riverina in closing this debate, and I want to concur with all the nice things he said about me and utterly disagree with everything else he said! I thank all members who engaged in the debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023.</para>
<para>Schedule 1 to the bill deals with the instant asset write-off, and there's been a fair bit of discussion about it, including from the member for Riverina and others. We say quite simply that it's going to improve cash flow and reduce compliance costs for small businesses. There's a $20,000 instant cash write-off available for small businesses, as defined within the bill, up until 30 June 2024. It was announced in the budget, and businesses have been on notice. I know, through the lobbying that I've had in my office, that many have gone out there and arranged purchases on the basis of these measures operating exactly as intended. Schedule 2 to the bill introduces the new small business energy incentive. This is a bonus of 20 per cent additional tax deduction until 30 June 2024 to help small and medium sized businesses electrify and improve their energy efficiency. Put together, this is a $60 million package to assist small businesses.</para>
<para>We certainly welcome the sincere and genuine engagement from crossbenchers on the issue. We are committed to supporting small businesses and medium sized businesses, and we've done that through both budgets but also between budgets, with the hard work that we've done. I point to one of the first acts of bringing business, community, unions and parliamentarians together, including some from the coalition benches, which was the skills summit, and you engaged in it as well, Deputy Speaker. When I talk to small businesses, they say, 'We can't get the staff we need.' So it's a big effort of ours, addressing the skills gap. The Prime Minister has just got back from a very successful trip to China for trade opportunities and to try to get our relationship, particularly our trade relationship, back on track with China. That's absolutely critical, and there are literally billions of dollars which will flow from the normalisation of trade arrangements, and that will have a massive benefit, particularly in the agricultural sector. There are lots of benefits there for small businesses, large businesses and the economy as a whole.</para>
<para>The member for Riverina talked about energy bill relief. I'm disappointed that he didn't vote, when he had the opportunity, for energy bill relief for small businesses and households in his electorate, but perhaps—</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>he's doing his own very best to engage with and improve relations with our friends in Micronesia. I'm told he hasn't had a bowl of kava since!</para>
<para>But, seriously, there's a lot of work going on to support businesses. For these reasons and others, we won't be agreeing to the schedule 1 amendments that have been moved by the opposition. I do note they're uncosted. They're on the one hand criticising how much the government spends but on the other hand encouraging us to spend even more, through uncosted proposed amendments. The same goes for the member for Warringah, who has, I should say, genuinely engaged with us on it. I thank her and respectfully say that we won't be agreeing to those amendments, but we're always willing to engage with members of this place on their propositions. The government's measures have been carefully targeted to support small businesses, and the investments are where they're most needed. We think they stand on their own merits. The bill's been referred to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, and the government looks forward to hearing the recommendations of that committee.</para>
<para>I'll just briefly address some of the lesser-focused-on schedules to the bill. Schedule 3 provides a pathway for 28 community foundations to be endorsed as deductible gift recipients. I want to thank Dr Leigh, the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury, for the great work that he's done in this area, truly reforming the way we deal with these sorts of issues. This will encourage philanthropic support for these foundations and contribute to the government's goal of doubling philanthropic giving by 2030.</para>
<para>Schedule 4 of the bill amends the income tax law to specifically list Justice Reform Initiative Ltd and Transparency International Australia as deductible gift recipients and extends the existing listing of the Australian Sports Foundation Charitable Fund and the Victoria Pride Centre to DGR status. Can I just say in relation to Justice Reform Initiative Ltd that I had the great pleasure of speaking to a former member of this place, Robert Tickner, when he was in parliament yesterday. He's playing a pivotal role in driving some of those initiatives. I commend the great work that he's doing in trying to build a coalition of support for these initiatives, which is around diversion programs and justice reinvestment programs. It's a broad coalition reaching across the political spectrum and working with former police commissioners and other eminent Australians to try and shift the dial on what we're doing in this area. I'm delighted that we're able to do something to assist that great organisation by providing DGR status for them as well.</para>
<para>Schedule 5 of the bill extends the Global Infrastructure Hub's income tax exemption for an additional year, to 30 June 2024, to avoid subjecting funding contributions from G20 members to income tax. That would be a perverse outcome.</para>
<para>Schedule 6 of the bill amends the income tax law with respect to general insurance. This is about more than deregulation and removing red tape. It's about removing unnecessary red tape by ensuring we have an alignment between accounting and tax and avoid unnecessary tax compliance burdens on the general insurance industry. There will be no impact on tax collected or tax burden, but it's about ensuring from an accounting point of view that those standards are aligned.</para>
<para>Schedule 7 of the bill introduces new arrangements for non-arms-length expenses rules for superannuation entities. The measure replaces the current rules for general expenses and better targets the application of these provisions. This will maintain the broader integrity of the superannuation tax system while addressing the potential for disproportionate outcomes.</para>
<para>I know the Senate committee had some discussion about this. What seems to have escaped some members of the committee, but not all of them, is that what we're providing through these measures is relief to the superannuation sector. All of the superannuation sector is getting relief from this, an otherwise disproportionate penalty regime and disproportionate accounting and record-keeping regime—which would be visited upon them—and relief from the risk of measures involved in non-arms-length expenditure.</para>
