COMMITTEES

Selection Committee; Report

I present report No. 32 of the Selection Committee relating to consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday 18 November 2024. The report will be printed in the Hansard for today and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.

The report read as follows—

Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business

1. The Committee met in private session on Tuesday, 5 November 2024.

2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 5 November 2024, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 18 November 2024, as follows:

Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)

COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION BUSINESS

Presentation and statements

1 Standing Committee on Procedure

Maintenance of the standing and sessional orders

The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made all statements to conclude by 10.20.

Speech time limits

Mr Neumann 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices

1 DR M RYAN: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006, and for related purposes. (Abolition of Special Prospecting Authorities (Ocean Protection) Bill 2024)

(Notice given 10 October 2024.)

Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.

2 MR BIRRELL: To present a Bill for an Act to support rehabilitation of the environment affected by electricity projects, and for related purposes. (Requiring Energy Infrastructure Providers to Obtain Rehabilitation Bonds Bill 2024)

(Notice given 10 October 2024.)

Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.

3 MR WILKIE: To present a Bill for an Act to regulate suspicious gambling activities, and for related purposes. (Anti Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing Amendment (Making Gambling Businesses Accountable) Bill 2024)

(Notice given 4 November 2024.)

Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.

4 DR M RYAN: To present a Bill for an Act to establish a scheme to promote and enhance transparency, integrity and honesty in dealings between lobbyists and Government representatives, and for related purposes. (Lobbying (Improving Government Honesty and Trust) Bill 2024)

(Notice given 4 November 2024.)

Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.

5 DR HAINES: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Housing Australia Act 2018 and Housing Australia Future Fund Act 2023, and for related purposes. (Housing Legislation Amendment (Fair Share for Regional Housing) Bill 2024)

(Notice given 5 November 2024.)

Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.

6 DR SCAMPS: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, and for related purposes. (Broadcasting Services Amendment (Healthy Kids Advertising) Bill 2024)

(Notice given 5 November 2024.)

Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.

7 MR GOSLING: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that 2024 marks 40 years since the introduction of Medicare;

(2) acknowledges this was one of the most transformative moments in Australian history and meant access to health care became a right that all Australians could share, regardless of their income or background;

(3) further notes that to mark this historic occasion and anniversary, the Government has launched the Stronger Medicare Awards in recognition of primary healthcare professionals from all corners of the country who have gone above and beyond to improve the lives of all Australians;

(4) congratulates the finalists and winners of the Stronger Medicare Awards;

(5) extends its gratitude to every general practitioner (GP), nurse, midwife, pharmacist and allied health professional working in primary care, for the work they do to keep our communities healthy;

(6) recommits to the fundamental belief that it is your Medicare card, not your credit card, which should guarantee access to quality health care; and

(7) further acknowledges that:

(a) as the Minister for Health, the current Leader of the Opposition:

(i) tried to introduce a tax on visits to GPs;

(ii) froze Medicare rebates;

(iii) cut $50 billion from our hospitals;

(iv) said there were 'too many free Medicare services'; and

(v) was voted by Australia's doctors as the worst health minister in the history of Medicare; and

(b) only the Government can be trusted to keep Medicare strong as we build Australia's future.

(Notice given 5 November 2024.)

Time allotted 20 minutes.

Speech time limits

Mr Gosling 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue at a later hour.

8 MR VAN MANEN: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the Government has failed to tame inflation;

(b) because of its undisciplined and unnecessary spending, inflation has remained higher for longer;

(c) interest rates have already gone down in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and in New Zealand but are still high here; and

(d) the Prime Minister said life would be 'cheaper' under his Government, and promised 'cheaper mortgages' but has instead delivered a household recession; and

(2) acknowledges that only the Opposition has a plan to get Australia back on track.

(Notice given 5 November 2024.)

Time allotted remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon.

Speech time limits

Mr van Manen 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices

1 MR BATES: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) bulk-billing options are plummeting across the country and millions of people are delaying healthcare due to cost concerns;

(b) the cost of living crisis is both making mental health worse and causing an increasing number of people across Australia to delay or miss out on essential mental health care;

(c) over 60 per cent of Australians have delayed dental care in the last year, and the most common reason for doing so was cost; and

(d) everyone deserves to have access to good quality healthcare, including dental and mental health care, regardless of where you live, how old you are, or your bank balance; and

(2) calls on the Government to commit to universal healthcare and make the big corporations pay their fair share of tax so as to fund:

(a) bringing dental health into Medicare and expanding access to dental care to all;

(b) unlimited mental health care under Medicare; and

(c) a tripling of the bulk-billing incentive and the establishment of at least six free local healthcare clinics in each electorate to enable all Australians to go to the GP for free.

(Notice given 5 November 2024.)

Time allotted 20 minutes.

Speech time limits

Mr Bates 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

2 MR BURNS: To move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges the Government's commitment to making Australia's student loan system better and fairer by:

(a) cutting 20 per cent off all student loan debts, wiping around $16 billion in student debts for around three million Australians;

(b) raising the threshold people can earn before they start having to pay off their loans;

(d) building on reforms to fix the indexation formula, which is cutting around $3 billion in student debt;

(2) recognises that all up, the Government will cut close to $20 billion in student loan debt for more than three million Australians; and

(3) notes that these commitments are all part of the Government's plans to create a better and fairer education system for all Australians.

(Notice given 5 November 2024.)

Time allotted 30 minutes.

Speech time limits

Mr Burns 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

3 MR FLETCHER: To move:

That:

(1) a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on PsiQuantum Funding, be appointed to inquire into and report on the process undertaken by the Australian Government to provide $470 million to American-based company PsiQuantum Pty Ltd;

(2) the committee is to inquire into the following matters:

(a) the process by which the Australian Government selected PsiQuantum Pty Ltd for investment;

(b) the expression of interest process;

(d) the commercial and scientific terms of the investment;

(e) whether actual or potential conflicts of interest have been appropriately managed;

(f) the nature and extent of interactions between PsiQuantum or its external advisers and the Minister for Industry and Science, the Minister's personal staff and officials of the Australian Public Service; and

(g) any other matters necessary or incidental to the committee forming a view as to whether the investment in PsiQuantum is a proper expenditure of public money;

(3) the Minister for Industry and Science be called by the committee to appear as a witness to assist the committee in its deliberations;

(4) the committee consist of seven members, three Members to be nominated by the Chief Government Whip and four Members to be nominated by the Chief Opposition Whip of whom at least two must be a crossbench Member;

(5) every nomination of a member be notified in writing to the Speaker of the House of Representatives;

(6) the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all members have been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy;

(7) the members of the committee hold office as a select committee until presentation of the committee's final report or until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time, whichever is the earlier;

(8) the committee present its final report no later than 1 March 2025;

(9) the committee elect an Opposition member as its chair;

(10) the committee elect a Government member as its deputy chair to act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;

(11) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;

(12) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;

(13) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee;

(14) the committee have power to appoint subcommittees, consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine;

(15) the committee appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;

(16) two members of a subcommittee constitute the quorum of that subcommittee;

(17) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;

(18) the committee or any subcommittee has power to:

(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;

(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;

(d) report from time to time; and

(e) adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the House of Representatives; and

(19) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.

(Notice given 10 September 2024.)

Time allotted 30 minutes.

Speech time limits

Mr Fletcher 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

Orders of the day

MEDICARE: Resumption of debate on the motion of Mr Gosling—That this House:

(1) notes that 2024 marks 40 years since the introduction of Medicare;

(4) congratulates the finalists and winners of the Stronger Medicare Awards;

(5) extends its gratitude to every general practitioner (GP), nurse, midwife, pharmacist and allied health professional working in primary care, for the work they do to keep our communities healthy;

(6) recommits to the fundamental belief that it is your Medicare card, not your credit card, which should guarantee access to quality health care; and

(7) further acknowledges that:

(a) as the Minister for Health, the current Leader of the Opposition:

(i) tried to introduce a tax on visits to GPs;

(ii) froze Medicare rebates;

(iii) cut $50 billion from our hospitals;

(iv) said there were 'too many free Medicare services'; and

(v) was voted by Australia's doctors as the worst health minister in the history of Medicare; and

(b) only the Government can be trusted to keep Medicare strong as we build Australia's future.

Time allotted 30 minutes.

Speech time limits

All Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

Notices — continued

4 MR TEHAN: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that the:

(a) deterioration of country roads due to the reduction in funding for maintenance has created millions of potholes leading to accidents and serious damage to vehicles;

(b) Government has been cutting and delaying road projects since it was elected;

(d) reduction in funding for maintenance has led to an increase in Victorian motorists having tyres shredded, wheels misaligned, and accidents including fatal accidents over the past two years; and

(e) state of the road network in regional Victoria has led to an increase in serious accidents and an increase in fatal accidents; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) undertake an audit on the condition of Victoria's local and state road network and make that information public;

(b) double the amount of funding available to repair Victoria's road network over the next four years; and

(c) abandon support for the Suburban Rail Loop (SRL) and invest the $2.2 billion of funding allocated to the SRL in Victorian country roads.

(Notice given 5 November 2024.)

Time allotted remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm.

Speech time limits

Mr Tehan 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices — continued

5 MR KATTER: To move:

That this House:

(1) calls on the Government to urgently amend the Cyclone Reinsurance Pool to ensure that all Australian insurers provide residents in cyclone-prone areas with options for house insurance premiums that are comparable to those paid by the rest of the country;

(2) notes that:

(a) with the exception of Sure and Allianz, insurance premiums in Northern Australia are significantly higher than the national average, placing an unfair lack of choice and financial burden on northern Australian homeowners;

(b) the Cyclone Reinsurance Pool has failed and needs further and urgent negotiation; and

(3) calls on the Government to:

(a) fix the Cyclone Reinsurance Pool before another disaster strikes in the north; and

(b) ensure that:

(i) all insurers offer affordable and fair insurance coverage charges in line with the rest of Australia; and

(ii) specific insurers are not over-exposed.

(Notice given 5 November 2024.)

Time allotted 15 minutes.

Speech time limits

Mr Katter 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 3 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

6 MS CLAYDON: To move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges and celebrates the exceptional achievements of Australia's Skillaroos who represented our nation at the 2024 WorldSkills competition in Lyon;

(2) recognises the dedication, skill, and passion of our Skillaroos exemplifies the highest standards of excellence in vocational education and training and demonstrates the incredible talent within our skilled workforce;

(3) commends the Government for its commitment to getting the best outcomes for Australians through improving access to vocational education and training, supporting quality training and putting TAFE back at the heart of the sector; and

(4) supports the Government as it continues to invest in the Australian people by prioritising training initiatives like Fee-Free TAFE.

(Notice given 4 November 2024.)

Time allotted 40 minutes.

Speech time limits

Ms Claydon 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

7 MR FLETCHER: To move:

That this House notes that:

(1) according to Services Australia's 2023-24 annual report:

(a) customer satisfaction was 79.1 out of 100, against a target of 85;

(b) only 55.2 per cent of customers were served within 15 minutes, against a target of 70 per cent;

(d) only 58.5 per cent of Centrelink claims were processed within their respective timeliness standards;

(2) under the watch of the Minister for Government Services, Australia has recorded its worst result for digital government in over a decade, according to the latest E-Government Development Index; and

(3) the previous Government was doing a much better job of delivering a better customer service experience, with the 2023 OECD Digital Government Index, based on data for the period from January 2020 and October 2022, placing Australia in the top five best performing countries.

(Notice given 5 November 2024.)

Time allotted 40 minutes.

Speech time limits

Mr Fletcher 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

Orders of the day — continued

1 SUPERMARKET SECTOR: Resumption of debate (from 4 November 2024) on the motion of Mr Rae—That this House:

(1) acknowledges the Government is taking decisive action to help consumers get fairer prices at supermarkets, in stores and online, including:

(a) the release of an interim report from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), which looks at a wide range of concerns, from land banking to shrinkflation;

(b) making suppliers follow the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct, a mandatory code, following the recommendations of former competition minister Craig Emerson; and

(2) notes the Government believes that alleged misconduct in the supermarket sector is unfair, unacceptable, and it makes cost of living pressures worse for Australians, so it is:

(a) providing a $30 million package of additional funding for the ACCC to crack down on misleading pricing practices and poor conduct; and

(b) funding CHOICE, the consumer organisation, over three years to report on supermarket prices across Australia; and

(3) recognises the Government's number one priority is tackling the cost of living pressures facing hard working Australians and making sure they are paying a fair price at the checkout, and Australian farmers are getting a fair price for their goods.

Time allotted 30 minutes.

Speech time limits

All Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

Notices — continued

8 DR WEBSTER: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) rural and remote Australians bear a heavier burden of disease than Australians who live in major metropolitan areas;

(b) the rural, remote and regional health workforce persistently suffers more significant staffing shortages than its metropolitan counterparts;

(d) the inaugural commissioner, Professor Paul Worley, said in 2018 that he had heard the urgency of calls for a National Rural Generalist Pathway for the medical practitioner workforce, and recommended later that year the national recognition, as a protected title, of a Rural Generalist as a Specialised Field within the Speciality of General Practice, which is now federally funded and accredited by the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine;

(e) the National Rural Health Commissioner has established the National Rural and Remote Nursing Generalist Framework 2023-27, after consultation commenced by the former Government in early 2022; and

(f) Queensland Health began developing a rural generalist pathway for allied health professions in 2013 which Services for Australian Rural and Remote Allied Health successfully developed further in some jurisdictions but a pathway is not yet available in Victoria for instance; and

(2) calls upon the Minister for Health and Aged Care to advance rural generalist pathways in medicine, nursing and allied health, to address dire workforce shortages in rural, remote and regional Australia.

(Notice given 4 November 2024.)

Time allotted remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm.

Speech time limits

Dr Webster 5 minutes.

Other Members 5 minutes each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.

THE HON D. M. DICK MP

Speaker of the House of Representatives

6 November 2024

BILLS

Navigation Amendment Bill 2024; Second Reading

Navigation Amendment Bill 2024

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill makes minor amendments to the Navigation Act 2012 in order to give effect to an amendment to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 1974, known as SOLAS. Specifically, the bill amends the definitions of 'passenger', 'seafarer', 'industrial personnel' and 'industrial personnel vessel'within the Navigation Act 2012,as well as providing a specific regulation-making power for industrial personnel vessels.

The SOLAS convention commenced in 1980 with Australia signing the convention in 1983. SOLAS is administered by the International Maritime Organization, or IMO, a specialised agency of the United Nations. The IMO's Maritime Safety Committee is responsible for updating SOLAS and related codes. The main objective of SOLAS is to specify minimum standards for the construction, equipment and operation of ships, to ensure their safety. In Australia, the Navigation Act 2012implements our obligations under SOLAS, including regulating international ship and seafarer safety, and protecting the marine environment.

In November 2022, the Maritime Safety Committee adopted resolution 521(106) to amend SOLAS to insert a new chapter, chapter 15, titled 'Safety measures for ships carrying industrial personnel'. This chapter includes a requirement to comply with the International Code of Safety for Ships Carrying Industrial Personnel.

The carriage of industrial personnel differs to that of other passengers, as the vessels used are primarily offshore support vessels, and the transfer of industrial personnel often occurs in very challenging environments. This requires specialist skills and control measures not required in usual passenger operations.

The SOLAS amendment provides minimum safety standards for ships that carry industrial personnel, as well as for the personnel themselves, and addresses specific risks unique to these operations. Such personnel may be engaged in the construction, maintenance, decommissioning, operation or servicing of offshore facilities, such as windfarms, as well as offshore oil and gas installations, aquaculture, ocean mining or similar activities.

On 20 March 2024 the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties resolved that binding treaty action be recommended to give effect to the SOLAS amendment.

This bill gives effect to the SOLAS amendment and ensures Australia's compliance with its international obligations under the convention, and will allow foreign vessels in Australia to rely on the newly established International Code of Safety for Ships Carrying Industrial Personnel.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

COMMITTEES

Public Works Joint Committee; Reference

I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Department of Climate, Change, Energy, the Environment and Water—Davis Station critical infrastructure works.

The Department of Climate, Change, Energy, the Environment and Water is proposing to undertake a program of works to sustain and renew ageing infrastructure at Davis Research Station in Antarctica. The works will replace end-of-life water, power and mechanical services operations at Davis Station to enable the station to be capable of supporting full station capacity. The scope of works will include a new water production and main power facility, a new vehicle workshop, refurbishment of all trade workshops, and the decommissioning and demolition of redundant structures. The total estimated capital cost for the works is $251.7 million, excluding GST. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is expected to commence in mid-2025 and be completed by mid-2030.

The works must be referred to and considered by and reported on to both houses of parliament by the Public Works Committee before work may commence. I commend the motion to the House.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Department of Defence—Facilities to Support LAND 8113 Phase 1 Long Range Fires.

Defence is proposing works to provide new facilities and infrastructure at the Edinburgh Defence Precinct South Australia to support a regiment to operate and maintain a new long-range fire capability. Defence is also proposing works to upgrade and reuse existing training, sustainment and storage facilities at the School of Artillery in the Puckapunyal Military Area of Victoria to also support the new capability. The total estimated cost to the works is $376.7 million excluding GST. Subject to parliamentary approval, the works at Edinburgh are scheduled to commence in mid-2025 and be completed by late 2028. The works at Puckapunyal are scheduled to commence in mid-2025 and be completed by early 2026. The works must be referred to, considered by and reported on to both houses of parliament by the Public Works Committee before works may commence. I commend the motion to the House.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Services Australia—Proposed fit-out of existing leased premises at Caroline Chisholm Centre, 57 Athllon Drive, Greenway, Australian Capital Territory.

Services Australia is proposing works to fit out its existing premises at the Caroline Chisholm Centre, 57 Athllon Drive, Greenway, Australian Capital Territory. The works form part of an office consolidation project that will consolidate three of Services Australia sites into one by 2027 and deliver operational and financial efficiencies without impacting service delivery. The project will provide a modern and flexible workplace that meets Commonwealth occupational density targets and maximises the efficient use of space. The project budget is $144.49 million excluding GST. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is expected to commence in August 2025 for completion in August 2027. The works must be referred to, considered by and reported on by both houses of parliament by the public works committee before work may commence. I commend the motion to the House.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Services Australia—Proposed fit-out of new leased premises at 158-186 Walker Street, Townsville, Queensland.

Services Australia is proposing works to fit out newly lease premises at 158-186 Walker Street, Townsville, Queensland. The fit-out is part of a project to consolidate Services Australia's two Townsville corporate office sites, located in Aitkenvale and at 235-259 Stanley Street, into a single building. A customer-facing service will be retained at Aitkenvale. The consolidation approach will deliver operational and financial efficiencies without impacting service delivery. The proposed works will provide a modern and flexible workplace that meets Commonwealth occupational density targets and maximises the efficient use of space. The project budget is $29.16 million excluding GST. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is expected to commence in early 2025 and be completed in late 2027. The works must be referred to, considered by and reported on by both houses of parliament by the public works committee before work may commence. I commend the motion to the House.

Question agreed to.

DELEGATION REPORTS

Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 31st Annual Meeting of the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum

I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 31st annual meeting of the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum, held in Manila, the Philippines, from 23 to 26 November 2023, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.

Leave granted.

I had the honour of leading Australia's delegation to the APPF annual meeting in Manila, accompanied by the members for Bass, Capricornia and Pearce. The theme for the annual meeting was Resilient Partnerships for Peace, Prosperity and Sustainability. The member for Capricornia and I also undertook a bipartisan program of engagements with senior Philippines government and parliament representatives in the lead-up to the annual meeting.

The APPF is an assembly of national parliaments which meets each year to discuss political, security and economic issues affecting our region. As a regional forum, the APPF emphasises the common goals and values of the people of the Asia-Pacific. Decisions at the APPF are made by consensus. In accordance with its usual practice, the APPF annual meeting comprised working group and drafting committee meetings, at which proposed resolutions lodged by member countries were considered and merged into one agreed text where possible; a meeting of women parliamentarians; and plenary sessions, at which delegates could make longer contributions and speak to their country's draft resolution. The plenary sessions were organised around three broad themes: political and security matters; economic and trade matters; and regional cooperation in the Asia-Pacific. Australia lodged four draft resolutions, the details of which are in our report.

Despite its small size, our delegation all participated at different stages in the overlapping working groups, drafting committee meetings, the meeting of women parliamentarians and the plenary sessions. In her speech during the meeting of women parliamentarians, the member for Capricornia spoke on the topic of women's participation and leadership. She drew on Australia's experience to acknowledge the steady increase in the representation of women in parliamentary roles in the Asia-Pacific but also reflected on the barriers that see the percentage of seats held by women in national parliaments across the region still below the global average.

The member for Bass and I spoke during the plenary session on political and security matters. In my speech I emphasised the capacity of regional parliaments to promote peace and stability and Australia's efforts to uphold international human rights, as well as our support for regional aid development and peacekeeping efforts. In her speech, the member for Bass highlighted the strong contribution to combating regional transnational crime being made by DFAT, AUSTRAC and Australia's law enforcement agencies.

During the plenary session on economic and trade matters, I highlighted Australia's efforts to understand the needs of its changing workforce and noted the importance of ensuring that the benefits of economic growth are shared across all strata of society, irrespective of gender, age, race, ethnicity or region.

The member for Bass and the member for Pearce both spoke during the third plenary session on regional cooperation in the Asia-Pacific. The member for Bass noted Australia's significant financial and logistical support for the region during the COVID-19 pandemic and our contribution to international efforts to improve reporting, preparedness and responses for future pandemics. In her speech the member for Pearce spoke on the importance of regional cooperation through education and culture. She emphasised the importance of equity and inclusion in regional education and highlighted Australia's strong contribution through development assistance and dedicated programs such as the Australia Awards Scholarships and the Australia Pacific Training Coalition.

In conclusion, the Australian delegation welcomed the opportunity to build and sustain relationships with our regional counterparts at the APPF annual meeting. We'd like to thank our hosts, the presiding officers of the Philippines congress, for their hospitality, and we commend the staff of the congress for their care and attention to detail in running a successful annual meeting. The delegation would also like to thank the staff of the International and Parliamentary Relations Office, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in both Canberra and Manila, and the Parliamentary Library for their assistance in the extensive preparations necessary for an APPF annual meeting.

I'd particularly like to express my appreciation to Mr Russell Chafer, our delegation secretary, who accompanied us and who I understand will be retiring in the near future. I greatly appreciated his support during this delegation, as I have on many previous occasions. All of us wish Russell well for the future. He'll be sorely missed.

The future of the APPF is, sadly, a little uncertain at this time. The next host country is yet to be identified, and it seems unlikely that an annual meeting will be held this year. Our delegation can attest to the benefits of direct engagement with our counterparts in the Asia-Pacific, and we endorse the Australian parliament's participation in the APPF and other regional fora. I commend the report to the House.

COMMITTEES

Treaties Joint Committee; Report

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's Report222: Convention on the International Organization for Marine Aids to Navigation.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—I am pleased to make a statement on the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties' Report222: Convention on the International Organization for Marine Aids to Navigation. This report focuses on the treaties committee inquiry into the marine aids convention. It also includes a minor treaty action on the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes and their disposal.

The proposed major treaty action considers Australia's accession to a multilateral treaty, the Convention on the International Organization for Marine Aids to Navigation. The convention establishes an intergovernmental organisation, the International Organization for Marine Aids to Navigation, which replaces the current non-government organisation, the International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities. This move is intended to improve the transparency and governance of the organisation and to increase the international acceptance of marine and navigational standards. The change is also expected to open new membership and funding opportunities for countries and agencies who are currently restricted from joining non-government organisations.

A key feature of the organisation's work has been to promote the harmonisation of marine navigation aids, so that mariners can expect the same set of rules and systems internationally. Australia has been a longstanding and respected member of the organisation, having served on its council and on various technical committees. The committee supports ratification of the convention so that Australia can continue to play a part in this important work which directly contributes to the safety of our coastal waters, and our substantial marine transportation industry.

The minor treaty action covered by this report is acceptance of amendments to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal. The amendments establish rules for the international transportation of waste to minimise adverse effects on the environment and on human health. The amendments will include electronic waste, such as mobile phones, screens, or batteries, as a category of hazardous waste covered by the convention.

Finally, I'd like to thank my fellow committee members, all the witnesses who participated in the hearings, and the secretariat for the work that they've done on this report and in organising the hearings. The committee supports the major and minor treaty actions considered in the report and recommends for both that binding treaty action be taken. On behalf of the committee, I commend the report to the House.

BILLS

Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024; Second Reading

Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024

Which act determines a veteran's entitlements depends on when the veteran served and which periods of service caused or contributed to the condition being claimed. When the interim report of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide recommended that the legislative regime supporting veteran entitlements be simplified and harmonised, guided by recommendations of the 2019 Productivity Commission report A better way to support veterans, that's what the Albanese government set out to do, and that is what it is doing with this legislation. In handing down its report, the royal commission observed that the current system of veterans' entitlements is so complicated as to adversely affect the mental health of some veterans and their families. Calls to address this complexity have been longstanding, and the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024 represents the most significant commitment from government to simplifying veterans legislation since the introduction of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 20 years ago. The system is overly complex and difficult to understand.

In 2019, the Productivity Commission recommended that the current three acts be streamlined into two. The Albanese government has taken that a step further. The bill streamlines the number of acts the Department of Veterans' Affairs currently administers from three to one, which will greatly simplify claims processing and give veterans and families the support they need faster. The new regime will mean it is easier for veterans and families to understand what they are entitled to and make it easier for veteran advocates to assist veterans and families with their DVA claims and simpler and quicker for DVA to process veteran and family claims so veterans and families receive the benefits and supports they need and deserve more quickly.

It is important to note the consultation with stakeholders that has occurred with regard to the development of this bill. I note that RSL Australia have welcomed the government's proposed legislation to simplify veteran entitlements legislation. The DVA ESO Roundtable, the main dialogue forum between the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the leadership of ESOs and Defence communities has also supported the proposed legislation.

It's important to note from the outset that no veteran will be worse off under this legislation and nobody will receive lower benefits than they are already receiving. Under revised arrangements, the VEA and the DRCA will continue in a limited form, grandparented to support the single-act model, but will be closed to new claims for compensation and rehabilitation from 1 July 2026. The bill also introduces a range of enhancements to the MRCA that will make access to entitlements easier and fairer for veterans. Many of the enhancements have been shaped by feedback provided from the community across two separate consultation periods in 2023 and 2024.

To conclude, we all come to this place in a position to do good for people that we represent in our communities. For me, that always means trying to understand my constituents as best as I can. I have taken very seriously understanding my local bases at HMAS Albatross and HMAS Creswell and, importantly, the fine Defence members and veterans that support our bases' capability and community. I have emersed myself at every opportunity to understand our local defence environment and that of our nation, from parachuting with the ADF Parachuting School at Nowra to flying in a Romeo helicopter simulator and doing damage control exercises off our south coast in the Collins class submarine HMAS Rankin. I am listening and I will always continue to listen to defence members and veterans. I hope this legislation goes some way to supporting veterans and their families, those same defence members and veterans that have put their lives on the line to protect us all. I commend the bill to the House.

I have great pleasure in joining today's debate. From the outset, I want to recognise the members in this place who've served in uniform and anyone who may be listening to the broadcast today. I say to them, 'Thank you for your service to our nation and thank you to your families and loved ones who have supported you in that service,' because there is no greater service any Australian can give than to put on the uniform of the Navy, the Army or the Air Force and potentially place themselves in harm's way to help people who can't necessarily help themselves in a time of conflict, peacekeeping or humanitarian aid and disaster relief initiatives. Thank you for your service to our country.

At the outset also, I want to refer to one veteran in particular. His name is Colin William Hannah, a proud Queenslander who was a patriotic Australian who served for more than 20 years in the Royal Australian Air Force. Col served in Amberley, Townsville, Malaysia and as part of a UN peacekeeping mission in the Sinai. He served in Sale. It was when he was based in Sale that I met Col's daughter, and we've been married for 32 years. The posting to Sale was much to my benefit at the time and for the last three decades. Col transitioned out of the Air Force after more than 20 years of service. He established a small farm out from Gympie. He worked in a small business in Gympie as well. He transitioned well.

At a later stage, Col and Lyn moved from their farm in Gympie to be closer to their grandkids in Gippsland. It was there that Col, although he's a proud Queenslander, protested a great deal about the cold in Victoria. He established himself in a new community as a lifeguard at the local pool and also in the ocean rescue squad, where, not unlike a lot of Defence Force personnel I've met over the years, he was quickly in control of the situation. Col became one of the key office bearers of the Lakes Entrance ocean rescue and went on to become a life member of that organisation. He was a man who served his nation well, continued to serve the community and transitioned well.

Throughout his time in retirement, Col was the beneficiary of the Department of Veterans' Affairs' services. They almost turned him into the $6 million man with a new shoulder and a couple of new knees—injuries related to Col's service in the Air Force and also his participation in sporting events where he represented the RAAF at the highest levels in volleyball. He was also a keen sportsman in other areas, keeping fit to do his job in uniform. Col passed away two weeks ago.

I tell this story because, while he is one individual, it is typical of the vast majority of Australian service men and women that I had the pleasure of meeting in my role as veterans affairs minister but also prior to that as the parliamentary secretary for defence. I tell his story because it's very easy in this place and in the community to misunderstand the nature of military service and misunderstand the importance of the transition and misunderstand the fact that, again, the vast majority of men and women who serve in uniform will train well, serve well, transition well and represent our community and serve our community later in life in a whole range of other roles.

For those who have issues, whether they're physical or mental health issues, absolutely as a grateful nation we have an obligation to support them in their time of need. Australians can be proud of this simple fact. We provide enormous support for our veterans and their families. In fact, it is amongst the best in the world. But—and this is a big caveat—it is not perfect. We know it's not perfect. We know we can do better. It is the role of this place in a very bipartisan way to ensure that people like Col and people who have transitioned to become veterans and have issues that need resolving are well supported in a timely manner. Australians, though, should be proud of the fact that in excess of $12 billion per year is provided to our veterans and their families to support them in their life after their role in the Australian Defence Force.

I've been very privileged in this place to work in roles related to the Australian Defence Force. There would be very few members of the Australian community who have not served in uniform who have had as much exposure to the Australian Defence Force as I have. It's been my great good fortune. I spent a lot of time as a parliamentary secretary but also as a veterans and defence personnel minister in the company of the men and women in uniform. I can say without any risk of contradiction or correction from anyone in this place that they are the most patriotic, professional, determined, mission focused people I've ever met. There is no question that you can have all the fancy equipment in the world, but our greatest capability in the Australian Defence Force is our people. Our challenge in Australia, in this place, is to ensure that we continue to recruit our share of the best and brightest young Australians to serve in uniform, and in doing so we have to reassure them and their families that they will be well looked after no matter the circumstances they may face.

As I said, we can be proud of the fact that the veteran community in Australia is a beneficiary of up to $12 billion in support per year, but it's not a perfect system. So I do commend those opposite and those on this side of the House who have worked constructively to try to find ways to improve the system. As I said at the time of announcing the royal commission in April 2021, the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide was an opportunity for our nation to reset the agenda and to try to unite our veteran community as much as possible in what has been a very difficult, sensitive and incredibly complex issue for our veterans over a long period of time. The complexity of dealing with multiple acts—and my great friend beside me is a veteran who has qualifying service for all three acts—is confusing. It is complex. The attempts to harmonise and simplify the acts applying to our veterans going forward are commendable. I don't for a second suggest that it's an easy process for the minister to deal with, but we need to make sure that no veterans will be worse off as a result of the decisions we're making here today.

I agree with the broad themes in the royal commission's report that additional efforts are required to harmonise that legislation, but I also totally reject any suggestions in this place or in the broader community that the previous governments, the Morrison and Turnbull governments, failed to act to improve the system for Defence Force personnel, veterans and their families. I said many times when I stood at the dispatch box as minister that the only acceptable number of deaths from suicide for me as the minister was zero, and that has to be and must continue to be our goal going forward—to eliminate death by suicide amongst our Defence Force personnel and our veteran community. To do that, we have to provide the practical support and the ongoing measures to keep ensuring that we drive the agenda, drive the hope for the future and let our veteran community know that they will be supported when they need it.

From my experience, the Department of Veterans' Affairs itself is overwhelmingly a positive force for good in this space. The DVA does cop a pretty poor rap across some sections of the veterans community, and I think, in many cases, it's quite unjustified. Again, from my experience dealing with, particularly, our older veterans—I'm talking about our World War II cohort, the greatest generation of Australians, and the Korean War veterans and Vietnam War veterans—once their claims have been resolved, the benefits that flow to them are quite seamless and the DVA does a very good job.

The area where DVA has always struggled—during my time in office and, I think, still today—has been in reducing the time taken to process a claim. Some of the things we did in government to try and address that were, first of all, to employ more staff and make more contractors available to try and speed up that processing of claims. We also introduced what we call a statement of principles, where some claims which were blatantly obvious and clearly a part of doing a certain job in the Defence Force would pass through seamlessly. So the statement of principles did speed up the process as well.

We also introduced a system of free mental health care for all veterans and their families regardless of whether it was associated with their military service, the feeling being that the support in terms of mental health care for veterans and their families was a practical measure and could be introduced immediately to ensure that people got support when they needed it, rather than having to wait to go through a time of assessment of whether they could prove that actual injury was associated with their service in the Defence Force.

As a government, we introduced the first of the wellbeing centres across the nation. There were eight wellbeing centres—in Darwin, Perth, Adelaide, Albury-Wodonga, Nowra, Tasmania, South-East Queensland and Townsville. We introduced for the first time a psychiatric assistance dogs programs for veterans with mental health issues, an incredibly successful program that I continue to receive emails and messages from veterans about today, thanking me for working with the department to introduce that service to our veterans. We appointed the Defence Families Advocate, we introduced the veterans covenant and veterans recognition package and we overhauled Open Arms and made it more fit for purpose, with more peers available to support our veterans in their recovery. We also introduced the Veterans Employment Awards. I make this point about the awards, and I'm proud to say it continues today.

We have to be very careful in the public narrative in this place that we don't perpetuate a myth that every veteran is broken or busted, because, if we perpetuate that myth—that every one of them has an ailment that renders them unable to take on a future role—it's very hard for me then to argue that you should employ a veteran. It's very important that we do not overinvest in the mythology and feed our veterans a diet of helplessness and hopelessness when in fact the reverse is true.

