2025-10-28 3 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 28 October 2025

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

COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings Joint Committee, National Disability Insurance Scheme Joint Committee, Parliamentary Library Joint Committee 1 Membership 1 12:00 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a message from the Senate informing the House: that Senator Blyth has been discharged from the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings and Senator Nampijinpa Price has been appointed a member of the committee; that Senator Chandler has been discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Senator Nampijinpa Price has been appointed a member of the committee; and that Senator Blyth has also been discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on the Parliamentary Library and that Senator Nampijinpa Price has also been appointed a member of the committee. Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee, Intelligence and Security Joint Committee 1 Membership 1 12:01 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip nominating a change in the membership of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. I've also received advice from Mr Hastie resigning from the position on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. 12:01 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta by leave—I move: That: (1) Mr Wallace be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade; and (2) Mr Hastie be discharged from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Question agreed to. BILLS 1 BILLS Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Bill 2025, Education Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025, Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 2) Bill 2025, Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025, Corporations (Review Fees) Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2025 1

Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Bill 2025

Education Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025

Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 2) Bill 2025

Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025

Corporations (Review Fees) Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2025

Reference to Federation Chamber 1 12:02 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, these bills stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of each bill. Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Bill 2025 1

Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Bill 2025

Second Reading 1 12:03 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher The ability to list certain organisations as terrorist organisations, as provided for by division 102 of the Criminal Code, provides the Australian government with a valuable tool for publicly condemning those organisations as well as putting the public on notice that certain dealings with those organisations are criminal offences. However, the application of this framework does not currently extend to foreign state entities who engage in terrorist acts targeting Australia. A new framework designed to list state sponsors of terrorism would enable the government to inform the public of the risks posed by foreign state entities that seek to harm Australians or Australian interests and harden the domestic operating environment. The Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Bill 2025 would amend the Criminal Code to allow the Commonwealth to list foreign state entities that have engaged in a state terrorist act or otherwise supported or advocated terrorist acts targeted at Australia. The bill would create a new parallel legislative framework that in many respects mirrors the existing framework for the listing of terrorist organisations. The bill would enable the Governor-General to list foreign state entities as state sponsors of terrorism on the advice of the Australian Federal Police minister with agreement from the foreign affairs minister. The bill would also create new offences which would criminalise conduct engaged in by these entities, as well as conduct engaged in by persons who would seek to assist or support these activities. It would also provide for appropriate defences—for example, for persons who are required by law to engage with a listed entity or engage with an entity for a legitimate purpose. The bill would also make amendments to various other Commonwealth acts to apply the law enforcement powers and other policy tools that are available in response to, or targeted at the prevention of, terrorist acts to the new provisions concerning state sponsored terrorism. The threat of terrorism to Australians, both at home and abroad, is constantly evolving. No longer only the purview of religiously motivated extremist groups, terrorism today takes on many forms: from differing ideologies, political views and faith groups; from those on the political far left to those on the far right; and from fundamentalist Islamists to fundamentalist Christians. From individual lone actors to now state sponsored terrorism, the threat of terrorism in Australia and to Australians abroad is dynamic, real and significant. The current national terrorism threat level is set at 'probable', meaning there is a greater than 50 per cent chance of a terrorist attack, or attack planning, occurring onshore within the next 12 months. This threat level was raised from 'possible' to 'probable' on 5 August 2024. The coalition has called for the listing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC, as a terrorist organisation for more than two years. The Labor government has resisted these calls at every turn, arguing that the current provisions enabling terrorist-organisation listing, in division 102 of the Criminal Code, do not permit the listing of foreign state entities. The coalition has consistently offered to support measures to amend the Criminal Code to enable the listing of the IRGC as a terrorist organisation. On 26 August 2025 the Director-General of Security announced that the IRGC had been directly linked to terrorist activity on Australian soil in two confirmed incidents in 2024: the firebombing of a kosher restaurant in Sydney—Lewis' Continental Kitchen—on 20 October 2024 and the arson attack on the Adass Israel Synagogue in Melbourne on 6 December 2024, causing an estimated $45 million in damage and putting at risk the lives of people who were in the building at the time. The director-general, Mr Burgess, advised that the attacks were directed by the IRGC using a covert network of facilitators. There may be further announcements that additional attacks on Australian soil will be attributed to the IRGC. In response, the Australian government expelled the Iranian ambassador along with three Iranian diplomats, and the Australian embassy in Tehran was closed. It is noteworthy that this is the first time since the Second World War that an Australian government has expelled an ambassador. This bill does not seek to list the IRGC as a state sponsor of terrorism, but it will provide the legislative machinery for the government to do so. Schedule 1 of the bill would create a new part 5.3A of the Criminal Code to deal with state sponsors of terrorism and state-sponsored terrorist acts. Specifically, schedule 1 would insert new division 110, which would provide relevant definitions for part 5.3A and its offences and provide a framework through which a state entity could be prescribed by regulation as a state sponsor of terrorism. New division 111 would provide for offences connected with state terrorist acts, covering the doing of such an act as well as steps in support or preparation of such an act. Division 111 would also capture instances where state entities are supporting non-state entities in the commission of terrorist acts, including steps in preparation of these acts. New division 112 would provide for offences in relation to dealings with a state sponsor of terrorism, including directing the activities of a state sponsor of terrorism, the provision of support and funding, membership, association and recruitment. New division 113 would provide for offences connected with the financing of a state terrorist act targeted at Australia, including the financing of a person involved in such an act. New division 114 would provide general provisions relating to the offences, including the application of extended geographical jurisdiction, availability of alternative verdicts and the requirement for the Attorney-General's consent to be obtained for prosecution. Schedule 2 of the bill would amend part 5.3 of the Criminal Code to provide that part 5.3 orders available under divisions 104, control orders; division 105, preventative detention orders; and division 105A, post-sentence orders of the Criminal Code, which are used to respond to terrorism threats, are available in respect of state sponsors of terrorism and state terrorist acts in part 5.3A. Schedule 2 of the bill would also make amendments to the Crimes Act 1914, the Surveillance Devices Act 2004, and the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 to give effect to the extended application of part 5.3 orders to part 5.3A. Schedule 3 of the bill would make consequential amendments to a series of Commonwealth legislation to ensure consistency in the treatment of terrorist organisations and terrorist acts under part 5.3 and state sponsors of terrorism and state terrorist acts in part 5.3A. Schedule 3 would also make consequential amendments to the Crimes Act, the Criminal Code, the Surveillance Devices Act and the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act. Schedule 4 of the bill would make further amendments to division 80 of the Criminal Code to ensure consistency in the way in which the prohibited terrorist organisation symbols offences operate. Additionally, schedule 4 would make technical amendments to the operation of sentencing provisions in the Crimes Act. The new offences and the extended application of existing offences would not apply retrospectively, as they would not capture conduct that an individual engaged in before amendments commenced or before a state entity is listed as a state sponsor of terrorism. However, in listing a state entity such as the IRGC, the AFP minister is able to consider, and be satisfied of, acts that occurred prior to the commencement of the legislation. That is, it is not only prospective acts that can lead to a listing. The membership offence in section 112.2 would include a defence where a person proves they took all reasonable steps to cease to be a member of the entity as soon as practicable after they knew the entity was a state sponsor of terrorism. The association offence in section 112.7 would include defences where the association was with a close family member and was related to a matter of family or domestic concern or takes place in the course of practising a religion in a place used for public religious worship or where the association is only for the purpose of providing humanitarian or legal advice or legal representation in connection with specified matters. These offence-specific defences align with those currently available for the comparable membership and association offences for terrorist organisations. Additionally, new general defences in division 112 would be available, including where there is engagement with a state sponsor of terrorism which is not connected with terrorism and is otherwise legitimate or unavoidable. Importantly, the defence of mistake of fact remains available for an accused person for many of the offence provisions under section 9.2 of the Criminal Code. A requirement to obtain consent from the foreign affairs minister and to brief the Leader of the Opposition prior to listing under clause 110.3(5) would require that, before the Governor-General makes regulations listing a foreign state entity as a state sponsor of terrorism, the AFP minister must: Obtain the Foreign Affairs Minister's agreement in writing to the entity being specified— as a state sponsor of terrorism, and— arrange for the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives to be briefed in relation to the proposed regulation. The Attorney-General must also consent to the prosecution. The bill also includes a safeguard that the Attorney-General must consent to commit a person to trial for all new offences and the existing violent extremist material offences. This provides an opportunity for the Attorney-General to consider the appropriateness of the proposed prosecution in all the circumstances of the case. At the outset, it should be said that the coalition supports this bill. It has been a long time coming—too long. Whilst the coalition supports the bill, the process that this government has undertaken to get to this point is as regrettable as it is noteworthy. The bill has been referred to the PJCIS, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which held a two-hour public hearing on 16 October 2025. The Attorney-General, when referring the bill to the PJCIS, requested that the PJCIS report back by 24 October 2025. The net effect of this request is that, in order to complete its report within this extremely truncated period, stakeholders were afforded just seven clear days in which to consider the bill and provide submissions before the public hearing. As a result, the PJCIS only received submissions from the Attorney-General's Department, the Department of Home Affairs, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Save the Children, the Australian Council for International Development and two individuals. These were received prior to the public hearing, and then, just in the last few days, the committee received an additional submission from Chris Taylor, Dr John Coyne and Justin Bassi, from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. The committee received submissions from the Australian Federal Police, AusIran, Australian Red Cross Society, Alliance for Journalists' Freedom and a third individual. This government's approach to this bill is emblematic of how it conducts national security policy: do nothing, delay and obfuscate for as long as possible, and only do the right thing once all other alternatives have been exhausted. The bill has not been, in my view, appropriately scrutinised by the PJCIS and was akin to a box-ticking exercise by the government. This is a concerning trend of this government. I've watched this government seek to ram important national security legislation through the PJCIS, and it must stop. My criticism of the government is not directly aimed at government members of the committee, although, regrettably, in my view, government members are not doing enough, at least publicly, to resist the government's utterly unrealistic expectations of workloads and the timeframes that it sets the committee. Take, for example, the referral of the current bill to the PJCIS. I spoke earlier about the process—the Attorney-General wrote to the chair of the committee asking for an inquiry into the bill. That letter was dated 8 October. She asked for the committee to report back by 24 October, just 16 days later. In that time, the committee had to meet to accept the referral and set relevant timeframes for the conduct of the inquiry. Submissions had to be made; a public hearing needed to be conducted; a report needed to be drafted, considered by the chair, then by the committee and then vetted by security agencies; and then the report had to be tabled. All of this was supposed to have been done within 16 days. The net effect of this ridiculously truncated period was that submitters had only seven days to prepare their submission before the public hearing was set down on 16 October. The PJCIS was once considered the most important committee in this parliament. Its members receive briefings on matters of national security by agencies within our national intelligence community. It has largely acted in a bipartisan manner since its inception with its members, coming from the parties of government, willing to leave their political guns at the door to ensure that the protection of the Australian public is its paramount consideration—as it should be. But the government continues to trash this legacy by virtue of its intent to nobble the ability of the PJCIS to appropriately and fulsomely conduct its vital work. In the previous parliament, the PJCIS had such an incredibly heavy workload. At one point, it was conducting somewhere in the order of 14 inquiries at one time. That is not sustainable, and it is made worse by this government's insistence on setting totally unrealistic deadlines for reports to be tabled in the parliament. Some submitters have indicated to me that they simply will not and physically cannot provide submissions in the times often set by the government. Why does this matter? Because national security matters. Our laws that govern national security and security agencies matter. The lives, rights and liberties of Australians matter. But if this government continues to trash these conventions, we will have ill-considered laws that will have unintended consequences that cost the lives of Australians and/or trash the very principles of our Western liberal democracy. The government's approach to rushing the PJCIS through its work is disrespectful of stakeholders, who are often experts in this complicated maze of national security laws and architecture. Those stakeholders want to be heard, but often can't. Members of the PJCIS rely heavily on the expertise of these stakeholders when considering the implications of national security legislation that comes before it. It is disrespectful of the committee's incredibly hardworking secretariat and puts them under totally unacceptable pressures and strains. So much for this government's often trumpeted principles of respect at work and the right to disconnect. It is a simple case of do as I say, not as I do. If every other employer in this country has to abide by these laws, it's about time this government started acting in the same manner. Enough is enough. The government must allow the PJCIS the appropriate opportunity to do its work. The government sat on its hands and did absolutely nothing about progressing a bill which would enable the listing of the IRGC until the Director-General of Security announced publicly that the IRGC had been directing terrorist acts on the Australian mainland. That is despite the opposition calling for such a bill for more than two years. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the good work of the former shadow Attorney-General, the member for Berowra, in calling this out. The member for Berowra, Senator Chandler and Senator Paterson have consistently called on this government to do whatever it can to list the IRGC. And then all of a sudden, the government, having been totally and utterly embarrassed by its inaction, wants to put the pedal to the metal. This government has never taken national security seriously while I have served as deputy chair of the PJCIS. I turn now to the issue of what foreign entities could be listed under this bill. As drafted, the bill may enable the Australian government to list a foreign entity, such as the Israeli Defence Force or even the Israeli government, if an Australian citizen or permanent resident was killed or seriously injured in Gaza or the West Bank as a result of military actions the IDF, for example, may take. Whilst there would be competing diplomatic considerations in so doing and whilst the Foreign minister would have to consent to the listing, the theoretical possibility remains that the government or other entity of one or more democratically elected allies of Australia could be listed as a state sponsor of terrorism. Pursuant to section 110.3(5) of the bill, in order for a foreign state actor to be listed by the AFP minister as a state sponsor of terrorism, the foreign affairs minister must agree. It is argued by the government that this two-step process establishes a check and balance on the scheme so that adverse decisions are not made contrary to the national interest. The coalition agrees with that. Unfortunately, however, the bill does not provide any legislative guidance to the foreign affairs minister about what factors the minister should take into consideration in deciding to agree to the listing. The coalition thinks that this is a misstep on the part of the government, but it will not prevent the coalition from supporting this important piece of legislation. In its public hearing examining the bill on 16 October 2025 submissions were received by the PJCIS which identified an omission in paragraphs 29(1)(baa) and 29(1)(bab) of the Intelligence Services Act, as drafted, which would mean the PJCIS would not have the ability to monitor and review AFP counterterrorism functions in relation to the new part 5.3A to the same extent it currently monitors and reviews such functions in relation to part 5.3. This is an important omission in terms of both keeping the legislative schemes in part 5.3 and part 5.3A parallel and keeping them consistent with PJCIS oversight. I'll flag that I intend to move an amendment in consideration in detail, when this matter comes before the Federation Chamber later this afternoon. In summary, the coalition supports this very important national security bill. It is long overdue. The federal government's primary responsibility is to keep Australians safe. This bill will assist in that aim. No foreign state entity should think that it can get away with perpetrating acts of terrorism on Australian soil or against Australians—not now; not ever. I commend the bill to the House. The SPEAKER 53517 I will remind the member and all members that referring to correspondence that may be listed as confidential is not appropriate during the debate. Mr Wallace 265967 It was a public submission. The SPEAKER 53517 In the earlier remarks you made around a letter. I just remind all members. Debate adjourned. Education Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025 5