<para>This schedule is also about deregulation and removing red tape where it adds no integrity benefit. It has missed the attention of many in the other place who are protesting against it. This is actually a deregulation measure. If we don't do it—if we don't pass it—an even more onerous burden will fall upon entities within the superannuation sector due to rulings that have been pronounced by the independent tax commissioner in this area. It's a dereg measure and important that we do it.</para>
<para>Schedule 8 of the bill clarifies that the Australian Financial Complaints Authority has jurisdiction to consider complaints that relate to superannuation. It will ensure that consumers who have superannuation related complaints against financial services organisations maintain access to external dispute resolution. Again, this is a corrective measure beneficial to consumers, which deals with the consequences of a recent Federal Court decision involving MetLife and AFCA which interpreted the law. We accept the court's decision, but it handed down an interpretation of the law which was not what everyone understood it to be. So we are clarifying that issue by doing what we believe to be the status quo ante. It is very pro-consumer. With those comments in mind, I once again thank members for their contributions to the debate and commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Question unresolved.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195, the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Crown References Amendment Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>169</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7096" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Crown References Amendment Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>169</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to support the bill moved by the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Assistant Minister for the Public Service for the purposes that it is needed—to update our Australian legislation. The Crown References Amendment Bill 2023 is necessary to update references to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in acts of parliament now that His Majesty King Charles III has become the King of Australia. Obviously, by that I mean, 'King Charles III, by the grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of his other realms and territories, Head of the Commonwealth and Defender of the Faith', although I do note that, as a Catholic, I don't think the King is defending my faith.</para>
<para>The accession of King Charles III to the British throne, following the passing of Queen Elizabeth II, creates an inconsistency among Commonwealth legislation that references the head of state, due to the persistent mortality that breaks that every now and then with our monarchs. This becomes an issue every time the sex of our head of state—who, I remind the House, lives on the other side of the world—changes from a female sovereign to a male sovereign. The fact that this legislation is necessary shows me how outdated monarchies are as systems of governance in the modern world.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Katter</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Hear, hear!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I take the support from the member for Kennedy. When I used to teach history, my students were always fascinated by the concept of the divine right of kings. The idea that one person has been ordained by God to rule over not just their own country but a dominion thousands of kilometres away is very hard to justify in 2023. As the modern, developed nation that we are, such ancient notions no longer hold relevance in our contemporary society. This legislation before the House in 2023 is a stark reminder that it is long past time that our nation revisited the question of becoming a republic.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Katter</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Hear, hear!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That is my very strong opinion, and I think the member for Kennedy might have some strong views on that as well. I'm proud to be part of a government that has introduced the first ever Assistant Minister for the Republic, the Hon. Matt Thistlethwaite. While we acknowledge the strong cultural, diplomatic, legal, sporting and many other ties that our country shares with the British people, I do point out that we are not British. Monarchy is not a fundamental part of our national identity. Ask our First Nations people. Ask those descendants of the Irish convicts that came out in the First Fleet and many other people. It is disappointing that debates around the idea of a republic in the past have forgotten that.</para>
<para>So this bill replaces references to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II with 'the Sovereign', providing consistency across existing and future legislation and avoiding the need to make future amendments should a queen ascend the throne, as well as clarifying language that reflects Commonwealth practice.</para>
<para>This bill would allow legislation to reference 'the Sovereign' by the office that they hold regardless of the corporeal presence sitting on the 700-year-old coronation chair, or St Edward's Chair, as it is called. This is certainly not a controversial or revolutionary proposal because we do the same thing with ministers, parliamentarians and other statutory office holders. While the crown is a part of our system of government—I don't think there is a crown in here; it's still a part of our system of government—this measure recognises the crown appropriately, similar to the current Commonwealth laws, but removes the consistent need to update references depending on the gender of the office bearer.</para>
<para>This bill also introduces the definition of 'Senior Counsel' in the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, to replace references to 'King's Counsel' and 'Queen's Counsel'. While this country continues to swear obedience to the British Crown, legislation such as this will be necessary and will continue to take up more of this parliament's valuable time.</para>
<para>Quite frankly, while I agree with the principle and legislative objects of this bill, any time that this House spends discussing a sovereign who lives thousands of kilometres away must amuse the people for whom we're all here to govern. The very notion that we actually need this bill to maintain consistency in our legislative framework cheapens the values that we claim to embody as a people. It is the notion that we are beholden to a hierarchical feudal system of governance that doesn't sit right with much of the Australian public.</para>