As I outlined from the outset, my father-in-law, Col, and many other veterans I've met do serve well and they do train well. They do great things in their time in uniform, and then they transition well and make an incredible contribution, some in this place and some in business and in other areas. So the Veterans Employment Awards is about recognising the great training our Defence Force personnel receive. It is very transferable to a civilian role, and they become the leaders in our community when they transfer out. The Veterans Employment Awards are an important part of the package of measures to support our veterans going forward.

Commencing the establishment of the Joint Transition Authority, which I know was subject to a fair bit of debate during the royal commission, is a process that needs to continue because we need to ensure and recognise that that transition time is a sensitive time. It is when things can go wrong. If someone is transitioning pre-emptively and didn't expect to be moving out of our Defence Force, through injury or whatever it might be, they need support at the time.

We also funded the redevelopment of the Australian War Memorial, which is ongoing today—a major redevelopment which is allowing for the service and sacrifice of the most recent generation of Australian veterans to be appropriately recognised in that most hallowed building in the country. So I think that redevelopment, which is proceeding at pace, will be something that will be well received by the younger generation of veterans in our community.

Another thing we did which is pivotal to the conversation we're having today is we actually asked the question in the 2021 census: did you ever serve in the Australian Defence Force? Until then we didn't know how many veterans we had. Now we know how many we have—about 600,000—and we actually know which electorates they live in, which will inform future decisions on wellbeing centres and other services that the government needs to provide in partnership with ex-service organisations. So a lot of things have happened in this place to support our veterans and their families in the last few years, and more is required to be done.

One thing we did do which I think will stand the test of time and will result in a new appointment in the near future is we installed a National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide with the powers of a royal commission. I think that an enduring national commissioner is a reform we should pursue and we should return to that policy position sooner rather than later.

I commend the current minister for his work in this area. I commend the Department of Veterans' Affairs for the efforts of their staff in trying to provide support for our veterans in a timely manner. I commend the ex-service organisations for the work they do in supporting our veterans and their families on a voluntary basis.

In conclusion, I'll finish perhaps where I started. The vast majority of Australian Defence Force personnel will train well, they will serve well, they'll transition well and they'll make an incredible contribution to Australia in the next stage of their lives, but, for those veterans who experience difficulties for any reason, we must give them and their families the support they need in a timely manner. Naturally, like everyone in this place, I am extremely sorry about and distressed by those who have been failed in the past. I worked every day as a minister and will continue to work in this place to ensure that we recognise and support those who put on our uniform.

There are literally thousands of Australians, both volunteers and paid staff members, who are working today to support our veterans and their families. Their contributions are already saving lives, and they deserve to be properly acknowledged as we continue to work constructively on a bipartisan basis to support our Defence Force personnel, veterans and their families. (Time expired)

I'm pleased to speak on the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024. This legislation represents the most significant structural reform to veterans compensation and rehabilitation laws in a generation. The current tri-act framework, commonly known as VEA, DRCA and MRCA, is an historical legacy of decades of piecemeal change on top of a century of various veterans entitlements legislation. Veterans' claims for benefits and support are assessed under three pieces of legislation. Often veterans have claims under all three acts. Typically many Vietnam veterans are covered by VEA and DRCA, while more recent Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have come under MRCA. This makes the current compensation system convoluted, complicated and difficult to understand and leads to inequities between the various acts.

Naturally, legislative reform and simplification has been long talked about. Those opposite refused to do this when they were last in government, during nine years. As the former shadow minister for veterans' affairs, I asked the member for Gippsland when he was the minister to do this. We took this policy to the last election, not matched by those opposite. It takes a bit of chutzpah to talk about this and speak on this bill when he refused to do this when he was the minister and I asked him to do it. We took this policy to the last election. We said that we would put this legislation before the chamber. It is before the chamber because of a Labor government when, after nine years, the coalition refused to do it. They just plain outright refused to do it. So I'm pleased to see that this Labor government is doing it. We saw the need to streamline and consolidate the legislation. We saw this as a high priority for a Labor government.

I recall the issue gaining traction with the release of the 2019 Productivity Commission report A better way to support veterans not long after the 2019 election, when I became the shadow minister. This report found the veterans compensation and rehabilitation system was complicated, hard to navigate, inequitable and poorly administered. Basically, the system was broken, not fit for purpose and in need of fundamental reform. For three years, whilst they had two ministers, the member for Calare and the member for Gippsland, the coalition did absolutely nothing to fix this problem. Then more research studies on the mental health impacts of the system began to emerge, along with, tragically, reports of veterans committing suicide after battling that same system. I could name them, but I've talked about them publicly many times before. Mothers are still dealing with this issue, people like Julie-Ann Finney, Karen Bird and others, who courageously fought for a royal commission when those opposite had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do it. They did everything they could to stop a royal commission but eventually had to do it after the outcry from advocates like Julie-Ann, Karen and others, when even their own backbench was supporting it.

The first recommendation made by the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide in its 2022 interim report was for urgent action to simplify and harmonise veteran compensation and rehabilitation legislation. The royal commission said the current system is 'so complicated that it adversely affects the mental health of some veterans and can be a contributing factor to suicidality'. This complexity has also directly contributed to delays, inconsistent processing, uncertain outcomes and backlogs in claims. For nine years those opposite sat there and did nothing on this area. They mouthed platitudes and on it went to Anzac Day, where they laid wreaths and did nothing but allow it to continue.

The complexity and underresourcing saw the Albanese government inherit a backlog of 42,000 veterans claims that had not even been looked at—not even looked at! That backlog has now been cleared and all new claims have been looked at within 14 days of lodgement. It is now taking on average 55 days to process initial liability claims to decision. There has been a turnaround and a huge improvement. If you don't believe me, look at the evidence given by the member for Calare to the royal commission and at what he said publicly. He threatened to resign as minister before the budget. He sat there and threatened to resign the weekend before the budget because those opposite had failed to provide enough money to clear the backlog. These are not my words; this was the then Minister for Veterans' Affairs. The system is still too complex and that is why the legislation we are debating today needs to be enacted. The royal commission called on the government to act and, through this legislation, we have. These reforms will deliver systems that will be easier for veterans and families to understand. Importantly, the legislation will enable the Department of Veterans' Affairs to process claims quicker so the veterans' community can receive the assistance they need in a timely matter. No veteran will be worse off as a result of this legislation.

Under the vets bill before the chamber, all new compensation claims from 1 July 2026 will be dealt with under a single piece of legislation, an improved MRCA—if you want to call it that—regardless of where or when the veteran served. Enhancements to the MRCA in the vets' bill will include a new payment for severely impaired veterans of pension age, harmonised support for household and attendant care and improved payments for those travelling for treatment. In addition, the funeral reimbursement amount of about $14,000 will be expanded to all service related deaths, and the funeral allowance for other veterans' deaths will increase to $3,000. This was not done by those opposite when they had the opportunity during nine years.

The bill also opens up gold card eligibility to veterans previously excluded from access, such as some of our national servicemen. I am very pleased to see the critical safeguards in the bill, including grandparenting of existing arrangements so that there will be no change in compensation payments currently being received by veterans, and current payment rates will be maintained and indexed under the current system. Importantly, if a veteran is currently receiving benefits under the existing scheme, that will continue unaffected. This is a key feature of the new model that is designed to provide certainty to veterans and their families. I note that, in this year's federal budget, it is backed up by money—$220 million of veterans and family entitlements across two years from the commencement of this legislation, ensuring veterans and families can better understand and access the support they deserve. The budget showed that our work in properly resourcing DVA to hire more than 500 additional permanent front-line staff to clear the backlog we inherited, which was a key feature of our election commitment—which I announced, by the way—has been done and would see an additional $6.5 billion in delayed benefits and support flowing to veterans and their families over the five-year period. Also, a commencement date of 1 July 2026 will ensure that the veterans community will be well informed of these important changes and what it means for them, and will provide enough time for individuals to consider their circumstances.

I want to thank the commissioners on the royal commission for the thorough and compassionate job they did. I want to praise Julie-Ann Finney, Karen Bird and so many others. I also want to acknowledge another person. Having worked in recent years with a number of veterans who reported experiencing sexual assault or abuse during their service and who had to fight both Defence and DVA for recognition and justice, I know there's a serious issue that needs to be addressed. I want to acknowledge Jennifer Jacomb, the secretary of the Victims of Abuse in the ADF Association, who was a tireless advocate in this area. Jennifer was well known to many people in this place, across the halls of parliament. Sadly, Jennifer lost her battle with cancer on 9 September this year—ironically, on the same day the royal commission's final report was released. Jennifer will be greatly missed, and I'll miss our conversations. Vale, Jennifer.

The royal commission did a thorough investigation. The government is now carefully considering the recommendations of the final report and has undertaken to respond before the end of the year. We've engaged in extensive consultation. The current Minister for Veterans' Affairs held a number of consultation sessions around the country, including earlier this year in my electorate of Blair, in Ipswich, where the future Ipswich Veterans' and Families' Hub was one of the key election commitments we made. It was terrific to welcome him back in March this year to announce more than $5 million going to RSL Queensland to lead the establishment of the hub, in consultation with Mates4Mates and GO2 Health.

He was back in June to consult further, and we visited the Wounded Heroes Australia Veterans Centre in Ipswich to see the outstanding work done on the front line by its CEO, Martin Shaw, and his volunteers. I want to thank them for that. I was delighted that the minister announced late last year that Wounded Heroes Australia would receive a $1.1 million veteran wellbeing grant to update the veterans centre at Bundamba and purchase a new vehicle to transport veterans. Wounded Heroes Australia fills a gap in the veteran support space, providing rapid crisis assistance for the vulnerable veterans and their families who are doing it tough, and its interventions have probably prevented many suicides over the years. So they are really complementing the work that the RSL is doing and the response to the royal commission.

In closing, we promised to act, and we have. This bill is a huge step forward for Australia's veteran community and will benefit our current and serving personnel for generations to come. I commend the bill to the chamber.

The men and women who serve our country share experiences that are unlikely to be encountered by others in our community. It is therefore not possible for most of us to fully appreciate the difficulties that service men and women have when they return to a post-service life. This is, unfortunately, borne out in the suicide data, which demonstrates an increased risk of self-harm for ex-service men and women.

The current support and compensation mechanisms are complex and fragmented and only add to the frustrations and stress of veterans. Average processing times for compensation claims are slow, exceeding the department's own performance targets across many claim types. The poorest performances in the average number of days to process a compensation claim in the 2023-24 year were as follows: under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act, for initial liability, 480 per cent longer than the target processing time, and, for a permanent impairment, 305 per cent longer than the target processing time; under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, for initial liability, 408 per cent longer than the target processing time; and, under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, for compensation payments, 520 per cent longer than the target processing time. This is simply not good enough.

The Productivity Commission proposed reforms to the compensation framework, which were appropriately considered by the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. The commissioners concluded:

In our view, it is necessary that the legislative framework for veterans' compensation and rehabilitation be reformed to simplify the system and improve consistency and fairness in approach and outcomes for veterans. This would enable efficient and focused service delivery and encourage timely support for, and compensation of, veterans and their families. The outcome for veterans and their families should be the focus.

While the bill does not implement the model proposed by the Productivity Commission, I believe the bill achieves the aims of a more simplified and harmonised framework. I sincerely hope that this proposed structure will reduce processing times and therefore alleviate the stress and anxiety associated with complex applications and waiting times.

Mayo, my electorate, has a long history with the armed services that continues today. It was in 1927 that the Woodside Barracks was established at the Woodside camp on 170 hectares of land for the training of light horse and infantry. It was expanded during World War II to accommodate four infantry battalions and is now home to the 16th Regiment, Royal Australian Artillery.

As of March 2024, Mayo is home to 5,285 veterans. This is the largest number of ex-service personnel residing in any South Australian electorate and the 15th highest nationally. So this bill, of course, is very much of relevance to my community.

I'd like to take this opportunity to acknowledge my gratitude—my thanks—to every person in Mayo who wears the uniform or has worn the uniform of our armed services. In fact, I'd like to thank every person in our nation who has worn the uniform and their families too, who have provided love and support around them. Quite simply: thank you for your service; our nation is a better place because of you.

This is a real landmark piece of legislation that many governments have thought about in the past, but it's the sort of thing that only Labor governments like ours actually do and do the hard yards on. I'm very pleased to be able to speak to this harmonised veteran compensation and rehabilitation legislation, the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024.

When the royal commission handed down its report, it made the observation that the current system of veterans entitlements is so complicated that it adversely affects the mental health of some veterans and their families. I have certainly seen, in my own office, instances where people are almost broken by this system and their mental health is really badly affected. Calls to address this complexity have been coming, as I say, for a long time. This is actually the most significant commitment from a government to simplifying veterans legislation since the introduction of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 20 years ago.

For those who aren't familiar with the current model, it's probably worthwhile for me to explain how veterans entitlements are determined. Under the current model they come under one or more of three primary compensation acts—the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, which is called the MRCA; the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, the VEA; and/or the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988, which is known as the DRCA—depending on when the veterans served and which periods of service caused or contributed to the condition being claimed.

That system is overly complex and very difficult to understand, so in 2019 the Productivity Commission recommended that the three acts be streamlined into two. We've taken that one step further. This bill streamlines the number of acts the Department of Veterans' Affairs currently administers from three to one, which will greatly simplify the claims process and provide veterans and their families with faster support.

Under the revised arrangements the VEA and the DRCA will continue in a limited form. They'll be grandparented to support the single-act model but will be closed to new claims for compensation and rehabilitation from 1 July 2026.

The bill also introduces a range of enhancements to the MRCA that will make access to entitlements easier and fairer for veterans. A lot of those changes and enhancements have been shaped by feedback from veterans. I'm very grateful that there have been so many opportunities for consultation with the people who are most affected by this: the veterans, their families and those who will be veterans in future years.

Some of the enhancements include compensation for funeral expenses being consolidated in the MRCA. The cap on funeral compensation will be moved to the MRCA and increased from $2,000 to $3,000. There's also a legislative basis for benefits like the Acute Support Package, household services, attendant care, a Victoria Cross allowance, ex-gratia payments and recognition of supplements for former prisoners of war. They will all be moved into the MRCA.

A new payment called the additional disablement amount, or ADA, will also be introduced into the MRCA. Similar to the extreme disablement adjustment, this new payment will benefit veterans who are over pension age with significant service-related impairment. Like the extreme disablement adjustment, dependents of deceased ADA veterans will also have access to the gold card and other benefits in the event of their death. Importantly, in these big changes, no individual veteran will suffer a reduction to their existing payments. Compensation previously awarded under the DRCA or VEA will not be disrupted. They will all be grandparented.

The funding for the enhancements that will be delivered through these changes were included in the May 2024 budget, with $222 million additional funding to help ensure veterans are aware of how all this will work and are able to be supported. It's starting on 1 July 2026. That seems like a long way off, but there's a reason for that. It's to ensure the veteran community is well informed of what these changes mean for them and provides enough time for individuals to consider their own circumstances.

The date also allows for adequate training of advocates, the very important advocates who walk side-by-side with veterans as they navigate these challenging things and for DVA staff to be trained in the changes well ahead of commencement. Locally, the new veterans and defence families hub in the Hawkesbury will be a really important part of ensuring there's a good understanding of these changes and well-trained and skilled people to support veterans.

That hub will help people right across Macquarie and was one of my election commitments. I'm looking forward to continuing to work closely with RSL LifeCare as they determine the location of it and the services that will be provided. They're doing that in consultation with and taking advice from people who are currently veterans in our region and the Greater Western Sydney region, but also from defence families who will be using these services in years to come.

The hub is a place that, right now, families of defence personnel or veterans can access information. I think the real difference will be that instead of people having to scramble to find the right support, it will be all there in one place in the Hawkesbury. I was so pleased to be able to catch up with representatives of RSL LifeCare at the recent RAAF Base Richmond open day. I had a long talk to them about the sorts of services that are delivered in other places and the recognition that the Hawkesbury and right across this band, from north-west Sydney to south-west Sydney where there will be another veterans hub, will require particular things that are pertinent to the local community.

It's a really important piece of legislation and our facility, the hub, will be a really significant part of ensuring that, going forward, veterans and their families are able to access the information they need so they're well supported when they leave the Defence Force. I commend this bill to the House.

I rise to speak on the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024. I want to acknowledge I have the Holsworthy military barracks in my electorate. The area of Holsworthy supports many of our current defence personnel and veterans, and also houses many veterans' families.

How we look after those who have put their own lives on the line for our sake and so that we can enjoy those freedoms that we cherish in Australia, how we treat returned veterans, really does determine our soul as a society, and we have never really got it right. The system is often extremely bureaucratic. We have failed many veterans who have returned from overseas duties very different to the way that they left, and we have not properly addressed the areas of not just physical health but mental health, suicidality and, in too many instances, suicide itself.

So we look at what sort of changes we can make to veterans affairs and how we support our veterans. I share in common with the honourable member for Nicholls a love of The West Wing, and there is a part in The West Wing where Toby Ziegler and President Bartlett are speaking about veterans entitlements. At the time, Toby is trying to obtain a wheelchair for a former veteran whose wheelchair is broken. He says to the President, 'Is there somebody I can just speak to that can get this wheelchair problem fixed?' Bartlett says, 'Yes, we have to straighten out the system.' Then he goes on to say: 'After the Civil War, veterans had to come to DC to get their pensions. They had to visit the office personally. They waited for a clerk to look through all of the Civil War papers until these were found. Do you know what the papers were found in, Toby?' Toby says, 'No, Mr President.' The President says, 'Red tape.' The President then says, 'That's where the expression "red tape" comes from.' I'm not sure I agree with President Bartlett on that. Having been a lawyer, I believe that red tape actually originated a lot earlier in England, with legal briefs. But there we have it—there has been far too much red tape in the past applied to veterans' interests and veterans affairs.

This bill addresses recommendation 1 that came from theRoyal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide interim report. That recommendation was to simplify and harmonise veteran compensation and rehabilitation legislation. The recommendation was further particularised to say:

The Australian Government should develop and implement legislation to simplify and harmonise the framework for veterans' compensation, rehabilitation and other entitlements.

… … …

(3) By no later than early 2024, the Australian Government should present to the Parliament, and seek passage of, its Bill for the proposed framework.

(4) If the legislation is passed, the Australian Government should, by no later than 1 July 2024, begin the process of implementing and transitioning to the new legislative framework.

The last recommendation around timing was:

(5) If the legislation is passed, the Australian Government should ensure that, by no later than 1 July 2025, the new legislation has fully commenced and is fully operational.

So, although we now have legislation, thankfully, before the House, the government is very late in introducing this bill. If it's unable to implement the first recommendation of the interim report, what guarantee or hope do we have for any of the other recommendations, bearing in mind that this government has now been in power for 2½ years? The proposed commencement date of 1 July 2026 that is in this legislation is a year later than the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide recommended and four years after the royal commission's interim report which recommended this urgent course of action.

The Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia, for example, wants the implementation date to be brought forward to the earliest date practicable. The organisation estimates that at least 2,000 Vietnam veterans will pass, between the passage of the bill and 1 July 2026. While I commend the government for finally bringing this legislation, I say that it has been delayed unreasonably and with no sensible explanation given by the minister or the Prime Minister as to why it has been so delayed.

The former coalition government committed $174 million in the 2021-22 budget for the first two years of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, including $28 million for the Department of Veterans' Affairs to be resourced to respond to information requests from the commission. As I said, the interim report was handed down in August 2022 and included a summary of work undertaken and 13 recommendations to be addressed on an urgent basis, three of which were veteran compensation and rehabilitation, improving claims processing by the DVA, and various procedural matters. What we have found since then has been significant delay on the part of the government, and I want to emphasise to the House the importance of legislating the recommendations.

I want to go through a couple of the facts and figures that came out of the report. There were 1,677 veteran suicides between 1997 and 2021, but it is estimated that the true number of veteran suicides in the same timeframe is more than 3,000. There is more chance of a veteran suiciding than of dying while serving our nation, and, of course, every death is a tragedy. Over the course of the royal commission, there were more than 5,800 submissions received, 12 public hearings and 894 private sessions. The commission heard from very traumatised veterans and their families.

While it is good that this legislation is now before the House, there have been many ways over the past 2½ years that the Albanese Labor government has failed our veterans, and it's simply not good enough. For example, there's no voice for veterans in cabinet. The first decision, when Anthony Albanese became Prime Minister, was to dump the Minister for Veterans' Affairs from cabinet.

Government members interjecting—

I hear some interjections over there, but I don't think that can be denied. There has also been no continuation of the veteran wellbeing centres and the veterans and families hubs that were established under the coalition government.

I think we also need to look at some of the responses to this legislation from industry and from various veterans groups. The member for New England commended the bill but said:

The three acts, as they become more aligned, we hope will remove the confusions and the frustration people have in wanting to get something resolved, dealing with the department and then just waiting in perpetuity for some outcome.

In his speech, the member for New England emphasised the importance of the Senate committee inquiry into the bill and the need for the inquiry to make time to hear from those in regional areas in particular.

If we start to look at some of the positions of other major interest groups, the Department of Veterans' Affairs published a legislation reform process and also anonymised many of its submissions. The Returned & Services League of Australia, the RSL, in their submission to the inquiry, were broadly supportive of the proposed reforms, but they raised some specific issues of concern, such as there being no definition of 'veteran' included, despite the suggestion on the Department of Veterans' Affairs website that it should be included. They also said that there's a lack of clarity as to whether new claims could be made for the veterans home care program by those ineligible for other home and household service programs, and that the way the overall impairments are measured under other legislation seems to make it harder for some veterans currently covered by the legislation, in terms of compensation, following a deterioration of their original condition.

As I said, the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia agreed with the concept of the bill and its main thrust. However, the submission noted that the association does not agree that there is any significant simplification in the ongoing compensation legislation, so there are concerns around this legislation. The Vietnam Veterans Federation of Australia issued a newsletter in July 2024 and said that, in the federation's submission on the exposure draft of the bill, they were broadly supportive of the proposed reforms but raised some concerns with specific elements of the bill, including how statements of principle are applied.

The Australian Peacekeeper and Peacemaker Veterans Association was critical of the legislation. They said it remains far too complex. Legacy Australia outlined a number of measures it supported but then raised concerns with some aspects and made suggestions for improvements. Particularly, Legacy raised concerns over the use of the term 'wholly dependent partner' and with eligibility for some of the compensation provisions being based on whether a person was economically dependent on the veteran prior to the veteran's death.

The TPI Federation of Australia, which is the organisation for the totally and permanently incapacitated, represents a group of veterans in receipt of the special rate of disability compensation under the Veterans' Entitlement Act and their families. They were very critical of many aspects of the proposed reform, saying:

… the proposed changes to the legislation actually is not intended to alleviate suicidal ideation but rather tries to address issues that the Government and the Bureaucracy has with the legislation. This 'Simplification' is for the purpose of administration and not for the benefit of the Veterans and their families.

Defence Families of Australia said that, while the changes that have been made are late, they may assist in simplifying an unnecessarily complex legislative framework, but they were critical of many of the changes that are supposed to protect and uphold the entitlements and dignity of veterans and their families.

I also want to note the comments of one of my constituents, Gwen Cherne, the Veteran Family Advocate Commissioner. She made a submission to the Senate committee inquiry and raised some concerns with the bill. In relation to use of the term 'wholly dependent partner', she suggested 'bereaved family member' would be clearer and more inclusive. She said the bill didn't completely address funereal inequities, and she was advocating for more support, such as a gold card to carers of veterans, before the veteran dies.

I also want to mention Australian War Widows. I've launched functions for them. They raised a concern about the use of the term 'wholly dependent partner'. And I want to mention one of my other constituents, Bree Till, who has set up a group called the CIPHER Foundation. CIPHER stands for collaborative, integrative, peer-centric healing, education and research. Bree's husband was killed overseas, while she was pregnant with her son, so Bree has been a fierce advocate for veterans' families and particularly for veterans' children in circumstances where those veterans have died in service.

To conclude, the legislation as such is supported. However, there are significant changes that I think the government should take on board. (Time expired)

The Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024 is important, long-overdue legislation. Over the years, I have had cause to form friendships with numerous veterans in my community and work closely with them over many years. Through those friendships, I've come to better understand the unique nature of military service and some of the struggles that many of the veterans I talk to endure each and every day. Our service men and women choose a career where their life is on the line, where they are separated from their families for long periods, where they and their families are frequently relocated from one region to another and where discipline and taking orders is ingrained into them. For those who serve in a conflict zone, the experience can be traumatic and life changing. Not surprisingly, many defence personnel leave their service emotionally and physically scarred and in need of support from those around them and from the government and the defence department which they served.

Regrettably, for too long, Australia has failed our veterans. Long delays to assess their claims, inconsistent decision-making and cumbersome claims processes have all left too many veterans frustrated and disillusioned. The after-service treatment very likely adds to their trauma and emotional wellbeing and a feeling of abandonment. All of which, in turn, contribute to family breakdowns, alcoholism, drug abuse, homelessness and, sadly, at times even suicide. All of these outcomes were clearly brought home in the royal commission.

Their plight would be much worse were it not for the various support services that their own defence mates initiate, not government departments or government funded organisations but quite often the very people who are their mates and who served with them in their time of service—people that are associated with, in my region, the RSL clubs, the Vietnam Veterans Association of South Australia northern sub-branch, the Peter Badcoe rehabilitation centre, the National Servicemen's Association Para District Branch in South Australia, and Operation Unity. All of those groups are groups that I have personally had reason to work with, and I understand the terrific work that they do each and every day to help their mates.

The extraordinary length of time taken to process veterans' claims was of itself a major problem with the process. In response to a question in this parliament on 29 May this year from the member for Solomon about veterans' claims, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs provided the following answer. I won't read it out in full, but I want to read a substantial part of it because I think it brings home the frustration that I referred to just a few moments ago. The minister said:

When we came to government, DVA was underresourced, it was underfunded and it was facing a crisis. There was a backlog of some 42,000 claims in the department that had not even been looked at …

The vast majority of claims that are brought are under the MRCA. The first step is establishing initial liability. Back in 2022-23, it took on average 332 days just to allocate a claim to someone for them to look at it. It took a further average of 113 days for that claim to be determined, which meant in 2022-23 the average time to process claims was 441 days. Addressing this crisis is why the government have made the investments that we have. DVA is now better funded than it had been in three decades. We funded 500 additional APS in the October 2022 budget to get about clearing that backlog. We have added funding for 141 permanent staff in the budget this year. The use of labour hire to process claims has fallen from a third to just 10 people. As of right now, it takes 14 days—no more—for that claim I mentioned to be looked at. On average, since 1 December, it takes six days. The average time taken to determine a claim, since 1 December 2023, is now 44 days. That means it is an average of 60 days now to process a MRCA initial liability claim. Of course, there are claims that a more complex and where further medical information might be sought. It does take some time for those claims.

… That's why we've put in the work to get these claims assessed as quickly as possible. It's the processing of this backlog of claims that we inherited that means we are spending an additional $6.5 billion over five years to give veterans the benefits that they deserve.

I think that answer beautifully summarises the backlog of claims and the time taken to process them, which, in turn, was directly contributing, in my view, to the frustration and disappointment of many of the veterans—and certainly many of the veterans that I was speaking to. I'm pleased to see that those processing times have now improved markedly.

This legislation is important. Again, for the benefit of anyone following the debate, I will cover some of the key points about what this legislation actually does. Under the current legislative model, veterans entitlements are determined under one or more of three primary compensation acts. That is the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, otherwise known as the MRCA, the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, otherwise known as the VEA, and the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988, which is the DRCA. It depends on when the veteran served and which period of service caused or contributed to the condition being claimed.

The bill simplifies and harmonises the current tri-act framework of legislation by providing for all claims for compensation and rehabilitation received from 1 July 2026 to be determined under the MRCA. The new regime will mean it is easier for veterans and families to understand what they are entitled to, easier for veterans' advocates to assist veterans and families with their DVA claims and simpler and quicker for DVA to process veterans' and families' claims so that veterans and families will receive the benefits and supports that they need and deserve more quickly. No veteran will be worse off under this legislation, and nobody will receive lower benefits than they are already receiving.

Again, without going through every detail of the legislation, there are some other issues that I will mention in my contribution. Schedule 1 closes the VEA and the DRCA to future grants of compensation and specifies that new claims will be assessed under the MRCA benefit structure. Schedule 2 contains changes which harmonise access to certain allowances and support services under the single ongoing act model. It introduces a new payment, the additional disablement allowance, for veterans who are prevented from accessing the extreme disablement adjustment under the VEA, which, like the EDA, will benefit veterans who are over pension age and who have a high degree of incapacity due to service related conditions.

It introduces presumptive liability, which means the Repatriation Commission will be able to specify injuries and diseases that can be determined on a presumptive basis where they are known to have a common connection with military service. It consolidates household and attendant care, travel for treatment and retention of automatic granting of VEA funeral benefits in the MRCA. It also increases to $3,000 the funeral allowance for previous automatic grant categories under the VEA and the availability of reimbursement of funeral expenses—up to $14,062—for all service related deaths. It goes on. It provides a higher travel reimbursement amount for some applicants. It standardises allowances and other payments. It enhances the commission's ability to grant special assistance to veterans and their dependants and moves some aspects of veteran arrangements from the VEA to the MRCA.

Lastly, in respect of some of the key matters that this legislation addresses, schedule 3 confers jurisdiction on the Veterans Review Board to review original determinations under the DRCA. Previously, these appeals went directly to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Schedule 4 transfers the powers and functions of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission to the Repatriation Commission and prescribes a single governance body—that is, the Repatriation Commission—under the MRCA. There are other changes which time does not allow me to go to, but I believe that what I've just outlined gives a fairly good picture of all of the improvements that are related to this legislation.

In closing, giving veterans the recognition they deserve is important to their after-service wellbeing. I therefore take this opportunity to commend the Virtual War Memorial Australia initiative. Virtual War Memorial Australia is a digital commemorative collection purpose-built to honour the service and personal experiences of all those who have served our nation in times of war and armed conflict, from the Boer War through to Afghanistan, including peacekeeping missions. Offering an integrated and verified dataset of over 1.5 million service personnel, it is the only memorial of its kind nationally and internationally. As a national memorial, it honours those who've returned and, notwithstanding all that they endured, continue to contribute to the Australian community in the building of our nation and commemorates the fallen. Most importantly, the Virtual War Memorial Australia initiative invites the nation to participate in this important national storytelling. The stories within the collection will serve as an everlasting reminder of the generations of Australians who chose to serve for a greater cause, a reason bigger than their own comfort and safety. I believe it is a wonderful initiative that acknowledges every veteran—not just those who unfortunately were killed in war but every veteran—and tells their stories and their contributions to the defence of our nation. I commend that initiative to this parliament, as I commend this legislation to the parliament.

I'm pleased to rise on this very important bill, the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024. The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide made it abundantly clear that for decades Australia's defence personnel, veterans and their families have not been treated as they should have been. From opposition we fought for this royal commission and as a government we are taking action to improve outcomes for veterans and for their families.

This is why we took swift action when the royal commission released its interim report in August 2022. It highlighted the veterans entitlement system is so complicated that it adversely affects the mental health of some of our veterans. We have taken action on all the recommendations of the report, and this bill will be implementing its first recommendation, which was to simplify and harmonise the veteran rehabilitation and compensation legislation. This was not a small project. I want to commend the Minister for Veterans' Affairs for undertaking this mammoth task of harmonising decades worth of complex legislation. Thanks to the comprehensive consultation that he undertook, I have no doubt this will benefit our current and former service personnel for generations to come.

My electorate of Eden-Monaro is home to many members of our Defence Force, both currently serving and veterans. I've spoken to many of our community members and they have told me that the current veteran compensation system is unnecessarily complicated and difficult to understand. The same complexity has directly contributed to delays, inconsistent processing, uncertain outcomes and claims backlogs which have had a detrimental impact on their mental health and wellbeing.

These aren't new revelations. Calls to address this complexity have been longstanding. That's why I am proud to be part of the Albanese government, who have taken on the challenge to no longer tinker around the edges but to implement meaningful reform. This bill represents the most significant commitment from a government to simplify veteran legislation since the introduction of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act nearly 20 years ago. It will drastically reduce the complexity of the system and ultimately give veterans and families the support that they need much faster.

Under the current legislative model, veterans entitlements are determined under one or more of three primary compensation acts depending on when the veteran served and which periods of service caused or contributed to the condition being claimed. As was recommended by the royal commission, the bill streamlines the number of acts that DVA currently administers from three to one. This will greatly simplify claims processing and give veterans and families the support they need faster.

The bill also makes enhancements to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, including a new payment for severely impaired veterans of pension age, harmonised support for household and attendant care, and improved payments for those travelling for treatment. In addition, a higher funeral reimbursement amount of just over $14,000 will be expanded to all service related deaths, and the funeral allowance for other veteran deaths will increase to $3,000. This bill will also expand gold card eligibility to veterans previously excluded from access.

Ultimately, this legislation will deliver a system that is easier for veterans and families to understand what they're entitled to and enables the DVA to process claims quicker. To ensure that this transition will be smooth, in our most recent budget we included an additional $222 million in funding for veteran and family entitlements and supports to be made available through this new simplified legislation. This builds on a record investment for veterans and their families whilst we have been in government.

Thanks to our investment, DVA is the highest funded it has been in three decades. After a decade of chronic underresourcing and underfunding, the Albanese government has turned that around to ensure that veterans and their families can access the services and supports they need and deserve. In our first budget, we invested more than $233.9 million to engage 500 frontline staff at DVA to eliminate the veteran compensation claims backlog. Thanks to the hard work of those additional staff, that backlog has now been cleared, delivering on our commitment ahead of the deadline that was recommended by the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide.

To ensure we don't see backlogs re-emerge, we also invested an additional $186 million in this year's budget towards the employment of an additional 141 staff. To support these additional staff to process these claims efficiently, we've also budgeted $341.1 million to fund the modernisation and sustainment of the IT systems within the DVA. These investments are making an impact. We've cleared the backlog of claims we inherited from those opposite, and we have significantly reduced the time taken to process claims. Almost all of them are being done within 20 days.