Education Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025

Second Reading 5 12:29 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I rise to speak on the Education Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025. This bill does four things: first, it deals with issues in the international education sector; second, it lifts the caps on Commonwealth supported places for Indigenous medical students; third, it gives new powers to TEQSA to regulate the delivery of higher education on offshore campuses; and, fourth, it introduces powers to compulsorily obtain and publish information in relation to pricing and service delivery in child care. There are also some other technical amendments. In a sense, this is a bill that bookends the education system. It deals with education in the very early stages of life—in the early childhood education and care sector—as well as in the higher education field. It's arguably quite targeted in that respect. But education is a journey that continues through life. When you make changes to one part of the system, there are always downstream consequences. So, when we talk about changes to the early childhood education and care sector, we should also necessarily be talking about the downstream impacts on schools and eventually on vocational and higher education. When you talk about changes that have downstream impacts across our education system, you're talking about millions of Australian students, from very young children through to adult learners and their families. This is the systemic viewpoint that's necessary for this sort of bill, and it would be remiss of me not to put these changes in a broader context. So I want to take the opportunity to say a few words about the education system more generally so that there's a proper understanding of this bill in its context, because one of the most profound shifts in our country in the last 30 years has been in the way in which we educate children. There are major demographic changes that have altered the shape of our country. These are grand demographic, cultural and lifestyle shifts which have really only become apparent through multiple censuses and public policy datasets over 20 years or more and are now reshaping our society. The trends are slow, but they're profound. My approach to these things is shaped by the great Sir Robert Menzies, who was a tremendous believer in the transformative power of education. In 1966, whilst speaking at the University of Melbourne campus, Menzies was heckled by an angry student who wanted him to put more money into education. Menzies shot back: 'No government has ever put into money into education than I have. After listening to you, I can understand what vast amounts we still have to spend.' Menzies's own life had been transformed through scholarships and educational opportunities. In fact, so much of his education policy reflected that biography and background. He wanted to give other Australians the same opportunities he'd had. Menzies promoted a liberal education through the universities as a public good that benefited the whole of Australian society. Two years ago, Michael Wesley told the Robert Menzies Institute about the catalytic role Menzies played in taking a marginalised and in many ways moribund university system in Australia and breathing into it a grand vision and ambition. He spoke about how Menzies's vision for the universities laid the foundation for the world-class education sector we have today. Menzies understood the transformative power of learning, and if we are to understand the Australian population today we also need to appreciate how higher education has transformed our society. In 1996, the year John Howard was elected prime minister, 42 per cent of the population aged 15 years and over had at least one postschool qualification. By 2024, the proportion of Australians aged between 15 and 74 with a postschool qualification had jumped to 63 per cent. In 1996, 10.8 per cent of men and 10.1 per cent of women held a bachelor's degree or higher. In 2024, that number had more than tripled, with 33 per cent of Australians holding a bachelor's degree or above. Beneath that massive change is another social story, about women's education. In 1996, similar proportions of men and women had degrees, with slightly more men than women. By last year, 37 per cent of women between the ages of 15 and 74 had a degree at bachelor's level or higher, compared to 30 per cent of men in the same bracket. If you drill down to the 25 to 34 age bracket, 41 per cent of men but 54 per cent of women had a bachelor's degree or higher. That's an extraordinary change and an extraordinary positive reflection in relation to women's education. Returning to the specifics of the bill, the bill lays the groundwork for major future changes to the early childhood education and care sector. The impacts of those changes may flow through to other parts of the education sector landscape as it stands today, so it's worthwhile spending a moment or two outlining what that landscape looks like. The June quarter report from this year showed that there were more than a million Australian families using a childcare service, and many of those families have more than one child in child care. We're talking about a total of more than 1.4 million children attending around 15,000 different approved childcare centres. That's just under half of all Australian children aged five and under, or just over a third of children aged 12 and under. For those who use care, the majority attended centre based care, but around 40 per cent were in outside-school-hours care and just under five per cent in family day care. In 2024, there were 341,000 four- and five-year-olds enrolled in a preschool program. There are over four million school students in Australia today. Around 63 per cent of them are in government schools, 20 per cent in Catholic schools and 17 per cent in independent schools. The non-government education sector is now the fastest growing sector, with independent schools growing by more than 18 per cent in the five years to 2024 and Catholic schools growing by more than six per cent. In higher education, there are now 1.6 million students enrolled in our tertiary education institutions. Of those, more than 1.1 million are domestic students, and there are 589,000 international students. Student numbers are recovering from the pandemic, but men are less likely to commence higher education than they were 10 years ago. In the 2023-24 financial year, international education was worth $51 billion to the Australian economy, with $30.2 billion paid in GST and $20.6 billion paid in tuition fees. It is a major export industry and a major asset to our country. What does this data tell us to date? There are stories in all of these figures. Take, for example, the extraordinary growth in independent and Catholic schools over the last five years. To me, that data shows broader trends. It shows that, in our society, parents want choice, and they will make sacrifices to choose the option that is right for them. It's not my job to tell parents what is best for their children. Parents know what's best for their children. It's my job to make sure that parents have the greatest range of options so that they can choose what's best for their family. The education system needs to be set up to allow parents to make that choice. My role is to do everything I can so that whatever choice they make is a good choice. I only need to look at my own electorate, where we have outstanding government, Catholic and independent schools. As shadow education minister, you will never hear me attack our teachers. Australians love their schools. They know that their schools bring communities together. They know their teachers work hard, and that they care deeply about their students. They know their teachers are trying to give students the foundational knowledge that is so crucial to setting them up for success. I'm a strong believer that students need to develop deep foundational knowledge to set them up and to help them understand the world around them. I want to say to Australian parents: the bases of a strong education, in reading, writing, maths, science and a proper and deep understanding of our history, are non-negotiable. These are the foundations of learning. It's only when these foundations are right that we can properly prepare our children for the future. Without those foundations, we are failing to equip our children with the tools they need to build successful and productive careers. We should expect that our education system will set high standards and drive excellence in these fields. We never want to fall into the trap of low expectations. We owe it to our children to deliver explicit teaching wherever it's needed and to empower our teachers and our principals to combat classroom disruption. The fitness for purpose of our education system is not only in what it teaches; it's in how well it prepares the next generation for the years to come. Foundations are meant to be built upon. What's clear to me is that Australians need to be lifelong learners. There's a phrase often attributed to the American thinker Alvin Toffler, who said, 'The illiterate of the 21st century won't be those who cannot read and write but those who cannot learn, unlearn and relearn.' Ironically, it appears the quote may have been inaccurate or misattributed—but it's a good line and it makes a clear point. We're moving into a world where the ability to adapt will be definitive of success, and there's a growing unease that our education system is just not there. While the data tells a story of the stunning success in women's education, it also tells of the decline in men's education. In 2015, 168,000 young men started their higher education journey. By 2024, that number had dropped to 158,000. This was all while our national population increased by almost 3.4 million over the same period. What's driving this trend? Is it a trend we will see continue into the future? Do the changes that we're making in bills like this one contribute to that trend in our higher education sector? These are the types of concerns, among others, we should be thinking about. In some areas the concerns are immediate. Parts of this bill are designed, the government says, to inform future policy work in the childcare sector. That's good, and it's necessary. But it's also time for immediate action. Last night I watched the revelations on Four Corners about the way that paedophiles have been operating in Australian childcare centres. It was horrific; it's one of the most bloodcurdling and disturbing things I've ever seen on Australian television. We've treated this with the utmost seriousness. Our approach as the opposition has always been to put children first. We've not taken a partisan view on this at any point. We supported the government's response to the horrific incidents we saw this year in Melbourne. We supported the actions of attorneys-general in relation to the working-with-children checks and even called for it to be sped up, which the Attorney did. Just this week we sought to introduce a bill to deal with the sentencing of child sex offenders and made it clear that this isn't partisan but it is urgent. We repeat our request for government support for these initiatives. When it comes to child care, safety must be the No. 1 priority. This morning I wrote to the education minister making clear that, in our view, further action is needed to restore confidence in the sector. I was informed a moment before speaking here that the education minister has written back to me just now. I look forward to reading his letter. We're not interested in taking a partisan line on these issues. Yes, I do urge the government to support coalition moves to strengthen our laws to remove child sex offenders from our streets and to protect our communities. That is not partisan, but it is urgent. As I said to the minister, I'll countenance any serious proposal to further improve safety in our childcare centres. I want to turn to some of the specific mechanisms in this bill, because some of these measures have been before the parliament previously in the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024, which was never put to a vote in the Senate. This is not just a reheat of previous policy, because the parliament has not seen more than half of the measures that are in this bill that is currently before the parliament. The debate in the last parliament was dominated by Labor's bungled handling of the overseas student caps issue. Those caps are not part of this bill, but that doesn't mean that the other provisions of the bill are without flaw. In the last parliament, coalition senators who looked at elements of this bill in the course of the Senate committee inquiry raised a number of concerns about missteps and overreach. For instance, parts 1 and 2 of the bill are about education agents, commissions and information sharing. They're intended to address integrity concerns across the education sector following the release of the Rapid review into the exploitation of Australia's visa system by Christine Nixon. The Nixon review cited the fact that approximately 75 per cent of international students seek the assistance of an education agent. The review also deals with the current regulators for the education sector, being TEQSA and ASQA, who play no role in the supervision of education agents. Instead, the onus is on the education provider to ensure that the agents they deal with do not engage in false, misleading or unethical recruitment practices. When this bill was last before the parliament it included definitions of the terms 'education agent' and 'education agent commission' and inserted a 'fit and proper person' test for providers engaging with education agents. Some stakeholders raised concerns about the breadth of the new definition of 'education agent' that may have had unintended consequences. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry submission stated: … the broad definition of 'associate' may pose logistical challenges for providers, potentially deterring valuable investments and complicating compliance. To mitigate these issues, it is crucial to carefully consider the unintended consequences of these broad definitions before progressing the Bill. In the last parliament, the submission from Independent Higher Education Australia stated: While IHEA supports clarity through the definition of an education agent, the references to people who "provide advice or assistance" to overseas students or are "otherwise dealing with overseas students" seems quite broad, far-reaching and may capture people who are not engaged in a financially beneficial relationship with a provider. While we understand the intent is to capture all situations where there are monetary and non-monetary agreements and benefits to agents, it is not clear how a compliance regime will support the identification of non-monetary benefits. These are real challenges. Will part 2 of schedule 1, in effect, drive up commissions in the education agents sector? This warrants careful consideration and I am concerned that consideration has not yet been given. All these concerns remain in relation to the bill before the House. I note that the government's approach here is a very long way removed from what it said it would do. Recommendation 13 in the Nixon review proposed regulating onshore and offshore education agents and adopting a model similar to that of the United States. In response, the government said: The Minister for Home Affairs will consider expanding the remit of the Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority (OMARA) to include education agents as providers of visa advice. An expanded OMARA role would be complemented by increased accountability of education providers, without requiring separate regulatory infrastructure in the Department of Education. What about other parts of the bill? Other parts of the bill dealing with education integrity also raise concerns. For instance, the minister's power in schedule 7 to wake up and cancel any course in Australia is completely unchecked. He can do so one day simply if he is satisfied that there are or have been systemic issues in relation to the standard of delivery of the courses included in the class; the courses included in the class provide limited value to Australia's current, emerging and future skills and training needs and priorities; or if it is in the public interest to do so. That power is essentially unchecked. It's a massive power. It's arguably duplicative of the functions of the regulators, and I am worried that this might result in administrative law litigation. There is a measure in this bill as well in relation to Indigenous medical students. This is a modest measure which we understand will only affect a very small number of students and which, given the size of the measure and the way that admissions are regulated currently, has no material impact on admission standards or supply and may help to address a small area of unmet demand. Under this bill, TEQSA also is given additional powers. The powers it is given are to regulate offshore campuses. Why? Why put this ahead of the review that's going on right now into TEQSA's powers and functions? Why is it that, as one stakeholder put to me, institutions are self-accrediting when delivering courses on Australian soil but not when delivering those same courses offshore? The only explanation we have here is that TEQSA has asked for these powers, and we need more explanation than that. Finally, I come to the question of child care. As with school education, parents and families and children come in different shapes and sizes. It's important that we as legislators don't tell parents how to run their families and don't mandate a one-size-fits-all system in relation to the way we undertake child care. We need to provide choices for families to meet families where they're at, and that is the thing that will underscore my approach to the question of child care more broadly. The government's explanatory materials to this bill make it clear that the measure relating to child care will be a measure that is sensitive for the sector. We understand that the information collection will start later this year through a secure platform being constructed by Deloitte. The purpose of the childcare provisions is to compulsorily acquire information about pricing in order for the government to undertake a policy project. We understand this policy project will be initially done on a voluntary basis but that the secretary will be able to use compulsory powers if necessary. There's an obvious concern about the publication of information that may be a pricing signal. We have asked questions about who will be targeted, who decides who will be targeted and who obtains the information. As it stands, the answers are unclear. What is clear is that this pricing project comes after the Productivity Commission's June 2024 report on child care and the ACCC's childcare price inquiry, which was released in January 2024. But the powers have been introduced essentially without consultation or visibility from the sector, and we don't know what the impact will be. This is why we are seeking to have this bill sent to the Senate committee for a short Senate inquiry—in order to unpack and scrutinise the measures in this bill. It's important that the parliament does its job in scrutinising legislation and hears from stakeholders to understand the full effects before passing the bill. It behoves us as legislators to understand the impacts before we pass this bill into law. I thank the House. Debate adjourned. Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 2) Bill 2025 8

Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 2) Bill 2025

Second Reading 8 12:49 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders Let me begin by saying that the coalition will support the passage of the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 2) Bill 2025. That is because, fundamentally, the content of the bill is aimed at doing two worthwhile things. The first is to modernise and clarify Australia's laws regarding the collection and use of biometric facial images under the Migration Act 1958 and the Australian Citizenship Act 2007. The second is to provide the Minister for Home Affairs with a new discretionary power to exempt certain individuals from meeting the physical residence requirement that ordinarily applies in the first two years after a citizenship application is made. These are relatively modest and pragmatic updates to existing laws, and, on the surface, they are likely to give expression to valuable improvements. Of course, they also reflect the need for ongoing vigilance to return to Australia's migration and citizenship laws, not least in order to ensure they keep pace with technology and align with global best practice and that the administration of our borders and citizenship systems remains effective, secure and just. The biometric provisions in this bill are in large part a continuation of reforms that were first enacted by the former coalition government. More specifically, it was the coalition that, in 2015, legislated on the Migration Amendment (Strengthening Biometric Integrity) Bill. That landmark legislation established the very foundations of the biometric systems that now underpin Australia's border operations, including SmartGate automation and the broader facial recognition architecture in use at our airports. A decade has passed since those reforms were legislated, and, unsurprisingly, biometric technology has advanced substantially during that time. Criminal networks involved in human trafficking, people smuggling and identity fraud are now more sophisticated than ever, and our verification systems must, accordingly, evolve just as quickly. The content of this bill essentially updates and refines parts of our laws to reflect those realities and imperatives. Foremost among the changes incorporated within the legislation are clarifications of what constitutes a lawful facial image under both the Migration Act and the Citizenship Act. By modernising these provisions, the bill brings Australian law into closer alignment with international biometric standards. In the process, it is designed to make it more difficult for identity fraudsters and human traffickers to exploit emerging gaps in our existing framework. More specifically, the bill makes it clear that facial images used for identity verification can lawfully include the full face alone or the face together with parts of the neck and shoulders, depending on how the image is captured. This clarification is important because modern, automated systems such as airports SmartGates, kiosk check-ins and digital visa processing platforms often record cropped or variably framed images. Under the current law, that has created uncertainty about whether such images technically meet statutory requirements. These amendments should resolve that doubt. They will confirm that existing records remain valid and that future image collection will be legally sound and operationally consistent across agencies. On each of these grounds, the effects of the bill should be to strengthen the integrity of biometric matching, reduce the risk of administrative error and ensure that Australia's systems are compatible with the standards widely used internationally. It should complement other national initiatives such as the National Driver License Facial Recognition Solution—a system that, once operational, is meant to better integrate Commonwealth and state facial databases to improve information-sharing and establish additional protections against identity crime. Schedule 2 of this bill deals with a different though not entirely unrelated issue the physical residence requirement for aspiring Australian citizens. Currently, Australian citizenship law requires that individuals granted citizenship must be physically present in Australia for at least 180 days within the two years immediately following their conferral. That requirement makes sense in the overwhelming majority of cases, as it encourages genuine connection and integration into the Australian community. However, there are some circumstances in which the rule can be unreasonably restrictive and problematic—most notably for elite sportspeople, who regularly train and compete on foreign soil. The passage of this bill would provide the Minister for Home Affairs with a new discretionary power to exempt such individuals where it is assessed that it is justifiable to do so, especially where they would otherwise be required to travel to and from Australia on a frequent basis simply in order to try to meet the existing obligations. The coalition recognises the practicality of this measure. It essence, it introduces improved flexibility for relatively exceptional circumstances. That said, we naturally expect that this new ministerial power will be exercised with appropriate care and caution and that necessary oversight measures will be put in place in order to prevent the potential for misappropriation or abuse. It must ultimately be the case that these exemptions are not used to create backdoor arrangements or any other form of preferential treatment in relation to Australian citizenship for particular individuals or groups, but we are prepared to support at least in principle what appears overall to be a sensible fix. At the same time, it must be said that many of the legal ambiguities this bill seeks to correct, particularly those addressed through deeming provisions that retroactively validate past actions, are almost certainly the result of problems that have been around for a while due to yet more administrative mismanagement and delays under Labor's watch. Over the past 3½ years we have seen repeated wanton examples of retrospective clean-ups and ad hoc fixes across the Home Affairs and Immigration portfolios—evidence of a government playing catch-up rather than leading with competence. Indeed, over the past 3½ years the Albanese government's record in home affairs has been one of disarray, delays and some dysfunction. From the High Court's ruling in the NZYQ decision that exposed shocking gaps in the management of immigration detainees, to stripping the Home Affairs portfolio of its many functions and then restoring them again much later, and to repeated failures in visa processing, border protection and cybersecurity coordination, the government has demonstrated a lack of control. Ministerial infighting, reshuffles, endless reviews and reactive management of one crisis after another have become hallmarks of this administration. Australians have seen detainees released without adequate safeguards; critical infrastructure vulnerabilities left unaddressed; extremely dangerous criminals released, only, in some cases, to commit even more alarming crimes; and the integrity of migration programs eroded by paralysis. In essence, this government's approach has too often been reactive, opaque and, in some cases, incompetent and piecemeal. When Labor encounters administrative or legal difficulties, its instinct is to ignore the seriousness of the problem and then, some time later, rush in here to legislate after the fact—to paper over cracks rather than address the foundations. Given that extreme secrecy and a wholesale lack of accountability have been such staples of this government's administration, it's probably right to imagine that the same has happened again in the lead-up to the introduction of this legislation—for anyone outside the bureaucracy knows at this point that the creation of this bill would be the by-product of yet more mistakes rather than any kind of forward-leaning development. We see here again, at the very least, multiple provisions targeted at retrospectively correcting past actions. Overall, this government's approach to home affairs has been a story of confusion, complacency and some chaos. It has represented a very stark contrast to the years before that, when the coalition delivered strength, order and decisiveness. To return to where I began, the coalition will support the passage of this bill. Whilst its origins may well lie in more quick fixes from Labor, its content, especially around the biometric updates, is generally sound. It is also broadly consistent, in this particular case, with the basic policy direction established under the previous coalition government. We therefore welcome the improvements it should make to the management of Australia's migration, border and citizenship systems, and we hope the changes the bill delivers will represent at least one small step in the right direction in the Home Affairs portfolio for the Labor Party. I thank the House. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour. BUSINESS 10 BUSINESS Rearrangement 10 12:59 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I seek leave to move the following motion: (1) the Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Child Sexual Abuse) Bill 2025 stand referred to the Federation Chamber; (2) the bill be called on for debate immediately following constituency statements today, with the time for each second reading speech limited to 10 minutes; and (3) proceedings on the bill have priority over all other government legislation, with debate concluding no later than 6 pm today and any questions required to complete the bill's consideration in the Federation Chamber being put immediately. Leave not granted. Mr WALLACE 265967 I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following: (1) the Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Child Sexual Abuse) Bill 2025 standing referred to the Federation Chamber; (2) the bill being called on for debate immediately following constituency statements today, with the time for each second reading speech limited to 10 minutes; and (3) proceedings on the bill having priority over all other government legislation, with debate concluding no later than 6 pm today and any questions required to complete the bill's consideration in the Federation Chamber being put immediately. I rise today to speak on a matter of the utmost seriousness and urgency. This parliament must act now to protect the most vulnerable members of our society: our children. This is not an issue that can wait for another sitting week or another round of debates. The safety of our children demands immediate action, which is why I moved that the standing orders be suspended so that this bill can be brought on and dealt with immediately. This bill is about the protection of Australian children. It is about sending an unmistakable message to those who exploit, abuse or prey upon children that they will face justice and that they will face serious prison time. Child sexual offences are among the most serious offences in the Commonwealth statute book. Any person who commits one of these crimes should expect to spend a long time in prison. I do not believe there is a single right-minded decent parent in this country who would disagree. This bill is also about restoring public confidence in the justice system. Families across Australia have been clear: they want their children to be safe. They are horrified by what they see in the media. They are deeply concerned about the proliferation of child abuse, child sexual abuse, particularly online, and they are dismayed when they see offenders walking free after only a few months behind bars. Four Corners showed what parents already fear: gaps in staffing, ratios and checks are letting offenders near our kids. Parents deserve more than promises. After last night's revelations, we need stronger sentencing for Commonwealth offences and a national lift in safeguards, information sharing, and enforcement to make clear that if you exploit a child online or through a carriage service you will face real prison time, not a slap on the wrist. The statistics are devastating. The Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation recorded 82,764 reports of online child exploitation in 2024-25. That is more than 226 reports every single day. Over the last year alone, reports of online child sexual abuse increased by 41 per cent. This is not an isolated problem. This is a national epidemic. Given those numbers, there is no justification for delay. We cannot allow a system that hands down sentences measured in months for crimes of extraordinary depravity. The case that has shocked the Australian community in recent times is the case of the DPP v Maloney in Victoria. It involved a father who sexually abused his five-year-old daughter on 19 separate occasions, and who produced and transmitted 77 separate files of child sexual abuse material. Those files included 13 videos and 64 images. The judgement makes for unbearable reading. The little girl knew what was happening to her was wrong. On at least two occasions, she told her father she didn't like it. She was just five years old. Yet, despite this, the offender will be eligible for release after just 2½ years. For the Commonwealth offences of producing and transmitting child abuse material, he received a sentence of only six months imprisonment before release on a recognisance order. Six months for producing and sharing videos of a child—his own daughter no less—being sexually assaulted. That is not justice; that is an abject failure, and that failure demands immediate action by this government. The Commonwealth does not have a general power to make criminal laws—that is a matter for the states—however the Commonwealth does have jurisdiction when a carriage service, such as the internet or the postal service, is used to commit these crimes. This bill deals with those specific offences. It does not create new offences. It strengthens sentences for existing ones. Specifically, the bill amends the Crimes Act to establish mandatory minimum sentences of five years imprisonment for five existing offences relating to child abuse material transmitted or possessed through a carriage or postal service. For second or subsequent offences, the mandatory minimum will increase to six years. Importantly, this bill closes the loophole that allows the court in Maloney case to release the offender after just six months in prison. Under this bill, a recognisance release order cannot be granted for these crimes unless exceptional circumstances exist. This reform is not radical. It is necessary, it is reasonable and it reflects the expectations of the Australian community. When the coalition introduced mandatory minimum sentences in 2019, it was because 39 per cent of Commonwealth child sex offenders were not serving a single day in prison. That was unacceptable then and it remains unacceptable now. Since the introduction of those reforms we've seen real improvements: more offenders are pleading guilty, sentences are longer, rehabilitation rates have improved, the community is safer. But cases like Maloney show that more must be done. That is why we must act now. The coalition seeks bipartisanship on this bill. The attorney has said publicly that she's open to considering this proposal. I welcome that but, words are not enough. The time for consideration is over. It is time to act. This bill should not be delayed by procedural obstacles. Standing orders should be suspended so it can be debated and passed without delay. The community expects no less. The impacts of child sexual abuse are lifelong: 95 per cent of survivors experience long-term mental health consequences, 67 per cent struggle in their relationships, and 56 per cent suffer setbacks in their education and finances. The trauma endures for decades. It destroys lives; it breaks families. Too often, victims of abuse become offenders themselves. That is the devastating cycle that we are duty-bound to break. Some will argue that longer sentences don't reduce reoffending, but while an offender is behind bars they cannot harm another child. Longer sentences incapacitate offenders, protect communities and send a clear and powerful message that this nation will not tolerate sexual abuse of children. Longer sentences also deter potential offenders who know the consequences are real and severe. Most importantly, they restore faith that our justice system stands with victims, not with perpetrators. Every day that we delay, another 226 reports of online child exploitation are received. Every day that we delay, more children are abused. Every day that we delay, we fail those who depend upon us for protection. That is why this bill must be passed urgently, and that is why the standing orders must be suspended today. I call on every member of this House, regardless of their political affiliation, to support this motion. Let's act together, let's act decisively, and let's act now. Every child deserves protection, and every offender deserves real punishment. This parliament has the power to make that happen. Let us not waste another day. I commend the motion to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 Is the motion seconded? 13:11 Ms ALDRED 11788 Monash I second the motion. In rising to support the shadow Attorney-General, I reflect on the No. 1 priority of any government: to keep Australians safe. Protecting children is an imperative of that special compact. This proposal has been put together in a considered, thorough and careful way because we have a problem here. And we, as a collective of this federal parliament, need to fix it. This is above politics, this is beyond partisanship, and this is solely and entirely centred on wanting to protect children, to deter predators and to keep Australians safe. I am deeply disturbed by the horrific allegations of abuse occurring in child care around Australia. We cannot look the other way. We cannot hope that it will go away. The ABC's Four Corners program last night identified almost 150 childcare workers convicted, charged or accused of sexual abuse and inappropriate conduct against children. I saw some of journalist Adele Ferguson's story. It was shocking, and what she uncovered chilled me to the bone. I'm familiar with Adele Ferguson's work across several topics. She is forensic and has a strong sense of justice. As a proud Victorian who currently watches in despair at the lawlessness running rampant across my state, let me remind the House about why we are here on this issue. We are here because of the Maloney case. Let's remind ourselves of the main points of this case. I'm not going to go into the details of offending, but this is about a parent who abused their child—their daughter, who was five. The offender abused their child on no less than 19 occasions. They then produced and communicated child abuse material from those occasions. There could not be a more profound breach of trust. I think of that little girl, that five-year-old, and I think about how she is doing now, a few years on. And I think about the rest of her life and what that holds because of that abuse. That child, who hopefully will become an adult one day, has a life sentence. Her abuser does not. He doesn't have a fraction of the life sentence that he imposed on that child. Maloney was given an effective non-parole period of six months for the Commonwealth offences of producing and distributing child abuse material. That followed a two-year non-parole period for the other offences. That is manifestly inadequate; that is wrong. We are offering the government an opportunity to show the Australian people that their parliament can come together and work in the common good, beyond the political fray, when there are circumstances such as this. The sentence was in part due to mitigating circumstances. In instances of child abuse, there should be none, because there is never any reason—any excuse—for abusing a child. There should be no mitigating circumstances, and today we seek to fix that. This bill ensures that those who abuse, exploit or prey upon children face real consequences. This bill, which is the subject of the motion which I am proud to second, introduces mandatory minimum sentences of five years imprisonment for serious Commonwealth child sexual abuse offences. This increases to six years for second or subsequent offences, as it should. The bill also closes a loophole that has allowed some offenders to walk free on recognisance release orders after serving only a fraction of their sentence. This is not good enough. Australians deserve better. We have to do better on this. Our children deserve to grow up safely. I implore my colleagues on the other side of this chamber to support this motion, and I strongly commend it to the House. 13:16 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce Everyone in this chamber has contempt for those who harm or seek to harm children. There should be no suggestion or intimation to the contrary. I move: That the debate be adjourned. Mr Wallace 265967 Point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 Well, I can't proceed on that. I just want to check something with the Clerk, because I believe I've got to proceed straight to what the minister has moved, which is that the debate be adjourned. Mr Wallace 265967 Point of order. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 Yes, Member for Fisher. Mr Wallace 265967 Madam Deputy Speaker, I refer you to page 530 of the Practice. Whilst I appreciate the minister's commentary before he moved the motion, the reality is that, under standing order 79(a) and as detailed on page 530 of the Practice, a member who speaks to a motion—he made brief remarks and then moved the motion. That can't happen. Both can't happen under the rules. Under standing order 79(a) and as detailed on page 530 of the Practice, a person who speaks to a motion can't move an adjournment of the motion. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 ( ):  Just so I can clarify, Member for Fisher, you're suggesting that because the assistant minister said a short phrase before moving the motion— Mr Wallace 265967 That is exactly what I'm saying. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 that's a speech and a contribution? Mr Wallace 265967 Correct. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 Okay. Mr Wallace 265967 And the Practice supports me on that point of order. I'll await your ruling on that. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 Yes, okay. We take it as a speech. 13:18 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I move: That the question be now put. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is the question be now put.  