<para>I believe it is time our country had an Australian head of state—someone who understands our unique place in the world, our commitment to egalitarianism and the fair go. I know we had the debate back in November 1999, but the reality is that if we are to develop as an entirely Australian identity then we must become a fully independent nation.</para>
<para>The 1999 referendum on the republic failed because Australians couldn't agree on what model we should adopt, but, at that time, 24 years ago, many Australians agreed that we should become a republic. A republic would represent a change to our government and a chance to make amends and to reconcile us to our place in history and our role in the world as a leader and as a beacon—a great democratic model .</para>
<para>When Elizabeth took over as monarch, back in 1952, Australia was much more British, I would suggest. Most Australians, if they held a passport, held a British passport. We sang 'God save the Queen'. I certainly was singing that all through the seventies. Every day I went to primary school, we sang 'God save the Queen'. The majority of the population either came from Great Britain or Ireland or were of British descent in some way. The Australia of today is a completely different nation. Today migrants make up about 30 per cent of all Australians, and, although British immigrants remain the largest foreign-born population, the number of Indian- and Chinese-born Australians is increasing rapidly. I think they've been No. 1 and No. 2 for the last four, five or six years.</para>
<para>A republic means reimagining what it means to belong to this country. The legal idea of 'Australia' was founded on the idea of terra nullius and also the exclusion of non-white people, something—the terra nullius fiction—which was overturned by the High Court in the Mabo decision in June 1992.</para>
<para>One of the first pieces of legislation of the federal parliament back in the early 1900s was the White Australia policy. Now we are different. It is time to rectify that by having different people—First Nations people, migrants—sitting at the table. It is up to them and to us to help determine our future type of government. Obviously that would only be determined by another referendum.</para>
<para>Section 16 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 stipulates that references to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in Commonwealth acts are interpreted as references to the sovereign. As such, this bill does not change references to Queen Elizabeth II in existing legislation, nor does it make amendments to the Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 or the Australia Act 1986. And don't get me started on the idea that you have to change the crown, the actual crown, in our letterhead because the crown has changed under King Charles. We don't have to do all of that stuff, thankfully. I can imagine the waste of money.</para>
<para>This bill ensures congruence in references to the sovereign across Australia's legislative framework and demonstrates how deeply ingrained British influence is in our institutional processes. Obviously many good things have come from that—the rule of law, Westminster et cetera.</para>
<para>While certain personalities in the coalition have the audacity to claim that the legacy of colonialism does not have an ongoing negative impact on this country and on First Nations people in particular, as was said during the recent referendum, I would remind the House of the many historical injustices, massacres and violence perpetrated against the First Australians by the British Crown in the decades before the colonies federated. The genocide visited on so many mobs that we can see in the placenames of many Australian towns now, the attempted ethnic cleansing, the poisoned flour, the infected blankets, the stolen generations, the forced sterilisations—these are not for the history books. Many of these occurred in the lifetimes of people sitting in this chamber. More than 200 years of being told that your culture is worthless and feeling rejected from society, and we still have some politicians wondering why many Indigenous Australians choose to disengage or feel unrepresented.</para>
<para>In my lifetime, Indigenous Australians were still considered to be fauna. They weren't counted in our Constitution. Our people are still not mentioned in our Constitution, despite 60,000 years of connection to this wonderful land. Yet here we are discussing a bill that is necessary only because this country still swears fealty to the same Crown that was a part of that dispossessing and murdering of Australians in the past. At a time when many Australians, including us on this side of the House, are attempting to reconcile some of the entrenched disadvantages that First Nations Australians continue to suffer, what more proof do we need? We need to close that gap.</para>
<para>The legacy of imperial power in this country is literally written into our legislative framework. Some of those opposite speak of division when we strive for better outcomes for Indigenous Australians, but they're the first to stand in this place and defend a system that is predicated on the belief that one particular family has a sacred birthright bestowed by God. It saddens me that this bill is still necessary in a modern democratic society like Australia, but as a tool of updating references to the sovereign, I commend the bill to the House. In doing so, I recognise the growth of our country and the willingness that many have to stand on our own two feet in international politics, with our own identity, our own connections with the world to lead on so many things, as we have in the past. I look forward to a future where legislation such as this will no longer be necessary because we no longer have a foreign sovereign to reference, and instead have an Australian head of state.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
    <electorate>Kennedy</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I can't understand why the current government doesn't realise, as the previous speaker said, that the 20-cent coin has on it a lady that lives in England. What in heaven 's name is a lady that lives in England doing on a coin 7,000 kilometres away, or whatever we are. This is rather curious. If I were a person visiting Australia, I'd think there's something weird about these people. I tell you, there is something weird about us.</para>