We also committed $46.7 million at the last election to deliver 10 veterans and families hubs across the country so that the thousands of personnel who leave the ADF each year will be able to access support if they need it. The transition to civilian life requires some major readjustments. It's a significant event for defence members and their families, and it can be both a challenging and a traumatic period.

I joined the Minister for Veterans' Affairs at the beginning of the year in my own electorate to announce a $5.4 million grant to develop a new veterans and families hub in Queanbeyan. The hub will be established by RSL LifeCare, working in partnership with RSL New South Wales and other local ex-service organisations to develop the dedicated space to support veterans and their families. With more than 4½ thousand veterans across the Queanbeyan region and more than 22,000 across the ACT region, this hub will be important to ensure veterans and their families across the region can access the services that they need close to home. Doors are expected to open early next year, with RSL LifeCare just last week unveiling the designs for the hub.

As a government, we are committed to continuing to improve the welfare of defence personnel, veterans and their families. The changes proposed by this bill represent the most significant change to the system in decades and represent a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get the system right for veterans. The royal commission's report was also tabled in this place in September, and, since then, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs has been working hard on how those recommendations can be implemented.

I look forward to continuing to work with defence personnel, veterans and their families right across Eden-Monaro to ensure this change is positive, and I am proud to be part of a government that is so committed to delivering better outcomes for this community.

The welfare of veterans and defence personnel is of the utmost importance to our Albanese government. In opposition, we fought for the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, and, in government, we have acted on every single recommendation. Current and former ADF members and their families must be supported when they are engaging with the network of government services, local services and advocacy organisations that are available to them, and one of the overriding observations and recommendations out of the royal commission was the system was just far too complicated. I want to personally thank the minister, Matt Keogh, for working on this. It has been an effort to get this system simplified and to take meaningful action for our veterans.

This legislation will simplify our veteran rehabilitation and compensation system. We know the current system is so complicated. The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide found that the current system of veteran benefits and support is 'so complicated it adversely affects the mental health of some veterans and can be a contributing factor to suicidality'. That is shocking. The royal commission received over 5,800 submissions from serving and ex-serving ADF personnel, their families and friends. In fact, the most common themes from the submissions to the royal commission were regarding suicidality—suicidal behaviour, mental illness and the mental health support and response network provided by the ADF.

The final report delivered by the royal commission was a disturbing read to say the least, but we have acted on it. The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide was announced on 19 April 2021 following tireless advocacy from families of military personnel who had taken their own lives. The goal of this royal commission was to reflect on the standards we expect from our military personnel and investigate how we can make it better and move forward—how we could take real action. I am proud to be part of a government that has done such a thing.

Overall, the veterans policies, structures and practices needed to be reformed. This message has been received loud and clear by our government, and we are working on better outcomes,. We are delivering better outcomes for our veterans. A career in the military positions an individual as someone with a unique place in our society. Their service is built on hard work, and they are there to get the job done for all of us. There are currently 89,395 current serving permanent and reserve members of the ADF across the three services, the Navy, the Army and the Royal Australian Air Force, with over 6,000 Australians enlisting every year, and we need more people to be enlisting. We are on a drive to encourage the best and brightest Australians to sign up to serve their country. We have to make it better for them when they finish their service, and that is what our government is seeking to do.

Even during times of peace, conditions for those in service are designed to be high-risk, with Defence stating that almost every aspect of uniform life comes with a risk or cost to the member and/or their families. We recognise this. We know we have to reward them for their service and we absolutely get that we have to look after them as veterans. That risk that our people in uniform take on is not lost to me in a personal or professional capacity, as I acknowledge that today is the eight-month anniversary of the passing of Lance Corporal Jack Fitzgibbon, who was injured and subsequently died on this day eight months ago. I spent the morning with his father, Joel Fitzgibbon, a former defence minister who served his country in this place for 25 years. Today marks eight months since Jack passed, so we understand what it is like to have a child serve in the ADF and lose them. We do not want to lose good, young Australian people because of how they have been treated as veterans. That is the message as well.

We have to acknowledge the strength and selflessness that individuals give in order to protect our nation and highlight the work they do to ensure we all live a free life that we do today, and I thank them for their service. There are so many positives to working in the ADF and that was recognised throughout the findings of the royal commission. People spoke about great friendships, about feeling as though they belonged to something greater than themselves and of course providing service to our nation, and we cannot lose that. Veterans have already been through such unique life experiences that we have to make sure we are looking after them and that is what this government wants to do. It's why we are proposing a new system of process and administration for DVA.

The bill will make it easier for veterans and their families to know what they're entitled to, make it easier for veterans claims advocates to assist veterans and make it easier for those families with claims to be assisted as well. It will make it quicker for DVA to process claims so that veterans and families get the benefits they need and deserve in a timely way. We want it to be easier and fairer for veterans to get the support that they are legally and, quite frankly, morally entitled to.

I also want to send a big warm shout-out to those advocates who work in my electorate of Paterson. They are incredible people who work with our veterans to help them navigate the process, and we want to make it easier for those advocates as well. These reforms are a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. We have evidence of a system that has let too many individuals and their families down, and we know that the system has moved people towards taking drastic action. We can't continue that. We need to act. That is what we are doing, and that's why we want to make it easier for veterans and their families to receive the benefits and support that they need.

Under these reforms we are making sure that no veteran will see a reduction in their benefits, whilst also delivering support that provides quicker resolutions for them. Over time the proposed changes will make it easier for veterans and families to understand their entitlements, make it easier for advocates to support DVA claims and make it faster for DVA to process claims so that veterans and families receive the benefits and supports they need and deserve more quickly. That's why we've employed more than 600 people to try and work through those thousands of claims that were backlogged. We have moved through those, and now we want to continue with the progress.

I want to thank the advocates who work at places like East Maitland, in my electorate. We've invested over $40 million across the country to build veterans hubs, and we're getting one in my seat of Paterson, at East Maitland, which I've just mentioned. The hubs are going to be delivered in consultation with veterans communities, and I had the great pleasure of going to an information session about the Paterson hub that will be built in East Maitland. We were able to secure $5 million to build a veteran and family hub in East Maitland. I've seen the plans; they look absolutely magnificent. The hub is going to be on the current site of the East Maitland RSL sub-Branch. They are going to incorporate the history of that magnificent sub-branch whilst also building a brand new pavilion off the sub-branch that is going to incorporate the hub where veterans and serving defence personnel—and their families, importantly—will be able to go and receive an enormous array of supports and services, not only in relation to veterans claims but also in relation to family activities. I know this is going to be a great place not only to honour our veterans but also to support our serving personnel—people that serve at not only RAAF Base Williamtown, in my seat, but also Singleton Army base, which is not very far away at all. It's going to be a real central hub for people to be able to come together. I can't wait for that to open. I've seen the plans; they look gorgeous. It really will be an exciting space for veterans, serving personnel and their families.

Veterans and defence personnel have such a unique set of lifestyle and, quite frankly, work factors at play all the time. We need to make sure that access to rehabilitation and compensation entitlements is clear and that the needs of the veteran community and serving personnel community are met. Support at our local veterans hub will include physical and mental health services, wellbeing support, advocacy, employment and housing advice, and social connection. It's going to be a one-stop shop for local veterans services that will make a clear, definite and immediate impact on these communities and on my community, which I'm so pleased about.

I can officially let you know that earlier this year I was pleased to be joined by the member for Burt and the minister as we announced the Hunter region veterans hub that will now be built in East Maitland. It's a really exciting development. Incidentally, my seat of Paterson is home to 7,200 veterans, one of the highest numbers in New South Wales. I am very much looking forward to seeing them receive the support and services that they need at this hub.

In closing I just want to congratulate RSL LifeCare, who were successful in tendering for our veterans hub. It was wonderful to join with them just last week to look over the architect's designs and the plans and join with veterans in my seat to talk about how the hub would work for them and what they wanted to see in the hub. I think this is one of the most important things. Talking about this legislation, we're talking to veterans about what they need and about how we can serve them better after they've finished serving our nation. Using a hub-and-spoke model, we're going to connect the RSL sub-branches across the region at East Maitland to provide these very important and holistic services to support veterans, serving personnel and their families. Throughout my time working for the people of Paterson, I've had the great honour of meeting many incredible defence personnel and veterans who have dedicated their lives to keeping us safe. It continues to be a major passion of my life to support them. I couldn't be prouder to be part of a government that is taking this issue of supporting our veterans so seriously. I commend this bill wholeheartedly to the House.

I'm proud to support and speak on the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024. I had the honour of serving as the Assistant Minister for Veterans' Affairs in the government for more than two years, and it was my great privilege to work with veterans and veterans advocacy groups, who sacrifice so much for our nation by putting their lives on the line to protect all of us. Of course, their families deserve recognition as well. The families make a sacrifice in supporting their loved ones to serve as well.

We can't ever fully repay that debt, but we can do our best to make sure that we support our serving Defence Force personnel and veterans as much as we possibly can. That is what this bill is all about. It responds to a recommendation of the royal commission and the needs of veterans to ensure that they get the support that they deserve post-service. When we were in opposition, we campaigned heavily for the establishment of a royal commission into defence and veterans suicide. I want to pay tribute to a number of advocacy organisations, particularly to two mothers, Julie-Ann Finney and Karen Bird, who campaigned across the country and never let up on ensuring that the royal commission was stood up and that we had the opportunity to shine a light on what was actually going on in our defence forces and the veteran community with their mental health challenges.

The final report of the royal commission was delivered to the government in September. That important body of work marked the culmination of the most significant and comprehensive inquiry conducted into suicide and suicidality in our defence and veteran communities. They delivered an interim report in August 2022. As soon as they delivered that report, the government took swift action on those recommendations. The first recommendation of the royal commission in their interim report was to simplify and harmonise the veterans compensation and rehabilitation legislation. The government has been working since that time to make sure that we delivered on that commitment. That is exactly what this bill does. It delivers on the No. 1 recommendation of the royal commission, to ensure that we make the system that is meant to support our veterans, particularly those who've been injured and have continuing ailments, to get the rehabilitation and the compensation that they deserve as quickly and as simply as possible. That is what this bill does.

The calls to address the complexity of our veterans entitlement legislation have been long standing. There have been three acts with different systems that people have had to navigate to try and make sure that they have a claim compensated and access to rehabilitation as quickly as possible. There have been three complicated systems. The system has been so complicated that veterans have had to employ advocates to act on their behalf. The system was so difficult to navigate you basically had to be an expert that worked full-time on understanding the system and how the acts worked to get an outcome. That should not be the case. It shouldn't be the case that our veterans have to employ someone to make an application for compensation due to an injury or an illness related to their service.

This bill simplifies the system. It brings three acts down to one from a future point in time onwards. It represents the most significant commitment from government towards simplifying veterans' legislation since the introduction of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 20 years ago. As the Assistant Minister for Veterans' Affairs, I worked alongside the minister, Matt Keogh, to conduct extensive consultation and collaboration with the veteran community to formulate this draft legislation. The minister and I met with veterans, advocates and ex-service organisations to understand the needs of veterans. We listened to their calls for legislative change and how this government could maximise outcomes for those who've given so much for our nation—outcomes for the people who've sacrificed themselves to protect and defend our nation, our democratic way of life and our freedom.

Those consultations were conducted in every state and territory. Combined with 323 written submissions we received, they informed the content of this bill and how we can better serve our veteran community. This bill introduces new legislative change that will make it easier for veterans and families to understand what they're entitled to. It's easier for claims to be processed and easier for staff at the Department of Veterans' Affairs to process those claims. Ultimately, it will deliver benefits and supports to veterans and their families that they need and they deserve as quickly and as simply as possible.

When we were elected to office in 2022 there was a backlog of 42,000 unprocessed claims for veterans' compensations and support. That's 42,000 veterans and their families who made a substantial contribution to our nation who were left in limbo. The royal commission findings pointed out that the No. 1 issue that was playing on the mental health of veterans and causing many of the problems associated with suicidality was the delay in the department processing claims. Veterans felt they weren't listened to, their service meant nothing, they weren't getting the treatment and the respect they deserve from the department in processing those claims. That's why, when we were elected to government, one of our first priorities was to allocate additional funding to the Department of Veterans' Affairs to fix the mess that existed under the coalition when they were in government.

The minister allocated $230 million for additional staff in the department and 500 additional staff were employed to help fix the system. Because of our efforts, that backlog has been reduced and veterans have the support and the speedy processing of claims that they deserve. It's worth pointing out that there's an additional $6½ billion that flows to veterans because of that additional support. We're doing all we can to make sure they get the support they deserve through the department.

It's also worth noting that the opposition, led by the opposition leader Peter Dutton, have a policy of cutting back on the Public Service. Cutting numbers from the Public Service will once again result in people who are processing claims in the Department of Veterans' Affairs having their jobs cut and veterans not getting the support they deserve to process their claims in a quick and timely manner, and that is disgraceful! The findings of the royal commission show our veterans have gone through enough with the backlogs that were in place under the previous government. Our defence forces and the veterans' community deserve our utmost support and shame on any government, shame on any opposition that tries to cut back on the number of people who are supporting our veterans in the Department of Veterans' Affairs.

This comes on top of the other changes that this government has made, led by the minister, to support our veterans. There will be 10 new veterans and families hubs across the country to provide those important one-stop shops for veterans services and support, $24 million for the veteran employment program supporting veterans transition into the civilian workforce, an increase in the total and permanently incapacitated pension by $1,000, a tripling of the payments to GPs for servicing veterans, a new defence veterans and families acute support package to provide crisis support to veterans families, and $48.4 million invested to boost veterans home care and community nursing programs to ensure there are no gaps in service delivery. This comes in addition to other cost-of-living relief implemented by the Albanese government to support the Australian Defence Force and our veteran community. The changes to the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme—the $46 million expansion to that scheme—will ensure more serving Defence Force personnel and veterans can their own home is part of that cost-of-living relief package.

I want to emphasise the bill that now rests before the parliament will provide support for veterans at net cost, and that is important, to ensure that veterans get the support that they need. We have set aside an additional $222 million for veteran and family entitlements across the first two years of this legislation, and that is the Albanese government's commitment to ensuring that no veteran will suffer a reduction in their existing entitlements. I pay tribute to the minister for being able to ensure that we give that guarantee to veterans.

This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to fix the veterans entitlements system to not only ensure that veterans get the timely support that they need but, most importantly, that they get the compensation for injuries and illness that they deserve and that they get the respect from the Australian government and the Australian people for their service to our nation. I commend this bill to the House.

I rise to support the Veterans’ Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024. Simplification and harmonisation of the three different veteran entitlements acts is long overdue. As the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide found, the complicated and unwieldly system of veterans entitlements has adversely affected the mental health of veterans. There is no doubt that this has been the case. It contributed to an antiquated and inadequate veterans compensation system that tragically cost lives.

The massive backlog of tens of thousands of unprocessed veteran compensation claims was a national disgrace. Here, you had men and women wearing the uniform of our country, putting their lives on the line for us, and our government failing them. The men and women who serve our country give Australia their best and they deserve nothing less than Australia's best in return. Sadly, this has not always happened. The underfunding of veterans affairs because there was seen to be no political advantage in the lead up to the last election was shocking, and I hope that it never, ever happens again.

I commend the Minister for Veterans' Affairs for his work on this bill and for the diligent way in which he has approached it. It might not be a perfect bill—few bills are—but it does represent a major legislative milestone in the better care and treatment veterans and their families. Those who have worked on it from within the Department of Veterans' Affairs should also be proud of this important work in legislative reform that will make life better for our veterans.

I also commend the minister and Prime Minister for their overhaul of Department of Veterans' Affairs staffing. Hiring more permanent staff to deal with the veteran compensation claim backlog and increasing all-important veterans compensation funding to get billions in delayed benefits flowing to where it is needed should be given the credit that is due.

I wish to acknowledge the enormous contribution that our veterans and ADF personnel have made and continue to make to the security of Australia and the world. Our nation owes you all a great debt of gratitude. I also wish to thank all those who are working so hard around Australia to ensure that our veterans get the care and treatment that they need and deserve. I'm speaking here of the veterans advocates, welfare and support volunteers, and members of veteran support groups who work so hard every day to care for those who do so much for our country.

I make particular mention of two in our area: Marc Mathews of Molong and Ken Atkinson, a Vietnam veteran from Mudgee. Both have dedicated their lives to helping and supporting fellow veterans, and I have the highest regard and respect for them both. I also acknowledge the work of Jennifer Jacomb, a Navy veteran and veterans advocate, who sadly passed away recently. Jennifer was a regular visitor to our office here in Canberra to discuss veterans affairs issues, and she never failed to bring a smile and her signature box of chocolates. She will be greatly missed.

I also extend a heartfelt thank you to all those who gave evidence at the royal commission. I know that, for many, it was an extraordinarily difficult thing to do. I hope that, by this bill being passed into law, you can see that your evidence has made a difference.

I'm going to conclude my remarks with the royal commission's comments on the evidence given to it by Dr Karen Bird: 'Dr Karen Bird, mother of the late Jesse Bird who died by suicide at the age of 32, put it simply, "I just think veterans actually need to be treated like human beings." Dr Bird gave evidence highlighting "the huge potential for DVA administration doing great harm, and that's what happened to Jesse—great harm was done to him."' The royal commission went on to say: 'Across the statements to this royal commission, she highlighted that DVA itself had found its processing of Jesse's claims was inconsistent with legislation, and red flags that should have prompted action were consistently missed. She said she remained "very concerned that, despite all of the review and recommendations to date, there is a continuing failure to acknowledge, address and learn from history".' Let's hope that our country has now finally acknowledged, addressed and learnt. As a nation, we owe our men and women in uniform, veterans and their families nothing less.

I commend this bill to the House.

The rate of veteran suicide is a national tragedy, and that is why, in opposition, we called for a royal commission. Since 2021, the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide has been investigating the factors that have contributed to such an appalling loss of life. The very first recommendation made by the royal commission in its interim report was to simplify and harmonise veteran compensation and rehabilitation legislation—a three-act headache of a system. Anyone who has engaged with the veteran compensation system will tell you it is complicated and difficult to understand. This is the result of piecemeal changes of veterans entitlements legislation for over a century.

The royal commission's recommendation to simplify and harmonise veterans compensation legislation was agreed to by the Albanese government, and this legislation implements that commitment. We want to get this once-in-a-generation reform right to make sure those who need it can get the support they need and deserve sooner. This is without a doubt the biggest improvement to the veterans compensation and rehabilitation laws and system in more than a century. We've been consulting widely with the veteran community and making the necessary changes to the drafts of this legislation. After all, it is vital that our veterans and their families have helped guide the decisions that ultimately impact them.

The legislation will see all claims considered under a single act, transforming the veterans entitlements scheme to one solid foundation instead of three separate systems. Moving to a single ongoing act, an improved Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, the MRCA, will make it easier for veterans and families to understand their entitlements and easier for advocates to support veterans with DVA claims, and it will contribute to streamlining and speeding up claims processing within the Department of Veterans' Affairs. This all means veterans and families will be able to access the benefits and supports that they need and deserve in a more timely way.

The MRCA is a modern 21st century compensation system that recognises both the economic and the non-economic loss components of compensation. It incorporates elements from the repatriation system that recognised the unique nature of military service. It also focuses on wellbeing and building the capacity of veterans to return to employment and participate fully in society.

This bill will ensure that equitable entitlements are available to all veterans, regardless of the timing and the nature of their service. Importantly, this bill recognises the enormous sacrifices and contributions made by the families of veterans. It provides increased access to services such as education schemes, healthcare cards and other financial benefits for the families of veterans who have suffered severe impairment as a result of their service related injuries and conditions. This bill will open up gold card eligibility for some veterans for the very first time. Not only have we expanded the eligibility of many supports, but in doing so we're also safeguarding the entitlements currently being received by veterans. With this bill, I look forward to creating a system that delivers a better future for Australia's veterans and their families and recognises the tremendous sacrifices they have made in the interests of our nation. As a government, we promised to act, and we have.

I note and thank the opposition for their recognition of the importance of this bill and their support of its intent. In particular, I thank the shadow minister for veterans' affairs for his heartfelt speech to this House in August. I want to acknowledge each member of this place who has spoken on this legislation for their consideration of the current three-act compensation system and their acknowledgement that this is simply not fit for purpose. I especially acknowledge the positive contributions of all the former ministers for veterans' affairs who are still in this House.

Thank you, as well, to everyone who has acknowledged the families of veterans in their remarks. They support our personnel and veterans and make sacrifices too. Thank you not only to those of you who have acknowledged that support is available for veterans and families now but also those who highlighted the opportunities this legislation presents to better support those families.

I just want to particularly acknowledge the member for Braddon, who himself is subject to all three acts currently. He knows how rough and complex the current system is. Thank you for sharing your story, and that of the other veterans in your community, with all of us. I hope this legislation will make the lives of veterans like the member for Braddon just a little bit easier in the future. I acknowledge his comments about having a wellness focus through this legislation, and I note that these matters are also the subject of a number of the recommendations of the final report of the royal commission. I see this legislation as an opportunity to simplify the system for veterans so they can focus on their own wellbeing and that of their families rather than getting stuck in the current bureaucratic nightmare of a system. With that in mind, I say to the member for Braddon: thanks for your passion in supporting the hub in Burnie. Now and into the future, I know that, with your guidance, they will have every success.

I note also that the member for Ryan foreshadowed potential amendments from the Greens political party, but, unfortunately, they have not identified these amendments to the government or sought to move them in the House, I make the procedural observation that any amendments made in the Senate may preclude passage of this legislation through the parliament before the end of this year. In any event, to the extent that such foreshadowed amendments may relate to the issue of the peacekeeping nature of service, raised in the additional comments made by the Greens political party to the report of the Senate committee inquiring into this bill, I note that, due to the power of the minister under section 8 of the MRCA to make a determination as to nature of service for veteran benefits purposes, no such amendment to legislation is actually required.

I also thank crossbench members for their detailed engagement with me on this bill and their support for seeing the bill pass the parliament promptly. Thank you to each of you who contributed to the debate highlighting the important work of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. Thank you for taking the time to reflect on their years of work, their reports and the testimony that they were presented with.

I also make mention of the hard work of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee and their thorough inquiry, and I thank them for the unanimous recommendation to pass this bill. I would also like to thank Senators Shoebridge and Lambie for their additional comments. The government has now provided a considered formal response regarding these matters.

While the government is currently developing our response to the royal commission's final report, I note that we have agreed to the establishment of an independent oversight body. This body is recommended to monitor the implementation of the royal commission's recommendations by the end of September 2025, including the recommendations that led to this bill, and may undertake a review of the new arrangements at the appropriate juncture. However, the main provisions of this bill will not commence until 2026. We will respond to the royal commission's final report before the year is out.

Passage of this bill will be a huge step forward for Australia's veteran community and one that will benefit our current and former serving personnel for generations to come. I'd like to thank all of the ex-service organisations and advocates that work so tirelessly in supporting our veterans and family community, as well as for their detailed engagement in arriving at this bill coming before the parliament right now. I thank the House for its support of the bill and recognition of the sacrifices made by the veteran community on all of our behalves. I look forward to all of your support in passing this bill here and to the support of senators so that we can get on with the job of delivering a better future for defence personnel, veterans and families. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024; Third Reading

Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

BUSINESS

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders

On behalf of the Leader of the House, I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring on Wednesday, 6 November:

(1) notwithstanding standing order 31, if the second reading debate on the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 has not concluded earlier, at 8 pm the adjournment debate being interrupted and the bill being called on for further consideration, with the second reading debate continuing until:

(a) a division is called; or

(b) 10 pm; or

at which point, the debate being adjourned and the House immediately adjourning until Thursday, 7 November at 9 am; and

(2) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister.

For the benefit of the House, I will explain the impact of this motion if it passes the House. We're about to move to a second reading debate on this bill. I understand that there's quite a deal of interest among members of the House in making a contribution to that debate. The debate will run until 90-second statements. It will resume after the MPI, but it will take some time to get through. The effect of this motion, if it's passed, will be that the debate will continue till 7.30. The adjournment debate will then take place for half an hour. After the adjournment debate is concluded, instead of the House adjourning, we will continue with the second reading debate on the misinformation and disinformation bill, which will continue until 10 pm unless we run out of speakers before that time. Obviously any divisions or quorum calls that are sought after 6.30 pm would still be deferred until tomorrow morning. I commend the motion.

Question agreed to.

BILLS

Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024; Second Reading

Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024

We are all familiar, particularly on this day when we see the US election results come in, with the term 'fake news'. While this refers to untrue stories which are published and made to look like legitimate news stories, the word has become a catch-all term for false information spread online. The proliferation of social media and online information has unfortunately made fake news part of our daily lives. But that does not mean it is always easy to spot it when you see it. It is the same with misinformation and disinformation. I see it in my own family, with my children pointing it out to my wife and me when we see photos that are created by AI or deliberately produced for misinformation or disinformation.

The Electoral Integrity Assurance Taskforce defines 'misinformation' as 'false information that is spread due to ignorance, or by error or mistake, without the intent to deceive'. So with misinformation there is no intent. Their definition for 'disinformation' is 'knowingly false information designed to deliberately mislead and influence public opinion or obscure the truth for malicious or deceptive purposes'. Basically it's the difference between misinforming and lying, with lying having the intent to deceive.

Of course, the Electoral Integrity Assurance Taskforce remit concerns electoral processes, which can be adversely affected by misinformation and disinformation with serious consequences. However, the effects of spreading mis- and disinformation do not stop at elections; they are wide-ranging throughout our society. Whether the cause is ignorance or the motivation is hateful, the outcomes of the spread of untrue information can be the same. These outcomes include the creation and bolstering of divisions in our communities, the growth of fear, anxiety and uncertainty, and the rise of extremist viewpoints. There are also ramifications for individuals who in some cases are identified as perpetrators of crimes that they did not commit, with the so-called proof spreading wildly across social media. We have all heard the saying that a lie goes around the world before truth even gets out of bed. We saw this happen after the tragic Bondi Junction stabbing, when a completely innocent person was labelled by someone as the perpetrator.

These are the reasons why the Albanese Labor government has introduced the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill. It will amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 as well as make consequential amendments to the Australian Communications and Media Authority Act 2005, the Telecommunications Act 1997 and the Online Safety Act 2021. The aim of these reforms is to protect Australians from the scourges of misinformation and disinformation while balancing people's right to freedom of expression. I stress that. I also stress that freedom doesn't come without responsibility. Racists can still be sued for defamation when they say racist things. Once upon a time racists in this nation had an easy time of it, but now they can be held to account, even though they whinge about it when a court finds against them.

The background to this bill is the commitment the Albanese Labor government made in January 2023 to provide the Australian Communications and Media Authority with new powers. ACMA currently has the responsibility for setting and managing rules about communications, media services and markets. The new powers will enable ACMA to create transparency and accountability regarding digital platforms and their efforts to control mis- and disinformation. The government instigated an extensive consultation phase on the draft legislation, and we are confident that the bill meets the expectations of both digital service providers and everyday Australians. As recently as August this year, the Australian Media Literacy Alliance reported that 80 per cent of Australians are concerned about misinformation and want it to be addressed.

The Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation was developed by the Digital Industry Group, and updated in December 2022. This was in response to the recommendation of the digital platforms inquiry titled 'Regulating in the digital age: government response and implementation roadmap'. The intentions behind the code are sound. However, the code is voluntary and has a limited number of signatories. The framework needs to be bolstered by accountability to make it an effective tool. This is one of the recommendations that ACMA has made previously. It's the classic government intervention: you try for a carrot, but sometimes you have to bring in the stick. ACMA has also found that the transparency reports under the voluntary code do not include reliable and Australian context specific data on measures to address mis- and disinformation.

This legislation will give ACMA the power to hold digital platforms to account for publishing mis- and disinformation. I've said before that the Labor government takes the job of protecting Australians very seriously, and this legislation is another piece of that puzzle. We haven't seen the analysis of the US election yet, but we know that Iranians, Russians and other state actors or state-backed actors have tried to create misinformation and disinformation in the electoral process. Those who do not want democracies to thrive like to undermine them via social media. The voluntary code will continue under this legislation, but it will be strengthened by the development of a regulatory foundation which comes into effect if digital platforms do not provide sufficient protection for the community voluntarily.

ACMA will also be able to increase transparency about the measures digital platforms have in place and assess their systems and processes. This does not mean that digital platforms will subsequently be censoring a wide range of content shared by Australians. The framework is proportionate and graduated and does not restrict freedom of expression. Importantly it will be the digital platforms which carry the responsibility for the information they publish and promote. I would like to stress that the legislation is concerned with content that, as the Minister for Communications says, is 'reasonably verifiable as false, misleading or deceptive, and reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harms with significant and far-reaching implications for the Australian community'. So telling people that you scored a great try on the weekend is not something that's going to cause national harm. It's not telling yarns that we're worried about; it's where you are actually going to have implications for the Australian community.

This high threshold includes harm to the operation or integrity of an electoral or referendum process in Australia—putting democracy up high, as the first point; the targeting and defamation of a group in our community; intentionally inflicted physical injury to an individual in Australia; harm to public health in Australia, including preventative public health measures—something that I'm sure Deputy Speaker Freelander would be very supportive of; imminent danger to critical infrastructure or emergency services; and, finally, imminent harm to the Australian economy. We're talking about national significance. Australians do not have to be concerned that their content will be taken down. The bill requires the removal of content only if there is disinformation which involves such things as bots or troll farms. That's the reference I made earlier to the Russians, Iranians and North Koreans—people who deliberately target democratic nations. There are organisations that exist for the purpose of spreading disinformation for specific agendas, such as causing division or affecting an election.

I repeat that the focus of this new legislation is the digital providers, not individual Australian users. ACMA will not be able to remove individual pieces of content or user accounts. Similarly, ACMA will not be able to investigate individual users or apply penalties to them. Under this legislation, the focus will be on core transparency requirements for digital providers. In other words, they will have to be upfront about the actions they are taking to deal with mis- and disinformation. This includes publishing their media literacy plan and specifying the steps they are taking to help their users identify misinformation and disinformation. I've noticed X have been a little bit hit and miss, but they have taken some steps towards doing that.

The focus on empowering users to critically assess content was a key focus of UNESCO's Global Media and Information Literacy Week in October. This event highlighted the global scale of the misinformation and disinformation spread. Educating and enabling users to identify mis- and disinformation and make informed choices about engaging with content is critical. There is also a risk assessment element to the new requirements for digital providers. It will be mandatory for providers to identify the risk of the mis- and disinformation published on their platforms.

Another change to ACMA's remit is the power to require digital platform providers to create and retain records about mis- and disinformation. This could be in the form of periodic reporting. Such transparency will enable progress tracking and also reassure Australians. Again, this will not impact individual Australian users unless they are an employee of a digital platform, a content moderator, a fact checker or a person providing services to the platform provider.

ACMA will also be granted the power to approve codes and standards that cover things such as reporting tools, links to authoritative information and support for fact checking. Such measures may be taken when existing processes are not restricting mis- and disinformation sufficiently and are putting the community at risk.

The bill excludes professional news content. That means that your sister-in-law getting drunk on a Friday night and having a spray at the family is not going to be included by this. I'll give the minister at the table, without naming him, some comfort in that. It also excludes content that is satirical—I refer to the sister-in-law rule that I mentioned above. Similarly, content that is for academic, artistic, scientific or religious purposes will not be affected. However, authorised government content and electoral communications are subject to the bill. This means that Australians can be assured that politicians and political parties are being scrutinised and are not above the rules.

ACMA has a range of options available in the event that digital platforms do not comply with the new measures. ACMA will be able to use a proportionate and graduated response, ranging from issuing formal warnings to remedial directions, infringement notices, injunctions and civil penalties through the court system if needed. The civil penalties may be up to two per cent of global revenue for breaches of a misinformation code and up to five per cent for breaches of a misinformation standard. That is a serious penalty, so pay attention, Mr Musk. These penalties consider the potential for extremely harmful effects from the spread of mis- and disinformation.

There will be a requirement for the legislation to be reviewed every three years, and that process must include public consultation and an assessment on any impact on freedom of expression, something that is important in Australia. A further safeguard is that the first scheduled review must take international legislative developments into account. It must also include access to data, ensuring increased transparency of the operation of the legislation. Subsequent reports must be tabled in parliament.

At the heart of this legislation is the acknowledgement of the serious risk that misinformation and disinformation have to individuals, groups and our society as a whole. We must act to protect Australians from the blight of fake news, and these amendments provide safeguards while not affecting freedom of expression. So I commend this bill to the House.

I rise to speak on the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. In my office I've had quite a bit of communication from constituents. I haven't had anyone that's been for it; they've all been against the bill. Some of the views can be quite extreme, which you'd expect; it tends to push a nerve with some people. I've had Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four and Huxley's Brave New World quoted to me many times. There are also a lot of people out there who are probably not that extreme on the matter. There is a big question that everyone's asking. People say, 'We understand the intent of this bill, and everyone hates it when people are hurt by information that turned out not to be true, but the question is: is this bill going to alleviate those hurts, and will it eliminate them?' I would answer no to both questions.

At the end of the day, freedom of speech is a basic human right, and this legislation threatens that right. I understand that maybe those out there who support this bill see it as a way of protecting people from information that may harm them. Sadly, people may be harmed by information. That has happened, and it will continue to happen. But the reverse is also true: information that, with the best intentions, might at first have been thought to be harmful turned out not to be harmful and in some cases was later proven to actually have been helpful.

The role of government is really complex. There's a balance between being too lax, leading to harm, and being too constrictive, which also leads to harm. Legislation and laws are there to protect us as a society and as individuals. If you hold a raw egg too loosely, you'll drop it, and there'll be a mess, but, if you squeeze it too tightly, there's also going to be a mess. This proposed bill is an example of squeezing too tightly, and, if it's passed, it'll create a mess.

Slowly but surely, this Labor government has been introducing and passing legislation that erodes our freedoms, all in the name of government control over our lives. History tells us that, when nations go down this path, there is a breaking point where their citizens say, 'No more.' Depending on the civilisation, the results have included revolutions and wars, as people are just fed up. Fortunately, in a democracy such as Australia, governments are peacefully voted out without bloodshed, and I for one am very grateful for that.