The House divided. [13:23]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 48 AYES Aldred, M. R. Batt, D. J. Bell, A. M. Boele, N. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaffey, J. L. Chester, D. J. Conaghan, P. J. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Joyce, B. T. G. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. (Teller) Le, D. T. Leeser, J. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Penfold, A. L. Pike, H. J. (Teller) Price, M. L. Rebello, L. S. Ryan, M. M. Sharkie, R. C. C. Small, B. J. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Venning, T. H. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Webster, A. E. Wilkie, A. D. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wilson, T. R. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 88 NOES Abdo, B. J. Aly, A. Ambihaipahar, A. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Bowen, C. E. Briskey, J. L. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Campbell, J. P. Chalmers, J. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Clutterham, C. L. Coffey, R. K. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Comer, E. L. Conroy, P. M. Cook, K. M. G. Cook, P. A. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. France, A. A. Freelander, M. R. French, T. A. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. P. Gosling, L. J. Gregg, M. J. Hill, J. C. Holzberger, R. A. V. Husic, E. N. Jarrett, M. L. Jordan-Baird, M. A. M. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, R. G. Moncrieff, D. S. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Ng, G. J. O'Neil, C. E. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Smith, M. J. H. Soon, X. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Teesdale, J. A. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Urquhart, A. E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. White, R. P. Wilson, J. H. Witty, S. J. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

13:27 The SPEAKER 53517 The time has expired. The question now is that the motion be agreed to.  