<para>When the federal cabinet was advised that if the Japanese took Port Moresby there would be no way we could stop the invasion of Australia, it was decided to give all of Australia to the Japanese except Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide, maybe. And all the rest was to be given to the Japanese because there was no way we could stop them. In actual fact, the southern army was made up of about 50,000 Japanese soldiers—great soldiers, who had never been defeated in 800 years of land warfare. They were on their way here—they'd landed in New Guinea and they were 10 days away from Port Moresby, and the federal cabinet had been advised that if they took Port Moresby they'd have air cover over Northern Australia, and there was no way we could stop the invasion of Australia. So we were to give up all of Australia, and take a little narrow strip of Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide, and try to defend that. Now, hold on a minute—there were 50,000 Japanese coming at us, but we had 60,000 troops. Where were our troops? Where was our army? Our army was defending the Libyan Desert in Africa. With the Japanese 10 days away, our government had its army defending the Libyan Desert in Africa and Singapore—a port with no ships in it. What the hell were we doing defending that?</para>
<para>That is a product of that coin. We have not grown up as a nation. We are far from growing up as a nation. The ALP has fallen well short of the mark, which I think my formidable colleague over here would like to have said, but because he is in a party system, he can't. For heaven's sake, get rid of the affirmation that we believe that all people are free and equal. If you've got a monarch on your coin, you do not believe that all people are free and equal. And in every Constitution in the world—the American, the French, the Japanese—they start off by saying, 'All men are created free and equal with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' They all start in that same way. It would be a hypocrisy for us to start that way!</para>
<para>Everyone who comes to this place swears allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, with one exception. I didn't, and I never have. In my 51 years in politics I've refused to swear allegiance to a foreign monarch. I'm an Australian. My father was a great royalist—he was a bit of a warrior; he liked arming and all that sort of thing—so I don't come from a family that has that Irish rebel background. No; I don't. But you know I do read history books, and the history of monarchies is a very dark history. For 100 years Britain and France just tore everything out of that country in the Hundred Years War. It was brought to a close by Saint Joan of Arc, a little 19-year-old girl, but after 100 years of continuous warfare.</para>
<para>Monarchy would be one of the most diabolical examples of rulership in the history of the world. All of them are ambitious. Take the First World War. What was it about? Cousin Nicky didn't like Cousin Willie, and Cousin Willie had an inferiority complex with Cousin Georgie in England. That was really what it was about. And have a look at them! Tsar Nicholas is playing chess while Moscow is under the control of the rebel communists. He's sitting playing chess and writing a letter to his wife. If you want to choose the word 'moron' I think that would be a fairly good description. They were inbreeding over a period of centuries. His cousin had a withered arm from inbreeding over a period of centuries.</para>
<para>I love this one: Princess Diana's brother said, 'We are the rightful rulers of England.' He said: 'This mob are on the throne because they could not find one monarch, out of the 54 monarchs in Europe, that was not a Catholic.' They were all Catholics, so what were they going to do? They found this little duchy in Germany, the ruling class, and they said—I'm quoting Diana's brother—'Oh, this is an interesting fellow. He claims to be a king. He's not really a king, but he claims to be a king. George is his name. So tell us about this George.' 'Well, he's a certifiable imbecile. He should be in a lunatic asylum.' The ruling class said, 'Well that's good.' Mind you, I'm quoting Diana's brother. 'That's good. He's a certifiable imbecile.' His grandson thought he was a teapot; he used to go and pour himself out all the time. This is what you're taking as your monarch, as your ruler?</para>
<para>It doesn't finish there: 'He cannot speak a word of English and doesn't intend to learn the English language.' And the ruling class said: 'That's excellent. That's really good.' 'And he's not going to live in England.' 'Perfect! Put him on the throne straight away!' In actual fact, what Diana's brother said was true. That's really what happened.</para>
<para>The current bloke, in my opinion he has the morals of an alley cat. He's treated his wife appallingly—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Leeser</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Madam Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to standing order 88:</para>
<quote><para class="block">A Member must not refer disrespectfully to the—</para></quote>
<para>King—</para>
<quote><para class="block">… for the purpose of influencing the House in its deliberations.</para></quote>
<para>I think the member for Kennedy should withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Berowra. Will the member for Kennedy, out of respect for the House, withdraw his comments with respect to the King?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Katter</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What comments do you object to?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Leeser</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The alley cat one.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll withdraw that he's got the morals of an alley cat.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You withdraw?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, I withdraw 'the morals of an alley cat'. He's never done a single thing to justify respect or, quite frankly, justify his existence. Has he ever had a job?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Leeser</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Deputy Speaker, I'm sorry, but I have to draw your attention again to standing order 88. This is a reflection on the Crown.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This does not breach that rule. If I have an opinion that the bloke never worked, that's my opinion, and it's not necessarily derogatory. There are a lot of people who are proud of the fact they've never worked. Maybe you are. I don't know. Let me just continue. When you have an election—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Leeser</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Deputy Speaker, I would ask—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Kennedy, if you can just pause—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He's just interrupting because he doesn't want me to speak. He doesn't like to hear what I'm saying.