When I speak to constituents in the electorate of Longman, which I serve, I find that many are fast reaching the point of feeling strangled, whether it be the small-business owner who's had more and more red tape thrust upon them, fuelling the stress that they are enduring as the economy weakens; the consumer who is being forced to use digital IDs simply to go about everyday tasks; or the hardworking low- to middle-income workers who, under the latest legislation, will have to fund the HECS debts of doctors and lawyers who end up making three to five times what they will earn. That's right: every household in the country will have to contribute an extra $1,600 to the education of people who will earn much more than many of them will ever earn. That doesn't sound like the policy of a party that is supposed to be for the working class or the battler, does it?

In all cases, it is our right to speak what we believe and to listen to what we choose to listen to and then make a choice of what we will believe. Ironically, the very place I stand in, making this speech against this communist style bill, allows me the freedom to make this speech. Of course, there will be those who honestly believe that this will protect people from harm and should be implemented, but the question I ask these people is: who is the arbiter of truth? Who decides what is misinformation? The government? God help us all if that's the case. Bureaucrats? The social media companies? A few powerful individuals who control the media?

Of course, there will be those who say: 'Why do we have speed limits, then? Why not just allow freedoms in every aspect of life?' Well there's one difference here: we have data, and indisputable facts derived from that data, showing that speeding increases mortality rates. Hence, we have speed limits. However, it is your right to have an opinion about speed limits contrary to the laws, because your opinion won't kill people but breaking the law by speeding will increase the chances of your killing someone. We have laws in place where, if you feel you have been wronged or misled, you can proceed through the court system and seek justice there. Part of being human is the freedom to make your own choices and live with the consequences of these choices, both good and bad. If there's only one point of view on a subject, this is not a choice, and, without choice, our humanity is taken away from us.

The other component of this bill I despise is the implication that uneducated people have no value and aren't allowed to voice their opinion. I refer to the component of the bill that exempts academics, scientists and artists. I'm often bemused by the fact that many of the most successful people I know in business are the most uneducated and, in many cases, have the educated working for them. Yet, under this proposed legislation, their opinions and points of view, often learnt through real life and through enduring sometimes painful experiences, are regarded as having no value compared to those of someone who has learnt things in theory from a textbook. For me, information and opinions from both the educated and uneducated need to be available so I can watch or listen to both, as they both have value. That should always be my choice. Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Richard Branson and Steve Jobs all have one thing in common—they didn't have a university degree when they started their businesses. They learnt on the job. But under this legislation, it could be that a YouTube video on success and business from one of these highly successful individuals, if whoever the almighty arbiter of truth has deemed their opinion and content as misinformation as they are not academics, could be banned.

What about when it comes to someone's own health? Speaking to many different people, I have people who swear by naturopathy, reiki, Bowen therapy, chiropractic—the list goes on and on. If the great arbiter of truth was driven by the AMA or big pharma, would any information from these alternative health providers, which may not meet the academic level, be banned under misinformation? No. All sides need to be able to put their point of view across or sell their message. Then it is up to the individual to make a choice on how they care for their body's health needs.

What about spiritual matters? Matters of religion and faith are extremely personal. More and more in our modern society, people who are searching for meaning in their life are using the internet and social media platforms to avail themselves of different points of view before making a decision. If the great arbiter of truth was an atheist, would that mean that information on Hindu, Muslim, Christian and all other faiths would be banned as misinformation? What if the great arbiter of truth was a Buddhist? Would that mean that all information about other faiths, including atheism and humanism, would be banned? The core problem is that the bill empowers digital platforms, government bureaucrats or whoever the great arbiter of truth is to determine whether or not a religious belief is reasonable. This point is well made in a submission on the bill by the combined faith leaders, representing a large number of faiths, including the Anglican, Presbyterian and Baptist churches and the Shiah Muslim community. The submission notes:

… that digital providers will be assessing whether the content of a religious belief is reasonable in determining whether or not it is misinformation. This is the same as saying that providers are empowered to determine whether the teaching is reasonable in itself.

As the submission states, 'This 'reasonableness' test is highly inappropriate to be applied to religious speech.'

What's next? We tell people what to eat? We ban certain foods because we think they are bad for people? It's our right to choose to eat a nutritious diet, and, if we do so, normally this choice leads to a longer, happier life with fewer medical issues. It's also someone's right to make bad dietary choices, which can increase their chances of diabetes, obesity and a shortened life span. There is information that warns people of the consequences of unhealthy choices, but we respect their right to choose how they look after their body. History shows us that we were bombarded with information on how terrible it was to eat eggs, with a small minority disagreeing with this viewpoint who, in the end, were proved to be right. What if they'd been muzzled under misinformation? People still may not have been eating eggs and enjoying not only their delicious taste but their numerous health benefits.

I think there's a more sinister reason behind this bill, and that reason is political. This legislation would allow the government of the day to potentially ban any opinions that were contrary to their ideology. When you're from the Left, like the Labor-Greens coalition, this is appealing, as you can quash any opinions from those on the Right side of politics, which is why they, not us, are introducing this bill. I would personally hate to take away the right of those with socialist and communist ideologies to have their say. How can people know the beauty of the Right ideology if they have nothing to compare it to? Could it be that, deep down, they know that the Left ideology is flawed and always, ultimately, fails?

In contrast, I'm happy for both sides to be presented and debated, as I back what I believe in, and I am unafraid to defend these beliefs, as I truly believe they are best for our country and its citizens. To try and quash another point of view because you fear it is simply gutless and shows you don't back yourself and believe in your own ideologies. The difference between the coalition and the other side has never been more obvious than in our stances on this bill. While we may disagree with the Labor and Greens ideologies, I know that I will fight to the death for the right to express them, whereas, with bills such as this, they will do all they can to suppress us expressing our views. This is why I will not be supporting this bill.

There was so much wrong with that speech from the member for Longman, it would take all of my 15 minutes to address all the points. The irony is that we're standing here talking about a bill about misinformation and disinformation and we had to listen to that contribution. Nobody is banning opinions. Nobody is banning the right to express an opinion or have a say. The Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 is about addressing the spread of misinformation and disinformation. It's about the prevalence of fiction being portrayed as fact.

This is not simply an issue about copy-and-paste Facebook circulars that claim your data will be protected under the Rome statute if you post certain words on your timeline. It's a serious issue that has direct implications for public safety, democracy, societal cohesion and our national economy. The fact is all sorts of very serious people in our society, from national security agencies downwards, are saying this is a serious issue that requires addressing.

This misinformation and disinformation bill is an essential piece of legislation to protect Australians from the harms caused by false and misleading information. We've always had these sorts of protections in the past, with broadcast media and print media. But social media and the internet are an entirely new beast, in the pace of it and the way algorithms are used. We are dealing with a different ecosystem for the spread of information.

Our society has always functioned in a way where broadcast media and print media have been required by society to be truthful and factual, and there are consequences when they're not. So what's at risk? The fact is, online platforms have become essential parts of our lives, connecting us, at their best, with family, friends, news and the world at large. That's a good thing. Whether it's Facebook, Instagram, Threads, X or any other platform, we use these sites to entertain, stay connected and even find out information about issues affecting us locally and across the globe. It's an information-sharing thing. This connectivity has many benefits, but it also presents real risks. Digital platforms, when unregulated, can and do spread information at speeds and scales never seen before, amplifying misleading narratives that threaten our society's wellbeing and, indeed, targeting users with even more misinformation. If you seek information about a certain subject, the algorithm says, 'Oh, this guy is really interested in that; we'll pump in more of that,' and before you know it you're down a really deep well of misinformation and conspiracy theories. Suddenly, your nice, normal next-door neighbour is a raving lunatic.

The fact is, we live in a world where misinformation can impact public health, such as during COVID-19, when false information about vaccines and the benefits of vaccines circulated so rapidly. This is not a trivial issue. Misinformation led many to question or outright refuse life-saving medical treatment. We see it even now, with young children being refused life-saving medical treatment because their parents believe the nonsense on social media saying that somehow it's not good for their kids. It has led to a distrust in government, and I'm not talking about Labor governments or any other sort of government; I'm talking about government in general. It has led to a growing distrust in government and an overarching thought that there is no social cohesion and that the only person you can trust and stand behind is yourself. It's a dangerous narrative for any society that seeks to bring people together.

The spread of misinformation also affects our democratic processes, our societal cohesion and even our physical safety. The US election that's underway right now has been rife with battles of misinformation and disinformation. We do separate it. The fact is, people are allowed to express their opinions no matter how out there they are. Nobody is denying Sky After Dark's right to express its opinion on the Right of the political scale. You've got Fox News in America doing the same, expressing their opinion. You can do that in a democratic society. There's a difference between expressing an opinion and spreading misinformation. If nothing else, the nature of the 2024 presidential race is a case in point for why this bill is so important. There's also the last presidential election in the US and the claims that it was stolen. The misinformation and disinformation emanating from that shocking assault on the Capitol, and the disinformation that has arisen from that shows that fact is under attack.

On a local level, recent misinformation spread like wildfire following attacks in Southport and at Bondi Junction. Misleading narratives and false reports spread rapidly on social media, escalating public fear and, in some cases, inciting hatred against specific minority groups who it later turned out had nothing to do with those heinous crimes. Such events make it clear that when digital platforms do not adequately respond to harmful content on their platforms, the consequences are real and deeply felt by communities across Australia.

Let's remember that broadcast platforms are responsible for the content on their platforms. Print platforms—newspapers and magazines—are responsible for content on their platforms. Digital platforms should be held to the same standard. It is vital that we address the spread of misinformation and disinformation as a priority for our democracy. The concerns of everyday Australians reflect this urgency. Research from the Australian Media Literacy Alliance's Adult media literacy in Australia report published this year indicates that 80 per cent of Australians—eight in 10!—are worried about misinformation. It is amongst the highest levels of concern reported globally and highlights a serious erosion of trust in the digital information landscape right here at home. Australians are looking to their government to take meaningful action to ensure the information they encounter online is reliable, accurate and safe. They don't want the government to buy into misinformation pushes and propaganda.

I don't deny that the digital platform industry and some specific social media platforms have taken some steps to seek to tackle misinformation and disinformation, but it has not been enough. The industry as a whole has a variety of voluntary codes. Not enough is being done. They make a lot of money in this country; they can spend more to deal with this. One example of the industry's attempts is the Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation. It's a code designed to tackle misinformation and disinformation. It's an initiative I welcome, but this code has some clear and undeniable limitations. The transparency reports produced under the code have been inconsistent, lacking the Australia-specific data necessary for effective monitoring and assessment. The voluntary code, while a step in the right direction, has not been enough to meet the growing threat of misinformation and disinformation online in Australia—and I don't buy the arguments about why it can't be done. The fact is if you're talking to your wife about some shoes that you like, somehow it ends up in your feed. Somehow there are ads popping up for those shoes. If they know that, they can deal with this. They're clever enough to have very sophisticated data-tracking and management systems. They can put some of that knowledge to work and deal with misinformation and disinformation. That's why this legislation is necessary.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, has repeatedly urged the government to introduce regulatory powers to hold digital platforms accountable. Now ACMA's not some big tsar of information and truth, which is what the member for Longman suggested. It doesn't want to sit there with a god-like status telling people what they can and can't believe. It's nothing like that. It's a trusted regulatory body. Those opposite, who are the alternative government of this country, should not be spreading distrust in government agencies.

ACMA's insights highlight the critical need for stronger enforceable standards that ensure digital platforms are transparent about how they handle misinformation and that they take concrete steps to protect users from harmful content. The Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 answers that call. It amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and makes consequential changes to related legislation, including the Australian Communications and Media Authority Act 2005, the Telecommunications Act 1997 and the Online Safety Act 2021. Through these amendments, the bill establishes a regulatory framework that empowers ACMA to oversee digital platforms and ensure that they responsibly manage misinformation and disinformation on their services.

The bill has three primary objectives, each carefully crafted to address community concerns. No. 1 is to require digital platforms to manage the risks of misinformation and disinformation. Under the bill, digital platforms will now be legally obligated to assess, mitigate and take responsibility for the potential harms caused by misinformation and disinformation in Australia. I repeat that these sorts of measures already exist in broadcast and print media. We're just bringing digital media into the fold. No. 2 is to increase transparency. Digital platforms will now be required to disclose the actions they are taking to combat harmful content, ensuring the public can see and understand those efforts. No. 3 is to empower users. Australians who use digital media should be equipped with the tools to critically engage with information online. By providing transparency, platforms can empower users to make informed decisions and identify false information themselves.

We know that tackling misinformation and disinformation online is everybody's job and can only be achieved by all users critically engaging in the content they receive online. I say that at a time when we see things like deepfakes emerging. Technology has become so incredibly advanced that videos can emerge online of people, just random people, purporting to be national leaders or celebrities, whoever they are, and the average user has no idea that what they are seeing and hearing is fake. There's no way to discern it, because the technology is just so good. And that spreads like wildfire. 'Look at what this political leader has said!' People believe it, and then they spread the chain. The digital platforms have to be responsible for tackling that. They have to be responsible for that.

This bill will also provide ACMA with a series of new powers to hold digital platforms accountable in fulfilling these three primary objectives. No. 1 is transparency and accountability, because transparency is essential to this legislation. Under the new framework, digital platforms are required to disclose their efforts to combat harmful misinformation and disinformation. This includes publishing a clear media literacy plan, detailing the steps they are taking to empower users in identifying and responding to false information. This requirement empowers Australians with the knowledge they need to navigate online content more confidently and critically. In addition, platforms will be required to publish policy documents on how they handle misinformation and disinformation and the results of any risk assessments they have conducted. This level of transparency is fundamental to public trust. Australians need to know that digital platforms are taking their safety and wellbeing seriously.

No. 2 is information gathering and record keeping. Another critical component of the bill is information and record-keeping powers. ACMA will have the authority to obtain information from digital platforms on their efforts to address harmful content. Platforms will be required to maintain records of their actions and may be called upon to provide these records to ACMA periodically. This creates a clear accountability trail, allowing regulators and the public to track a platform's progress over time and understand how they are evolving their strategies to combat misinformation. The bill includes protections for end users in this process. The information-gathering powers are designed to protect individuals' privacy, as they do not apply to content posted by regular users unless those individuals are employees, content moderators, fact checkers or otherwise providing services to the platform provider. The example used by the member for Longman about people being able to express an opinion about the health impact of eggs—totally safe. This approach balances the need for transparency with the protection of personal privacy.

No. 3 is the code and standard making powers. Under the bill, ACMA will have the power to register industry codes and make enforceable standards if voluntary efforts are inadequate. This ability to set standards is essential because it provides a regulatory backstop. Should voluntary measures prove ineffective, ACMA will be able to require platforms to implement specific practices. We're also safeguarding freedom of expression. I'm sure other speakers will go into detail on that.

The fact is that this bill is needed. Agencies say that it's needed. We live in a time where misinformation and disinformation are absolutely rife, where technology is providing things like deepfakes and a hostile and deliberate way for misinformation and disinformation to be spread, not as an accident but as a deliberate way to affect our democracy. This bill will help deal with that and will hold digital media platforms to the same sort of account as broadcast and print media.

We all get up here every day of parliament and talk about bills we are passionate about and about bills we have strong opinions on. I say this sincerely: the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill is the most dangerous, scary bill that I personally have ever got up to speak about. I am really, really scared.

An honourable member interjecting—

Someone laughs? Yes, that's a kind of a difference of opinion. That says it straight away—we can't have a difference of opinion. I will read out Voltaire. Voltaire, a French philosopher, said: 'I disagree with everything you have said but I will defend every day your right to say it.' Members opposite might want to dwell on that because that is what this bill is undermining—I disagree with everything you say but I will defend your right to say it. What this Labor radical left-wing government is doing is abandoning that principle. This government does not want to defend our right to say things that they disagree with and that is what this is about, so why would you want to do that?

I'm surprised that we are debating this issue at this level in Australia. You might want to say, 'What is the motivation of a government to do this?' In this radical left-wing government, their motivation on this bill is control. When you want to clamp down on free speech in this country, you are about control. They do not want everyone necessarily to be able to say what that person believes is the truth, because, at the end of the day, one person's misinformation is another person's opinion. We always say great ceremonial things about our diggers and veterans, as we should, across both sides of this chamber but our diggers fought for stuff like this. The basis of free speech in this country has always been respected, and I cannot believe we are debating this right in this chamber today.

This is a very slippery slope. The other side will get up and say, 'ACMA is independent. It is a government body. It is just looking for misinformation.' Well, how are you going to define it? How is somebody going to define what is misinformation? I assume a lot of people have read 1984 by George Orwell. This is all about the ministry of truth. Some anonymous person, if this bill goes through, is going to have the right to say and decide what individuals will be able to say on platforms, and this is a slippery, slippery slope.

Again, I think it is about control. One of the reasons that this government is so motivated about this at the moment is the Voice referendum. The government of the day—this government today—criticised people through the Voice referendum, saying that misinformation was being spread. What was the misinformation that was being spread? Was it because people disagreed with them? Was it because some people had legitimate concerns. Some people's opinion was that it was going to divide us by race. That was people's opinion. They say that is misinformation. Some people had huge constitutional questions about the Voice referendum—that it was going to have huge constitutional ramifications. Are we now not allowed to say that? The government of the day, the Prime Minister of the day, many members on that side have said that misinformation was spread about that. Is that what the person in ACMA is going to decide—that, if you have a difference of opinion on things, you can't say that? Is the person in ACMA going to decide that, if we had the Voice referendum and they had these powers, they would take down commentary on the Voice referendum that said that this is going to divide our country by race? Is that what the ACMA person's going to decide? That's what the government thinks it was. The government thinks it was misinformation. If you have constitutional concerns about it, and people say, 'Well, you shouldn't have constitutional concerns about it,' because of whatever their opinion was, is the ACMA person going to say, 'Well, I agree that that's misinformation,' because of their opinion on it, and clamp down on free speech in this country?

The member who spoke before me used the example of vaccines. Personally, I supported the vaccine rollout in Australia through COVID, but I don't want people who didn't agree with that to be quietened just because they disagreed with the conventional view from the medical profession. If a person did have that opinion, in this country they should have the right to say it. The member opposite used that as an example of something that they shouldn't have been able to say. Again, I refer to Voltaire: 'I disagree with everything you say, but I will defend every day your right to say it.' That is under threat in Australia.

Why do I say that this is a radical left-wing government that we have in Australia right now? Because there is no other Western country that has given a government entity this much power. The UK and the US don't have this type of law. No other Western country has this. Again, that's why this is a very dangerous, radical, extreme left-wing government that we have here.

Do you know what you can't do either? I could say something in this chamber, where I am protected by parliamentary privilege, thankfully. But, if I say something in the parliament and it's recorded, as it is, an individual may not be able to post that on a platform, because ACMA may decide that what I've said is misinformation. So, if an individual reposts what I've said in this chamber, ACMA could actually take that down off a platform. That hasn't been negated by the minister with this bill, because she's been asked a question about that in a briefing.

So that's how scary this is. You can say whatever you like as long as you agree with the radical left-wing government. That's what this rule is about. I'm not going to call it ACMA anymore. If this bill passes, ACMA no longer exists. It will be called the Ministry of Truth, like the entity in George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, because those will be the powers they will have.

You might say: 'Okay, how is it going to work in practice? What will ACMA have the power to do?' Take podcasts. Suppose you have a podcast, and someone thinks that podcast contains misinformation. The dangerous thing about this is that the platform owners will always lean on the side of taking the information down rather than leaving it there, because the penalties and fines that ACMA will impose on them are severe. If you're a platform, you will say, 'Well, I don't want ACMA to come along and say: "You've left up this podcast by this individual, or this interview that we did with someone. We're not going to let that stay up."' Platforms are going to lean towards taking it down because of the severity of the fines that ACMA will impose on them.

This is very dangerous stuff. It takes in podcasts, message boards and aggregate news. There's no other word to describe it except 'censorship'. Again, should this surprise me? Maybe not, because any radical and extreme government wants control. If you look at history, you will see that any extreme right-wing or left-wing government always wants to control the press and the information that is out there.

Again—I will do it a couple of times through this speech—I refer to a great philosopher and to the great saying 'I disagree with everything you say, but every day I will protect the right for you to say that.' But that's not the essence of this bill. That is not how the minister thinks about this. I'm assuming that the whole of the Labor Party will vote for this bill. When you talk about free speech, there is not a lot of free speech within the Labor caucus, because, if you have a difference of opinion publicly and you're in caucus, you get kicked out of the party. That says something about their ideas about free speech. I'm assuming the Greens will do so as well. So free speech doesn't come easily to them in some ways.

I just want to talk about some people's comments. You would say this, because you're a partisan politician on the other side of the chamber, Deputy Speaker, but I want to give you some quotes from some third parties. The NSW Solicitor General said this bill is 'based on the patronising assumption that members of the community cannot make a judgement about those opinions but must be protected from the obvious inadequacies of their judgement'. That's a good point. They're basically saying: 'We can't trust you to see through things that are mistruths. We don't trust you as individuals to be able to see what is truth and what is not truth, so we'll protect you from it.' That's just justifying, again, shutting down free speech. The Victorian Bar Association have said:

The bill's interference with the self-fulfilment of free expression will occur primarily by the chilling self-censorship it will inevitably bring about in the individual users of the relevant services.

Again, free will is gone under this. There have been some minor adjustments to this bill. Victorian barrister Peter A Clarke said, 'It's like lipstick on a pig.' He said: 'To capture political content was a change for the worst. Politics involves a lot of commentary and a lot of loose language. It doesn't necessarily mean that it's disinformation or misinformation.' The Queensland Council for Civil Liberties have said:

… this bill is unsatisfactory. If the government says there are deficiencies—

because, again, the other thing here is we have laws already that have prohibitions on some things you can and can't say. You can't defame people. If you go out and say something about someone that is untrue, there are defamation laws already that protect people. You can't go out and say X about someone and just get away with that. They can take you through a defamation process. To go back, the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties have said, 'This bill is unsatisfactory.' Professor Nick Coatsworth, the former deputy chief health officer, said:

The terms "misinformation" and "disinformation" have become overused in public discourse …

The Australian Christian Lobby have said:

There is no excuse for what's proposed in this bill.

… … …

Where the government should be safeguarding the free speech of Australians, it will instead require social media to control our public discourse.

Again I make the point that there are protections already in our legal system. You can't go out and incite violence in our country. There are existing laws about that and to clamp down on that. You can't go out and defame people, because there are laws about defaming people. But this law is about clamping down on free speech in Australia. It's the most radical legislation on this issue around the Western world.

I understand that Labor were disappointed that they lost the Voice referendum. I understand that they don't like the fact that people disagree with them. I understand the fact that the Prime Minister doesn't like memes of him that look silly. But this is a democracy. Our diggers fought for free speech. I've heard politicians on both sides of this parliament say, 'I disagree with everything you say but will defend your right to say it.' That has now been abandoned by this radical left-wing government.

This bill will obviously pass this chamber in the next 24 hours because Labor have no choice. Labor have to lock in, and they can't have a difference of opinion in this chamber and across the floor. But shame on this government. You have started us down a very slippery slope where some faceless bureaucrat, who we will now call the ministry for truth, will decide what individuals can or can't say on social media platforms. When this legislation goes through, I think it's probably the saddest day and the saddest piece of legislation I've seen for the freedoms and liberties of our country, and everyone who votes for this should be absolutely ashamed of what they are doing.

If ever there was an example of free speech being alive and well, that was it. There is little I can agree with—

But an individual won't be able to post it.

Would you mind not interrupting so I get an opportunity to have free speech. You are acting in a highly disorderly manner as you leave the chamber. I note for the record that the member for Page continues to yell and scream at me as he leaves the chamber. However, that is free speech. There is absolutely nothing in this legislation, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, that would have prevented that from happening today. There is nothing in this legislation that prevents Australians of different opinions to continue to articulate them in a respectful manner in any forum in any place in Australia. I look to the gallery today. Not all of you might agree with everything I might have to say in this chamber, but you're going to respect my right to say that, and I'm going to respect your right to have a different opinion too.

Today we have a piece of legislation before the House that deals with a very serious threat that engulfs Australians everywhere. It's a threat to the safety and wellbeing of Australian people, and it is also a threat to the health and wellbeing of our democracy and to not just the political institutions but all of the institutions that normally conservative members of this parliament would be defending to the hilt. But there's nothing now that all of those institutions are at threat by the ever-escalating levels of serious mis- and disinformation. I will come back to that word 'serious' in a moment.

This is not a new problem for Australia. It's not a new problem around the world. Governments across the globe are trying to tackle this issue. With the rise of social media and the technological advancements over time, such as artificial intelligence, the continued increase of mis- and disinformation and the capacity to scale that up into mega proportions like we have never seen before, the scale and the speed at which this serious, harmful misinformation can now be spread online are really amplifying the threats to our citizens. That's why I am pleased to stand in this chamber to speak in support of a legislative framework that is going to deal with the deeply serious risks that are being posed in this unfettered spreading of mis- and disinformation across digital platforms, in particular, but they're not alone in the avenues for mis- and disinformation. This bill presents a proactive step towards safeguarding our citizens, safeguarding our democratic processes and ensuring the integrity of information that reaches each and every one of us.

Sadly, the member opposite tried to paint this as some kind of radical proposal, but I hope you understand in those opening remarks that really nothing could be further from the truth. There is nothing radical about a government wishing to protect its citizens. There is nothing radical about wanting to ensure that we hold some of these hostile actors to account. I must say that, usually when we have to deal with matters of foreign interference into our democratic processes, conservative members are usually quick to join us in ensuring that issues of national security demand and are given a multiparty approach, so it is with deep regret that I stand in this chamber and listen to the arguments being posed. I have total respect for the capacity to make those arguments, but some of the misconstrual of the content of this bill is again feeding into the kind of conversations that are not always as informed as they might be.

So let me just put a few things on the record here. This bill is about increasing transparency and accountability, especially on the digital platforms. We all know—and every single parent we run into in our constituency groups is talking to us right now about this—just how prolific and harmful content on digital platforms is for their children. That's what their first and primary concern has been. In addition to whatever else they are seeing themselves, they are worried about the impacts of social harms that are being generated through digital platforms in Australia.

There is substantial evidence from both Australia and overseas that serious harm is being caused by mis- and disinformation. We are increasingly relying on social media as a source of news, and, indeed, I am chairing a committee now where it's abundantly clear there are some generations—those under 40—for whom news via a digital platform is their sole source of information and access. When you talk to gen Z people, at least 60 per cent of them now see no news other than what is delivered on their smartphone.

So that is what parents are worried about. They want to know that that information is authenticated, is accurate and is something they can trust in. That is totally not the case for any family in Australia right now, and members opposite know that. They know that, but they do not wish to support this bill because of a furphy, I have to say, about this impinging on free speech. Many people raised, rightly so, concerns about this bill and impacts on free speech. Any thinking Australian is going to ask that question, because we hold that value dearly.

This bill took many of those concerns into account during the first consultation period. Legitimate concerns were raised and then addressed in the next drafting of this bill. That was really to ensure that we got that balance right between free speech, which Australian people do rightly hold dearly, and the need to provide safer environments for our kids, our families and our citizens more broadly. We needed to find a balance about how to uphold freedom of expression whilst also combating the deep, serious harm that mis- and disinformation is having.

This bill carefully collaborated definitions of serious harms, so it is a furphy to suggest that this is impacting people's opinions. Unless your opinion is doing serious harm to others, then it is not captured by this legislation. Let me assure you of that. The Australian people are rightly opinionated, and we love that. When I go to the supermarket, I have people telling me what I'm doing good and what I'm doing bad straight to my face, any time of the day or night. We love that. That is called direct constituent feedback. That's what politicians want to hear. That's how we remain connected to our communities. So let's not pretend that anybody's opinions are going to be somehow shut down here.

What is at stake is when we have deep, serious, intentional harm, which is sometimes not even caused by our own citizens. Let's face it: these are global platforms that are operating here—sometimes these are generated by persons on the other side of the globe—but they have direct harmful impacts to our people in Australia. So this bill is not applying to professional news content. Journalists, of course, will be able to continue to craft their trade and honour their profession. Trust me—journalists too want to know that their trusted, authentic, verified news is able to be delivered to people and isn't being drowned out by deliberate mis- or disinformation. There is nothing in this bill that enables ACMA themselves to take down individual pieces of content that users are putting up there. That is not the intent of this bill, and suggestions to say otherwise are deeply diverting people's attention and, in fact, buying into some of the fear that is part of the business model for mis- and disinformation.

This is a bill that's taking a systems-level approach. The digital platforms remain, as they should, responsible for managing content on their services. As I said, I'm in the middle of a report now where I will have a lot more to say about the responsibility of social media platforms in Australia, but it is no secret that my view is that if you want to operate social media platforms then you have a social obligation to be socially responsible. Those are my tests for social media. My committee and, indeed, this parliament will have much more to say on that in the future.

But anybody that thinks we should not be acting on the serious harm—and I underline those words 'serious harm'—that is being inflicted on our children, on those that we love and on citizens and vulnerable groups across our communities—if you don't think it is your role to help protect those citizens then we do have a fundamental disagreement, because I think that is government's role and that it is the role of every parliamentarian to think about ways that we will ensure safety not just in our physical world but in our online worlds. That is an essential part of government's work.

This bill has undergone a lot of consultation already. There are continued reportings going on with Senate committees at the moment. So the idea that this bill has not been part of conversations and subject to a detailed critique already is a nonsense. This bill has undergone changes as a result of that considerable consultation. And who knows? We are yet to see the report of the Senate committee inquiry into this. We will do what all good, responsible, thoughtful governments do, and that is take that feedback into account. We'll see how the bill progresses, both in this House and in the other house. Again, that's the working of our democracy.

But there is no doubt that the top priority for an Albanese Labor government—as I think it should be for any Australian government, quite frankly—will be keeping our citizens safe. That is our top priority, and we make no apologies for that. I would like to see parliamentary support for our endeavours to keep citizens safe, but it would seem that that—I remain forever optimistic, but the speeches I have listened to to date give me a heavy heart and reason for pause there. But there is time. The vote is not on yet. I do hope that members opposite will join us in an endeavour to ensure the safety of our citizens in an ever-evolving digital world where mis- and disinformation are causing gross and serious harms that have ongoing consequences, not just for the generation now but for the next generations as well. We need to get this bill through the parliament, and we need the support of everyone. (Time expired)

I hear my colleague the wonderful member for Newcastle and the concerns that she has about the issue of misinformation and disinformation, and there is so much of what she says that I absolutely agree with. We are all concerned about our children, our grandchildren and young adults who are not listening to good news—that is, accurate news—and we in this place have a responsibility to get that right. However, we also have to make sure that there are not consequences that we do not intend by implementing legislation passed in this House.

Our role on this side of the House is to ask questions and to vote according to our priorities. Before I begin talking about the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, which is about combating misinformation and disinformation, I want to talk about the misinformation being propagated by the national broadcaster, the ABC, because it is incredibly relevant to this bill.

Exhibit A: the ABC broadcasted in late August and early September claims linking decades of use of paraquat and diquat herbicides to the incidence of Parkinson's disease in farmers. The story portrayed a hotspot in my electorate of Mallee. I am not saying that there isn't a Parkinson's hotspot or similar and, as the shadow assistant minister for regional health, the incidence of Parkinson's in my electorate concerns me greatly. If there is a causal link then we want to get to the bottom of it. I have been advocating for years for funding to support movement disorder nurses and support across Mallee with no success at this point in time. The fact is that there is no evidence that there is a causal link to Parkinson's disease from the use of these chemicals, and the ABC portrayed historical practices as if they are occurring today.

Currently the APVMA is reviewing dosages of paraquat and diquat, I respect the independence of the APVMA, who were effectively also attacked by the ABC as being in the pocket of the chemical companies. You can talk all you like about the editorial independence of the ABC, but they must put facts in their claims or they will actually become a disreputable source of news—misinformation, if you like. Radio ratings certainly indicate that Australians are switching off the ABC. Significant reduction of paraquat dosage will mean a return to heavy tillage farming. This will radically impact the people in my electorate. It actually will impact of the people in Sydney because you do not want Mallee dust all over your city. As Ron Hards from Werrimull in my electorate told me, the low dosages being discussed are so low you might as well pee in the corner of the paddock—that's how much use it will be.

Constituents and peak bodies are coming to me very concerned about this and very grateful for the motion that I moved in the federal chamber this week on this topic. They are beyond dismayed at the ABC Landline program on the issue, so much so that the APVMA issued a statement critical of the ABC making that connection and, most importantly, highlighted that we are talking about historical practices, such as the portrayal of a farmer ducking as a crop duster sprayed chemicals over him as he applied chemicals on a farm. Nobody is suggesting that children are being exposed to herbicides or that farmers are being drenched in herbicides today, because modern practices have changed. Sealed cabins and sealed systems for herbicide use are the norm. The representation by the ABC tried to link hardworking farmers and others from my electorate who are dealing with Parkinson's disease and who are not making that direct link themselves. The editorialising by the ABC in claiming the link was sensationalist and arguably doling out misinformation.

Exhibit B is fake gunshots. When it comes to misleading use of footage or audio, we had the ABC in Senate estimates this week admitting that it had added additional gunshots to footage of Australian troops in a helicopter deployed in Afghanistan in 2012. This was disgraceful behaviour on the part of the ABC.

Exhibit C is a government official from the US state of Georgia who, last month, took issue over the ABC Four Corners program's misinformation about their Vogtle nuclear power plant, with the program host claiming that the plant had not reduced power prices but put them up. But the vice-chairman of the Georgia Public Service Commission, Tim Echols, said that the plant was not the primary source of rate increases and that the ABC's failure to mention other sources of price increases had amounted to misinformation. For instance, there is, firstly, the amount of gas that the USA has been shipping to Europe to help combat the flow of Russian gas and, secondly, the cost of new grid infrastructure to accommodate electricity generated from solar panels. It might relate to Australia. These are just a few examples where the ABC goes on an ideological crusade, putting the narrative ahead of the facts, then shaping the content to suit the narrative—or, as some call it, fake news. The point is that, if we are going to combat misinformation and spend $1 billion a year financing a public broadcaster, they have to get their facts right and not engage in misinformation themselves.