The House divided. [13:29]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 48 AYES Aldred, M. R. Batt, D. J. Bell, A. M. Boele, N. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Caldwell, C. M. Chaffey, J. L. Chester, D. J. Conaghan, P. J. Gee, A. R. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Joyce, B. T. G. Kennedy, S. P. Landry, M. L. (Teller) Le, D. T. Leeser, J. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Penfold, A. L. Pike, H. J. (Teller) Price, M. L. Rebello, L. S. Ryan, M. M. Sharkie, R. C. C. Small, B. J. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Venning, T. H. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Webster, A. E. Wilkie, A. D. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wilson, T. R. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 88 NOES Abdo, B. J. Aly, A. Ambihaipahar, A. Belyea, J. A. Berry, C. G. Bowen, C. E. Briskey, J. L. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Campbell, J. P. Chalmers, J. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare, J. D. Claydon, S. C. Clutterham, C. L. Coffey, R. K. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Comer, E. L. Conroy, P. M. Cook, K. M. G. Cook, P. A. Doyle, M. J. J. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. France, A. A. Freelander, M. R. French, T. A. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. P. Gosling, L. J. Gregg, M. J. Hill, J. C. Holzberger, R. A. V. Husic, E. N. Jarrett, M. L. Jordan-Baird, M. A. M. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, R. G. Moncrieff, D. S. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. Ng, G. J. O'Neil, C. E. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Smith, M. J. H. Soon, X. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Teesdale, J. A. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Urquhart, A. E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. White, R. P. Wilson, J. H. Witty, S. J. Zappia, A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 15 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Bureau of Meteorology 15 13:30 Mr JOYCE e5d New England I rise today to talk about the fiasco which is the Bureau of Meteorology website. We had a perfectly good website that worked absolutely marvellously—in fact it got 2.6 billion hits a year—and, for the price of $4.1 million, we've turned it into a complete fiasco. It is amazing that, when you put out a poll of 4,000 people, the results are that 88 per cent think it's a complete debacle. But it has some supporters out there. Three per cent of people believe it's alright. This is one of those issues that resonates everywhere. We are getting people calling us and saying, 'What on earth have they done to a website that worked perfectly well?' It's a very strange time to change the Bureau of Meteorology website, because we've arrived at the time of the storms. Yesterday we had a massive storm that went through South-East Queensland and, of course, the website was found wanting. So I call on this government as a catalyst and as a clear understanding of competency to move from this politically correct rubbish and go back to the one that worked—the one that farmers could use, the one that shop owners could use and the one that could tell you about this marvellous thing that you want to get from a website. You want to find out about—and I know this is surprising—the weather. Robson, Professor Richard 15 13:32 Mr NG 316052 Menzies It is with great pride that I rise to speak today to congratulate Professor Richard Robson, a resident of Menzies, on recently being jointly awarded the Nobel Prize for chemistry. Professor Robson has worked for over four decades on world-leading research into metal-organic frameworks. Notably his inspiration for this innovation came through his teaching at the University of Melbourne. He devised a strategy using molecular rods by which a wide variety of molecular building blocks could be linked together to form network structures. They are crystal structures that are typically the size of only a millionth of a millimetre in length. This pioneering work has led to the development of an entire new field of research worldwide. This honour is a fitting testament to the work Professor Robson has undertaken throughout his career and is one that recognises his diligence, creativity and leadership. I know that his work is already serving as an example to students across our community and country of the power of scientific research to expand possibilities and change lives. I was pleased to be able to personally congratulate Professor Robson last week and to extend the warm congratulations of the Prime Minister, the government and our local community in Menzies. His humility, imagination and commitment to learning and teaching exemplifies the very best of Australia's scientific community, and I thank him again for his extraordinary contribution. Mayo Electorate: Onkaparinga Swimming Club 15 13:34 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo The electorate of Mayo is home to some outstanding sporting clubs. One of them is the Onkaparinga Swimming Club whose home base pool is in the Woodside army barracks in the Adelaide Hills. It is a base with an uncertain future, and I would like to talk to you about this club. It has 80 members. Swimmers age from five to 75. There are programs for all abilities. It has members from across the Adelaide Hills and the city. This is a very special club. The Onkaparinga Swimming Club proudly welcomes swimmers with a disability. They are a valued and respected. Head coach, Pat, who has been with the club for more than 30 years, is dedicated to swimmers with a disability, which is important—that's what inclusion is all about. The Onkaparinga Swimming Club is one of the state's best. Earlier this year, it won the country swimming championships. In fact, they've won 20 out of the last 25 titles. For more than three decades, the Onkaparinga Swimming Club has trained at Woodside Barracks. They've have done this year round, and the reason is that it's the only indoor pool—that I can think of—in the whole of the Adelaide Hills council. Adelaide Hills gets very, very cold from basically the middle of March through to—well, it's still cold even now. Access to the pool is critical for the club's future, and this base and the facilities must remain open for not only Defence but our whole community. They have no guarantee on the future. There is nothing about a lease past December. They need certainty and they deserve certainty. Adelaide Electorate: Greek Community 16 13:35 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide I rise today to commemorate Oxi Day, a day which represents the Greek determination through its strong refusal of fascism and the fight for freedom. We remember the sacrifices and struggles of those who fought for us. On this day, 28 October, Greeks all over Australia will commemorate and celebrate the day as Oxi Day. In 1940, Greece refused to surrender to the Axis forces and said no to allowing their troops into Greece. Despite the odds being stacked against them, their brave act greatly influenced the tide of the war. The strength and determination of the Greek army resulted in the first victory for the Allied forces and the first setback for the Axis forces. The delay of the Axis plans, through Greece's defiance, greatly shaped the Allied victory. Oxi Day is held as a significant day, especially in my electorate with its big community of Greek Australians who will be commemorating this weekend. We will be laying wreaths at different points across Adelaide to remember those who fought bravely and to remember the determination of the Greek people throughout World War II and other wars they have fought in. Hospitals 16 13:36 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders The Rosebud Hospital is a much-loved institution on the southern Mornington Peninsula. Everyone who lives there has a story of how the hospital and its excellent staff has come to their rescue. But, in recent years, the stories about Rosebud are less about proud births, broken arms or learning to ride a bike and more about long waits in triage, an overwhelmed ED in summer and eventual transport to Frankston Hospital for anything more than a flesh wound. Back in 2019, the federal coalition provided $5 million to the state government, which owns and operates the hospital, to do a business case to rebuild it. A month ago, with great fanfare, the state health minister, Mary-Anne Thomas, came to Rosebud for a grand announcement. There was much excitement and enthusiasm, particularly from community group that has argued for years for the much needed investment to redevelop it, only for them to be told the hospital would get—wait for the drum roll: $4 million. Let me help you with the maths. In 2019, federal coalition provided $5 million for a business case. In 2022, the state coalition promised $340 million to rebuild the hospital. Six years later, the Labor Party in Victoria comes to the party with $4 million, roughly 0.01 per cent of what the hospital needs to be rebuilt. Even that is $1 million less than what the federal coalition provided six years ago. We all know that Victoria is broke and that each day another $20 million of Victorian taxpayers' money goes to paying interest on Labor's debt. Every month, Labor spends on interest what it could have spent on a full rebuild of the Rosebud Hospital. Bullwinkel Electorate: Darlington Community Bonfire 16 13:38 Ms TRISH COOK 312871 Bullwinkel I rise today to share a story from my electorate of Bullwinkel. It's a story about community, resilience and the remarkable spirit of the people who live in the Perth Hills. This past weekend, the suburb of Darlington held its annual community bonfire. While I was unfortunately unable to attend this year, it's an event that holds a special place in my heart. For many years, my sister Dr Diane Parker, a teacher at Helena College, and I were part of the volunteers who organised the bonfire, and I have seen first hand how it brings out best in our community. To an outsider it might look like a simple bonfire, a fun night out and a sausage sizzle and soup from the local CWA, but it's so much more than that. Its primary purpose is the bushfire hazard reduction of the eastern states wattles, which are unable to be composted due to their resilient seed pods, so they need to be burnt. The tradition began over a decade ago, when a resident concerned about the fuel load in the local reserve suggested the community come together to clear it themselves, and they did. It's a collaboration between the Darlington Volunteer Bush Fire Brigade, the Bushfire Ready group, the CWA and, most importantly, the students from Helena College high school, who helped gather the wood and make the bonfire the day before. It's a community proactively taking responsibility for its own safety. I'm proud to say that I've also committed $300,000 to provide female change facilities to the Darlington Volunteer Bush Fire Brigade. (Time expired) Screen and Visual Arts Industry: Australian Content 16 13:40 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah Last month, I hosted a roundtable with constituents from the Australian screen industry. All were deeply concerned at the lack of local content rules for streaming services, which is resulting in a lack of investment in Australian stories. The screen industry has seen an estimated 60 per cent reduction in work, and this puts around 55,000 jobs at risk. After listening to their stories and hearing the impacts on their livelihoods, a petition was started to call on the government to deliver on their election promises—in 2022 and 2025, and earlier, in 2019—to legislate local content requirements for streaming services. The campaign has struck a chord. Australians love Australian stories, which is why nearly 12,000 people have now signed, showing their support. That includes actors, producers, directors, writers and voice actors, all of whom tell our homegrown stories. Many of them are here today in the gallery, and I want to thank them for their strong advocacy. Countries such as Canada, France, Denmark, Italy and Spain have introduced local content rules, or are in the process of negotiating them, to protect their screen industry. It's time for Australia to do the same. Streamers are using the publicly funded NBN to deliver their product; we should ensure that there are Australian made stories. I call on the Prime Minister and Minister Burke to deliver on their commitment and legislate for streaming platforms to have quotas for Australian content. Raise Our Voice Australia 17 13:41 Ms COMER 316551 Petrie Today I have the pleasure of reading visions of the future from 21-year-old Mia, as part of our Raise Our Voice campaign: As a child, I saw the government making true progress. It was progressive policy, people-focused policy that allowed a kid born into an abusive and uncertain living situation to dream of bigger and better things. I was proud of my country because I knew as a whole, we were progressing towards a greater and brighter future for everyone. However, as I got older, I suppose my rose-tinted glasses were cracked slightly. When I was in high school, particularly in the pandemic period, the progressive policy appeared to falter. Decisions to increase the fees of certain degrees had me questioning my future. Perhaps attending a tertiary institution isn't a key step in breaking generational burdens for everyone- but for me, and many more it is. That is only one example of backwards policy changing my perspective, as a young person, of what my future will look like. Parties making shameful statements about my rights as a women, division over the rights of First Nations people, over the correct way to handle children who have turned to crime. It isn't the progressive Australia that lifted me up as a child. So, to the Government, I put this to you: please do not shy away from progressive policy. Do not go backwards in the ways we have seen our foreign neighbours regress. Australia was built on progress, innovation, and lifting up those who need it most. You never know, there just might be a little kid watching Question Time the way same I used to, dreaming up her future. And trust me. Her perception of her government's progression is everything. It is our future. Rocky Sports Club 17 13:43 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia Today I rise to express my deep disappointment and, frankly, outrage at the Albanese Labor government's decision to rip $23 million in funding from the Rocky Sports Club project. This funding was secured and approved in 2010 by the former coalition government to support the expansion of a club that services 129 local sporting and community groups. It was shovel ready and community backed, and it would have delivered local jobs and world-class sporting facilities in Rockhampton. Instead of backing regional Queensland, Labor's infrastructure minister, Catherine King, has strung along this community for years, only to pull the plug entirely, late on Friday afternoon, thinking no-one would notice. Let's be clear: this was a simple variation request for an extension of time. It was not a new project and not a handout, just the green light needed to get on with the job. The decision to cut this funding shows utter contempt for Rockhampton and the wider Capricornia region. It's a betrayal of local athletes, volunteers and families, who have poured their hearts into this vision. I call on Minister King and the Albanese government to reverse this decision and show some respect