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Leeser</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I always enjoy hearing from the member for Kennedy, but we have standing orders in this place for a reason. The standing orders in this place are about ensuring that debate is conducted in a proper and civil manner, and it is not appropriate to deal with a reigning monarch in the manner in which the member for Kennedy is—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He is attempting to shut me up because he doesn't like what I'm saying. He's not affirming the rules of the House. He is attempting to shut me up.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Kennedy, can you please pause for just one moment. The member for Berowra does have the call.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Leeser</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to make one last point in relation to this point of order. His Majesty has lived a life of service, including service in the British defence force. The idea that he hasn't worked is not fair.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Honestly!</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Kennedy, I will read just read out, for the benefit of all in the chamber, with respect to standing order 88.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">A Member must not refer disrespectfully to the Queen, the Governor-General, or a State Governor, in debate or for the purpose of influencing the House in its deliberations.</para></quote>
<para>Can we pause the clock, please? The member for Kennedy, could you ensure that, in your further remarks on this bill, you do refer to standing order 88.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You've taken about five minutes off me, Madam Deputy Speaker, and he's succeeded in taking five minutes off me, which is very complimentary. He's scared to listen to what I'm saying. He's laughing now; he thinks it's funny. Well I don't think it's funny, my friend. I don't think it's funny at all. Let me just continue. If you elect someone—let's take a bloke like John F. Kennedy. He's elected because he was an outstanding warrior, a man of very considerable bravery and leadership. He was also a Pulitzer Prize winner. Now that is a reason to have a person as the governor, the ruler of your country. I could use other examples.</para>
<para>Let me use an example that all these people will be shocked with: Joh Bjelke-Petersen. Is this bloke a good bloke to elect to parliament? He built one of the first peanut threshing machines in Australian history. He also came up the idea of a heavy bore for when you're clearing country to improve that country. He also founded the town of Hope Vale, which is the most successful First Australian town in the country. It produced Matty Bowen, one of the three greatest rugby league players ever. It produced the first blackfella member of parliament, Eric Deeral. It produced the first ordained priest in Australia—a Lutheran priest—of any denomination. It produced Noel Pearson. People would not like to say it, but I think he's one of the better intellects in the country, even though I strongly disagreed with him in the recent debate.</para>
<para>But it's extraordinary. That's Hope Vale, and it was founded by this bloke Joh Bjelke-Petersen. So, if you're going to say, 'Who are you going to put into parliament?' Well he's a good bloke to put in parliament. He's an achiever however you look at it. This bloke's a super achiever. He camped out for three months on horseback with Leo Rosendale—as I understand it, Noel Pearson's grandfather—as missionaries, in founding that town. So he's a great bloke to pick. When you pick him, what does he do? He creates the coal industry, the biggest earner of money for this country outside of the wool industry in the country's history, and he creates it out of nothing. This is a coal-importing country, and he turns Queensland into the biggest coal-exporting state on earth. He doubles the production of cattle, he doubles the production of cane, he quadruples the production of copper and he creates the tourism industry. It was a joke—they called it Beau Geste. There was a three-story building built on the Gold Coast, and everybody laughed at it because it was surrounded by a kilometre of sand. That was the way it was for nearly 10 years. Have a look at the Gold Coast today! When he was in his fifth year as Premier of the state, we had Beau Geste, just a big sand dune, which is now Broadbeach and Surfers Paradise.</para>
<para>You elect those people and that's what happens, but if you go around saying that our head of state is some lady living in England, or some bloke living in England—I mean, honestly, have you grown up as a nation? Are you proud of being an Australian, or are you ashamed of it? That point is a demonstration that you're ashamed of it. In the Second World War—the Americans were going to come and save us, or the British were going to come and save us—nobody came to save us, and we were so stupid and sycophantic that, with our entire three armies, we had two of them defending the desert, one of them defending a British port that had no ships in it, and no-one defending Australia! So the 39th Battalion was sent up there. I don't know all the ins and outs of the 39th battalion, but I tell you what: if you're going to put someone on your coin, I'd start with the leader of the Kalkadoon wars, when they tried to fight off the whitefellas. I'd put him on that coin, with his spear and his woomera. The previous speaker referred to this, but if you want to know whether we fought to keep the whitefellas out of my homeland, these are the names of the creeks: Spear Creek, Massacre Creek, Gunpowder Creek, Rifle Creek, Police Creek, Battle Mountain—you wouldn't need a lot of imagination to know what was going on there. So these people fought for the idea that we were different and we didn't want people coming in here telling us what we should do and what we shouldn't do. We were Australians, and we fought and died as Australians.</para>