Getting back to the bill, this is the Albanese Labor government's second attempt at regulating what people can and cannot say online. Their first attempt drew 20,000 submissions opposed to the proposal. The coalition campaigned to bin the bill, and the bin is where it ended up. The trouble is that Labor has done a dumpster dive to bring up a new bill that is worse than the first one. The bill comes late in a parliamentary term during which this government has had plenty of time to get the settings right. They also have their anti-doxxing and hate crime amendment bills before parliament. I'm very concerned that sitting days are running out and that this government may be readying the guillotine on this and even other bills when there are very serious implications to be considered in relation to each. That is what debate is about.

In this misinformation do-over—act 2, if you like—the government ran a ridiculously short seven-day consultation process which minimised the number of submissions and objections that could actually be made. I can assure the House that Mallee constituents have been making many, many submissions to my inbox, with this being the No. 1 topic raised with me in recent months, given the government's ridiculously short timeline for so-called consultation. This bill is so bad that the coalition has already pledged to repeal the bill if it becomes law. The provisions of the bill are extremely broad and would capture many things said by Australians every day. Under the bill, the honestly held opinions of Australians can be deemed to be misinformation. Digital platforms are required to identify whether or not pieces of content are misinformation. The process of identifying this misinformation is highly subjective and will lead to the suppression of free speech of everyday Australians. Concerned about religious freedom, faith leaders have united in protest at the attempt to have the government regulate what is 'reasonable' religious belief, as opposed to 'unreasonable', and this too is highly concerning. In other parts of the world, persecution of people of faith occurs because the government determines that certain beliefs, teachings or practices are contrary to government policy.

We have criminal laws for people who commit criminal acts, even though we have seen a hole in the law recently when people held up flags or symbols of listed terrorist organisations. It's concerning that the government seems more focused on acting like religious police, deciding what is or isn't a reasonable religious belief and turning a blind eye to promotion of terrorism through religious fundamentalism in Australia. The right to hold and communicate religious beliefs is one of the most fundamental in any democracy. Spirituality is the domain of the individual, not the state. We need government for many things. Determining whether our religious beliefs are reasonable is not one of them. The Albanese government's misinformation bill represents a clear and present danger to the open communication of religious beliefs in Australia. Remarkably, Mr Albanese and his communications minister, Michelle Rowland, want this bill to become the law of Australia by the end of the year. This simply must not happen.

There are many serious problems with this bill, but it is notable how many religious groups have zeroed in on the risks it represents to people of faith. The core problem is that the bill empowers digital platforms and government bureaucrats to determine whether a religious belief is reasonable. This point is well made in a submission on the bill by the combined faith leaders, representing a large number of faiths, including the Anglican, Presbyterian and Baptist churches and the Shia Muslim community. The submission notes:

… digital providers will be assessing whether the content of a religious belief is reasonable in determining whether or not it is misinformation. This is the same as saying that providers are empowered to determine whether the teaching is reasonable in itself.

Everyday Australians are captured by this bill, but some groups are excluded from its operation. For instance, any reasonable dissemination of material for an academic, scientific or artistic purpose is excluded from the bill, but if an everyday Australian disagrees with an academic then he or she will have committed the crime of misinformation. This is outrageous and creates two classes of speech in Australia: one for favoured groups, like academics, and one for everybody else. Here is a sample of the objections to the bill.

The Victorian Bar Association stated:

Speech about political, philosophical, artistic or religious topics often involves statements that are not straightforwardly 'factual', but which are not mere statements of subjective belief. Much scientific discourse involves the testing and rejection of hypotheses, in which even 'true' information is provisional or falsifiable. The prospect that ACMA—and digital platform providers—will be required to identify not merely misleading facts, but also misleading 'claims', 'opinions', 'commentary' and 'invective', will have an obvious chilling effect on freedom of speech; especially in sensitive or controversial areas.

The Institute of Public Affairs have highlighted the reliance that social media platforms have on fact checkers, who, they argue, failed the nation during the Voice to Parliament referendum. The IPA say they analysed 187 fact-checking articles relating to the Voice to Parliament between 22 May 2022 and 14 October 2023 and found that an overwhelming 170 articles, or 91 per cent of fact checks, assessed claims made by opponents of the Voice. In the same period, Australian fact checkers assessed just 17 claims made by proponents of the Voice. This is despite over 60 per cent of Australians rejecting the Voice to Parliament on 14 October 2023.

The IPA notes that six months before the referendum my Nationals colleague, shadow minister for Indigenous affairs Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, argued that fact checkers were complicit in perpetuating the false claim that the Voice was a 'modest proposal'. In April 2023 she highlighted the disproportionate targeting of the 'no' campaign, noting: 'The fact checkers go all out on wrongly fact-checking basic rhetorical claims we've made but never examine any of the statements from Voice supporters.' To be accredited by the IFCN, fact checkers must uphold a commitment to nonpartisanship and fairness and not concentrate their fact checking on any one side. As the IPA's research uncovered, Australians can have no confidence that this is the case with domestic fact checkers.

The Australian Christian Lobby said that the definitions of 'misinformation' and 'serious harm', together with the threat of severe penalties for digital platform providers who do not comply, are a recipe for overcensorship. Where the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, should be safeguarding the free speech of Australians, instead they will be requiring digital platforms to control our public discourse. In essence, ACMA becomes the ministry of truth. If that doesn't chill you, you have a problem. From public health to politics, the economy and ideology, ACMA will determine what you are allowed to say online. (Time expired)

I am pleased to rise to speak on the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. This is an important bill that will seek to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to protect Australians from online harm, an issue prevalent in our society today. This bill will make amendments to the Australian Communications and Media Authority Act 2005, the Telecommunications Act 1997 and the Online Safety Act 2021.

In today's world, this bill is needed to ensure there is transparency and accountability around the efforts of digital platforms in combating mis- and disinformation on their services. The reality is we just don't know what these platforms are doing or what systems they have in place to prevent the spread of harmful information. As a mum of a son who has just finished year 12, I know how harmful misinformation and disinformation are to our children and young people. The widespread adoption of digital platforms means that our children and young people are exposed to all sorts of information with varying degrees of facts and factual information.

There is no doubt that social media has brought many benefits to us as individuals, and as a community it enables us to connect with family and friends beyond traditional geographic boundaries across the world. We can keep up to date with those we love who may not live near us and be digitally present for the most important moments in their lives. We can create community groups that connect with our friends, sporting groups and neighbours, building a thriving and connected community. As members of parliament, we rely heavily on digital platforms to increasingly communicate important information with our constituents. This began some years ago with a simple photo; now most of my colleagues are creating videos and reels to share important information.

These facts can exist while acknowledging that digital platforms in their current form are also causing significant harm to people in our community because these platforms lack regulatory systems and processes to hold them accountable. Regulation will ensure that information shared on digital platforms is factual, not mis- or disinformation. This is incredibly important because digital platforms can be a vehicle that spreads misleading and false information that is seriously harmful to Australians, in particular children, young people and older people.

There have been some concerns about the right to freedom of expression being impacted because of the introduction of this bill. I've heard this from constituents from Dunkley who have contacted my electorate office to convey their concerns. But we know this: Australia is the best democracy in the world, and I welcome the opportunities I get to meet and hear from people in my electorate. People in this country can exercise their right to freedom of speech. One such opportunity lies in their ability to contact local MPs electorate offices to give their opinions and recommendations, as they have done recently in relation to this bill.

To those who have been contacting my office to oppose this bill, you have been and will continue to be given the time of day at my office and we will continue to listen to your concerns, ideas and suggestions on this and many other issues. You will continue to have the opportunity to leave ideas and thoughts in the comments of my digital pages, as long as they are respectful. This is not going to change, because the right to freedom of expression is fundamental to our democracy. It is a right our government takes very seriously. It is a right that I take very seriously.

This bill does not jeopardise people's individual rights to freedom of expression. Rather, it is focused on taking action to ensure that digital platforms have measures in place to stop the rapid spread of seriously harmful mis- and disinformation. That sort of information poses a significant threat to the wellbeing of people of all ages and challenges the functioning of societies around the world.

This is a step in the right direction for many community advocates who have lived experience of the harms of digital platforms. Take, for example, the initiative of Wayne Holdsworth, who members of parliament may know from his organisation SmackTalk and who recently launched Unplug24. Unplug24 was established by Wayne Holdsworth, a local Dunkley legend, whose son took his own life last year after being sexually extorted online. Mac was a 17-year-old boy with his life ahead of him. Wayne, despite his grief, has dedicated his time to sharing his own story to support other young people and parents to understand the dangers and threats that digital platforms can pose without proper systems, processes and regulations in place. Digital platforms in the hands of the wrong people can spread mis- and disinformation, which impacts individuals' wellbeing and—in the case of Wayne's son, Mac—can be very harmful, to the extent that it can end in the tragic loss of life.

This bill and the amendments act to address some of these challenges. It acts to provide the Australian Communications and Media Authority with new powers to ensure there is transparency and accountability around the efforts of digital platforms in combating mis- and disinformation on their services. Currently, digital platforms are not open about this information, with little accountability for what measures they actually have in place on these platforms to prevent mis- and disinformation. This bill delivers on the promise that ACMA powers meet community expectations. This bill will give ACMA the powers to assess the digital platforms' systems and processes to prevent harmful information dissemination and improve transparency about what actual measures platforms have in place to protect Australians from the harm associated with mis- and disinformation on their services.

We are intent on protecting Australians and preventing and improving with this bill. Put simply, the bill seeks to improve our voluntary code by providing a regulatory safety net if digital platforms fail to provide adequate protections for the community and its people. This bill will impose transparency obligations. Digital platforms will be required to be honest about what they are doing on their service to combat mis- and disinformation.

The proposed government amendments would establish new obligations for digital platforms to make available their policy approach, to share their data for the purposes of research and to empower ACMA to make digital platform rules regarding the publication of data access policy approaches. There would also be new provisions which would enable ACMA to create digital platform rules that would require digital platform providers to operate a data access scheme for independent research. The scheme would be centred on data relating to the identification, assessment and mitigation of misinformation and disinformation risks on the relevant platform.

The Labor government is taking the need to protect and support community members from the harms of content on digital platforms seriously. This bill sits alongside many other measures, including the introduction of age limits for young people. We must build better systems and tools for digital platforms to regulate them and to hold them accountable for disseminating factual information. We must mitigate misinformation that erodes trust, safety and transparency. We must mitigate misinformation that erodes democracy to keep democracy alive. This bill is about ensuring we have facts, not fiction, to inform our democracy and to keep Australian citizens safe.

It is not up to the government via ACMA to decide or dictate what the truth actually is. I am proud that we, the coalition, oppose this Draconian legislation and will repeal it in government because freedom of speech is an absolute fundamental to our democracy. By contrast, it is the clear intent of the Labor government to censor, silence, control, find and punish Australians for our online content by imposing and enforcing obligations on digital platforms. This is the most antidemocratic, anti-free-speech legislation I have seen since coming into this parliament in 2007. I actually never thought I would see the day when in this country, a proud country that is globally acknowledged and highly respected as a liberal democratic society, we would be debating a bill that is explicitly designed to censor and silence the Australian people, to deny us our freedom of speech and freedom of opinion, to deny Australians the right to frank, fearless and honest debates.

We need to hear the views of people we disagree with. But what I believe Labor is really doing is preventing anyone who disagrees with the government from having their say, especially in the run to the election. The government will control what we read, see, hear and share online in the election campaign via ACMA. Labor is seeking to directly prevent anyone who disagrees with the government from having their say. This is a bill that strikes at the very heart of free speech, a key pillar of Australia's hard-fought-for and protected democratic freedoms and liberties. Over 103,000 Australian servicemen and women have fought and died for our democratic values. One of those was my sister's dad—my mother's husband—who was killed in Papua New Guinea in World War II. They fought to protect and preserve our healthy functioning democracy, a democracy that not only requires but should demand freedom of speech, where a diversity of ideas, views and opinions right across the ideological and political spectrum are encouraged, openly discussed, both agreed with and disagreed with.

However, the Labor government has decided to deliberately silence its own citizens, to legally enforce and silence debate, to shut down debate on issues that matter to Australians and to deny us the right to informed choice. Our informed choice will only be what the government approves of. This bill will deliberately suppress and remove online debate by Australians. Unfortunately, once again, Labor are determined to divide us as they tried to do with the Voice. However, this time, Labor is dividing us by the chosen ones who will have the right to freedom of speech online and those of us who will not have the right to freedom of speech online. Labor's special chosen ones, those who will have the right to freedom of speech no matter what they say will be academics, scientists, artists—the people who Labor clearly believe have a superior intellect to the rest of us. Labor's chosen ones will have the right to free speech on key and critical issues that matter to all Australians, even if it is misinformation and disinformation around critical political, health, social, economic and every other issue. Imagine not being able to disagree online about budget decisions, climate policies, Labor's renewable-only energy policy, women's safe spaces and anything else in fact. Those of us who are not the chosen ones will be bound by the Labor's broad definitions of misinformation and disinformation enforced by ACMA—Labor's truth police unit.

Misinformation is described as information that is reasonably verifiable as false, misleading or deceptive. Disinformation has the same definition but also adds the content 'with grounds to suspect the person sharing it intends that the content deceives or it involves inauthentic behaviour'. Well, good luck with that. The rules for this will be dictated by whatever the government and its truth police—ACMA—decide. Gone will be our right to share our genuinely and honestly held opinions through frank and fearless discussion and open access to the great contest of ideas and diversity of opinions online.

For practical purposes, the Labor government will direct and empower ACMA to force online platforms to remove content before Australians are actually allowed to see the content. Can you just imagine how the Chinese government will be rubbing its hands at the opportunity it will have to instruct TikTok to remove massive amounts of Australians' legitimate content online? That will be content that the Chinese government doesn't approve of. It will be removed under the protection provided by this Labor legislation to curate China's own message or propaganda, and we will never know exactly what the Chinese government has removed because it will be gone before we see it. It's madness.

We will see the major American platforms controlling and removing Australians' content online, outsourced probably to factcheckers like the discredited politically biased RMIT factcheck. We will not be allowed to see, hear, read or share alternative views and opinions online. The online platforms will be forced by law to remove any of this before we're even allowed to see it.

I have great respect for Chris Merritt, the Vice President of the Rule of Law Institute of Australia, who said that 'good law must be clear and certain with requirements that are capable of being known in advance, not determined by officials'. He also said:

One of the fundamental features of Australia's system of government is that everyone has a responsibility to make their own assessments about public policy debates.

That means accepting that part of the price of living in a free society is that flawed ideas should be free to circulate alongside those that are worthy.

Telling the difference is the role of an informed citizenry, not governments and their officials.

That's exactly what this government is trying to do. Make no mistake: this is complex and simply bad legislation. We actually won't know what's being removed and what we're missing out on because we won't see it at all. The platforms will have wiped it off before we see it. We won't even know when ACMA—Labor's 'truth police'—get it wrong and force platforms to remove information that later proves to be true. We won't even know what truthful original information was there because we won't see it in the first place.

I can't find any process or publication of removed information, no penalties or outcomes for the 'truth police', ACMA, when they get it wrong—which they will—or who or what will monitor, measure and report on ACMA's decisions. Who will adjudicate and decide that the government, ACMA, the platforms or the factcheckers have made a mistake in removing accurate information when later evidence proves that it was true? Will those posts and comments be reinstated and fines repaid? Who will represent the rights of ordinary Australians in this instance? What will the penalties be for the removal of accurate information? Will there be damages paid to the individuals and/or the platforms affected? Who will pay? Will it be Australian taxpayers? The legislation and definitions are so broad that you could drive what my family would call a D11 Dozer through them. They're so wideranging, open-ended and subjective. There are terms such as 'grounds to suspect', 'reasonably likely to cause, or contribute to, serious harm' or 'the intention to deceive'. I could not find any definition or test for what actually constitutes 'reasonably verifiable' or 'false, misleading or deceptive'. Simply put, the truth will be what the Labor government, via ACMA, says that it is.

What also concerns me is that Labor is doing this because they think Australians are stupid. They think that we are so stupid that we can't work out for ourselves whether what we see, read and hear online is accurate and reasonable or is extreme and wrong. I've done hundreds of cybersafety presentations to kids. I ask the kids, 'How many of you believe that everything you read, see and hear online is true?' Very few hands have ever gone up, no matter what the age group is. I encourage the kids to develop their own critical thinking. If kids understand this, why doesn't this current government? Why does the government think that we are really all so stupid that we don't understand that not everything we read, see and hear online is true? I think the government believes that we don't have the common sense.

Australia is a democracy, and that's something that I take very seriously. We actually have the right to freedom of speech and to use and develop our own critical thinking and judgement. It's part of our responsibility as adults to work out the difference between fact and fiction. We have the right to actively decide what games, platforms, apps, sites and digital technologies we use and which we stay away from. The importance of media and information literacy should be encouraged, not discouraged by simply cowering behind, and being controlled by, ACMA or Labor's truth police like zombies who can't think and act for themselves, who in fact need to have a Big Brother government on their shoulders every single minute of the day or whenever they're online. It is not up to the government to decide what the truth is.

I am very concerned about this legislation. It is not right that we only see what the government believes we have a right to see. I don't want to be living in a vacuum—a political vacuum or any other form of vacuum. I don't want to see anything designed to suppress alternative political opinions or other opinions or to filter out alternative views. I don't want to see anything designed to stop us disagreeing online with the government of the day. Unfortunately, Labor want to make sure, by controlling what information we get to see, that any future referendum they propose is probably never defeated again by a 60-to-40 majority by the Australian people.

We will never see those alternative views or the truth online, again creating division in Australia: the chosen ones, who can express all of their views online, and the rest of us, who cannot. It is not okay that the Labor government are dividing us into those they think are smart or intelligent enough to know what is accurate online—the media, academics, scientists, artists and those involved in parody or satire. They must all have superior intelligence. These people can say what they like online, right or wrong. Whether or not it's Labor's definition of misinformation or disinformation, they can share it. Academics can have two opposing opinions, but ordinary Australians can't discuss this online. If you're a neurosurgeon, doctor, pharmacist, lawyer, heavy-duty mechanic, nurse, teacher, retail worker, aged-care worker, childcare worker or one of so many others—who will have the right? But, unfortunately, we are the ones to whom the Labor government believes it can dictate what we can and can't read, see, hear or share online.

Unfortunately, we will see Canberra based bureaucrats setting up a totally new bureaucracy to police this. I take great exception to Australians' freedom of speech being compromised in any way, shape or form. I don't want to see Australians living in an information bubble that is controlled by Canberra based bureaucrats. I'm not quite sure what qualifies those in ACMA to be the only ones who know what the truth actually is. I really object to this. I cannot imagine what would have happened in Western Australia, under what was the then Labor government's horrendous Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act, if this legislation were enforced and the people who highlighted the many problems that were embedded in that act weren't able to air them online. This is the risk, that the information we get will be only that which the government of the day wants us to have. I would have to ask: are we living in Australia or China?

Good point.

It's a good point. Australia or Russia? I chose to live in Australia. I love the place, and I love the rights and freedoms.

Every time we do a citizenship ceremony, freedom of speech comes up as one of the things that we are so proud of. We in this place should be protecting at all costs those rights and freedoms that people from around the world come here to be able to enjoy, that they often can't in the country that they've come from. Yet here we are discussing something that is deliberately putting those rights at risk. Fake news has been around forever in all sorts of forms. It is up to each one of us to decide what that is and to act accordingly. It is not up to the government to decide what the truth is. I am profoundly concerned that this bill is even before the House.

With respect to the previous speaker, I think you're about to hear a quite different speech. Each time a technology is invented which holds transformative potential, it brings with it a fresh set of opportunities and risks. The printing press was the foundation of mass communication but was used as a tool for propagandistic social control. Television revolutionised the news media and brought the world home to people's lounge rooms, drawing them far closer to political events—at times, viscerally so. The internet has enabled instant communication but, in doing so, has exposed us to unforeseen social risk, has eroded public trust in traditional democratic institutions and has left us questioning the nature of truth itself.

A common thread which links the three inventions I named is the disruption they have brought to what Australian academic and former journalist Professor Andrea Carson of La Trobe University describes as the 'information landscape'. In today's information landscape everyone's a producer, no-one's an editor and content is everywhere. And we've proven ourselves to be ineffective at managing it.

As a three-time ABC foreign correspondent, I began my career in the analogue days of reel-to-reel tape in a radio studio. Producing news was rigorous, and news travelled only at a pace the radio or TV schedule would allow. Traditional broadcast media, perhaps unwittingly, acted as gatekeepers—mediators—in the public discourse. Traumatic footage involving disasters and accidents, for example, was—and still is, by mainstream media—carefully cut together. This can differ according to country and culture, with higher tolerance in some places for graphic imagery. Having witnessed immense death and destruction firsthand as a foreign corresponded many times, I can truthfully say that the horrific things that continue to exist in full colour in my memory never ever made it to your screens—only my descriptions of those events did.

Today in discussions about free speech and censorship this fact has been lost. The humans involved in distributing information to the public have always made a series of decisions and value judgements about what you see, what's too violent, what's too offensive and so on. In general, these decisions are guided by editorial policies together with the collective experience and instincts of those producing the news.

As time progressed in my career as a journalist, so did technology as the industry transitioned from a bricks-and-mortar media landscape to one of unfettered information. The rise of the internet and novel forms of digital media flipped the structure of our media environment on its head. This new landscape had transformative potential. For example, Facebook and Twitter spread democratic ideas and mobilised mass demonstrations throughout the Arab world. When I was covering deadly civil unrest in Thailand in 2010, Twitter became a tool used by and between journalists—to work out what was happening where and whether it was safe to be there—as well as a way of sharing news. This transformation reached a tipping point in 2017 during my coverage of the Trump administration. Then it felt as if accusations of 'fake news' were coming as fast as the President could tweet. Suddenly we began questioning everything. Fragmentation of trust and truth became so great that basic facts became contested.

The COVID years both suffered from and compounded this post truth era, which was adeptly grasped by Donald Trump himself, who expertly seeded doubt that the 2020 election may be stolen due to alleged flaws in the COVID affected electoral process. The day of 6 January 2021 was a day when those storming the Capitol believed they were protecting democracy, not attacking it. Such was the success of Trump's disinformation campaign. More recently we've seen the dangerous and destructive results of disinformation in the form of false accusations about the Bondi Junction attacks and race riots in the UK triggered by online lies.

I've spent some time outlining what's a huge problem for societies across what is now a very connected world. The question is how to fix it. Several countries have either failed to legislate on mis- and disinformation or relented to public backlash by repealing new laws. In the US, for example, a newly appointed disinformation governance board was shut down after just a few months due to pushback.

At the heart of this minefield of international legislative failure and the culture war that closely follows is the question: what exactly do the words 'disinformation' and 'misinformation' mean? Anxiety over the integrity of free speech should not be dismissed. At its core lie philosophical questions about what modern society's relationship with information should be. To date, successive Australian governments of both stripes have allowed these questions to be answered by big tech. The Albanese government is no exception. Its foray into this territory has been fraught. The first draft of this bill was shelved, only to reappear over a year later, after tens of thousands of submissions were received.

This legislation, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, has two core objectives. One combats misinformation and the other disinformation. The two are entangled. Both spread falsehoods. Both can cause harm. But the distinction lies in intent. Disinformation is the deliberate sowing of falsehoods. Misinformation is inadvertent, yet it can accumulate to become capable of demonising communities and polarising nations. The US and the UK continue to grapple with the lasting impact caused by targeted disinformation campaigns. Society is polarised and trust eroded.

We still have time to prevent this from happening here. In 2015, evidence showed that Russia's notorious Internet Research Agency conducted influence operations in the Australian Twittersphere. A spike of troll and possibly bot posts targeted our then Prime Minister for his critique of the Russian President following the country's shooting down of MH17. Another spike occurred in April 2017. After Australia deployed fighter aircraft in Russia-backed Syrian airspace, a barrage of nonsensical content appeared on the hashtag #AusPol at four to five times the rate of typical organic traffic. This technique was designed to hook Australian Twitter users by presenting them with innocuous or humorous content and, over time, luring them to a more extreme viewpoint.

A majority of Australians polled before the Voice to Parliament referendum, says Timothy Graham of Queensland University of Technology, supported a 'yes' vote 12 months out from the vote. Public sentiment then fluctuated wildly, in correlation with the use of non-traditional pan-partisan and conspiratorial messaging techniques across X by the 'no' campaign. This is one clever example of how automated content recommendation via algorithms can be weaponised for political purposes and, indeed, how algorithms have begun to change the nature of modern politics.

Misinformation, though, is more challenging to nail down. Reliable data outlining the actual volume of misinformation on the internet is lacking, in part due to the way digital platforms prevent researchers from accessing platform data. The legislation expects digital platforms to intervene via various methods where content is both 'reasonably verifiable' and likely to cause 'serious harm'. These are subjective concepts. Indeed, as presented in this legislation, they are imperfect. These definitions remain matters of discussion between me and other members of the crossbench and the government.

It's a delicate balance to preserve freedoms when we know that algorithms favour outrageous content such as misinformation and disinformation and propagate it to drive user engagement and profit, with little or no regard for public safety and social cohesion. Where the boundary should be when it comes to public discourse and misinformation has become a political flashpoint. This debate is inflated when, in effect, this bill expects platforms to inform users about misleading content, not remove it, and up the transparency. Where content may cause serious harm to an individual or our community, do something about it and then tell ACMA how you'll do it.

To be clear, platforms already action misleading content, but under their own rules—Elon Musk's rules or Mark Zuckerberg's rules. Whose do you prefer—theirs or ours? Rules formed by our parliament or big tech? Currently, all the power lies with the platforms, and doing nothing, in my view, is no longer an option. But what we do must hold carefully calibrated definitions and demonstrate a clear capacity to be effective in encountering this societal threat.

For the moment, I'm not entirely satisfied that either the definitions or the transparency measures in this bill are adequate, and discussions with the government on these matters are ongoing. It's clear, though, that competition alone has not aligned digital platforms with the best interests of society. The misaligned commercial incentive structures which guide the logic of big tech's algorithms are why we're glued to our screens, why are feeds make us compare our lives with our friends, why political content polarises and outrages us, why Cambridge Analytica was able to exploit our divisions, and why nation states can cynically weaponise our open but fractured information landscapes. Surely, there is a better approach.

This government talks a big game about standing up to big tech, but the truth is that time after time it's the path of least resistance. Labor's strategy on online safety revolves around the industry co-regulation model—self-regulation, in other words—and it's a core element of this bill. Indeed, the core thesis of the co-regulatory model was coalition policy. This is backed by a veiled threat of resolve to impose more interventionist regulation if big tech companies don't pick up the game on their own. This is in the face of new laws in the EU and UK which have far surpassed our own. Their approach—a systems approach to online safety—is proving to be the far more effective strategy. But not for Australia: 'Just switch your devices off,' we're told. This is not a solution.

I recognise the obvious benefits which digital platforms can provide, but the risk of harm in Australia's existing regulatory environment is too high. It goes far beyond the narrow scope of just mis- and disinformation, and we can't continue to let the platforms decide how to fix it, which is why I will be introducing substantive, detailed amendments to this legislation. Today researchers in Europe and America have data access rights where it's in the public interest for them to investigate how algorithms are operating on a digital platform in a specific region. My amendments will allow Australian researchers to gain the same level of insight into the data of how algorithms are functioning in our country too. I fear that ACMA, at present, is not properly resourced with the technical expertise needed to critically analyse the data provided to the government under the transparency measures in the bill in its current form. Absent data access rights for Australian researchers, the capacity of this bill to meaningfully and urgently combat the threat mis- and disinformation poses to our democracy is, in my judgement, questionable.

The rapid and uncontrolled spread of mis- and disinformation is a risk to social cohesion, public health and safety, and political stability, yet this bill has arguably been the subject of disinformation in the form of a knee-jerk reaction about censorship, despite nothing in the bill requiring content to be removed and no penalties for individual users. I absolutely do understand public concern about free speech—as a former journalist I see it as a fundamental tenet of democracy—but at its core the aspiration here is to make platforms more responsible—just a bit more, not even a lot more. What those opposing this legislation need to answer is this: do you believe mis- and disinformation are threats to democracy and, if so, do we plan to do something about it? If not, we'll just have leave the rule-making to Mr Zuckerberg and Mr Musk.

Where do we start? As they say, opinions are like noses; everybody's got one. Your opinion and your facts are personal, but they're yours, and what we see with the misinformation bill—the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024—is someone's opinion and someone's facts can be determined to be the facts for everybody. That's an incredibly dangerous thing. Quite frankly, I find it peculiar that the government would bring this forward so close to an election. It's so toxic out there. It really has stirred people up. We all know that the traffic we get into our office via emails and on our Facebook sites, and people really don't like this piece of legislation.

So I'd leave good enough alone and just walk away from it. I hate to give tactics to the Australian Labor Party, but if I were in their tactics group, I'd say, 'Look, we don't need this one. Cut this off. While you're at it, take intermittent power out, too, because that is awfully unpopular.'

With this misinformation bill, at the start, you hear stuff where there's some sense of credibility, where you say, 'Well, if you're stirring up young girls on body image and it's bringing about real afflictions'—and that does happen—'then I suppose it's a good thing,' but then, when you look at the bill, you see that it doesn't deal with that issue. So you say, 'What does it deal with?' and it's, 'Well, your position on climate change; your position on intermittent power; your position on nuclear'—and these are part of the political debate.

We have got to give some credibility to the common sense that is held by the vast majority of people, to determine what they believe in and what they don't and what they take on board. Are you going to have misinformation legislation for people at public functions or for people going to the local pub on a Friday night? Are you going to say, 'I heard what you said, but I'm now going to have you arrested because I believe that you are espousing misinformation'? No. You give credit to the people around you. You say, 'Look, I heard what he said, or what she said. It's a load of rubbish, and I'm just parking it, but I don't want to create a commotion so I'll just let the clown carry on with what they're saying and completely ignore it.' But what we're doing here is saying: 'You're not capable of discerning what is the truth. You're incapable of checking the veracity of an item, of crosschecking it, of corroborating it, of playing it over in your mind in those sweet hours before you fall asleep as to whether you believe that is the truth or not.'

There are a lot of things in the presidential election that is happening right as we speak—and I know that, right now, this speech will be probably the most unwatched thing in Australia, because everybody is glued to that. Mind you, I do know that I have my virtues and I might be pulling a bit of an audience away from the presidential election! But I doubt it. There are a lot of things that have been said in that presidential election which even I hear, from thousands and thousands of kilometres away, and say, 'That's not right.' But do I feel offended by it? Does it rock my core? Am I inclined to throw things at the television set? No. God has given me the grace—and blessed I am by it—that I can listen to something and say, 'That's not right.' And that's all it needs. That's where you need to stop.

What we're doing here is: we are codifying one person's or one side's opinion as having supremacy to other people's opinions. You could say, 'Well, you're couching your opinion as fact.' Well, maybe that's how you see it and that's another opinion of yours, as to how that argument is framed. But it is not your right to determine, in a liberal democracy, what can be heard and what cannot be heard.

Of course, you cannot scream, 'Fire!' in a cinema; we all know that. But we've already got that covered in Australia. What we're doing here is further outreach—this further sense of censorship. That is how we are seeing it in the replies that are coming to so many of our offices and, no doubt, to the offices of government members of parliament. You are creating censorship.

I used to be cynical; I used to call them conspiracy theorists, but now I'm starting to get a sense that maybe there was something to George Orwell and Aldous Huxley. Maybe they were kind of smart. Maybe we see, in the Ministry of Truth, how this happens. These people were clever enough to pick the tenor of where things go. And this, to be precise, is what they were talking about.

Leave this to the individual. Leave that right to be wrong, that right to be misinformed, to the individual, because it balances up with that even greater right: to state your mind, without fear or favour. We all know how, in a malevolent way, with a sense of malfeasance, one could grasp this piece of legislation and say, 'I know the truth, and the only truth that I'm going to let you hear—

At that point I'm announcing that the debate has been interrupted in accordance with standing order 43.

I've got more to say later on.

The debate will be resumed at a later hour, and the member will be granted leave to speak when the debate is resumed.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

Warrah Disability Services

Warrah Disability Services in my electorate, in Dural, is a fantastic not-for-profit service. They're dedicated to performing particular services for people with disability. They work to do so by providing opportunities for people where they may not previously have had the chance to participate fully as a member of our community.

Their work began back in the sixties, with Warrah operating as a special school by day and a group home by night, but times have changed. Nowadays, Warrah offers supported independent living for adults across 13 homes with 24/7 care, community support services and in-home support. Along with that, Warrah is the only Steiner specialist school operating in Australia, providing K to12 education with 31 students currently enrolled. Warrah also operates a biodynamic farm and operates an organic farm shop. More recently, Warrah has assisted with the creation of microenterprises, including candles made by Rohan, a regular participator at the Dural Men's Shed. Ben and Jim have also started mowing lawns with the assistance of the team at Warrah.

I recently visited Warrah and caught up with CEO Delia Gray, school principal Anna Wetzel, farm manager Steve Tennikoff and property manager David Sharkie. We talked about the work that Warrah is doing and their plans for the future. One of those plans involves getting the broader community involved by developing a farm animal management practice which would be open to the public while teaching participants about animal husbandry. I'm excited about Warrah's plans, and I'm working on a plan to support them as they grow and continue to support people in our community to lead an engaging and fulfilling life.

George's Fruit Barn, Tertiary Education

In my electorate of Robertson, we have a range of tremendous local small businesses that provide fresh produce. One of these is George's Fruit Barn. George's Fruit Barn services our community with delicious fruits and vegetables, conveniently located on the Scenic Highway in Terrigal.

The much-loved fruit and vegetable shop was established by the late Anthony George close to 50 years ago when he opened his roadside fruit and vegetable business. Over many decades and while raising five children in the area, Anthony and his wife, Marie, grew their business into what is today an icon of the Central Coast. George's Fruit Barn is the go-to location for all of your fruit and vegetable needs plus Asian and multicultural foods. Its motto is: if you can't find it anywhere, go to George's. The fact that George's Fruit Barn has been operating on the Central Coast for five decades goes to show that this motto is very much true.