for the people of Rockhampton. Our community deserves better. Medicare 17 13:44 Dr REID 300126 Robertson Yet again, we mark another chapter in our nation's history books: the chapter where the health of the nation is strengthened—a chapter focused on health care for all Australians and not just some. The Albanese government is making the single largest investment in Medicare since its creation over 40 years ago. Over $8.5 billion is being invested into Medicare to make sure that patients can get the care that they need when they need it. It is also supporting our Australian doctors—our Australian general practitioners—the backbone of our health workforce. This isn't just a commitment for those practices and for those GPs; it is making sure that GPs can focus on what they do, and that is preventive primary health care. It is making sure that preventive health measures are put in place so that these chronic diseases don't spiral out of control, aren't exacerbated and don't require an emergency department admission. It is making sure that hypertension remains low and that cholesterol remains low so it doesn't become a heart attack or a stroke. That is this government's focus. This government's focus is to make sure that we are funding bulk-billing and that we are sustaining the beating heart that is our healthcare system: bulk-billing. Brain Cancer 18 13:46 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra Today I met with Philippa Ryan, who told me the story of her husband, John. John was an award-winning builder working across residential and commercial construction and a local in our community. Only recently retired, John love golf and, more than anything, he loved his family. John was a husband, a father of three and a grandfather to seven. Last year, John passed away from glioblastoma, after being diagnosed only four months earlier. John's story was devastating to hear, and I thank Philippa for taking the time to share and acknowledge him today. Brain tumours don't discriminate; they can impact anyone at any age. In my own family, my grandmother Ruth died of a brain tumour at 49. The survival rates is confronting—just 22 per cent, and for glioblastoma it's only five per cent. Each year 1,528 Australians die from brain cancer and another 1,896 are diagnosed. This should concern each and every one of us. If we're serious about changing outcomes, we need to do more to support patients, families and research. In Berowra we have dozens of families who have lived through or are currently going through the devastation of brain tumour diagnosis. That's why the Brain Tumour Alliance and its wonderful event Head to the Hill are so important today. I want to acknowledge others in my community—in particular, Ben Murray, Christine Whittall and Danielle Ballantine—who, along with Philippa, shared stories with me and helped me bring awareness of this important issue to the parliament today. Your message is being heard, and I'll continue to advocate on your behalf and on behalf of other families across the Berowra community. Workplace Relations 18 13:47 Mr FRENCH 316550 Moore I rise as a proud ETU member and qualified electrician. I know what it means to work long hours in tough conditions away from family, building the infrastructure that powers our economy. I know the pride in that work and the frustration when the cost of living keeps rising but the wages don't. Across Western Australia, workers are doing it tough. Rent, groceries and fuel are all up while too many employers still treat fair pay and safe conditions as optional. That's why Labor's same job, same pay reforms matter. They have restored balance, ensuring employers can no longer ignore their workforce. But sometimes, even with fair laws, workers must stand together and use every lawful tool available, including protected industrial action, to make their voices heard. That's what ETU members are doing at Bechtel's Pluto Train 2 near Karratha. They're building a project worth billions, yet too often people who build our prosperity are the last to share in it. They're only asking for fairness, safety and respect, to be paid for every hour worked, for super to reflect real hours and for rosters that let them get home safely to their families. Those are modest, reasonable claims grounded in dignity, not excess. Industrial action is never taken lightly, but sometimes standing still costs more. ETU members are united. They are strong, and they have my full support in their fight for a fair and safe modern agreement, because a strong economy depends on workers who are safe, respected and fairly paid. Barton Highway 18 13:49 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Deputy Speaker Claydon, you would be very impressed if you wandered not far from here, Parliament House, and you went to the Yass Valley. You would find a lot of budding Tom Cruises. And when you go out and about in the Yass Valley area, you hear them say, 'Show me the money. Show me the money! Show me the money!' What they're referring to is, of course, the Barton Highway, because it has been neglected. And those budding Tom Cruises—aka Jerry Maguires—are shouting out 'Show me the money!' because they want money for one of Australia's busiest highways, which between 2014 and 2023 has unfortunately seen 141 crashes, nine deaths and five serious injuries. In 2020, during the by-election, the now regional development minister promised a quarter of a billion dollars. Well, Minister, show me the money! Then, of course, in November 2023, it became $150 million, and we haven't seen that either. Minister, show me the money! And then, of course, we got $25 million in the last budget—apparently. But I say again, 'Show me the money!' because we haven't seen the money. Labor has neglected the Barton Highway, just like they've neglected regional Australia. Show me the money, Labor! Youth Voice in Parliament 19 13:50 Mr MATT SMITH 312393 Leichhardt For Youth Voice In Parliament Week I took part in the Raise Our campaign. This speech was written by a future FNQ leader: My name is Claudia and I am 16 years old from Cairns. Right now, young people in regional Queensland are living through a youth mental health crisis. In my community, the nearest psychologist can be a four-hour drive away-200 kilometres that a struggling teenager simply cannot travel. Even when you get there, waitlists can stretch for six months. For a young person in crisis, six months isn't just too long. It's deadly. One in four young Australians experience mental ill-health, but in regional areas, support is almost impossible to reach. We are told to "speak up" and "be resilient," yet when we do, there is no one there to answer. If the government truly wants to build a better tomorrow, it must start today-by funding free, local, culturally safe mental health services that are accessible in every community. No young Australian should be told to wait. No one should be left behind because of their postcode. We don't need promises. We need action. And we need it now. As someone who has a well-documented struggle with depression in my past, I want to say to Claudia: we hear you; we're listening. The tender for the Medicare mental health clinic in Cairns has been completed, and it will be opening soon. Headspace Plus will be adding another clinician to help with youth mental health. We know that young people in the Far North have undergone a lot of stress lately with Cyclone Jasper and COVID. We have listened and we have acted. Claudia, we are on your side. Youth Voice in Parliament 19 13:52 Mr KENNEDY 267506 Cook Leila, a very smart 10-year-old girl from my electorate, wrote this speech: Imagine waking up every morning not with excitement for the day ahead, but with a heavy burden— not because of tests or tiredness, but because of bullies. Now, ask yourself this: How would you feel? This is the harsh reality faced by me and many other children around Australia. There should certainly be a more effective approach to bullying, as it can improve children's education and wellbeing, and give them the tools to overcome adversity and grow as a person. Around Australia, bullying undoubtedly affects children's wellbeing. It causes immense stress and lowers self-esteem, impacting their grades and their future. Studies show that children who are or were victims of bullying are at higher risk of anxiety, stress and depression—sometimes lasting into adulthood. One in four year 4 to year 9 students report being bullied every few weeks or more. Some schools think the solution is that victims must simply be resilient. But what does 'resilience' really mean? Leila's ideas include encouraging martial arts to build perseverance and a positive mindset, and creating a task force in every school to help children thrive. Leila, I thank you for your courage and compassion in bringing this message to parliament, and I urge action for the protection of young Australians. Banks Electorate: Revesby Post Office 19 13:53 Mr SOON 298618 Banks When Australia Post announced that the post office in Revesby town centre would be closing, I knew that the wrong decision had been made—and it came as extremely disappointing news for the community in Revesby and the surrounding areas it services. When I spoke about the situation during the last parliamentary sitting week, I said I looked forward to further discussions with Australia Post, particularly around alternatives to closure. While I'm pleased that these conversations were had, I am terribly disappointed that, unfortunately, Australia Post did not recognise the importance of the post office and are pushing forward with its closure. The petition I launched in September received the support of more than 2,600 local residents from our community. I'd like to thank the community for supporting our efforts to save the post office, with special recognition to Amanda Sweeney, who took it upon herself to collect signatures. While the post office will close on 29 of this month, there is still work to do. Revesby is a growing community. It needs more services, not fewer. I will continue to work with local residents, businesses and Australia Post to find alternative solutions to preserve access to services in our community. Australian Defence Force: Honours and Awards 19 13:55 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I am sad to report that an outbreak of arrogance and hubris has infected the entire Labor caucus. How else can we explain the mean-spirited plan, with its complete lack of respect, which is the Labor proposal to put a use-by date on 'we will remember them'? This is without any consultation—no consultation whatsoever—with service organisations and without any proof that there is a problem to be solved. The Labor Party is removing rights for Australian Defence Force personnel and veterans to appeal decisions which would impact some of the most heroic Australians in our history. Under the legislation the Labor Party rammed through the House of Reps, which everyone over there voted for, Teddy Sheean doesn't get a VC, Richard Norden doesn't get a VC, Harry Smith's troops at Long Tan do not get the medallion recognition they so rightly deserve, and the Labor Party voted for it. I say to the minister: why? Why, Minister? You can't hide forever. This missing-in-action minister has given no reason whatsoever as to why he has gone down this pathway. Why is your government showing no respect to veterans and no respect to Australian Defence Force personnel? Why won't you just bin this bad bill before you do more— (Time expired) Defence Materiel 20 13:56 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence Last Friday I had the great honour to open our newest defence capability in my electorate of Spence. Life Support International Australia has commenced its service and maintenance function on the UNI-PAC III search-and-rescue kit, which is deployed from our P-8 Poseidons based out of the RAAF Base Edinburgh. This kit is relied on when we have search-and-rescue events across our neighbouring seas. As someone who spent 10 years in the offshore gas and oil sector, being able to be part of the grand opening and have an inherent link to a life-saving device such as the UNI-PAC III was a really special occasion for me. When things go wrong and you're hundreds of nautical miles offshore, you don't have the luxury of being able to step back onto land, to safety. You really do rely on these life-saving appliances being deployed in a time of need. To the men and women that will be part of this maintenance facility, all power to you and the work that you do. You will save lives. To Greg Yerkes, the CEO of LSI, and to BiORG's Doug Phillips, thank you so much for the opportunity to be there at your grand opening. It's just another feather in the cap for defence industry in South Australia, building on the great work that has been going on for many, many years. Prime Minister 20 13:58 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer Australians expect their Prime Minister to show judgement, respect and leadership. Instead, we have got the opposite. Arriving back in Australia from his overseas trip, the Prime Minister stepped off the plane proudly wearing a T-shirt with the name of a band, Joy Division, whose origins are steeped in antisemitism. The name was taken from the wing of a Nazi concentration camp where Jewish women were forced into sexual slavery. At a time when Jewish Australians are facing a rise in antisemitism, when families are asking for reassurance and unity, the Prime Minister chose to parade an image derived from hatred and suffering. This is not a slip of judgement, and he cannot claim ignorance. He was told about the dark origins of this band on a podcast in 2022. He even admitted, 'That is very dark.' He knew, he understood, and still he wore the T-shirt. So to wear that name across your chest is not just a statement of musical taste, and it is more than bad taste. It raises questions about values—the wrong values. And it is a profound failure of judgement. For the Prime Minister of this country in full knowledge of the meaning behind the name of this band to choose to wear this T-shirt is an insult to all, and it fails the basic tests of leadership. He should apologise immediately and explain why he thought this was acceptable. Environment 20 13:59 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan I've stood on mine sites that have powered the nation's economy. I have also helped rehabilitate these mine sites and bring them back to life. Our EPBC reforms are important. Our environmental laws are old, outdated and overloaded; they are too slow for business and too weak for nature. Our reforms fix this. To the Liberal Party, the supposed party of business: go back to basics and back business. You need to support these reforms. To the Greens: you are the party of protest. Why don't you be the party of progress? We can create these reforms that will be amazing for generations to come. Australia is one of the most beautiful countries in the world, and we have a moment in time when we can create laws that are good for business but also good for the environment. Put the politics aside. Are you prepared to do this once-in-a-generation reform? I'm a proud miner. I am also proud of our beautiful Australian environment. Come on; bring it on. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. The House of Representatives transcript was published up to 14.01 . The remainder of the transcript will be published progressively as it is completed. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Lawrence ) took the chair at 12:31.