<para>Let me go back to the 39th Battalion. I wasn't in the 39th; I was in the 49th Battalion, when we were at war with Indonesia. Thank goodness it blew over before we went up there, but I was the unit historian. All of the reports, I said to the colonel, were negative. We fell back. We failed to hold ground. We retreated and wilted under fire. 'So what do you want to do, Katter?' 'I want to go down to the RSL and ask around.' This was only about eighteen years after the Second World War finished. Maybe we were a fallback battalion, but, then again, maybe we weren't. So I went down there: 'Anyone here know anything about the 49th Battalion?' There are about a thousand men in a battalion. There were three battalions sent up there to stop the Japanese. The 39th did most of the fighting, but this was the 49th, one of the other three battalions. Someone said: 'Yes, mate. Come down here. The 49th was the worst hit of all. When they were relieved at Sanananda, there were only 28 of them able to walk out unassisted.' And he said, 'Do you know how many men left Port Moresby?' I said: '843 men left Port Moresby, and only 28 of us were able to walk out. That was all that was left of us.'</para>
<para>So surely you'd put Ralph Honner on your coin, not some British monarch, demonstrating that you don't believe that all people are born free and equal and that you don't believe you're a separate country, that you're a nationalistic Australian. You're not proud of being Australian if you've got that coin! I do not applaud what the government is doing here. They could easily have removed the monarch and put, in its place, as I am moving, the sovereignty of the Australian people. But you don't believe in the sovereignty of the Australian people, I'm sorry, if you're in the ALP, because you're doing nothing about it. And you most certainly don't believe in the sovereignty of the Australia people if you're in the Liberal Party, because they oppose even this point of change.</para>
<para>In conclusion, we have got to grow up. We have got to realise that we are in the same moral position that we were in 230 years ago, with no-one living on a continent the size of China, two or three times the size of Europe, the same size as the United States. There's no-one living there. There's just a little, narrow coastal belt of population, and the rest of it is empty. Well, guess where everything comes from—the copper, the coal, the cattle! It's open, and it's because we have not become patriotic, flag-waving Australians.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LEESER</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
    <electorate>Berowra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The coalition will be opposing the Crown References Amendment Bill 2023. This bill is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. It is very interesting when you look at this bill and the acts that it seeks to amend, including the Customs Act 1901, the Defence Act 1903, the Defence Service Homes Act 1918, the Royal Commissions Act 1902 and the Superannuation Act 1922. I highlight those acts because, right throughout the long reign of Queen Elizabeth II, those acts referred to a king or His Majesty, and it didn't seem to disturb the administration of the Commonwealth such that we needed a bill like this. Why was that? It was because, as the explanatory memorandum makes very clear here:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In accordance with section 16 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, existing references to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in Commonwealth Acts, are construed as references to the present Sovereign, His Majesty King Charles III.</para></quote>
<para>So this is solving a problem that doesn't exist and is more reflective of the fact that the government's legislative agenda is so thin that they've brought acts before us that are just not necessary.</para>
<para>The Crown References Amendment Bill 2023 makes several amendments to a variety of acts to replace references to 'Her Majesty', 'the Queen' and 'the King' with 'the Sovereign'. The bill creates a new term for senior counsel to include King's Counsel and Queen's Counsel. The bill amends oaths and affirmations by removing references to His or Her Majesty and replacing them with a direction to insert the applicable pronoun. The reason the coalition is opposing this is that when the coalition asked if the government had consulted with the Governor-General on the bill, we were advised that the Prime Minister and the cabinet had no intention of consulting the Governor-General until the bill had reached its royal assent stage. The government wanted to pass the Crown References Amendment Bill without even speaking to the King's representative in Australia, the Governor-General. The Prime Minister wanted to pass the Crown References Amendment Bill before speaking to the Crown. The coalition will not be supporting this bill until we have assurances that the government has consulted with the Crown's representative in Australia, the Governor-General.</para>
<para>The fact that the Labor government is considering this bill clearly illustrates the priorities of the government in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. It's clear that this government doesn't have a plan for our economy. While Australians are hurting, this government's priority is semantic changes to legislation rather than measures to put downward pressure on inflation and support cost-of-living relief. As somebody who supports the constitutional monarchy in this country, I will note that there is one advantage of this particular bill: it bolsters an argument made by constitutional monarchists in the 1999 referendum that the Queen, as she was at that time, was the sovereign, not the head of state; the head of state was the Governor-General. This actually clearly clarifies that the King now, or any future king or queen, is indeed the sovereign, and it helps those of us who are seeking to make that argument in any future republic debate that might occur in this country.</para>
<para>I want to respond to some comments made by the member for Kennedy and, in particular, defend the system of constitutional monarchy that we have here. If the member for Kennedy is right and he's never sworn allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, he puts himself in a similar position to that position that Senator Thorpe put herself in in the Senate, where she refused to swear allegiance and was told that, in effect, not swearing allegiance made her ineligible to sit in the house. So I thought that was a rather interesting admission he made. The member for Kennedy said a few things about the sovereignty of the Australian people. The High Court confirmed in a series of cases in the 1990s that the Australian people are indeed sovereign.</para>