Marie George continues the family business and has been recognised many times for her contributions to the community and businesses in the region, recently being nominated for Terrigal Woman of the Year in 2022. I would like to take this opportunity to recognise George's Fruit Barn for its longevity and outstanding customer service. Small businesses are the backbone of our communities. When we support small businesses, our nation thrives.

I'd like to make a final comment about Labor's plan to cut student debt. It's going to make a big, big dent in our national debt, but it will also make sure that students are receiving the cost-of-living support that they deserve because education is so important in Australia. (Time expired)

Farrer Electorate: Racism

I rise with a message from my electorate of Farrer: those who try to divide us will only make us stronger. On 12 October, up to 50 Neo-Nazis dressed in black with faces covered converged at Corowa along the New South Wales Murray River. The location choice was no coincidence; Corowa is the birthplace of Australia's federation. The people's convention of 1893 united this nation's divided colonies to work as one country. These men, the National Socialist Network, sought support for a publicity stunt. They failed miserably. Corowa rebuked the mob, demanding they leave town immediately. When I visited the next day, the message was clear from the mayor, business and community leaders and everyday citizens: your views are not welcome in our town—not now and not ever. It also emerged that the group had assembled at Albury's war memorial, alone on a cold midwinter evening, preaching white supremacy rubbish to themselves. That's where these views will be delivered, disappearing into the void of a dark night. You might meet in secret or sink into backroom social media sites, but as soon as you come out of the dark, you will be rejected. Failing to find support in our cities? If you think there's a base for you in rural Australia, think again. Corowa and Albury have spoken loudly—those who try and divide us only make us stronger.

Northern Territory: Tourism

The Territory is a great place for fishing. A lot of people know that, but if anyone's caught the new season of Territory on Netflix, you'll see how incredibly beautiful it is and how much tourism is going to be a key economic driver for the Northern Territory going forward, which is great for employment for Territorians, including First Nations Australians. With our fee-free TAFE and 20 per cent off HECS debts, there's never been a better time to get a tourism education in all those related fields that are going to make us an even better mecca for tourism into the future.

When it comes to fishing, the Million Dollar Fish competition is in its 10th season. That runs through until March next year. That means that if you can hook up a fish, a barra, that's got a $10,000 tag on it, you win $10,000. There's also 10 swimming around out there in the Northern Territory that have got a million-dollar tag on them. You can go fishing and catch a million-dollar barramundi in the Northern Territory. That's through until the end of March. I encourage anyone who's keen on fishing to come up to the Territory and to get amongst it.

Not only that, but the Northern Territory government has committed to getting rid of gillnet fishing. That means there are going to be heaps more barra swimming around in the Northern Territory. Come up and have a crack.

Taxation

Whether it is bringing dental and mental health into Medicare, making university free and completely wiping student debt, capping rent increases or setting up a public developer to build homes that are then rented for cheap to almost anyone, everything the Greens are proposing is already done around the world in countries like Norway, Denmark, France and Austria. The big difference is that in Australia we have a political and economic system that, far too often, puts billions of dollars in the pockets of billionaires and big corporations. One-third of Australia's biggest corporations paid zero dollars in tax in Australia. This includes multinational gas corporations like Santos, which made $6.2 billion in income and then paid less tax than a nurse.

In places like Norway, they make their big oil corporations pay their fair share in tax. In 2023 alone Norway collected $209 billion in tax revenue from their oil and gas sector, a 63 per cent cut of that sector's revenue. Meanwhile in Australia in the same year, the gas industry made $164 billion but only paid nine per cent in tax and royalties. If they charged the same tax rate as Norway, Australia would have made an extra $88.8 billion in revenue in a single year. In Norway, they tax their big oil corporations to give students free university. In Australia, the government taxes students to give big oil and gas corporations massive tax breaks. In Australia, the government taxes students, and in Norway they tax big oil corporations. I know which one I would choose.

Childhood Dementia

Yesterday I met with Megan Maack. Megan's a wonderful person who runs the Childhood Dementia Initiative. She has two children herself who have Sanfilippo syndrome, which is one of the causes of childhood dementia. These disorders are terrible. Children are born normally, but they eventually die of their diseases. I recently had a patient of mine, Laura, who had something called Rett syndrome. She had multiple seizures, was self-mutilating, eventually went blind, couldn't swallow, was fed via a gastrostomy and eventually passed away from her Rett syndrome.

Childhood dementias are due to a multitude of causes. All of them are rare, but together they are not uncommon. Over 90 children a year die from childhood dementias. Every electorate in the country has children with childhood dementias. As a paediatrician, they are really heartbreaking disorders. Many of them have no treatments, and the parents go through agony dealing with their multiple problems. Megan wants us to set up centres of excellence to help manage childhood dementias across Australia. She wants more research and more support for families who have children with childhood dementias. I give her my commitment that I will do my best while I'm in parliament to make sure her wishes come true. These are dreadful disorders. We must do more to support them. I commend Megan for her work.

Crows Nest Fest

Over the last three weeks, I have spent a lot of time in my community at fairs and festivals, and every occasion has been incredible. But today I want to particularly thank the hardworking volunteer crew behind the Crows Nest Fest, which took place on a beautiful, sunny Sunday recently. To JoEllen Henderson, Margot Natoli and the team, congratulations. You knocked it out of the park. In its 30th year, this festival has become an iconic annual event known for showcasing an incredible array of businesses and multiple talents. It's little wonder over 50,000 people made the effort to get there this year. From musical performances to activities for kids and gourmet food, the strength and diversity of our community was in full flight.

It was, though, disappointing that, despite the festival planners working closely with Transport NSW to try to showcase our metro, the line was shut that weekend. We can only imagine what the turnout would have been had Transport NSW kept their end of the bargain. Ultimately, though, following many conversations on everything from people's sadness about the abolition of our North Sydney federal seat to the cost-of-living crisis, housing access and affordability challenges and the need for greater investment in quality education, this type of event enables me to continue to confidently fight for the reform I know my community wants to see. Once again, thank you, JoEllen and Margot, and congratulations to the entire Crows Nest Fest crew.

Tertiary Education

This week, the Albanese Labor government have made two fantastic announcements in the education space. These announcements will help people with their cost of living right now and make education fairer for the students of the future and, through that, open up the jobs and opportunities of the future. One is, of course, our changes to HECS. We are reducing every student debt by 20 per cent. On average, that's a cut of $5,500 for a student with that debt. We're also changing the repayment thresholds so that people can earn more before they start paying it off. This is wonderful news for people around the country with HECS-HELP debts, including here in my electorate of Canberra. We're also making fee-free TAFE permanent. A re-elected Albanese Labor government would open up another 100,000 new places of fee-free TAFE. Just yesterday, I had the great pleasure to go with Minister Andrew Giles to visit Bruce CIT here in Canberra and talk with students in early-childhood education and nursing about how this has benefited them. We have seen a great take-up of this in Canberra, and I'm really excited that we will be extending that if re-elected. It was really inspiring to hear these students speak so passionately about what they've been learning and the passion they have for the careers they will undertake in these skills areas which are critically important for our nation. We are the party of education, and we want everyone to access the best opportunities for learning. (Time expired)

Nuclear Energy

In my part of Central Queensland, energy prices are nothing to laugh about. The cost is stifling our farmers, businesses and family homes, and it's stopping younger generations from getting ahead. This one-term Albanese Labor government keep powering ahead with their reckless race to renewables, while—get this—decreasing power reliability. We are being laughed at around the world. Nuclear energy is the way forward. That's zero-emission technology that provides baseload power 24/7, not just when the sun shines or the wind blows. There are 32 countries operating 415 reactors. Sixty-two more are currently under construction right now—today. What some would classify as third-world countries have better energy security than we do. They pay less for electricity than we do. Australia is on the go-slow with energy technology, and not opening your minds to nuclear is hindering our country's prosperity. It's hindering manufacturing and investment opportunities. Nuclear is safe, clean and consistent. A nuclear industry will create secure jobs for the regions. Get onboard, Prime Minister Albanese. We need to keep the lights on, and Australians deserve affordable and reliable electricity.

Eating Disorders

Eating disorders, such as anorexia nervosa, impact thousands of people. These are serious and often fatal illnesses. They are terrible diseases that I know so many families in our community are fighting every day. Although awareness is improving slowly, eating disorders are not very well understood. They often surprise families and leave them in the fight of their lives to help their loved ones overcome these diseases. Although some families and adults are able to overcome their eating disorders through acute care and psychological treatment, many in our community need a higher level of ongoing support, in the form of specific residential care, like the centre in Coombs I visited earlier this year with Assistant Minister McBride.

The centre was built with federal funds and is run by ACT Health. It is now open and will provide 24/7 care for people with eating disorders. The centre will offer therapy, including specialist intensive nutritional and psychological treatment, in a home-like environment. Many families across the ACT and our broader region will welcome the centre's opening. It will change lives for the better in our community. I'd like to thank all involved in the construction of the centre and, critically, I thank all the health professionals who are now staffing the centre and helping patients, families and carers treat eating disorders.

Relay For Life

Last weekend, Bunbury held its fantastic Relay For Life event. I want to thank the amazing volunteers who have run this relay for around 20 years. It's a 24-hour team based event and, of course, it's designed to raise awareness of cancer and help fund Cancer Council WA's research, prevention and support services. Participants walk, jog and, sometimes, dance their way around the oval for 24 hours, which reflects the continuous nature of the struggle cancer victims live with each year. This year there were around 407 people in 41 teams who raised about $184,000.

Over the years Bunbury has raised nearly $5 million to support Western Australians impacted by cancer. There are costumes, live music and food trucks making sure that everybody is well fed and full of energy, in a wonderful carnival-like atmosphere. Two special ceremonies occur: the cancer survivors' morning tea that honours those that have come through their cancer journey and the candlelit ceremony that is a tribute to those loved ones who have lost their cancer fight. It's an inspirational overnight event that unites people and local communities in their vision for a cancer-free future. I want to congratulate everyone who is involved—the wonderful volunteers who have been at this for over 20 years—and I congratulate those who received awards for their countless years of service to Relay For Life.

Tertiary Education

Labor is the party for education both in TAFE and university. That's why we're unlocking 100,000 fee-free TAFE places per year. Under Labor, fee-free TAFE is here to stay. We'll also be cutting 20 per cent off all student debts and raising minimum repayment thresholds so that repayments are lower and kick in when you earn more.

While the Liberals are focused on blocking, we're focused on building Australia's future. As a proud TAFE graduate, I know TAFE can open the door for many Australians. In making this commitment, we are upskilling Australians in essential industries, building the economy and filling the workforce gaps in critical industries. We are giving people the skills that they need for the jobs they want. We are training more tradies and construction workers to build more homes and training more nurses and healthcare workers to look after our loved ones. It will open the door for aspirational Australians, giving people in our communities in McEwen the opportunity to gain skills and get ahead.

This is the start of our positive plan for a second term: helping Australia with the cost of living and building Australia's future. This is something those opposite clearly have no idea about. Yesterday's question time was a ripsnorter of an embarrassment for the deputy opposition leader, showing their absolute ignorance of, and prejudice against, public education. Yesterday the question was asked: 'Why have only 13 per cent of the TAFE courses that we've started two years ago been completed?' The fact is that 89 per cent of those courses go for three years, so they're not completed within a two-year timeframe, and this lot over there are complaining— (Time expired)

Lindsay Electorate: Infrastructure

Labor has dudded Western Sydney residents yet again, this time on three key infrastructure projects with broken promises and funding cuts. Firstly, the Albanese Labor government officials this week could not answer questions in Senate estimates about why the Dunheved Road upgrade through my electorate is two years behind schedule, when the infrastructure minister came to the electorate at the time of the 2022 federal election and promised to fast-track this project? It is extraordinary. Residents from Cambridge Park to Werrington are outraged. The Morrison government delivered this funding, and we needed Penrith City Council to begin construction long ago.

Secondly, Mulgoa Road upgrades have been cut by the Albanese Labor government. The government's officials told Senate estimates that stages 5A Blaike Road to Jamison Road and 5B Jamison Road to Union Road will receive no federal funding. People in this part of the world, in my electorate, have been waiting for these upgrades to happen. They actually promised it, and work is underway on this very road. But that doesn't matter to the Albanese Labor government. The funding was cut.

Thirdly, the government was not able to answer questions about why Minister King cut planning funding around Western Sydney International Airport. Western Sydney residents deserve so much more. (Time expired)

Holt Electorate: Infrastructure

We recently celebrated the completion of the south-eastern section of the Suburban Roads Upgrades at Narre Warren-Cranbourne Road in my electorate of Holt. The $1.6 billion South-Eastern Roads Upgrade has delivered 34 kilometres of new lanes, reducing congestion, improving safety and cutting travel times for nearly 130,000 motorists each day. As someone who drives on Narre Warren-Cranbourne Road daily, I know how essential this road is to our community and I want to thank the minister for infrastructure, Catherine King, for her work. The Albanese Labor government recognises that our rapidly growing outer suburbs need significant investment to stay connected and move forward.

This investment isn't just about roads, though. Addressing major bottlenecks like Narre Warren-Cranbourne Road is essential to tackling the housing crisis. The City of Casey, which Holt covers, has the highest number of housing approvals nationwide. As development expands in Clyde and Cranbourne East, these road upgrades are crucial to support continued growth. The upgrade of Narre Warren-Cranbourne Road is just one way the Albanese Labor government is investing in our growing south-eastern suburbs.

Energy

I was pleased to join the team at Long Island Point in my electorate last Friday to celebrate the official opening of the Hastings Generation project. This project will not only reduce the amount of ethane which flares from the Long Island Point plant but produce enough energy to power roughly half the houses on the Mornington Peninsula. The three generators will rely on ethane to bring more power to the grid, producing 50 per cent fewer carbon emissions than coal generation in Victoria. The Long Island Point plant contributes immensely to our local community, employing over 150 team members and supporting a raft of community organisations, such as Fusion, the local SES and the Marine Rescue organisations, as well as local schools through both grants and partnerships.

Esso Australia is focused exclusively on the domestic market and provides a reliable supply of natural gas to Victorian households. The ongoing supply of gas is an essential part of the energy make-up of my state. More supply is essential to ensure gas remains affordable. My constituents barely need reminding that, under the Albanese Labor government, the cost of gas has gone up by 33.8 per cent. When the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining, gas will ensure the resilience and stability of the energy grid. We know on this side that a balanced energy mix is the key to reducing prices and guaranteeing a stable power supply for our ever-expanding need for energy. A coalition government in 2025 will not close baseload power stations prematurely and will put more gas into the market, allowing for a stable transition to renewables and net zero with their power.

Banking and Financial Services

Australians and small businesses work hard for their money, and every dollar counts. Yet every time someone taps their card for coffee or groceries, everyone is hit with digital payment fees that stack up. These fees cost Aussies hundreds of dollars a year and some small businesses tens of thousands of dollars a year. In hearings in October banks confirmed that digital payments are much cheaper to process than the alternative. Of course they are. But we live in this upside-down world where it costs us more to use digital payments than the non-digital alternative. This makes no sense, and it has to stop. It's time to change the payment system because the current system is unfair for small businesses and it's unfair for consumers.

The government has heard the calls for change, and this is good news. Both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer announced that a Labor government would ban debit card surcharges pending the RBA's current review of merchant costs and surcharges. This is huge. It is a real signal that the rort that goes on now needs to stop and is set to change. Labor wants a fair go for small businesses, who get smashed with high fees, and a fee-free option for consumers, who are unfairly charged more to use the cheaper payment method at the check-out. Australians have had enough of this rort, and the government is on their side.

Economy

We learned in today's AFR that this evening our Prime Minister, in a speech, will be telling a group of business leaders that, with regard to the fight against inflation, the worst is now behind us. You can almost picture him on the aircraft carrier: 'Mission accomplished! The worst is behind us.' But yesterday we heard from the RBA, who told us a very different story about the economy. The governor told us that the inflation problem is far from solved. The economy is still running hot. We saw the job numbers come out of Australia and the US. We're running at four times the rate of the US. Our economy is running hot. The inflation problem has not been solved. We saw that, at best, inflation will sustainably return to the midpoint of the band only by 2026. We heard that the recent decline in headline inflation is only temporary. It will go back up. This is very different from the vision that the Prime Minister is going to try to paint tonight.

We heard very clearly that government spending is driving inflation. In fact, we heard that the RBA have been shocked by the amount of spending that has come from this government and have had to revise, multiple times, their estimates of what that spending would be. It has kept going up and up, and every time it has breached that limit.

Given these two very different visions of what's happening in our economy, I stand with the Governor of the RBA. I call on the government: stop your reckless spending spree and look after Australians. Inflation does not bear down evenly on the economy. It hurts the most vulnerable, and your spending is causing that pain to Australians right now.

Tertiary Education

Inequality is something that cuts across generations. This is especially true in the north, where, because of that disparity, opportunities like going to university feel unrealistic and unaffordable for families in my community. That's why the Albanese Labor government has decided to change the game by making higher education more accessible and affordable, to break down these barriers to opportunity and help Aussies with the cost of living at the same time. We're doing that by wiping 20 per cent off the HELP debt of every single Australian, increasing the income threshold before student loan repayments start, and reducing the amount that students will pay when they reach the threshold.

These changes will help millions of Australians like Bec, one of the 19,024 people in my electorate with a student loan debt, to pay off their loan earlier and earn more while they do it. Bec said, 'Reducing my student debt would mean I am able to start getting ahead of my mortgage repayments and plan my future better.' To quote Bec again, she believes these changes will 'go a long way in allowing us to set ourselves up for the future and to break the cycle of generational inequality'. Bec is spot on, and that last part—levelling the playing field for Australians—is what drives me every day I walk into work. That is what this government is going to deliver by making higher education fairer, more affordable and more accessible in communities like mine.

Barker Electorate: Drought

Much of South Australia is in drought. Many regions in my electorate and the electorate of Grey are recording their lowest-ever rainfall. Livestock producers are struggling as fodder prices soar, with quality feed becoming increasingly difficult to source. Last Saturday I joined Linda Widdup and her team at Aussie Hay Runners in Tailem Bend as a convoy of 33 trucks carrying 832 bales of hay made its way to where it's needed. Over five years, Aussie Hay Runners have travelled 2.8 million kilometres in delivering feed to livestock impacted by drought, flood and fire, assisting almost 4,000 farmers. It's no small task, and I commend Linda and her organisation, together with other organisations like it.

Joining the run on Saturday and witnessing firsthand what this help means to those receiving it was truly humbling. Drought devastates regional communities, and it's important for those struggling to know that government has their back when times get desperate. But that's simply not happening in South Australia. The Premier needs to shift his focus from football festivals, car races, golf tournaments and pop concerts to dealing with the realities of what's happening in rural South Australia. Offer a fuel subsidy to help organisations like Aussie Hay Runners get the feed to the livestock that needs it—that would be a great place to start.

Economy

Like our American friends, in the next six months Australians will have a choice—a choice of continuing on a path forward with the Albanese Labor government, a government that is providing a better future for all Australians. Our government, in our first term, have started the mammoth task of turning the economy around. After almost 10 years of denial, delay and difficulties—some not of their making—we have started to turn this around. We have halved inflation. That means we have stopped much of the increase in the price of goods and services, and that impacts every single Australian. We've also given every single Australian taxpayer a tax cut, and that matters to the pay packet of every single Australian. We have created more than one million jobs. We've delivered back-to-back surpluses. That is a historical first for Australian governments of any stripe.

We have also delivered in my seat of Paterson. Today, when you drive through Hexham, you see cranes and construction. You see jobs. We are training tradies. We are creating jobs. We are making a better Australia, not just for the people of Paterson, my seat, but for each and every Australian. (Time expired)

In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Economy

My question is to the Prime Minister. The Albanese Labor government is the weakest and most incompetent since the Whitlam government. The RBA forecast that inflation will not return to the midpoint of the target for two years.

Honourable members interjecting—

I want to hear the question. I think I know we are going with the point of order, but the descriptors which I illustrated yesterday, to be crystal clear with the chamber, are not within standing orders. This is the first question since we've had this, and I said that, if there were descriptors, it's going to be a problem. If we can just start the questions without the descriptors, it would assist the chamber greatly. The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order?

Mr Speaker, there is a distinction to be drawn between language about an individual and a fact based assessment of the performance of a government.

It places the chair in a really difficult position if we go down this path, and it is a slippery path, and we'll just race to the bottom. I don't want question time to be like that. I can understand that it's an opinion, but it is not helpful, I think, for the dignity of question time and the running of the parliament.

Order! The Prime Minister will cease interjecting. On the point of order?

Mr Speaker, I just seek clarity from your earlier advice. I just need clarification as to what standing order it is that you might be relying on. The description of a government in these terms, as the Manager of Opposition Business pointed out, is quite distinct from a reflection on an individual member, which obviously is dealt with in the standing orders. But I do think it's difficult, with all due respect, to rule that an adequate description, such as I think we've put here in this question, can be ruled out of order. I don't think it offends the standing orders at all. If you can't describe a government in the terms that it should be described in, I don't understand how it is that we can have a breach of the standing orders.

I haven't said the question is out of order. I haven't ruled that way.

An opposition member: It was heading that way.

No, I wasn't heading that way. I was just letting the House know my views. I'm trying to assist the House so everyone gets a fair go. I'll hear from the Leader of the House.

In terms of the issues just raised by the Leader of the Opposition, where he said, 'How could it be against the standing orders?' standing order 100(d) says:

Questions must not contain:

… … …

(ii) arguments …

The same standing order, in subsection (d)(iii), states that questions must not contain inferences. The same standing order, in subsection (d)(iv), states that imputations can't be contained. The same standing order, standing order 100, in subsection (d)(v), states that insults can't be included.

You can then go to standing order 101, the standing order on the Speaker's discretion about questions, which states:

The Speaker may:

(a) direct a Member to change the language of a question asked during Question Time if the language is inappropriate or does not otherwise conform with the standing orders; and

(b) change the language of a question in writing if the language is inappropriate or does not otherwise conform with the standing orders.

Everyone will resume their seats. I'll deal with this. The Leader of the House will finish his point of order. Then we'll move on and I'll deal with this.

I only rose because the Leader of the Opposition challenged to ask: where is this an offence to the standing orders? There's a myriad of examples.

Honourable members interjecting—

We're going to get through this. Manager, resume your seat for a moment. I take the point from the Manager of Opposition Business, which is correct, and that from the Leader of the Opposition, which is correct also. The difficulty for the chair—and this is not the first time this has risen—is that this is not the first time in any parliament where descriptors have come into it. So I'll allow the question, but I'm just making a point to the House that we need to be careful with the language that we—on both sides—are using with questions and answers. This has come from the crossbench before, and it has been raised. I understand the issue; I'm just advising the House—for everyone's benefit—that, if we could reframe language to be more factual and to be on point, I think question time would be a better thing. I give the call to the member for Hume.

My question is to the Prime Minister. The Albanese Labor government is the weakest and most incompetent since the Whitlam government. The RBA has forecast that inflation will not return to the midpoint of the target for two years. When will this Prime Minister finally admit that Labor's reckless spending means that inflation and interest rates are higher for longer?

I am delighted that the member for Hume has asked me to make comparisons with previous governments, because when we came to office inflation was much higher and was rising, and now it's much lower. It's falling on our watch, and that's not by accident; it's because our policies are helping in the fight against inflation, a point that the Reserve Bank governor herself has made. When it comes to the two surpluses that we delivered, we turned two big Liberal deficits into two substantial Labor surpluses, and that's helping in the fight against inflation.

If he wants to compare this government to previous governments, then he should fess up that, when this government came to office, real wages were falling by 3.4 per cent and that now they're growing again. He should fess up and say that, when they left office, they left behind a trillion dollars in Liberal debt and nowhere near enough to show for it. While he's at it, he should fess up to all of the other comparisons that show that we are making welcome and encouraging progress in the fight against inflation and in cleaning up the mess that we inherited from those opposite.

He mentioned the RBA's forecast for inflation before and said that inflation won't get back to the midpoint of the target band for a couple of years. If he were to look at the forecasts that were released yesterday, he'd see that the Reserve Bank has inflation returning to the midpoint of the target band in June—not in two years but in June. If he were honest, he would say that what he's doing, once again, is deliberately trying to confuse people. He's trying to confuse the underlying measure and the headline measure. The Reserve Bank target is the headline measure, and they say in their new forecast that they'll hit the midpoint of the target band on the headline measure in June 2025. In their estimation, it'll be 2.6 by the end of this year.

It's really good of him, it's actually quite kind and quite generous and quite gracious of him, to ask us about the RBA forecasts, because, if he were accurate about it, he would tell the House and the people who might be watching at home that, right across the board, the Reserve Bank actually lowered their forecast for inflation yesterday. In the new forecast that they released yesterday, they lowered their forecast for inflation this year from three to 2.6. In June, they lowered their forecast for inflation from 2.8 to 2.5. If he wanted to talk about underlying inflation, if he wanted to be accurate, he would also fess up and say they downgraded their forecasts for underlying inflation as well.

It's way up from a year ago.

The member for Hume has asked his question.

This government understands that people are doing it tough. Despite the fact that the headline and underlying inflation rates have been coming down in encouraging ways, we know that people are still doing it tough. The difference between this side of the House and that side is that we want to do something about it, and we are.

United States of America: Presidential Election

My question is to the Prime Minister. Today the people of the United States are voting for their next president. Why is this election important to Australia, and how will the government work with the new administration?

I thank the member for Fraser for his question. Of course, the election of a new President of the United States is always a moment of profound consequence for the world, for our region and for Australia. Our government will seek to build a strong partnership with whoever the American people choose as their next president. The alliance between Australia and the United States has always been bigger than individuals. It has stood tall through generations of governments from both sides of the aisle.

Order! The Prime Minister will pause. The member for Barker is warned and will not be interjecting for the remainder of question time. His constant conversation and commentary is enough. No more! The Prime Minister has the call.

As Leader of the Labor Party, I'm proud that it was John Curtin who looked to America in Australia's darkest hours during World War II. Since that occurred, the US alliance has grown and prospered, under Labor and Liberal governments and under Democrat and Republican administrations. Over many decades and throughout many global challenges, we've always sought to work together to advance our shared interests, and I have every confidence that we'll continue to do so.

I want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to my friend President Joe Biden. Within 48 hours of being sworn in as PM, I was meeting with President Biden at the Quad meeting in Tokyo. It was a whirlwind, but I'll never forget the genuine warmth of Joe's welcome. We have worked together very closely to make Australia's alliance with the United States stronger than it has ever been—working together not just on AUKUS and defence issues but on taking action against climate change and on areas such as critical minerals as well. I look forward to deepening that cooperation even further at APEC and the G20, which will commence next week and then the week after. We have made great progress on trade, on technology, on climate and on all of these issues, working together with our friends in the region as well, to promote stability, security and prosperity.

Though President Biden has several months left in his presidency, I do want to acknowledge his lifetime of service to the American people. His has been an extraordinary contribution. First elected to the Senate in 1972, Joe Biden has been a powerful advocate for working people, for the cause of democracy and for peace. He has also been someone who has a deep interest in the Asia-Pacific region, and under his presidency there certainly has been a pivot to this region. It has been an honour to work with him, and I look forward to catching up with him yet again. He gave me the honour of welcoming me into his home just weeks ago. I look forward to catching up with him at those important global summits coming up.

on indulgence—I thank the Prime Minister for his words and echo his words in relation to President Biden, who has been a very strong friend of Australia for a long period of time. I met with him in New York a couple of years ago now. His dedication to the relationship and to the strengthening of our bilateral relations, particularly in relation to defence, is well known to all in this place.

When the coalition negotiated AUKUS with the United States and the United Kingdom, it was in our mutual and collective best interests, particularly in an uncertain time. All Australians, like many people across the world, are looking at the moment to see what the results might be over the coming hours. Whatever the outcome, we know that our relationship with the United States will endure, it will strengthen, and we will make sure that we work very closely with the incoming administration.

Obviously, the period between November and January is important, as the Prime Minister points out. Ambassador Rudd, of course, will be working day and night to establish those links and ties, and deepen relationships and start new ones. That will be his job over the next few months, I'm sure. But, most importantly, we want to see a safe environment in which people can vote, and we want to see the best outcome for the United States because, when our close ally is strong and at its best, the world is in the best possible position.

Economy

My question is to the Prime Minister. The Albanese Labor government is the weakest and most incompetent since the Whitlam government. Yesterday the RBA governor said:

The underlying inflation that we're experiencing is still sitting at around about 5 per cent for services. That's still a significant amount of inflation in the system.

The member will resume her seat for a moment and she will return back to her question. The Deputy Leader of the House?

We have had this discussion, as the Leader of the Opposition points out. Mr Speaker, you made very clear the view that questions should not contain argument, imputation and various other things that are prohibited under the standing orders. You would have thought that the Manager of Opposition Business would have got the message and reworded the question. Given that they haven't, I ask that you ask the member to reword her question and ask it again.

Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order?

Mr Speaker, first of all, you've already ruled on this. But, secondly, this is particularly rich coming from the Deputy Leader of the House, who makes an art form of answering questions which include the phrase 'wasted decade'—

No. What is your point of order—not commentary on someone. What is your point of order?

There is no monopoly on virtue on this side of the House.

I've dealt with this issue, and I would've thought, out of respect for the Speaker, you might have taken on board what I said, but that hasn't happened. The member for Flinders will state her question again.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the RBA governor said:

The underlying inflation that we're experiencing is still sitting at around about 5 per cent for services. That's still a significant amount of inflation in the system.

When will this Prime Minister finally admit that Labor's reckless spending means inflation and interest rates are higher for longer?

I thank the member for her revised question, and I point out that services inflation in Australia is lower than it is in the United States or the United Kingdom. I also refer to the governor's statements that she made just yesterday. She said this: 'I've said public demand is not the main game. We still have inflation coming back to target in a reasonable way.' That's what she said. She then went on to make other comments as well. She spoke about this: 'We did take a different path to some other countries. Some other countries went up much higher, much more restrictive. Some of those countries, Canada and New Zealand, for example, are finding their unemployment rate rising quite quickly.'

She also went on to say at her press conference, 'The fact that inflation now for the last year has only been 2.8 per cent is actually real for people. They are seeing lower petrol prices. They are seeing lower electricity prices, so this is good for people. Real incomes are rising again, as inflation is declining and wage growth is a bit higher than that, and you've got the tax cuts.' Real incomes are rising again. That is what Governor Bullock had to say yesterday.

Those opposite speak about spending in their arrogant and reckless way. Have a look at what the criticism is for their $315 billion that they say is wasteful spending. Would they cut the indexation of the age pension? That's $14 billion. Would they cut energy bill relief for households and businesses? Was that wasteful? We know they opposed it. Cheaper child care for families and a 15 per cent pay rise for early childhood educators, expanding paid parental leave to six months and playing super on PPL—is that waste? Increases to Commonwealth rent assistance—we know they didn't really like that, and they certainly didn't like expanding eligibility for parenting payment single. We know that they find fee-free TAFE offensive—indeed, for a bloke who has been in the parliament for 20 years, yesterday was the first time the Leader of the Opposition has mentioned the word 'TAFE'. In 20 years in the parliament, it was the first time he has mentioned the word TAFE. Is boosting and indexing JobSeeker payments waste? Were cheaper medicines? We know they opposed that as well, and we know they want to abolish the Housing Australia Future Fund and make $19 billion of cuts to housing. That's not a way forward. What we've managed to do is halve inflation while looking after people through cost-of-living relief.

Cost of Living

My question is to the Treasurer. Why is it so important we ease cost-of-living measures for Australians, especially younger Australians, and what alternatives are there?

CHALMERS (—) (): I thank the wonderful member for Dunkley for her question. I want to read for the House some comments from the Sydney Morning Herald editorial today, which said:

… young people are becoming increasingly sensitive to the prospect of finishing tertiary studies with a crippling level of debt. There is a real danger that many capable school leavers will be discouraged from pursuing further education, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Policies that limit the debt burden on young Australians are a worthwhile investment in our future.

We couldn't agree more, and that's why this side of the House is for lower student debt and that side of the House is for higher student debt. We want to make sure that we're supporting young people and people with a student debt where we can do that in a responsible and affordable way. That's why we're making fee-free TAFE a permanent feature of the system. It's why we're changing the indexation of student debt. It's why we're making it so you have to earn more before you start paying it back. It's why we're slashing student debt by 20 per cent. And when you put that together with the steps that we took to make sure that young people got a proper tax cut, and with what we're doing on wages and housing and rent assistance, this is all about ensuring that Australians, and particularly young Australians, earn more and keep more of what they earn, and that we get prices in our economy under control.

As I said before, those opposite don't want us to help young people. They don't want to help people with a student debt. They can always find room in their budget for waste and rorts but they can never find room to help people who are genuinely doing it tough. This does go to a big difference, at the election and in this parliament in the interim: we want to slash and we are slashing student debt, and we're slashing inflation; those opposite want to slash Medicare, investment and housing, and that will make life harder for people. The last time they were in government they gave us much more public debt, and now in opposition they want to give young people much more student debt.

We've spent a big part of our time in office cleaning up the mess that they left behind—not for its own reason, not as an end in itself, but so we can afford to help young people who are doing it tough. When we gave a tax cut to every taxpayer, those opposite said it was too broad. They said it helped too many people—they won an election over that. Now, when we want to help young people, they say it's too narrow. They need to make up their minds. This government under this Prime Minister has found a way to repair the budget and help people with the cost of living—those opposite find excuse after excuse to do neither of those things.

The progress that we're making on student debt is at risk if those opposite are elected. This is one of the many costs of the risky and reckless arrogance of this opposition leader—long on risky arrogance and short on economic credibility. We see that time and time again. (Time expired)

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

My First Speech Competition

Before I call the member for Curtin, I am pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today are three of the winners from this year's My First Speech Competition: Taylor Harding, Anna Mackie, and Sofia Tong from the electorates of Hughes, Moore and Parramatta. Welcome to question time, and congratulations on some brilliant speeches.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Funding for Political Candidates

This is a question for the Prime Minister. Today's US election reminds us how fragile democracy is. Australia is not immune to the mistrust we see in the US. There is increasing suspicion that politicians are acting in the interests of airlines, fossil fuels or gambling companies, unions or a political party instead of all Australians. Voters deserve to know who is funding all political candidates before they vote. Will the government legislate real-time donation disclosure in time to make our next federal election transparent?