Tuesday, 28 October 2025

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Lawrence ) took the chair at 12:31.

 

GRIEVANCE DEBATE 21 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Renewable Energy 21 12:31 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon The first issue I'd like to speak on today is the offshore wind farm off the coast of Warrnambool and Port Fairy. As the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, knows, my community does not want this offshore wind farm placed right next to a whale-breeding zone—a breeding zone of a whale which is on the extinction list, as a matter of fact. Minister Bowen said last week, when he was asked a question by me in the parliament, 'If an application is in the wrong place, it wouldn't be approved, whether it's renewable energy or anything else. That's how it should be.' Well, I say to Minister Bowen that now you have made it very clear in the parliament that that is your view—that is, you've said it under oath in the parliament—we look forward to you acting on it. As you know, and as the Minister knows, there was no environmental study done before he placed this zone off the coast of Warrnambool and Port Fairy. They didn't do any sort of assessment of what the potential environmental impacts might be, whether those be on whales or sea birds. Instead, he just plonked this offshore wind farm zone off the coast of Port Fairy and Warrnambool and didn't do due diligence with regard to consultation with the community. As we found out through FOI requests, his department said to him, 'You need to be very careful about doing this,' for exactly the reasons that we want it stopped. The environmental consequences will be significant if he goes ahead with this, as will the economic consequences because, as we are finding out right across the globe, offshore wind is expensive. It's one of—if not the most—expensive forms of energy anywhere. We have already seen electricity bills go up by 39 per cent under this government, while emissions have flatlined—so you've got a double whammy policy which is failing on your cost of living and failing on doing anything about emissions. How can this Minister still be in his job—seriously? More importantly or just as important, he's now putting offshore wind farms in places where they have no right to be. As you've said, it's quite clear they shouldn't go in areas where they will have a significant impact on biodiversity. Let's hear you practice what you preach, Minister Bowen. Let's scrap this offshore wind farm once and for all and keep my constituents, especially around Warrnambool and Port Fairy, happy. It's hard to believe, but the fire season is upon us. Fortunately, in western Victoria—even though we'd had a very tough period of 12 to 18 months of very dry weather—we have seen good rain over the last two to three months. We've seen good grass growth. But what that means is, as a community, we now have to get ready for the summer. We obviously had the devastating bushfires in the Grampians last summer, so we are fully aware of the dangers of bushfires in western Victoria. We have to prepare for this coming summer. Obviously, as the Country Fire Authority knows, especially those wonderful volunteers, we have to be fire ready. So I say this to everyone who is still a volunteer member of the CFA—and the Victorian state government have done everything they can to turn people away in their hundreds. To those who still are, like I am: it's time to do your minimum skills training. And, if you're a landholder, it's time to make sure that you've done the preparatory work to be able to protect your property from fire, because, whether we like it or not, Christmas is coming at us at a million miles, and we've got to make sure we do what we always have to do in the country—prepare for the summer fire season. So get yourself ready, and, if you still volunteer, make sure that you've got your minimum skills so, if we get the worst, we can make sure that we're there taking action to protect our communities. I've been travelling around my electorate the last few weeks, doing listening posts and trying to hear what is of concern to my constituents. As I spoke of yesterday in this parliament, roads—the state of the roads and the number of potholes, which continues to increase—are the No. 1 concern. But it's followed closely by the cost of living. People are saying to me, how can they deal with the cost of groceries; how can they deal with the cost of insurance; and how can they deal with the cost of electricity, which has gone up by 39 per cent, and the cost of gas, which has gone up by over 20 per cent? They want some sort of relief, and all they're seeing at the moment is a continuation in the fall in their living standards. They're starting to know and understand that Australia has seen the biggest fall in living standards of any country in the OECD. When you put these cost pressures, which show no sign of ending, on top of that, people are hurting. My message to the Prime Minister is: it's all well and good, doing what you're doing overseas, but you have to have a laserlike focus on what is happening on the ground here in Australia, and the cost of living remains a key concern to people. I will continue to hold you to account for the fact that my communities are continuing to struggle with the cost of living, because nothing your government is doing is seeking to ease those cost-of-living pressures, and people want them addressed. One of the great days on my calendar every year is when I host the Wannon Sport and Volunteer Awards. People are nominated from right across the wonderful Wannon electorate, and they come together. We always do it the same way: we do the wonderful people who volunteer in and around our sporting clubs and then the wonderful people who volunteer for our community organisations. We'll usually get 250 or 300 people at both the morning and the afternoon events. You hear the stories of what people who volunteer in our communities do, and it never ceases to amaze me. It is the most humbling day on my calendar right throughout the year. These people don't want any credit for what they do—they don't want the accolades; they don't want the applause—but, when you're able to recognise them, you can just see the joy that it brings to them because they absolutely love what they do, and they love what they do because they love their communities. That just shines out. I'll be hosting my sport and volunteer awards again in November. I can't wait. We've got wonderful, wonderful nominations from right across the electorate again, and I say to everyone who has been nominated that I can't wait to see you on the day. I can't wait to be able to congratulate you for everything that you've done for our wonderful communities because you've earnt and deserve that recognition. This is a small way that our communities can say a huge thank you to you, because, without volunteers, our country communities wouldn't be as strong as they are—and they're as strong as any community in Australia. As a matter of fact, I would say we are stronger because I think our ethos of volunteering is stronger. So a huge thank you, and I look forward to seeing you soon. Young Australians, First Home Guarantee, Housing Australia Future Fund 22 12:37 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid All of us come to this place to make sure that we are creating a better world for future generations. Unfortunately, not all governments have had that at the forefront of their minds. It is hard to be a young person in Australia. They're studying longer, they're juggling multiple jobs, and they're paying more for housing, food and other necessities. Yet they're feeling further away from basic milestones that once defined the cornerstone of Australian life. For many young people, home ownership feels out of reach, stable employment feels uncertain, and the promise of a secure climate and healthy planet is no longer taken for granted. Let's be clear: this didn't happen by accident. It's the result of a decade of neglect and deliberate sabotage by the former Liberal-National government: 10 years where wages flatlined, 10 years where housing affordability went backwards, 10 years where university and TAFE fees went up, and 10 years where climate change was seen as an inconvenience instead of the defining challenge of our generation. But, unlike those opposite, who continue to ignore and demean young people, Labor is listening and delivering. Unfortunately, Sydney is the second-least affordable housing market in the world, second only to Hong Kong. The challenges in the housing market have been brewing for decades. It is too hard to build, too hard to buy and too expensive to rent. That's why Labor went into the election with a promise to expand the First Home Guarantee scheme. As of 1 October, every single first home buyer around this country is now eligible to get into the housing market with just a five percent deposit supported by the Albanese government—no matter their income, and with no limits on placements. With the First Home Guarantee scheme, a young couple in Sydney would on average save 11 years and $23,000 in lenders' mortgage insurance getting into the property market. And we didn't just deliver our promise; we delivered three months early, because Labor also recognises that we need to increase housing supply and build more homes. The Albanese Labor government is investing $43 billion to build more homes for Australians. We've established the Housing Australia Future Fund, a $10 billion investment that will build 30,000 new social and affordable homes over five years. And Labor governments, at both the federal and state levels in New South Wales, are making it easier to build homes by cutting red tape and approving development applications. We are building more homes, making it better and easier to rent and backing first home buyers. Meanwhile what is the record of those opposite? For most of the decade that the Liberals and Nationals were in government, they didn't care enough about housing affordability to have a housing minister. In the decade that the Liberals were in, they only built 373 social and affordable housing places, and, when they were finally dragged kicking and screaming into pretending to have a viable housing policy, what was the solution from those opposite? It was to let young Australians raid their superannuation for a home deposit. It was to erode their retirement savings and rob them of security later in life, forcing them to choose between a home today and retirement in the future. They went to not just one but two elections with that same failed idea. As if we've learned nothing over the last few months, the coalition either have refused to learn those important lessons from the election or are just refusing to recognise the realities. The Liberals didn't just stop at making it harder for a young person to buy a home. They also made it harder to afford an education. The Job-ready Graduates scheme introduced by the Morrison government didn't do any of the things that it was supposed to do. It didn't improve job outcomes like they promised. It didn't boost enrolment in priority areas like they promised. It didn't deliver value for students like they promised. They neglected, undermined and underfunded the tertiary education sector. But Labor is taking bold, practical steps that will genuinely ease the burden on young people. Starting in a few weeks every young person with a student debt will see a 20 per cent cut in their student debt, backdated to 1 June this year. That's $16 billion in student relief for over three million young Australians—so many in my electorate will benefit from this—and is in addition to delivering a fairer repayment system. We've already delivered a fix to the broken indexation system. No more will student debts grow faster than your wages. And from this financial year students and graduates won't have to start repaying their student loans until they earn about $67,000 a year. This means that you start paying down your debt when you can afford to do so. On climate and the environment, in 2020, the Samuel review warned that Australia's environmental laws were failing. It said urgent reform was needed to stop the decline of our natural environment. Who was the environment minister when that review landed? The Leader of the Opposition. And what did she do? Nothing. The report sat on a shelf while species disappeared and the Australian community lost faith in the system meant to protect our environment. Now Labor is finally acting. We will be introducing the nature positive bill—the biggest environmental reform in two decades. It will finally establish an independent federal environmental protection agency, strengthen protection for the environment and deliver transparency in our environmental planning approval system. Despite all of this and despite the opposition leader's initial embrace of the review from when she was the minister for the environment, the opposition continues to oppose real action on the climate and environment. Professor Graeme Samuel described the opposition leader's opposition as a 'political game' and said that it made him feel 'bitterly disappointed', 'frustrated' and 'frankly a little angry', and I share those sentiments. Despite what the opposition and, indeed, all of us have heard from young voters regarding action on climate change and the environment, the opposition continues to dither and obstruct. Labor has set a new 2035 emissions target, a 60 to 72 per cent cut from 2005 levels, backed by record investments in renewables, green hydrogen and clean industries. The Liberal and National parties are still trying to figure out whether climate change is real and whether they want to support a net zero policy. There is so much infighting around this within the coalition that they are tearing each other apart. We, on this side of the House, have accepted that climate change is happening and that government has a role to play and act and that we need to work with the private sector to do so. That is exactly what we are doing. Those opposite continue to play politics. The Albanese Labor government is getting on with the job of building more homes, cutting student debt, and protecting our environment and climate—because young Australians deserve a government that listens, acts and delivers. Under Labor, that is exactly what they will get. All of us in this place came into our roles to ensure that we build a better future for all Australians but particularly for young Australians. So, to all young Australians across the country, the message is very clear. The coalition does not have your back. They haven't had your back for a really long time. The Labor government does. We're committed to improving our environment and to ensuring that you have good-quality education and that you are not saddled with debt when you graduate, and we're determined to act on climate change. Coober Pedy 23 12:51 Mr VENNING 315434 Grey I rise today to discuss a matter of national importance concerning an iconic Australian town and the opal capital of the world, Coober Pedy. Coober Pedy has a population of approximately 2,000 people. It is located in the far north of South Australia, 850 kilometres north of Adelaide and 680 kilometres south of Alice Springs. Opal was first discovered in February 1915, and, in 1920, the official name of the town was chosen. The name Coober Pedy is an anglicisation of the Aboriginal term 'kupa piti', often translated as 'white man in a hole'. It's a name that speaks to the history of grit, complex issues, innovation, and the unique spirit required to work in the harsh South Australian outback. And what a history it has! Yet—and I don't say this lightly—if governments don't start taking the plight of this regional centre seriously, Coober Pedy could well just be history. Today Coober Pedy stands not as a beacon of outback triumph but as a stark, unforgiving symbol of what happens when remote communities fall between the cracks. It is a portrait of high costs, declining services, community fatigue and bureaucratic abandonment. The people of Coober Pedy are some of the most resilient Australians I have ever met. They are a community that simply wants to get on with it—get on with rebuilding their local government systems and get on with teaching the next generation the invaluable skills of opal cutting, grading and mining. That is the soul of the town. But they're being tied up, not by their work ethic or passion but by government red tape and neglect. This is why I stand here demanding answers. Last week in Coober Pedy, I took the pleasure to take this fight to Canberra, and I'm proud to be joined in this urgent call for action by a man who knows this region well, who understands the frustrations and who is absolutely committed to delivering a fair deal for the outback, the Liberal candidate for Stuart, Leon Stephens. Leon is not a man for a photo opp. He's committed to taking up Coober Pedy's fight and forcing a real plan for change—not another raft of reviews. Leon is right when he says that people here are dealing with something they do not deserve. Earlier this month, the true cost of a state Labor government's unimaginable financial waste, namely the $498 million loss on hydrogen in Whyalla, was laid bare by the Auditor-General. It makes me sick to think of what a fraction of that cost could do in Coober Pedy for essential services, particularly power and water. A mere 10 per cent of that could have changed the lives of the entire community. Instead, it went to the Premier's pet project in Whyalla that has not even commenced. This is a disgrace. Leon Stephens and I are demanding a fair go for this hardworking town. So where to from here? Well, we need plans, not promises. First, we are demanding a generally funded state and federal taskforce for Coober Pedy. This task force must deliver critically upgraded water and electricity infrastructure. The residents face constant failures, undrinkable water, ageing pipelines and crippling costs—three times more than what you'd pay in Adelaide. Attached to this must be transparency on costs and timelines, and the immediate, yet feasible, restoration of the elected local government in Coober Pedy. The council has been in administration since 2019. This community must have its voice back. There is no publicised plan for the financial exit from administration, and this uncertainty is splitting the community. Second, we must provide funding tied to training and employment programs. The local industry is rich with knowledge. The best opal cutters in the world are right there ready to teach local youth about presentation and grading yet we are told that the government has refused to use the local TAFE. They are refusing to use the TAFE due to the outdated machinery. I will bet my last dollar that the pencil pushers in Adelaide that make that decision haven't even seen an opal mine in action. The very skills that define Coober Pedy are at risk of being lost. We need a review of this TAFE decision and proper pathways into trades, opal cutting, tourism operations and other local industry opportunities. We need to heed the miners who say they cannot afford the lose those skill sets. Third, we must address isolation. We need to secure air services and upgrade the airport to maintain connectivity. We need targeted support for outback roads to keep station access viable