<para>When you look at the legislative changes that have been made to the position of the Crown in Australia over several years, from the Statute of Westminster in 1931, which was adopted in 1942, through to the Australia Act in 1986, it is clear that Australia is an independent and sovereign nation. We make all of our own laws in this country. The UK Parliament has no power to make laws about Australia anymore. Since 1986, Australian courts have been the final arbiters of decisions in this country. Appeals haven't gone to the Privy Council, and English common law is now only one of a series of important, comparable sources that we draw our jurisprudence from; it has no more of a special status than that of any other country. Thirdly, as the events of 1975 demonstrated, where the Queen did not get involved, where she stayed out of those events, the executive power of the Commonwealth is exercised by Australians through the Governor-General as their representative.</para>
<para>I disagree with many of the things that the member for Kennedy said about the position of the monarchy in Australia. I think there are great advantages to having a system of constitutional monarchy in this country. I want to talk about some of them in the remaining time here, because I think it is important to put some of these things on the record.</para>
<para>The Crown in this country is a wonderful symbol of service and continuity. In an ever-changing world it is important to have some symbols that remind us of the long passage from absolute autocracy, which absolute monarchy originally was, through to the rise of parliament and the wonderful system of measured constitutional monarchy in this country that we have today. In the King, in the monarchy itself, we have a living symbol of that continuity of Australia.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LEESER</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will take the interjection from the member for Kennedy. Of course all people are equal. All Australians are equal. But the beauty of constitutional monarchy is that you have a sovereign above politics. If you want to have a sovereign above politics, there is only one way of doing that, and that is by having a system of constitutional monarchy. In any other way, you end up with a politician as president, whether that politician is chosen by the parliament or by the people.</para>
<para>When you have a politician, they're elected and they have a mandate. Therefore, when you give somebody a mandate, they will look to exercise power. The great benefit of the monarchy, as Churchill famously said, is that 'it's important not for the power it wields, but for the power it denies others.' I think it's good that at the top of our system, despite the inexhaustible ambitions of people who are elected to this place, there is one office that is apolitical, above all others, and that is the Crown in this country.</para>
<para>When you compare our system of government to the United States, the equivalent position is held by a politician who can never bring the country together. We've seen some particularly divisive politics in the United States over recent years with a series of their presidents, including a president that even refused to accept the will of the people when they lost office. I think that that is an argument for why you actually need a sovereign above politics, as we do in our great system of constitutional monarchy that we have in this country.</para>
<para>Our governors-general and our state governors have done a terrific job. They know that their job is to represent the Crown in this country. They have no mandate, they are not elected and they must conduct themselves in accordance with the traditions and conventions of the Crown and bring honour to that office. With very few exceptions, we have had governors and governors-general who have done that. They have been outstanding people who have furthered the position of the Crown in this country because they have acted in accordance with traditions and conventions that have developed throughout the centuries—first in Britain and then in this country, in our own uniquely Australian version of the monarchy.</para>
<para>Secondly, having someone at the top of the political system that is not political allows that role to provide leadership above politics in a way no politician can. We've seen that both in the life of the present King and in the life of his mother, and in the lives of other members of the Royal Family, including in the way in which they've spoken out on issues well before politicians did, such as on climate change, the AIDS virus and mental health. These are some of the issues that they can provide leadership on above politics, which is important.</para>
<para>Our Constitution provides for stability. In recent years, we have had a series of political leaders who have not served a full term of office, whether they were Australian prime ministers or state premiers, so it's often very difficult to know who the next Prime Minister will be. But we know, for almost the next 100 years, who the next King will be—there'll be King Charles, then King William and then King George—and that's a good thing. It is good that we know that there is that stability, that continuity and that certainty in an ever-changing world. That certainty means that at the top of our system the office of monarch is not subject to political intrigue and factional infighting. That elevates the office, and I think that that is a really good idea.</para>
<para>If we were to move to a republic, particularly an elected presidency, you can imagine the sorts of contenders that we would get for that role. You can imagine people who would exercise the extraordinary resources of somebody like a Clive Palmer or a Simon Holmes a Court to try and get themselves or somebody that they could move around elected, and I think that that would be a very bad thing. It would be bad for the stability of our country; it would be bad for the cohesion of this country.</para>
<para>We have been lucky that in the present King, in Queen Elizabeth II, in her father King George VI, in King George V, in Queen Victoria and others, we've had exemplary monarchs who've been committed to serving this country in an important tradition, and I think that has been a wonderful and important aspect of the system of constitutional monarchy in this country.</para>
<para>In great contradistinction to the member for Kennedy, I think another advantage of the monarchy in this country, it's actually one of the huge advantages, is that we share the monarch with a whole range of other countries. In a world that is becoming more international, in a world that is global, I think it's important that we share the Crown with the United Kingdom, with Canada, with New Zealand, with Papua New Guinea, with a whole range of other countries around the world. It brings together a common element, a comity that we have with other peoples—other free peoples—under the Crown in an age that is becoming more nationalistic in a very bad way.</para>