Government members interjecting—

Opposition members interjecting—

No. If anyone thinks that was acceptable, particularly members on my left, yelling out snide remarks while the member was asking her question, you haven't been paying attention. Unbelievable! The member is entitled to ask her question without comments, without remarks. You mightn't like what a member is saying, but that's the nature of question time. I don't like it either. The member will begin her question again. We are going to keep resetting this until we get it right. The member for Curtin has the call.

This is a question for the Prime Minister. Today's US election reminds us how fragile democracy is. Australia is not immune to the mistrust that we see in the US. There is increasing suspicion that politicians are acting in the interests of airlines, fossil fuel or gambling companies, unions or a political party instead of all Australians. Voters deserve to know who is funding all political candidates before they vote. Will the government legislate real-time donation disclosure in time to make our next federal election transparent?

I thank the member for Curtin for her question. Indeed, democracy is something that must be cherished and must be nurtured. It cannot be taken for granted. We see in many surveys around the world that younger people in particular, when asked about different political systems, do not necessarily automatically go towards democracy. It is why we have to have a transparent system.

I can confirm that I have been working, as the leader of the government, to increase transparency, including on funding issues. Indeed, just this morning I had another constructive discussion with the Special Minister of State, Senator Farrell, about these issues.

We believe in lower donation thresholds. We've done that; we took that to elections for a long period of time. We believe that the abuse we've seen, to name someone—I'm not picking on him, but the contribution that Clive Palmer makes to donations is something that distorts the political system. We think that something must be done about that to make sure we continue to have a political system in which we encourage people to participate, including through political parties and their membership. We are working through those things, as you are aware as a member of the crossbench. Some of the crossbench and their supporters have had very strong views about the timing of changes that come through. They haven't been consistent, it must be said, with the view just put by the member for Curtin. Certainly, some of the backers of people who've been independent candidates have expressed the opposite view, to be very clear, to what the member for Curtin has put forward.

But what we will do is continue to work through this with the parliament. We want to make sure there's increased transparency. We want to make sure that there's increased trust as well in the political system. That is one of the reasons why I have been so determined to make a difference that is practical in order to ensure that people aren't left behind by the political system. It's something that drives our policy agenda. It's one of the reasons why we made the announcements we did on Sunday, because people feel like they haven't got enough of a voice, particularly young people, in our political system. But we will work through it, as an electoral issue and as a policy issue, to make sure that people understand that our democracy works for them.

Education

My question is to the Minister for Education. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to build a better and fairer education system, and what has been the response?

I thank my friend, the legendary member for Lawler, for her question. Big things are happening in education. On Monday, the 15 per cent pay rise for early educators was passed through this House. Today in parliament we are debating legislation to increase funding for our public schools. On the weekend, we announced that, if we win the next election, the first piece of legislation that we will introduce will cut student debt by 20 per cent. All of this is about making our education system better and fairer. Our early educators do some of the most important work in this country, but you would not know that from what they are paid. The 15 per cent pay rise that this Prime Minister has made happen fixes that. The first part of that pay rise rolls out in just 25 days time. The increased funding for our public schools is critical to make sure that we turn around the drop in the number of young people finishing high school and to help young people who fall behind when they are very, very young in primary school to catch up and keep up.

As I said yesterday, the fact is that university is more expensive today than when most of us were there. When HECS was first created, students paid about 24 per cent of the cost of a degree. Under John Howard this increased to 36 per cent. Under Scott Morrison this increased again to almost 45 per cent. We are cutting the debt for three million Australians who were hurt by these Liberal changes. For someone with an average debt, we are cutting it by $5,500.

What does the Liberal Party say about this? They say that this is terrible—'terrible'. They say this is a terrible thing to do. I was contacted this week by the architect of HECS, Professor Bruce Chapman, and this is what he said: 'It is generally and correctly believed that the overall level of HECS-HELP debt has become excessive and that, in this context, a one-off 20 per cent cut in the level of debt is welcome'—welcome. I suspect that is what the 20,000 people in the electorate of Herbert will say as well, and the 21,000 people in the opposition leader's electorate will say as well, and the 23,000 people in the electorate of Ford, or, Mr Speaker, the 25,000 people in your electorate as well, or the almost 26,000 people in the electorate of Sturt. Because they now know that, if Labor wins, they win. And if the Liberals win—if the grinches over there win—they know that they won't.

Economy

Treasurer, the Albanese Labor government is the weakest and most incompetent since Whitlam. Yesterday the RBA governor said, 'When I speak to the Treasurer, he is fully aware—

Order! We are going to deal with this issue once and for all. I have now checked my records and I want to make a statement to the House. We have dealt with this before. I want to go through the House where we're at with this issue, because I'm relying on former Speakers' advice and what they have said to the House on this matter as well. Speaker Andrew probably gave the most comprehensive description of improper motives at the beginning, middle and end of questions, as highlighted on page 556 of Practice, and noted the attitude to intervene when the attribution of motive was such that it cannot be ignored. Speaker Smith ruled on two occasions. I want to read some of his statements about this descriptor coming in, which will then be used as a tag. On two occasions, he ruled that part of the question out of order. That was on 15 February 2021 and 4 December 2018. Speaker Smith said in relation to this issue being raised, 'I am certainly not comfortable with the language that just makes assertions as it did. I am really not. And those on my left'—the then opposition—'would not be comfortable if that sort of language was directed back at them.'

Government members interjecting—

We don't need commentary from those on my right, either. Language should not be in question. I'm following the practice and the precedent of two former speakers here. On both occasions, Speaker Smith just ruled the questions out of order. I'm not going to do that; I'm going to invite the member, as is my practice to make sure every question remains within the standing orders, just to remove that part of the question and begin his question again.

No, you can't make a comment. Do you wish to make a point of order?

I ask you to reflect, then, on every question the teal party ask, which, as that previous question did, has a lot of inference on people in this chamber.

I thank the member for Page for raising that as a point of order, because I've taken that approach also with members of the crossbench. If you'd like to check the records, on 12 February 2024, 14 February 2023, 20 March 2024, with crossbench questions and other examples, I did invite them to rephrase the question. On a point of order, the Leader of the Opposition?

My point of order is to seek clarification from you as to whether or not it is your ruling that using the word 'weakest' as a description of the government and using the description 'the most incompetent government' is not in order and that you would rule a question out of order if it were to be included as a description of the Albanese government as a preamble, as part of the question or at the end of the question being asked of the government.

To the point of order, I'd like to draw the attention of the House to the difference between the restricted rules that are there under standing orders for questions where there are other terms that would not otherwise be unparliamentary but cannot be included in questions, which is exactly what that ruling goes to.

That's correct. I certainly, if that is used as language during question time or that is being used, of course would allow that, but, when it comes to the questions, I'm following the precedent and examples that I've used in question time and that former speakers have used as well. To assist the House, if we can rephrase the question so that we can keep moving forward with question time so everyone's question can be asked and answered, it would greatly assist the House, just as I've done before and in line with former speakers, to ensure that we can ask the question without the imputation added to it.

Mr Speaker, I thank you for your advice. I do seek a ruling on the standing orders in relation to this matter. I don't believe that there is a case here to be made that using the words 'weakest and most incompetent government since the Whitlam government' are offending the standing orders, and I don't believe it's in order for a ruling on that basis to be made. I'm very happy to assist you, of course, in the orderly conduct of the chamber, but the opposition can't be put into a position where we can't describe the government as we believe they should be described. It's not a personal reflection on the Prime Minister. It's not an inference. It's not an allegation. It is a description of the government. I can recall many instances against the Howard government, against the Rudd government and against the Gillard government where similar language was used and on subsequent occasions ruled in order by the Speaker of the day. If it is the position that you believe it is that you require us to take this course of action, then I'm asking under the standing orders that you make clear that this is a ruling.

I've already made my decision.

That this is a ruling?

Yes. I already made my decision the last time this was made. I really want question time to continue, as I'm sure all members do. I give the call to the member for Hume.

Treasurer, the Albanese government is the weakest and most incompetent since the Whitlam government. Yesterday the RBA governor said, 'When I speak to the Treasurer, he is fully aware of the inflationary implications of his policies. He needs to think about that.' Does this Treasurer accept the governor's claim?

In the last minute or two, we got the perfect illustration of the reckless arrogance of the opposition leader and the comical cluelessness of the shadow Treasurer. In one little vignette in question time, all the reckless arrogance from this guy and all the comical cluelessness from his offsider who sits behind him—

The Treasurer is just going to return to the question.

The point that the Reserve Bank governor made yesterday, which I welcome because it is 100 per cent consistent with the point that I've made on a number of occasions, is that my major focus—this government's major focus—is the fight against inflation. That's what Governor Bullock said yesterday. Governor Bullock acknowledged again that my main focus and our main focus is fighting inflation. She said, in a way that I'm perfectly comfortable with, that, when I talk privately with the Governor of the Reserve Bank, I make it clear that inflation is our highest priority.

That's not the only point that Governor Bullock made yesterday. She made three major points. That was one of them. In another major point that she made, she reminded those opposite and the country more broadly that, when it comes to inflation, public demand is not the main game. She said that again yesterday. The third important point that was made yesterday by the governor in her press conference and in her statement is that inflation has fallen substantially from its peaks in 2022 and is coming back to target in a reasonable way—another good point made by the Reserve Bank governor.

Order, the member for Hume.

If the shadow Treasurer wants to be accurate—it would be the first time, but if he wants to be accurate then he should acknowledge in this place that the Reserve Bank yesterday released new forecasts for inflation where they lowered their forecasts for inflation. Inflation is already back in the target band for the first time since 2021, and the Reserve Bank made it clear with their new forecasts that they expect inflation to be lower than what they had earlier anticipated, and not just in a headline sense but also when it comes to underlying inflation.

I say to the shadow Treasurer, who appears to be chirping away in some kind of incoherent way from over there, that if he's dark about inflation at 2.8 per cent he must have been absolutely furious when he was in office and inflation was 6.1 per cent. Most people in Australia understand, even if the shadow Treasurer doesn't, that 2.8 is smaller than 6.1. Inflation's a bit like golf; you want a lower number, not a higher number. When we came to office, inflation was more than double what it is now. It was much higher and rising; now it is lower and falling, and that's because, as the Reserve Bank governor rightly acknowledged in her comments yesterday, the fight against inflation is our No. 1 priority.

Tertiary Education

My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting young Australians by cutting student debt and making free TAFE permanent?

I thank the member for Reid for her question and for the magnificent representation she gives to my neighbours in the electorate next door to mine. On Sunday, we made three important announcements. Firstly, we will change the threshold at which students have to pay back their debt under the HEC Scheme, as it was called—by those opposite, it's seen just as a loan scheme that doesn't invest in Australians—and now, by increasing that threshold from $54,000 to $67,000, it will make an enormous difference, putting extra dollars back into the pockets of graduates. Secondly, there will be a 20 per cent cut in student debt across the board. Whether you have a debt that comes from a university degree or a TAFE qualification, you will get that support, meaning that, for the average graduate, it's worth about $5,500, making an enormous difference to them. The third element is making free TAFE permanent—100,000 places each and every year. And, importantly, the first round of free TAFE came out of the Jobs and Skills Summit. It's something that we consulted employers, the business community, unions and civil society on, who understood that we have skills shortages in our economy and our first priority should be to train Australians for those opportunities. When you put together those three measures, this is about Labor's core belief that education is the key to creating opportunity—widening those doors of opportunity—so that people can be backed for a better life.

I want to say that, when it comes to TAFE, those opposite have always been arrogant in their view of public TAFE. They've called it a waste. They bag it in opposition; they cut it in government. They always look for TAFE to fail, and, as I said before, the last time the Leader of the Opposition mentioned TAFE in parliament was 2004. He's gone 20 years without mentioning it at all. On this side of the House, we've always backed TAFE, and I want to say to every single person enrolled in TAFE: we back you too. Whether you're a young Australian embarking on your first career or an apprenticeship or you're an older worker who's retraining to fit the needs of the new economy, we want you to get that qualification, get that job and build the life that you want. This government supports your aspiration, this government supports your education, and this government will continue to back you regardless of those opposite. (Time expired)

Vocational Education and Training

My question is to the Minister for Skills and Training. The Albanese Labor government is the weakest and most incompetent since the Whitlam government. Minister, of the 500,000 enrolments in fee-free TAFE since Labor was elected, funded with $1.5 billion of taxpayer funds, how many have resulted in no qualification being delivered?

I'm really pleased to get another question from the shadow minister on TAFE and completions, and I really hope these questions continue. Every day students are enrolling in fee-free TAFE. What I want to emphasise is that good courses and advanced TAFE study take time. I also want to say this: as I'm sure the shadow minister knows, the professional data agency, the custodian, the NCVER, reports completions after four years. The VET data experts only report on the cohort that completes after four years, because it takes four years to get usable data. It takes four years, because the learning is complex and critical. It takes four years, because TAFE courses are just as important as university degrees. It takes four years, because four out of five students are enrolled part time. It takes four years, because someone who enrolled yesterday can't complete today. I would have thought that that's a pretty simple concept. The latest NCVER publication covers enrolments from 2019.

The member for Spence is warned.

The completion data from 2023 or 2024 will be reported by the custodian in 2027, so drawing conclusions on this year's data and last year's data simply doesn't make sense—like pretty much everything the shadow minister says. Students are still completing their studies. Students are starting their studies.

Fee-free TAFE has been operating in Victoria since 2019, so there is four years of data there, and the shadow minister and members opposite might want to have regard to that. The NCVER there shows that fee-free TAFE completions are higher than university completions. They are also higher than those of the VET system more generally. The evidence from Victoria and the data custodian is that free TAFE is doing its job. If 508,000 Australians agree, why doesn't the opposition?

Order! The Leader of the Opposition We're not doing anything until the House comes to order.

The minister for infrastructure, I've just said we're not doing anything until the House comes to order, and you're interjecting. We shall hear from the member for Bendigo.

Health Care

My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. How are the Albanese Labor government's investments in Medicare making it easier to see a bulk-billing doctor? Why is that needed after a decade of cuts and neglect?

Thank you to the member for Bendigo for that question. When we came to government after a decade of cuts and neglect, bulk-billing was in freefall, and it was really hard to come across a doctor. That's why the member for Bendigo and the rest of the Labor team made such a clear commitment to strengthening Medicare, and I'm pleased to report that our record investments in Medicare now mean we have more doctors and more bulk-billing and that we're opening more Medicare urgent-care clinics.

In regard to doctors, in the past two years, we've seen the biggest increase in the number of doctors in Australia in a decade. I'm particularly pleased that the number of junior doctors choosing general practice training is up by 25 per cent. It's 12 months now since our record investments in bulk-billing took effect, with the tripling of the bulk-billing incentive. Bulk-billing had been 'in freefall', to use the words of the College of General Practitioners, so the first and most important objective of our investments was to stop the slide. For a Labor government, that was absolutely critical. Maybe it would not be for the Leader of the Opposition, who famously said there were too many free Medicare services, but, for Labor, bulk-billing is the beating heart of Medicare.

I'm pleased to report that we have stopped the slide, but, more than that, we've seen a rebound in bulk-billing in every single state and territory. In the seat of Bendigo, bulk-billing is up by more than eight per cent, thanks to the energetic promotion of our investments by the local member. Across the country, in just 12 months, there have been 5.4 million additional free visits to the GP, with 40 per cent of them in rural Australia. At the same time as that, almost 900,000 Australians have been seen at our Medicare urgent-care clinics, with every single one of them fully bulk-billed.

We know that Medicare is still under very serious pressure and that there is still much more for us to do, but these investments are making a real difference, with more doctors, more bulk-billing and more urgent-care clinics. But we also know that that progress is under serious threat from those opposite, who are a reckless opposition. The shadow Treasurer has made it clear that our additional investments in bulk-billing and the rest are on the chopping block if they win government. There will be no more support for bulk-billing. The urgent-care clinics are going to close. You just have to look at the Leader of the Opposition's record to see that he has form in this area. We remember that, when he was health minister, he tried to abolish bulk-billing altogether. He tried to cut $50 billion from our hardworking public hospitals. Just imagine how bad things will be if he ever gets his hands on Medicare again.

I didn't want to interrupt the minister during his answer. The member for Fisher, on my calculations, was up to about 13 interjections in one answer—continually—so, he's going to leave the chamber under 94(a)

The member for Fisher then left the chamber.

It doesn't matter what time a question is in question time. If someone is just going to continually yell during question time, they aren't going to be here for the remainder of it.

My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Can the minister confirm that, under the coalition, the bulk-billing rate was 88 per cent, compared to 74 per cent under Labor?

I'm asked about the former government's record on bulk-billing. I am very pleased to talk about their record on bulk-billing because it is clear that, as the former government were ending their time in government, as we came to government, bulk-billing was in freefall. I don't make up that word. That was the description used by the then president of the College of General Practitioners. Really, it should be no surprise. When the Leader of the Opposition was health minister, when he couldn't abolish bulk-billing altogether, he started a freeze on the Medicare rebate that endured for six long years.

The minister will pause. He is less than one minute in, but it was a pretty tight question on facts and figures. It was about bulk-billing rates. We are going to hear from—

Member for Hume, when I am dealing with a point of order, I am asking you to help me to help the chamber.

Mr Taylor interjecting—

Great. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?

It's on relevance. It was a very tight question. The bulk-billing rate was 84 per cent under the coalition. It's 74 per cent under Labor. We are not after rhetorical flourishes and equivocation. We are after the number. If can't give it he should simply sit down.

The Leader of the House on a point of order?

Just adding to what was said there by the Manager of Opposition Business—therefore, to be directly relevant, it is relevant for the minister to refer to bulk-billing under the coalition and what happened then and bulk-billing under this government.

Honourable members interjecting—

Everyone, just cool it. You asked a question about figures. You asked about bulk-billing rates of the former government and this government. Obviously, there are figures involved and there's a comparison involved. I don't know where the figures have come from or been sourced. I am just going to make sure the minister is directly relevant. He is going to keep to the subject that he was asked about and not stray into any other policies and bulk-billing rates.

The figure that the Manager of Opposition Business uses also includes, as I understand it—I will stand corrected—consults for COVID-19 vaccinations, which did artificially boost the bulk-billing rate. We have been very clear that our interest was in the bulk-billing rates for GP consults.

Opposition members interjecting—

I hear all the interjections. They might not be interested in the bulk-billing rate for GP consults, but that was the basis on which we started reporting bulk-billing data. GP colleges and the rest of the representatives said they could not tell from the data published by the former government what the bulk-billing rate was for GP visits, and GP visits are the core service in the Medicare system. So there are two things. The former government did not include transparent data on bulk-billing. They artificially inflated it with COVID-19 vaccinations. The second thing is that the trajectory was clear.

I will say this to wind it up. I am happy any day of the week to have a debate on bulk-billing with this man, the worst health minister in the history of Medicare. I don't say that as an opinion. That was the opinion of Australia's doctors. The second-worst health minister in the history of Medicare was the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, because she froze the Medicare rebate for her entire time as health minister. Under this Treasurer, the Medicare rebate has increased in two years by more than the former government managed in nine long years. (Time expired)

The member for Gilmore has the call.

Order! The Minister for Health and Aged Care and the Leader of the Opposition are going to cease interjecting.

The Treasurer is now warned. I'm sure people want to continue with question time. Now that everyone is not interjecting and the House has come to order, we will hear from the member for Gilmore.

Trade

My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering for farmers and producers through its diligent work to repair and strengthen trade relationships? How does this differ from other approaches.

I want to thank our terrific member for Gilmore because she supports our farmers and producers in regional Australia, like the people on this side of the House. We're delivering for farmers, producers, businesses and workers through repairing our trading relationships. We're strengthening our international relationships.

I've just come, with Ministers Wong and Farrell, from the signing between Australia and the United Arab Emirates of the comprehensive economic partnership agreement. It was a real privilege to sign on behalf of our government the memorandum of understanding in relation to agriculture. This is a significant win for Australian farmers. It will promote investment in supply chains and help producers and processors to diversify and create value-added products here in Australia.

Indeed, the agreement will eliminate tariffs on over 99 per cent of Australian exports to the UAE by value, including significant agricultural commodities such as meat, dairy, grains and oilseeds, pulses, horticulture and honey. The tariff savings alone are worth over $50 million a year to Australian agriculture. Under the MOU, Australia and the UAE will also encourage and facilitate investment in projects that support sustainable agriculture and food production through best-practice land management, greenhouse gas emissions reduction and the development of climate smart technologies and practices.

This comes just weeks after our government agreed to a timetable with China for the full resumption of Australian live rock lobster exports by the end of the year. When we came to government, we inherited $20 billion worth of trade impediments with our largest trading partner, China. This was a fractured relationship because the Liberals and the Nationals got it that way. But, after our government's hard work, in the month of August alone, Australia exported $1.34 billion of previously affected goods to China. That is incredibly significant. Indeed, last year, Australia exported over 70 per cent of our agriculture, fishery and forestry production to 169 markets globally. This is the most diversified our agricultural trade has ever been.

That is thanks to our government's hard work. We're busy cleaning up the mess left to us by those opposite. We know that the Leader of the Opposition, the Liberals and the Nationals are a risk, and their reckless arrogance is a risk to our trade with our partners because of the way they behaved in government. It's only the Albanese Labor government that is backing Australian farmers and producers with their exports, because we back Australian jobs right across the country.

Early Childhood Education

My question is for the Treasurer. At a recent deliberative democracy forum on affordability and access to early childhood education and care in my electorate of North Sydney, the participants unanimously agreed that the child care subsidy activity test should be abolished. This has also been recommended by the Productivity Commission and a number of other expert bodies. With the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook around the corner and a budget next March, will the government abolish the activity test, and, if not, why not?

Thanks to the member for North Sydney for her characteristically thoughtful question about the activity test. Whether it's this Prime Minister, Minister Aly, Minister Clare, the whole cabinet or the whole government, we are big believers in the social and economic value of early childhood education and care. We see it as a game changer for families and for the economy more broadly as well. As you know, because colleagues have made it clear, we are considering a whole range of possible reforms as part of our commitment to try and get the system as close as we can to something which is a bit more universal.

Because of the work that was provided to us by the Productivity Commission and because of suggestions that we get from stakeholders, including the sorts of groups that you meet with as part of your job in North Sydney, we are looking at all of those sorts of options. As it turns out, I met with the head of the Productivity Commission this morning. We welcome the important work that they've provided us.

I think, to be fair, early childhood education and care has been at the very core of our agenda, really, since we came to office. The biggest new investment in our first budget, all the way back in October 2022, was our investment in cheaper child care. That meant that we lifted the subsidy to 90 per cent for families earning up to $80,000, benefiting 1.2 million families. We're very proud of that. As part of that reform package, the honourable member would recall that we made some modest changes to the activity test as well. We're also delivering a 15 per cent pay rise for our early childhood educators. That's because we value the work that they do and we know that to do that important work requires from us decent pay and decent conditions. We're very proud to be providing substantial funding for that as well. I think up to 200,000 educators will benefit from that investment. We're very proud of that, as I said.

More broadly, we're coming at the cost-of-living challenge from every conceivable, every responsible angle. Working parents were a big motivation for the tax cuts that the Prime Minister and I announced and which came in in the middle of the year. We wanted to make sure that working families got a bigger tax cut, particularly mums and particularly Australian women. Ninety per cent of women taxpayers are now getting a bigger tax cut than they would have under those opposite. Ninety-seven per cent of early childhood educators are getting a bigger tax cut as well.

So this is all about making it easier for people to earn more and keep more of what they earn, work more if they want to and have more kids if they want to. These are really central priorities of this Prime Minister and this government. We know that the member for North Sydney shares our objectives here. We look forward to discussing these really important issues in more detail in time.

Energy

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. What policies are bringing energy costs down, and what policies will push energy costs up?

Opposition members interjecting—

Members on my left, there are far too many interjections.

The minister for agriculture is not helping either.

Policies that put energy prices down are energy bill relief—the policies of the Albanese government—and policies to introduce more and cheaper renewable energy. We're seeing that in the inflation figures this week. Last week, we saw the inflation figures and we saw electricity prices fall 17.3 per cent in the September quarter and 15.8 per cent over the 12 months—news that you would think all honourable members would welcome. We're seeing it in the medium term with wholesale energy prices. When we came to office, on the day we came to office, wholesale energy was $286 a megawatt hour. The average for this month so far is $67 a megawatt hour. These are the policies that are putting energy prices down.

My honourable friend asked me what policies push energy prices up, and I think most of the House has a pretty good idea of what they might be—the policies of the opposition to introduce nuclear energy. In the search for international examples to back the opposition's policy, the opposition and the Leader of the Opposition have focused on Ontario in Canada. On 50 occasions, the Leader of the Opposition has talked about Ontario. Last week, we heard from Professor Mark Winfield of York University in Ontario, the third-biggest university in Canada. He said:

The Australian opposition leader seems to be operating on a very limited understanding of the history and current state of electricity, energy and climate policy in Ontario.

He went on to point out that nuclear policy had bankrupted Ontario Hydro and left Ontario taxpayers with $21 billion of debt.

What did the opposition have to say about this, about the province that the Leader of the Opposition had mentioned and cited 50 times? Our old friend the member for Fairfax said, 'It's an isolated example.' So who do we believe—the Leader of the Opposition or an expert from the university of Ontario? The Leader of the Opposition makes things up. He said nuclear power plants would produce one coke can's worth of waste a year. It's 12,500. More recently—he's been out again—he said last week: 'It's why Labor in France is signing up for more nuclear. It's why Labor in Canada is signing up for more nuclear.' France and Canada don't have Labor parties. He said, 'In France, the Labor government is strongly supportive of nuclear.' The fact that they're a Labor government will come as quite a surprise to President Macron and Prime Minister Barnier. That's not how they see themselves.

They say they care about the cost of living. The Leader of the Opposition has written a personal letter to thousands of Australians about his nuclear policy, mainly older Australians—pensioners. I've had pensioners coming up to me saying it's a scam, and I said, 'Yes, it is.' But it's a real letter.

The member for O'Connor and the member for New England!

And what does that letter ask for? Cash and donations from pensioners for the Liberal Party. That's their big agenda for Australia. They're going to need a lot more than a few fundraising letters to pay for their nuclear policy. (Time expired)

The Prime Minister has the call.

The Minister for Climate Change and Energy is warned.

The member for O'Connor is now warned.

Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

STATEMENTS

Personal Explanation

Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Yes, with a number of members on the crossbench.

You may proceed.

The member for Page made an allegation of a 'teal party'. I know it may not be in his practice to read legislation—

Honourable members interjecting—

We are going to do this without commentary from the left and right. Okay? We're just going to show everyone a deal of respect, just as if anyone else was rising. It doesn't matter what the person is saying. They are entitled to do it under the standing orders.

The member for Page made a misrepresentation earlier, during question time, indicating members of 'the teal party'. Of course, anyone who has read legislation will know there is no such thing, and our communities deserve the respect of their choice to be independently represented.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS

Health Care

The Minister for Health and Aged Care has indicated he is seeking to add to an answer.

I seek to add to my answer in relation to bulk-billing and the 88 per cent figure used by the Manager of Opposition Business.

I refer to statements made by the vice president of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners in August 2022 in relation to the 88 per cent figure quoted by the Manager of Opposition Business in which the vice president, Dr Bruce Willett, agreed government bulk-billing figures were misleading and significantly skewed. He said that more patients including those most disadvantaged had been struggling to find a bulk-billing doctor. He said:

This 88% figure sounds impressive … However, this is misleading and refers to total GP services.

Some patients are being bulk billed for parts of their appointment but still paying out-of-pocket costs …

On closer inspection, the proportion of patients who had all their general practice care bulk billed is only 67.6% nationally …

He went on to say:

Government bulk-billing figures were also skewed by Covid. GP clinics have administered millions of Covid-19 vaccinations, all of which are bulk billed, and certain patient groups were bulk billed for all telehealth consultations for a large part of 2020.

This means that the resulting bulk-billing data looks a lot rosier than is actually the case.

DOCUMENTS

Presentation

Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE

Women's Health

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Mayo proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The need for the Government to urgently address gaps in research, diagnosis, funding and services associated with women's health.

I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

As the late, great Tammy Wynette sang, sometimes it's hard to be a woman. The Australian Women's Health Alliance says the burden of poor health on Australian women is disproportionate, with a variety of chronic diseases affecting more women than men including stroke, cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, and issues associated with pregnancy, childbirth and menopause. I could go on. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists states that women's health is underresearched, researched inappropriately and excludes female participants, and that women are chronically underserved and underdiagnosed by medicine.

Inequality in women's health starts in training, where medical students often have an hour or less to learn about, for example, menopause transition. This must change. The inequity continues with Medicare creating challenges for GPs to support patients with multiple complex coexisting issues within the format of a standard 15-minute appointment. The RACGP and individual medical professionals in my electorate argue that specific Medicare items are needed to support longer consultations so that GPs, obstetricians and gynaecologists can properly discuss with patients, diagnose and treat complex conditions, including endometriosis and menopause. We need to recognise the huge impact on women's health and wellbeing.

We need greater equity across MBS funding. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists states that the Medicare Benefits Schedule rebate for scanning a gentleman's scrotum is higher than what it is for the arguably more complex female pelvis ultrasound. A Mayo based OB-GYN advises we risk having a public-only system for births because Medicare and private health funds don't compensate them appropriately for women's health procedures. They are paid only $790 for uncomplicated delivery—up to 11 hours of labour and two hours of pushing—with no additional payment for night-time delivery. I'm told that surgeons receive more for a 20-minute cataract surgery. How can this be?

One local hospital in my electorate is unable to provide endometrial ablations for patients on all private healthcare funds because the equipment required for each patient costs almost the same as the funded total payment per procedure per patient. BreastScreen regional services are excellent, but they are restricted if women experience symptoms or have previously had a benign lumpectomy. Many women in the regions miss out because they can't afford the time and the cost associated with accessing a city service. Recently announced public endometriosis clinics in SA are limited to Kadina and Glenelg. Many South Australia women can't access them, noting they were already operating and the books filled up straightaway when they were rebadged as public clinics.

The Victorian parliamentary inquiry into women's pain treatment received submissions from more than 1,300 women and girls, including the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation. What we know is that women undergoing full reproductive system removal are offered one line of pain relief and that other gynaecological patients are given paracetamol and told to wait and see, compared to men, who are often given two to three lines of analgesia.

We see shortages and costs limiting women's access to, for example, best practice hormone replacement therapy medications, with only less effective treatments readily available. This potentially critical treatment is being denied some women due to costs, access and a lack of medical training. This can result in women being at higher risk of chronic illnesses, such as cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis, through the impacts of menopause.

What needs to be done? Well, we need to listen to women. We need to take action to better support them and their health care at all stages. We need to implement the recommendations from the Senate Community Affairs References Committee's report on issues relating to menopause and perimenopause. We really do need to do better. There is a gap with respect to treatment, there is a gap with respect to what professionals receive for reimbursement of costs for services delivered, and there is a gap with respect to pain management. We can do much better in this country. The fact that, if you're doing your medical degree now, you get about an hour to learn about menopause is quite frankly outrageous.

I'd like to thank the member for Mayo for introducing this incredibly important issue today in the MPI. It is an honour to speak with you all about the inequities in women's health. I worked in the health system myself for a long time. Funnily enough, I've been a woman for a lot longer. As a former nurse and, now, as the assistant minister charged with women's health I'm honoured that, every day, women share their deeply personal and often painful stories with me. I thank the Minister for Health and Aged Care, who is here with me today, for working so closely with me and initiating a lot of the policies that we have so far.

The reality is that life-altering inequities persist for women in our health system, as outlined by the member for Mayo. These, of course, are exacerbated if you live in rural or regional locations, if you are from the LGBTIQA+ communities or if you are a migrant woman. I've made it my mission to address these systemic challenges, and I want to take a moment today to reflect on how far we've come in just two short years of government.

Finding solidarity across social media, women are showing up in droves to tell their stories, using the hashtag #MedicalMisogyny. Too many women know how this story goes: having pelvic pain so debilitating it's impossible to go to work or school; being told paracetamol will do the trick or just use a hot water bottle; being sent away with no guidance on the unbearable night sweats, mood swings and often flooding periods of menopause. To quote the endometriosis activist Gabrielle Jackson:

Women are in pain … they're in pain with their periods, and while having sex; they have pelvic pain, migraine, headaches, joint aches, painful bladders, irritable bowels, sore lower backs, muscle pain, vulval pain, vaginal pain, jaw pain, muscle aches … But women's pain is all too often dismissed, their illnesses misdiagnosed or ignored.

One of my main focuses since joining this place has been tackling this medical misogyny. Medicine and medical research carries the burden of its own history—as deeply social and cultural as it is scientific. Women are not just small men, but medical research and the medical profession has historically treated us as such for centuries. Women were routinely excluded from drug trials until as late as the 1990s. It stands to reason that we've ended up with a healthcare system made by men for men.

Under the former government, male applicants for medical research funding received 67 per cent more total funding than women applicants. That's an additional $95 million every year. When we came to government, the minister for health tasked the National Health and Medical Research Council with achieving gender equity in its grant scheme. I'm thrilled that the NHMRC has met its target of fifty-fifty funding for men and women researchers across all levels of experience and seniority. We're also driving improvements in historic gaps in research representation through the NHMRC's Statement on sex, gender, variations of sex characteristics and sexual orientation in health and medical research. Earlier this year we invested up to $25 million through the MRFF into the impacts of fertility treatment, new predictive markers of pregnancy loss, and the impacts of perimenopause and menopause. Equal gender representation in research means research is informed by a diversity of experience, and this benefits us all.

As I deliver this speech today, I am reminded of my cousin Resa. At 60 years of age, Resa presented to an emergency department with numbness and painful tingling from her waist down. She was dismissed as unimportant. She was not even examined. She was sent home with paracetamol. She died that night, alone, from a ruptured aortic aneurysm. I can't help but think: if Resa had been a man in a suit and tie who had turned up at the emergency department with the exact same symptoms, would he have been turned away?

As women, we are twice as likely to die of a heart attack and half as likely to be adequately treated for pain. We're twice as likely to reject a hip prosthesis, because it's designed for a man's pelvis, not a woman's. We are more likely to be overmedicated, because clinical trials have been done historically on men. I could give more and more examples of that, but time doesn't permit that today.