and local pastoralists and businesses open. Fourth, we must strengthen volunteer and emergency services. We need clear recruitment pathways, incentives and dedicated funding to retain the central personnel for police, ambulance and MFS The shortage or blatant lack of essential services from aged care to dental care and child care is a failure of responsibility by all involved. Fifth, we need a clear plan to hold the state government to account for the delays, particularly the financial plan to exit council administration and the water infrastructure strategy. The community must know the timelines and details. This has gone on for too long. Sixth is fairer costs for residents. Remote living should not equate to paying three times more for water or being subjected to utility practises deemed unjust by the ombudsman. Coober Pedy shows us that when governments treat remote communities as after-thoughts, the social, economic and human consequences mount. This is a great town with a warm resilient soul, and I would hate for a series of bad decisions by a government to result in that great soul being stripped away. Regional Australia should not be the backyard for neglect. Coober Pedy deserves better. Remote communities deserve to know that they will not follow the same path as the town of Bindabee, which was closed by the state government in 2019. Regional communities and remote communities deserve to know that their contribution to this nation isn't just remembered, it is valued. Remote communities deserve to be able to continue their mining roots and share their skills with the world. Remote communities deserve educational facilities, places where young people learn to thrive, not just survive. Remote communities deserve real solutions—and not lip service and stop-throughs by pollies on their way to photo ops. The time for words is over. Someone needs to step in and deliver a clear pathway out of this situation. We need to show some empathy towards this community and get this problem solved quickly by our dual parties to support demands for action and recognise that investing in Coober Pedy is an investment in the unique spirit of our entire nation. The history of Coober Pedy should not end now. Regional and remote neglect in South Australia is unfortunately nothing new. In September this year, I had the pleasure of listening to Hari Hara Priya Kannan, a data scientist for The Demographics Group, which presented to Regional Development South Australia on the some issues facing people in my electorate of Grey. As I expected, it was bleak. Regional SA plays an enormous role in the nation's economy, but the data presented confirm that regional growth is deeply unequal. We cannot tolerate a future where metropolitan SA thrives while the regions continue to struggle. We cannot tolerate a future where the areas that generate a quarter of the state's GRP are starved of the essential resources they need to prosper. Our most critical challenge is a workforce crisis. We have an ageing population, and we face a threat in replacing the 173,000 workers expected to exit the regional labour market over the next decade. If we fail to solve this, $65 billion worth of identified regional investment in mining, industry and agriculture will stagnate. We must address the key drivers of population attraction, housing affordability and access to essential services including health and education. I urge this government to look after all Australians, not just those in our cities. We need a targeted honest commitment to building infrastructure and housing, to unlock skills pathways and to deliver place based solutions that transform our regional and rural and remote towns like Coober Pedy from remote outposts into vibrant competitive centres of opportunity. South Australia's prosperity depends on it. Looking at these issues—regional inequality and the plight of Coober Pedy—back to back tells a tale. It tells a tale of state and federal governments out of touch with the country and out of touch with real hardworking Australians. Uluru-Kata Tjuta Handback: 40th Anniversary 25 13:01 Ms SCRYMGOUR F2S Lingiari I want to spend a few moments reflecting on the 40th anniversary of the Uluru handback. I want to thank the Anangu traditional owners for welcoming the Prime Minister, the minister for the environment and me, including some of my colleagues from the Northern Territory parliament. I want to thank the Anangu for their grace, for their hope, for their strength. Uluru is a place of immense importance in our national fabric. This landmark is also known across the world as an emblem of Australia. It attracts tourists and visitors from all over the country and from all walks of life. People come because Uluru holds a unique power, and anyone who has visited can attest that it is a sacred place. The Anangu have protected this place for countless generations. To them, their custodianship of Uluru has never been in question, yet their legal right to this ancient landmark was only recognised 40 years ago. This recognition under Australian law—or white fella law—took many decades of struggle and advocacy. It's incredibly hard to describe First Nations people's connection to their country. Severing First Nations people from their country is like a person going blind. You still exist in this place, but you are cut off from your senses. Your ability to understand and interact with the world around you is greatly impacted. That's why the Uluru handback was so important. It was an act to make the Anangu people feel whole again. The Australian spirit I saw on display over the weekend was not a spiteful one. It was one where Aboriginal and a number of non-Aboriginal people came together to celebrate an important milestone. It was the first time a prime minister celebrated this important milestone, and having the PM there was an important symbol of this government's commitment to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people—to say, 'We are behind you in the fight for recognition.' As the Prime Minister said, this fight is not linear; it takes twists and turns and it holds successes and many failures. Going back to Uluru reminded me of this. It is a place I have been many times before, most recently in 2023 just before and prior to the referendum. While we all accept the outcome of the referendum, the journey forward is not over. The words of the Uluru statement still ring loud and clear. I was at Uluru in 2017 with the hundreds of First Nations delegates from all over this great continent. I felt the hope and the resilience that was still in the air. That longing and desire to forge a better and more just country—a country that has reckoned with its history—has not diminished. As a representative of the dozens of remote communities which overwhelmingly voted yes, it is my duty to continue advocating for a path forward. To me, that path lies in truth-telling. As we saw at Uluru, celebrating First Nations cultures enriches all of us. It brings people together in a way we can be proud of, but this celebration has to be meaningful, and it has to be genuinely there to uplift First Nations people. A recent example of what this celebration could and should look like unfolded in Alice Springs. Not enough is done to remind Australians what an extraordinary place Alice Springs is. For so many people throughout the country and the world who are interested in Indigenous art and culture, it is a place worth visiting and celebrating. Perhaps the best starting point is to understand that Aboriginal people and culture have endured in the heart of our mostly arid continent. Against all odds and on 23 May 2000, there was a determination that the rights of the Mparntwe, Antulye and Irlpme estate groups had survived the imposed establishment of an urban population centre on their country, although, by the mid-20th century, native title had been extinguished throughout much of that area. The determination made it clear that the significance of sacred sites and the authority of custodians to protect them were reaffirmed. The vulnerability of such sites under Northern Territory legislation had been revealed in 1992, when the Northern Territory government of the day would have destroyed the important Todd River sites if it hadn't been for Commonwealth ministerial override. Consistent with results in the last federal election are the recent Alice Springs town council elections. The people of Alice Springs are progressive. They're multicultural and mutually respectful. They want to see business development and opportunities for everyone. But, at the same time, they recognise and, in fact, seek to leverage Alice's unique circumstances. It is a native title town which is the hub for a constellation of remote Aboriginal communities spread throughout central Australia. This aspect of Alice Springs's contemporary character features the interconnection of Aboriginal culture from different groups across various regions and adds value to what would be an otherwise extremely limited local economy. Many tourists come to central Australia specifically because of this cultural context, and everyone loves Indigenous art. Most Indigenous art is sourced from the world view of what in central Australia they call jukurrpa. There are other equivalent terms throughout the country. This world view substantially links together particular living human stories about how the country was formed and shaped and obligations of ownership and protection. Understanding this art requires acknowledging how Aboriginal people have been impacted by history, both distant and recent. In other words, Aboriginal art is not a mere decoration, but a true appreciation of it involves opening up to truth-telling about ownership of country under traditional lore and custom and a willingness to understand the ongoing structural conflicts which arise as a result of that appropriation of that land. Discussions about these things should not be shied away from as divisive or uncomfortable. They are a necessary pathway to reconciliation. Reconciliation is a destination where all Australians can embrace and celebrate the heritage which Aboriginal Australians have bequeathed to this nation, which is why it is disappointing to hear the current Northern Territory government treasurer and some others recently speak of—and remove—the partnership for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Art Gallery of Australia as if it were a Bunnings site, a box to be ticked in order to promote foot traffic through the Alice Springs mall. Concerns about sacred sites and the Northern Territory government's downscaling of the building, as well as the proximity of the proposed site to a commercial alcohol and gaming machine business which profits from Aboriginal people, were dismissively shrugged off. Many years ago, many people in Alice Springs started a campaign for a national Aboriginal art gallery in Alice Springs. They pointed out that, if done right, this could be a magnet, and an important one, for interest and visitors, both nationally and internationally. There must be opportunities that we need to look at. We need to continue to work with the state government and also the community, and to see that we all need to come together. The commercial potential of Alice Springs for the establishment of such a centre is still high no matter where this could be. Tourists who go to the centre will always end up going up to the Todd more, even if we put it somewhere else, and would spend money. The whole town would benefit. The whole town would not benefit from the crash-through approach of the construction of a purported cultural attraction at a location which would see it damned as culturally toxic by senior Arrernte custodians. Common sense, cultural sense and a commercial sense must prevail. These considerations do not have to be in opposition to each other. We have an opportunity here—federal, state, local and community—to all work together to advance a national agenda of truth-telling and reconciliation, and to significantly expand and enhance the economy of Alice Springs and Central Australia. Keeping faith with the vision of Aboriginal people will deliver for Alice Springs and for our nation, which is so important. The objective and the responsibility to this community will be to do what I can as their federal representative—a commitment to Alice Springs that respect the town, its history and its people. 13:11 Mr SMALL 291406 Forrest I rise today to ask, what happened to choice in our country? When did we decide that Canberra knows best, that unelected bureaucrats who live far, far away from communities like mine are somehow best placed to decide what ordinary Aussies do in their homes, their businesses and their communities? It's a lens through which I come to look at most policies of government because I'm a live-and-let-live kind of guy, after all. I honestly believe that an important part of the Australian psyche still holds that we simply don't want to be told what to do all the time. So when we come to the issue of emissions reduction, it seems that this government has decided that it knows better than every Australian—or, more egregiously, that perhaps it doesn't trust those Australians to do the right thing in their own circumstances. Rather than leaving it to each Australian to decide when an electric vehicle suits their needs—whether for commuting, recreation with a caravan or boat, or even to for their work, whether it be on the construction site or in the back paddock—this government decided to impose taxes on folks who chose internal combustion engine cars, pushing up the cost of a new Ford Ranger, one of Australia's best-selling cars, by some $14,000 by 2029. Worse still, the assumed sales of electric vehicles are failing to meet the government's expectations. In the month of September, eight per cent of vehicles purchased by Australians were battery-electric vehicles, which is clearly well less than half of the expected base-case uptake of 20 per cent. It begs the question, will this government slug Aussies even more because they chose the wrong sort of car, as our net zero evangelists here in Canberra have dictated? I think the truly criminal part of the government deciding that they know more about what sort of car you should drive is the fact that they have cooked up a scheme of subsidies that make a Tesla cheaper for a surgeon than a nurse. I thought Labor was supposed to represent the worker, but here they are running a scheme that gives high-income earners a bigger tax break to buy an EV through a novated lease, and taxpayers are the ones left to foot the bill. We're taking tax money off a nurse to make a surgeon's novated lease for a Tesla cheaper. Astonishingly, the Parliamentary Budget Office expects this rort to cost some $23 billion over the decade, and yet still the government stands by it. So why can't we end all subsidies, taxes, penalties and every other way that bureaucrats here in Canberra are trying to direct Aussies as to what sort of car they drive, and just leave it to them? We know that Australians will make the right choice when it comes to doing their fair share for the environment. We know this because we've seen massive uptake of rooftop solar panels, and the uptake was not due to the subsidies offered by the Howard government, the rebate schemes of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years or even the various schemes of the Abbott government. No, rooftop solar took off in Australia around 2017-18 because the capital cost after incentives finally made economic sense, falling below $1 a watt in terms of capital cost, and Australians rallied to open their wallets and do the right thing. So household installations doubled then, and they've continued at breakneck pace. As an aside, in recent years some troubling questions have emerged that suggest that the manufacturing of solar panels in certain parts of China relies on slaves to achieve their incredibly low cost of production. These reports have come from reputable sources like the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, the BBC, New York Post and even Australia's Walk Free foundation. So I wrote to the climate change minister on 6 August this year to understand whether the government had satisfied itself that there was no risk of slave labour in the supply chains of solar panels coming to Australia. Eighty-three days later I'm still clicking refresh on my inbox, waiting for a response from Minister Bowen. It's pathetic that the government appears to be turning a blind eye to credible reports of slavery because it is so infatuated with its pursuit of net zero. Is the affordability of rooftop solar too good to be true? Mr Bowen's green dreams would leave a dark stain on our national history if these claims were ever validated. Returning to choice, however, I recently sat in a room with 25- to 35-year-old folks from Bunbury and watched as the shadow Treasurer asked them a simple question: 'What do you like least about Australia today?' 'Red tape,' 'Overregulation,' 'Constantly going for the lowest common denominator,' and, 'A nanny state'—these statements are from young entrepreneurs who are horrified by the constraints that we've layered upon them. It started with forcing coffee to be sold in cups that say, 'Caution! Contents may be hot'—seriously?—and now the mind virus seems to have completely killed off the drive of Australians to build things, create things and do things. Take my electorate, where a successful young business owner runs a shed-building company. He tells me that it takes at least four months to get the approvals in place to build a commercial shed and just seven to eight days to actually construct it. Just think about that. That's four months of plans being shuffled from one desk to another within bureaucracy, creating no value whatsoever, and then just a week for a crack team of tradies to actually build the shed. That's to say nothing of the truly catastrophic examples like the McPhillamys goldmine which, after years of planning approval work and with more than $1 billion ready to invest, was knocked back. So it's no wonder that more than four in five jobs created in the last two years depend on taxpayer money, and, from there, it is also no wonder that we are already spending $50,000 a minute on interest that our kids will ultimately pay. It really is un-Australian to rack up debt on the credit card and then give the bill to your kids to pay, especially when we've spent their whole lives telling them what to do, think and say. For another example where we could have embraced choice, take the government's mandatory climate reporting legislation, administered by ASIC, which started on 1 January this year. Businesses across the nation are now required to document, calculate and estimate their emissions and credits with a level of detail that, frankly, demands additional staff or compliance specialists. For a large multinational, it's simply the cost of doing business, but, for a family run operator, a manufacturer, a local trucking company or a regional retailer— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 13:19 to 13:43 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 299150 The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Sitting suspended from 13:43 to 16:00 The Federation Chamber transcript was published up to 13.43 . The remainder of the transcript will be published progressively as it is completed.