<para>There are many countries in our region that are constitutional monarchies like Japan, like Thailand and many of the Malaysians states. Constitutional monarchies tend to be freer societies. Four of the six of the oldest continuous democracies in the world are constitutional monarchies, including our country, including Canada, including Great Britain.</para>
<para>I think that the monarchy is a great thing. I think we should be proud of it, we should celebrate it and those who seek to replace it should be very careful what they wish for, because there are some significant issues that one needs to address if you are to replace the Crown in this country. What do you do about the Crown at the state level? What do you do about the constitutional conventions, those reserve powers of the Crown. What do you do about the appointment and dismissal of prime ministers? How do you ensure, because I'm not sure you can ensure, that any future president would exercise their powers in the same way in which the constitutional monarchy in Australia has exercised its powers.</para>
<para>The government, I should note, has a very fine man in its midst in the member for Kingsford Smith, but despite the fact he is a fine man, he has this strange title of Assistant Minister for the Republic. One wonders what that title is actually all about and what he is doing, and I note he hasn't spoken on this particular bill either. It seems to be a title without a job and without a role, and I think at the moment the prospect of Australia becoming a republic is further from likely than at any time in our history.</para>
<para>I do commend some aspects of this, but the coalition's position—I will repeat it again—is that when it asked the government if it had consulted the Governor-General on this bill, the coalition was advised that the Prime Minister and the cabinet had no intention of consulting the Governor-General until the bill had reached its royal assent stage. The government wanted to pass the Crown References Amendment Bill without even speaking to the King's representative, the Governor-General. The Prime Minister wanted to pass the Crown References Amendment Bill before speaking to the Crown and, therefore, because of the disrespect to the Crown, the coalition will not be supporting this bill until we have assurances that the government has consulted with the Crown's representative in Australia, the Governor-General.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GORMAN</name>
    <name.id>74519</name.id>
    <electorate>Perth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>To sum up this debate, I want to first thank honourable members for their constructive contributions on this debate and for other contributions as well. Following exchanges with those in the opposition, I do seek to provide an assurance regarding oaths and affirmations. The intention of this provision is that the applicable pronoun is determined by the relevant sovereign and not left to the person giving the oath. Therefore, the provisions will operate to require any person taking an oath of affirmation during the reign of King Charles III to refer to His Majesty.</para>
<para>Further, the honourable member for Capricornia sought assurances that our government had consulted with the Governor-General on this bill. Consistent with his constitutional responsibilities, the Governor-General plays an important role in all legislation at the royal assent stage. Accordingly, if this parliament asks the Governor-General to consider this matter, it will be presented to the Governor-General for royal assent in the orthodox manner of legislation covering a whole range of matters being passed on from the parliament to the Governor-General. I note that this is in accordance with the intended operation of section 58 of the Constitution and, further, as every member of this place would know, the King also has a consultation role in section 59 of the Constitution.</para>
<para>I thank the honourable member for Moreton, who spoke of his support for the bill, saying it is needed 'to update our Australian legislation'. Indeed, we need to update this after the sad passing of Queen Elizabeth II. I also note that this was something that we noted at the time of the Queen's passing, that there would be a requirement for legislation to update a range of Commonwealth acts—that was very clearly articulated at the time. At that point in time, it was well understood why the government would do this, and this is in keeping with that commitment.</para>
<para>I note the honourable member for Berowra spoke, and I always enjoy hearing his contributions about the Australian Constitution and about the depth of Australia's relationships with the world. He talked about the need for certainty in an ever-changing world. I would argue to the honourable member and to all in his party room that this continues that strong tradition of accepting the Constitutional arrangements which Australia has, and providing such certainty.</para>
<para>In conclusion, this updates a range of legislation that references Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in various acts of legislation to reflect the accession of a new sovereign. It is with this legislation that the parliament recognises His Majesty King Charles III as the new sovereign and that we pass this legislation to ensure that we bring important updates to references to the sovereign throughout the Australian legislative framework. These changes reflect the end of the second Elizabethan age and the beginning of a new age with our new king, His Majesty King Charles III.</para>
<para>I thank the member for Kennedy for his contributions and his views on currency. It brings us to another important question which I am pleased to update the parliament on: the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet has had a range of conversations and, when the King should choose to provide Australia with an official portrait, we are ready to ensure that it is available for all members and senators to provide to their constituents. I will do everything I can to ensure that there is a smooth process, because I know there is great interest in the Australian community not just in this legislation but also in ensuring that where those organisations such as RSLs, local councils and others want the official portrait of King Charles III, they can be provided that by their local member or senator as soon as it is provided to the Australian government.</para>
<para>Question unresolved.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.</para>
<para>Federation Chamber adjourned at 19 : 33</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
  </fedchamb.xscript>
</hansard>