What I do want to say is that our government is committed to amplifying the voices and experiences of women. That's why we conducted the #EndGenderBias survey, a survey of 3,000 women, healthcare professionals and peak stakeholder groups. The results were shocking but not surprising. Two out of three women reported healthcare related bias and discrimination. Women consistently reported feeling dismissed and disbelieved and being stereotyped as hysterical, a diagnosis that was only removed from official diagnosis list in the 1980s. They've been told they were faking it, doctor hopping or drug shopping.

The Albanese Labor government is acutely aware of these problems, and that's why we set up the National Women's Health Advisory Council to provide expert strategic advice directly to the ear of government. I have the privilege of chairing the council, guiding Australian expertise to provide targeted and effective health care for Australian women. The council established subcommittees to focus on four key areas: empowerment; safety; research; and access, care and outcomes. Together with the council, the subcommittees have been driving work on improving health literacy, workforce training, research gaps and priorities, and safe and equitable access to health care.

This is all critical work, because, as many women well know, merely being a woman indicates a higher risk for some of medicine's most challenging conditions. We are more likely than men to develop rheumatoid arthritis, be diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, develop Alzheimer's disease and suffer chronic pain conditions, and I haven't even started on menopause. There is a whole MPI alone on menopause and that is why we were pleased to co-sponsor a Senate inquiry into that very condition. Yet the conditions affecting women are the ones that have been historically underfunded.

Guided by the council and the testimonies of women around Australia, our government is putting our money where our mouths are on women's health. We have made critical investments in a range of women's health initiatives, including over $100 million to support women with endometriosis and pelvic pain by establishing 22 specialist endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics. We added two additional Medicare items to extend consultation times for specialist gynaecological care and $48.2 million has gone towards the elimination of cervical cancer, including launching the first national cervical screening campaign in more than 20 years. We've made it easier for women to get continuity of care through their pregnancy and birth with an endorsed midwife as part of a $56.5 million MBS package. We've invested $9.5 million for Australia's first-ever dedicated funding package or miscarriage, including collecting data, bereavement support and education. There has been $1.2 million invested to support healthcare professional training on menopause, free period products to remote First Nations communities, all of this on top of Labor 's reforms to paid parental leave, child care, family and domestic violence supports, housing, closing the gender pay gap, because women's economic and social freedom are key determinants of health.

Our position is clear: Labor invests in women's health. Yesterday we heard the Leader of the Opposition chastised by his own party room for a growing anti-abortion sentiment yet he still hasn't called for his own party senator to withdraw harmful anti-abortion bills from the parliament. Rather, Peter Dutton, the Leader of the Opposition, chooses to play a dangerous game of politics with women's lives—fitting for a man voted Australia's worst-ever health minister.

I would like to reassure women that their sexual and reproductive health care is a priority for the Albanese Labor government. We have no higher priority than strengthening primary care and ensuring women can access health care whatever it's about, wherever they are. Women deserve to have choice over their bodies. They deserve to have access to their preferred contraception and fertility care, and they deserve a health system that understands their needs, that supports their needs and their rights to have agency over their body.

We welcome the TGA decision to remove a number of restrictions on health professionals who prescribe and dispense Ms-2 Step. This sits alongside a suite of investments in women's reproductive health care. We have kicked off a gender audit of the Medicare Benefits Schedule, developed a contraceptive decision-making tool, are funding the AIHW to develop a national sexual reproductive dataset and we are funding scholarships for IUD insertion training because it is a surprise to some doctors that it can hurt. We are steadfast. Access to contraception, abortion and fertility services are essential health care. Every woman I talked to has a story. We owe it to the women who suffered—and those who should never have to—to be bold, to be fair and to have ambition for women. If anyone is going to do the work for women, it is this government.

I want to thank the member for Mayo for raising this important matter and for bringing this MPI to the House. Women's health is often neglected due to gender inequality and gender bias in our health system. Women must jump through hoops for proper diagnoses for menopause, travel hundreds of kilometres to access abortion, and, in some cases, just to give birth as well. Access to abortion remains a postcode lottery in Australia, with different rules, costs and availability depending on where you live. There are also barriers to accessing affordable contraception, sexual health care and maternity services, which are all harder for women in rural and regional communities.

Last year abortion was finally decriminalised everywhere in the country, but recent threats to reproductive rights in South Australia and in Queensland remind us how fragile abortion rights can be. Yesterday it was reported that the Leader of the Opposition told his party room that abortion was not a federal issue and that talking about it cost the Liberal Party votes. The Greens know what an appalling record the Liberals have on women's issues, including health, and it's no surprise that they would try to hide their real agenda of sending women back to the 1950s. The truth is that abortion is a federal issue, because ensuring that you can get a safe, local and free abortion is a federal funding issue. In my home state of Victoria, more than two-thirds of local government areas have no surgical abortion providers, and almost 40 per cent of the state lacks a pharmacy that dispenses medical abortion pills.

The Greens senator Larissa Waters, a tireless fighter for women's health, initiated a Senate inquiry into abortion and reproductive rights back in 2022, which recommended that the federal government ensure either that hospitals provide free abortions or that there be alternative local, affordable pathways to access this time-bound health care. That was one of 39 consensus recommendations, yet 18 months on the government hasn't even responded to that report. What kind of message does it send about women's health that, even with report after report showing reproductive health care remains inaccessible to many, the government is willing to let those recommendations gather dust? After the LNP win in Queensland and seeing the growing threats, I urge the government to look urgently and seriously at using its power to require public hospitals, who get federal money, to provide free abortions. This is something that the government has previously considered, and it's in the recommendations.

Women's health needs to be taken seriously, as well, at every stage of their lives. Last year the Greens initiated another Senate inquiry into women's health, this time around perimenopause and menopause, the poor access to diagnosis and treatments, and the impacts on women's financial security from the impact of menopause at work. A year of hearings delivered another consensus report, with strong recommendations around workplace policy, improvements to education and access to treatments. The government needs to adopt all those recommendations pronto. There were some horror stories heard during the Senate menopause inquiry about the cost of medication, shortages and disbelieving or underinformed GPs. One woman was controlling her menopause related anxiety and depression with MHT, menopausal hormone therapy, until she could no longer afford hundreds of dollars a month. She was forced to ask for Valium because it's PBS listed and $15 for a box of 50. There was one woman who asked her doctor if symptoms could be from menopause, and she said that all that he was taught in medical school was that menopausal women are either mad or sad. These are the stories that women are telling now. It's time for change.

As one of our first election policy announcements, the Greens have said that we will make MHT free, with PBS and other subsidies worth $50 million, and have a campaign to increase awareness among healthcare professionals and the general public. No-one should be priced out of the health care that they need. We must ensure that effective treatments are accessible to all. As we head towards another election, the Greens will announce a suite of election policies focused on ensuring that health care is available to everyone who needs it in this country, tripling the bulk-billing incentive and ensuring people can go and see a GP, a nurse and psychologist for free at free local healthcare clinics.

The average out-of-pocket cost to see a GP is now over $40, and that's on top of skyrocketing rents, grocery prices, petrol prices and other bills. It's no wonder that more than a million Australians are delaying or forgoing GP appointments each year due to cost. In this wealthy country of ours, everyone and every woman should have access to the health care that they need.

I rise to speak on this matter of public importance as well and welcome the topic that has been put forward by the member for Mayo. It's great and refreshing to be able to have this debate on the floor of our parliament. We have lots of health debates in this place, but this is possibly the first time that I can remember participating in a matter of public importance about women's health. So it is welcomed that we are having this honest conversation about where we are at when it comes to women's health in this country.

I want to acknowledge the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care and the Minister for Health and Aged Care for backing in and introducing a lot of the reforms that I will talk about today—reforms that not just affect people in my electorate but will support and help people across our country. I'm very proud to be part of a Labor government that is working to improve women's health and putting it front and centre on the agenda. We are listening to women in addressing the systematic bias within our health system. As the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care has told us, we instigated the review into medical misogyny. The fact that we've even acknowledged it's an issue is a step up for this place compared to what we've seen from the previous government. In the recent budget, the Albanese Labor government made a historic announcement committing $49 million towards improving services to help women access treatment for complex gynaecological conditions such as endometriosis. Medicare will also now pay the same fee for consultations required for other complex gynaecological conditions. This is just one area where we're seeing improvement.

Also in the budget was $160 million for tailored services to tackle the bias and improve access and a review of MBS items to identify the bias and better balance the health system. We've heard examples of how that has been improved. There will be more access to choice and support for women during pregnancy, including longer antenatal and postnatal consultations delivered through participating midwives. I know this is something that people in my electorate welcome—that ability to engage with your midwife post birth as well as pre birth. There is funding to continue strategies to prevent early-term birth and improve participation in maternity services. There is support for our First Nations community to have birthing on country. That has happened under this government, because we've listened to and worked with community on how we can deliver that. There is also the investment into general health, which is enabling more women to access health services.

The investment in tripling the bulk-billing incentive for children under 16 and people on concession cards is seeing more women access health services. Far too many women in my electorate who are on a healthcare card did not access health care if they couldn't see a bulk-billing doctor. It was in free fall. So to know that they can access a bulk-billing doctor is a weight off their minds. Too often, the mums and the grandmas were putting the money that would have paid that gap fee into feeding children and grandchildren or supporting their family members to access health care, and now they don't have to do, because this government invested in tripling the bulk-billing incentive and introduced cheaper medicines.

Another thing this government has done since coming to office is the investment into endometriosis. I am the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Endometriosis Awareness, and we welcome the continued investment by this government—over $107 million to support women with endometriosis, including funding to establish specialist clinics to help people. Australia's first endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics were opened by this government—22 across the country, including one in my electorate. The bid that was put forward by the Bendigo Community Health Service really has achieved amazing things, not just for women accessing their services but in the way in which they've been able to educate and engage the broader medical fraternity in my electorate. We're seeing the lift in education and awareness amongst GPs. There is support for sexual and reproductive health, for all women to have the form of contraception that they choose. We're investing $1.2 million to support healthcare professionals to train around menopause. I know that this is an area, like all areas of women's health, where we need to do more, and this government will.

I thank my colleague the member for Mayo for raising this very important issue. Two out of three Australian women report health care related bias and discrimination, including delays in diagnosis and delays in treatment. It's worse for women who don't speak English as a first language and for Indigenous Australians. It's not as simple as pure misogyny. Much of the entrenched systemic conscious and unconscious bias in our medical system reflects either a lack of understanding of physiological differences or a lack of respect for the significance of that variation.

Women spend more on their out-of-pocket medical expenses than men. Women's pain is more likely to be seen as emotional or psychological rather than biological. Women in pain are more likely to be offered minor tranquilisers or antidepressants than analgesia. Women are less likely to be referred for diagnostic investigations when they see a GP.

Medical research focuses more on male patients, this despite the fact that our body composition is demonstrably different. Our organs and our skeletons are different. Our chemistry is different. Our experience of pain is different. Many women spend months or years of their lives incubating humans. This is a time in which we are specifically excluded from clinical trials. Why provide anything other than basic obstetric care to a pregnant woman? In many cases it's not recognised that our cholesterol, our lipids and our other metabolic markers vary as much with our menstrual cycles as with our diet or our genetics.

When women have a heart attack our symptoms are different from those of men. Our outcomes are often worse. Our cardiovascular disease is diagnosed, on average, seven to 10 years later than men's. Women with serious heart attacks are half as likely as men to get proper treatment and twice as likely to die within six months. Those figures are twice as bad again for Indigenous women.

Although it affects almost one million Australians, it takes an average of seven years for women to be diagnosed with endometriosis. More than 10 per cent of women giving birth in this country experience what they describe as obstetric violence. While much of this relates to a loss of choice and control, which is systemic, some does relate to actual physical injury.

We have a system which fails to ensure that women in rural and regional centres have sufficient access to reproductive advice and treatment. In many cases women can only access faith-based services, which will not provide contraception or termination services, even after rape or with non-viable pregnancies. They won't provide IVF or family-planning advice. And a woman undergoing a caesarean section can't have a tubal ligation at the same time. Men would not put up with this restriction of care.

There is further intersectionality in the experiences of trans and gender-diverse people. They speak of concerns regarding their bodily autonomy, sexual harassment, refusal of access to health care, poor treatment and a common lack of medical understanding of their specific healthcare needs. Complex and chronic medical conditions, especially those dealing with gender and with gynaecological issues, need sensitive treatment. They can't generally be addressed well in a 15-minute consult. But our medical system pays more for shorter consultation for minor ailments. It rewards speed, not need. It pays $253 for a 15-minute vasectomy, but only $88 for a 45-minute IUD insertion. It doesn't yet cover the cost of gender-affirming surgeries like chest surgery or genital reconfiguration.

The government has taken steps to address these issues. It has established the National Women's Health Advisory Council to address medical misogyny and to assist in implementation of the National Women's Health Strategy. I want to acknowledge the real and ongoing efforts of both the assistant minister for health and the minister for health in this space. But there is much more to do, and it needs to be done effectively, equitably and with urgency. This is not just a women's problem.

I agree with the final line of the previous speaker, the member for Kooyong, at the very end of her speech. This is not just a women's problem because women's health is important for all of us. If we don't get it right not only do women pay the price but our whole society also pays a price. If we don't understand the unique challenges that women go through—if we don't do the research, if we don't care, if we dismiss their pain—then not only do women suffer but we all suffer.

It was something that my family suffered. My paternal grandmother—there was an unspoken story in our family for a very long time that after giving birth to my father she wasn't 'quite right in the head'. There was a period where my father was temporarily taken away from her. We never really spoke about it; we didn't really know why. It was something that was very much left undiscussed in our family. When I had my own son and I had the extraordinary care of early childhood nurses and GPs, they sat me down and spoke to me about the potential for postnatal depression and the symptoms to watch out for. It was then that I realised what my paternal grandmother had gone through. It is very likely that she had been suffering from postnatal depression. Instead of receiving the care and support that she would have been provided had she had my father a little later on or in Australia, her symptoms were dismissed, and she had her child taken away from her.

It is that story which really inspired me to have a women's health forum in my electorate. I loved having the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care, Ged Kearney, there. In this place, we are privileged to serve alongside some extraordinary members of parliament, but I have to say, if I were to have a favourite, the assistant minister for health is certainly right up there. She is an inspiration for the work that she does in this place but also the work that she did prior to coming here, and I think her nursing background has really guided the extraordinary work that she continues to do.

In that room, alongside the assistant minister, we had some extraordinary women panellists. Janu Dhayanathan, who's the ambassador for Children's Tumour Foundation, has neurofibromatosis. She shared some really personal examples of how she was dismissed in the healthcare system. Sue Advani founded Haathi in the Room, an organisation designed to help break down the stigma of mental health in the subcontinent community. I was inspired by these panellists and really appreciated the honesty and frank discussion that we were able to have that night. There were extraordinary moments. It was quite emotional as so many women shared their personal stories of how their pain was dismissed in the medical system.

So I'm really excited to be part of this government that is taking women's health seriously and putting it at the very forefront of our agenda, and I thank the minister for health and the assistant minister for health for doing that. We have put significant funding into ensuring that women's health is improved at the research and data collection level and improving women's health outcomes when it comes to maternity care and research into miscarriage and pregnancy loss so we have a greater understanding of why that's happening and how we can prevent it, as well as things like longer consultations for patients with complex gynaecological conditions. There is so much work that has been done in this space, and it's something that I'm extraordinarily proud of.

At the very local level, I have convened a women's health reference group, and it is full of wonderful local GPs, physiotherapists and gynaecologists who really want to do things at the local level. I'm inspired by the words of a local physio who said, 'There is no reason that women should have to live with pain,' and, Georgina Claxton, I think that is a motto that we all ought to live by.

It's pretty rare to stand up at an MPI and hear from members of parliament that are really on a unity ticket about an issue as important as gender inequities in health, and I thank the member for Mayo for bringing this to the attention of the House. I'm old enough to remember when anything related to women's health was considered women's problems. That covered the full gamut. It was talked about in hushed tones or not talked about at all. I'm really grateful for all the contributions from the previous speakers. It's a really important topic.

Before coming to this place, my life's work was as a nurse, a midwife and a public health researcher. I've seen firsthand the gaps and inequalities faced by women in accessing health care, in research, in funding and in diagnoses up close, day by day. These gaps are even more pronounced in regional, rural and remote Australia. These gaps and disadvantages affect women throughout their lives.

Let's start in early childhood, where girls are much less likely to be diagnosed with conditions like ADHD than boys in childhood, with diagnoses generally coming much later in life. Moving into the teenage years, women face an average delay of between five and 6½ years in getting diagnosed with endometriosis after first experiencing symptoms. At the other end of life, symptoms of heart attacks are less likely to be recognised in women than men. In the same way these gaps follow the women throughout their lives, they also exist throughout health care. Right from the research that does not include women or doesn't focus enough on women's health issues to the funding of services and procedures to diagnoses, these gaps are there every step of the way.

A recent Senate inquiry into menopause and perimenopause made 25 recommendations for reform but, at multiple points, the final report called out the lack of research, data and information about menopause, something that happens to half the population. This lack of research, this silence, contributes to stigma that stops women from seeking or receiving the health care they need and often means women are prescribed drugs that are not specifically designed for them. Women are 75 per cent more likely to experience adverse reactions to prescription drugs compared to men. Looking at this issue, recently published research from the Australian National University found women are not just smaller versions of men but need specifically designed medication.

We cannot talk about the gaps in funding and services for women's health without talking about reproductive health care. I am happy to co-chair with the member for Canberra and the member for Wide Bay the Parliamentary Friends of Maternal Health. We have heard loud and clear from women, from consumers, from midwives, around the significant gaps in the way that women access childbirth services and postnatal services, and we have heard loud and clear the evidence based approach of continuity of midwifery care that can address those issues. It is so thrilling to me as a midwife to know about the work the government has done in this space around endorsed midwives and I thank them for that—there is more to go!

A recent study by Women's Health Victoria showed the postcode lottery of sexual and reproductive health access across the state and it showed service deserts, where 67 per cent of local government areas did not have any listed surgical abortion providers, 45 per cent did not have any listed medical abortion providers and 60 per cent did not have any listed medication abortion dispensing pharmacies. In mid 2023, just 17 per cent of GPs were providing medication abortion services. Could you imagine a men's health issue where more than 80 per cent of GPs did not offer treatment? It simply would not happen.

This is a short speech, so I cannot cover the further complications and disadvantages for Indigenous Australian women, culturally and linguistically diverse women, and LGBT IQ women and people. There are extra challenges for those communities in accessing health care which must also be addressed. Before finishing, I do want to make it clear that gender norms that harm women in health care can also harm men and boys. Men are less likely to seek health care and are more likely to use drugs and alcohol in harmful ways. Indeed, my postdoctoral research shows there are significant gaps in care for men in the transition to fatherhood.

It is fair to say that in all these issues the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care, Ged Kearney, is giving it a fair crack when it comes to addressing the issues for women's health. I acknowledge all the work the assistant minister has done and is doing in achieving for women and girls of Australia, and I hope that as a parliament we follow her lead in this space for a long time to come.

I really welcome the opportunity to discuss the very important issue of women's health and I thank the member for Mayo for bringing this to the House's attention today. I know how important this issue is to my local community in Chisholm. I have had multiple roundtables, a survey and consultation with experts in the field of women's health in my electorate, including with the fabulous Assistant Minister Ged Kearney. I am really grateful for the feedback that has been provided to me from my constituents.

Unfortunately, there were many heartbreaking stories of women not getting the help that they needed, of not being listened to, and of years of going to doctor appointments without establishing a diagnosis. I have had experiences like that too. It is really hard, so I am so proud to be part of a government that is working to improve women's health outcomes by listening to women and by addressing systemic bias is in the health system. We know right across the country from hearing from so many women that there are too many experiences of delayed diagnoses for conditions from endometriosis to heart disease. Women have their pain dismissed and struggle to get support for issues like menopause and miscarriage. A very common issue, polycystic ovarian syndrome, does not even involve cysts on ovaries, yet the poor understanding in the health system has meant that women have not been diagnosed properly and that their health systems and their endocrinology has been poorly understood.

In the recent budget, the Albanese government has made a historic announcement, committing $49.1 million in investment to provide approximately 430,000 more services to help women across the country with complex gynaecological conditions, such as endometriosis, receive consultations of 45 minutes or longer. This is to have proper time with a medical professional, to have a proper conversation and to be really listened to. Medicare will now pay the same fee to a gynaecologist to see a woman for a long, complex consultation as other specialties, such as cardiology, gastroenterology and a range of others. This has been a structural inequality in our health system that's gone on for far too long. I'm so pleased that we are rectifying this.

We are sequentially working through the health system to dismantle longstanding biases. Our overall investment in women's health in the 2024-25 budget was $160 million to tailor services, tackle bias and improve access. This included a review of NBS items, including long-acting reversible contraception and diagnostic imaging, to identify bias and better balance the health system to the needs of women; more access to the care of choice during pregnancy for women, with $56.5 million to support longer antenatal and postnatal consultations delivered through participating midwives; funding to continue strategies to prevent pre-term and early-term birth in participating maternity services and First Nations communities to reduce the number of babies born too early; and scholarships that will allow health professionals to undertake training on delivering long-acting reversible contraception services. This is in addition to support for education and awareness about miscarriage for women, their families and health professionals; our $6 million to support a trial of outreach health care in women's crisis accommodation and services; and so much more.

Our commitment here—yes—is economic, but it's also about highlighting the importance of women's health and the empowerment that women have in making choices about their health. Everyone deserves access to safe, affordable health care, no matter where they are living, whatever their background is and no matter their gender. We've made significant investments in women's health, and I know that there's more to be done. I'm looking forward to working with our wonderful team in the health portfolio in order to deliver more for women's health, which is something that has been sadly neglected for far too long.

In Australia, too many health issues specific to women have been misunderstood, overlooked, underresearched, underfunded and undertreated for decades. Today I'll touch on just two of these many health issues that women face. Around one-quarter of women aged between 30 and 50 years suffer from heavy menstrual bleeding, where blood loss may be so bad that women are confined to their home for days every month. This regular heavy bleeding can cause severe iron deficiency and anaemia, in turn causing debilitating symptoms like fatigue, breathlessness, irritability, dizziness, fainting, confusion, depression, headaches and brain fog—all of which can have a devastating impact on a woman's quality of life.

Despite being so common, awareness and understanding of the problem is low amongst women, and it is undiagnosed by health professionals. Women often assume it is normal and so don't seek help. I wholeheartedly thank and acknowledge the work of health professionals, such as Dr Talat Uppal in my electorate of Mackellar, who is working passionately and tirelessly to improve the awareness and management of this very common condition.

Then there is menopause. Fifty per cent of the population experience it, and symptoms can last for 14 years, yet it has been a taboo topic for decades. Hot flushes are just one of the 34 uncomfortable or debilitating physical or psychological symptoms. Twenty-five per cent of women suffer severe symptoms. As Professor Susan Davis, a past president of the International Menopause Society, said: 'Anyone who suggests that most women can live with their symptoms is ill informed.' Yet the culture of silence around menopause and the lack of adequate training of health professionals has meant that women have been needlessly struggling with its impacts—both health and financial impacts—for decades. It was truly shocking, as the Senate inquiry into menopause heard, that medical students may spend as little as one hour on menopause training during their six years at medical school, and I certainly experienced that as well.

Then there was the poorly designed Women's Health Initiative study, which came out in 2002 and which drew misleading conclusions that hormone replacement therapy may cause more detrimental than beneficial effects. This study set back women's health for over two decades. Numerous studies have come out since to show the safety and clear benefit of menopause hormone therapy, but the widespread panic it caused amongst both women and health professionals alike continues to have repercussions to this day, so much so that a recent study found that 85 per cent of all women in high-income countries do not receive effective treatment for their menopause symptoms. Women are also missing out on the other benefits of menopause hormone therapy, including reducing the risk of osteoporosis, diabetes, dementia, cardiovascular disease and certain cancers.

Then there are the financial impacts of poorly managed menopause. The lack of workplace policies to support women during menopause is causing women to retire prematurely. On average, women intend to retire at age 64 but are leaving the workforce at age 52 on average. Women retire seven years earlier than men, often at the height of their careers and often when menopause hits. Almost half of women who retire before the age of 55 cite health as the reason they stopped work. Research and modelling done in 2022 estimates that, even if just 10 per cent of women retired early because of menopause symptoms, it would equate to a loss of earnings and super of more than $17 billion for our economy.

So the recent inquiry into menopause was very welcome, and I strongly support the urgent implementation of the inquiry's recommendations, including such things as the establishment of the national menopause action plan to drive best practice in menopause care; the public awareness campaign on menopause and perimenopause; improved training for both medical students and health professionals; additional Medicare rebates for menopause consultations, including longer consultations and mid-life health checks; and, lastly, a guarantee that the best forms of menopause hormone therapy are affordable and accessible for all women who need it.

I won't beat around the bush. Women have been let down due to gaps in medical research, diagnoses, funding and health services associated with their health. Women have been dismissed, overlooked and underserved by a system that was never designed with their needs in mind. For decades, women's pain has been dismissed, their diagnoses delayed and their health deprioritised. I thank the member for Mayo for bringing this matter of public importance on women's health to this place because it's something that we all need to hear about and talk about.

I say to the member for Mayo and to all those listening to this debate that, as a government, under the leadership of the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care, we are doing a lot to address inequality in women's health, and rightly so. We're addressing with urgency and purpose the painful delays, the funding gaps and the discrimination embedded in health care. From investments to targeted reforms, we're making it clear that women's health can no longer be sidelined. We are committed to listening to women, to understanding their unique health challenges and dismantling the structural inequalities that have persisted in the medical system for far too long.

I'm very fortunate to be able to share one example of this action delivered in my region. During Women's Health Week I had the privilege of visiting the Hunters Hill Endometriosis and Pelvic Pain Clinic with the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care. It was really inspiring to see the dedicated work happening there. This clinic is one of 22 established across the country as part of a $58 million initiative. It's a place where women can receive the multidisciplinary care they need, from pain management to specialist consultations, all in one location. This model should be the standard and not exceptional. The opening of this clinic is a step towards ensuring women are seen, heard and treated with the care that they deserve.

To me, it's outstanding that, on average, it takes seven to nine years for a woman to receive an endometriosis diagnosis. Imagine enduring seven to nine years of pain, frustration and uncertainty all while being told it's just part of being a woman, seven to nine years of pain often dismissed by healthcare providers as normal or psychosomatic, seven to nine years of suffering in silence, seven to nine years spent waiting for someone to take your symptoms seriously. That isn't just a delay; it's a denial of care and dignity.

I'd like to ask every man in this place and in this country to picture what it would be like going to your doctor, describing severe and ongoing pain, and being told time and time again that it's just stress, in your head or a normal part of being a man. What if for nearly a decade your pain was dismissed, chalked up to overthinking or a lack of resilience? That's the experience of countless women in the health system. It's a systemic failure, it's not good enough and it's long past time we addressed it.

That's why this government is taking action. We are committed to delivering a healthcare system that works for everyone, not just some. We're prioritising issues like reproductive health, mental health and chronic conditions affecting women, backed by over $350 million in dedicated funding. We are advancing targeted solutions for women's health needs. Our commitment goes beyond the clinics I mentioned earlier. We're funding specialised training for healthcare providers and reducing diagnostic delays that have held women back for far too long. By investing in this training, we're creating a health system equipped to address the complex realities of women's health.

We're also expanding mental health services for women, with a focus on those affected by trauma and postpartum issues. By creating more trauma informed support, we want to build a mental health response that genuinely supports women and recognises their unique experiences. We're adding vital services to the Medicare Benefits Schedule that directly benefit women. This will mean more appointments, more subsidised treatments and easier access to essential health care. When it comes to preventive health care, we're not taking shortcuts. By expanding cancer screening programs for breast and cervical cancer and investing in more awareness activities, we're helping more women catch these diseases early, ensuring better outcomes and relieving the emotional and financial burden of late diagnosis.

To every woman who has been told to wait, to bear it or to be strong, I want you to know that this government hears you. Under the guidance of the health and aged care minister and his very hardworking and committed assistant minister, I have absolute confidence that they will build a health system that respects women's experiences and affirms their dignity.

In Tolstoy's War and Peace, there is a great quote. The corporal says: 'I gave her the bread, and she gave the three pieces to her children and she left nothing for herself. Is she not hungry?' The sergeant major says, 'She is a mother.' We talk about the survival of the fittest and Charles Darwin. That led to the Nazis, didn't it? We didn't descend from people that carried weapons; we actually descended from people that were mothers, that mothered their children and looked after them. You can have your attitudes on abortion. To me, it's very good because you're vanishing from the gene pool. The sooner the better would be my opinion.

Having said that, I don't think that there's any feeling for the mothers that are traumatised by a situation where they proceed with something like that. They have been programmed for 3½ million years to be a mother, and suddenly they're doing the opposite. I don't think they're going to get away with that. No-one addresses the trauma of the mother that is confronted with this situation and does something, in many cases, that she regrets for the rest of her life. There should be a looking after of the mother, before and probably afterwards too, sadly. I'll say that.

As for the Greens and their attitudes, where I come from we get the monsoonal rain and everything is green, and then it turns brown and it blows away. I think that's a wonderful metaphor for those that sit behind me. Ultimately, it is whether you survive as a race of people. If you are a vanishing race—and we are vanishing at a faster rate than anywhere else in the world except for five nations, the last time I looked. We are vanishing faster than any other group of people on earth, and that is the price that you will pay. You will be gone from the gene pool. You can read history books and prehistory books, and you can see the mistakes that people made in their survival. They're not with us anymore, those people.

I'll conclude on this note. In the Torres Strait the women were the producers of food. They had fruit and vegetable gardens in the backyard. Yes, the men fished, but the women grew fruit and vegetables. In some 200 or 300 meals that I had in the Torres Strait when I was minister, I did not have any food from the mainland at all. It was mangoes and bananas and sweet potatoes and yams and taro and, of course, fish and dugong and all those things as well. When I went up there last time it was really sad, because the governments in this place took away from those women the right to have their vegetable gardens. Now they have to get fresh fruit and vegetables from the mainland, which are overripe by the time they get there, and they can't afford to pay for them. They've said this again and again and again. This place has ignored the cries of those people in my homeland of Far North Queensland and in the Torres Strait. We have ignored them.

There is a terrible day coming for us. There's a word that describe nations that eliminate a race of people. You took away the right to fish, because we had to protect the Great Barrier Reef, but what about protecting the people that have lived there for 40,000 or 50,000 years? What about protecting them? They should care about them. There's little made of the fact that the Great Barrier Reef is 350 kilometres away. I don't know how some poor beggar going out in a tinny is going to adversely affect the Great Barrier Reef. You took away their right to fish and you took away their right to have a vegetable garden, so you're starving them to death. They are dying on a massive scale from diabetes. There's not a single person in this place I've heard raise their voice about it. You don't care about them. You were crying to hell about the yes/no vote, but what are you doing about the people that have the highest death rate, maybe, in the world? Their life expectancy is 56! Is that something to be proud of as a nation—that their life expectancy is 56?

I'm talking about women because they were the people that provided the food. (Time expired)

The discussion has now concluded.

BILLS

Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024; Third Reading

Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Migration Amendment (Strengthening Sponsorship and Nomination Processes) Bill 2024; Report from Federation Chamber

Migration Amendment (Strengthening Sponsorship and Nomination Processes) Bill 2024

The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Wannon be agreed to.

Migration Amendment (Strengthening Sponsorship and Nomination Processes) Bill 2024 Karen Andrews Bridget Archer Angie Bell Sam Birrell Colin Boyce Russell Evan Broadbent Scott Buchholz Cameron Caldwell Kate Chaney Darren Chester David Coleman Pat Conaghan Mark Maclean Coulton Zoe Daniel Peter Craig Dutton Warren George Entsch Paul William Fletcher Andrew Gee Helen Haines Garth Hamilton Alex George Hawke Kevin Hogan Luke Howarth Barnaby Thomas Gerard Joyce Bob Carl Katter Simon Kennedy Michelle Landry Julian Leeser Sussan Penelope Ley David Littleproud Nola Bethwyn Marino Michael McCormack Melissa McIntosh Zoe McKenzie Ted O'Brien Llew O'Brien Tony Pasin Gavin Pearce Henry Pike Keith Pitt Melissa Price Rowan Eric Ramsey Monique Ryan Sophie Scamps Rebekha Sharkie Allegra Spender Zali Steggall James Stevens Michael Sukkar Angus Taylor Dan Tehan Phillip Thompson Bert Van Manen Ross Xavier Vasta Aaron Violi Andrew Wallace Jenny Ware Anne Webster Andrew Willcox Rick Wilson Keith Wolahan Terry Young Anne Aly Michelle Ananda-Rajah Adam Bandt Stephen Bates Jodie Belyea Chris Eyles Bowen Mr Tony Stephen Burke Matt Burnell Linda Burney Josh Burns Mark Christopher Butler Alison Byrnes Jim Chalmers Max Chandler-Mather Andrew Charlton Lisa Chesters Jason Dean Clare Sharon Claydon Libby Coker Julie Maree Collins Pat Conroy Mary Doyle Mark Alfred Dreyfus Justine Elliot Cassandra Fernando Mike Freelander Carina Garland Steve Georganas Andrew Giles Patrick Gorman Luke Gosling Julian Hill Ed Husic Stephen Jones Ged Kearney Matt Keogh Ms Catherine Fiona King Madeleine King Tania Lawrence Jerome Laxale Andrew Leigh Sam Lim Kristy McBain Emma McBride Louise Miller-Frost Brian Mitchell Rob Mitchell Daniel Mulino Shayne Kenneth Neumann Brendan Patrick O'Connor Clare O'Neil Alicia Payne Graham Douglas Perrett Fiona Phillips Tanya Joan Plibersek Sam Rae Gordon Reid Dan Repacholi Amanda Louise Rishworth Tracey Roberts Michelle Rowland Joanne Ryan Marion Scrymgour Bill Richard Shorten Sally Sitou David Smith Anne Stanley Meryl Swanson Susan Templeman Matt Thistlethwaite Kate Thwaites Maria Vamvakinou Elizabeth Watson-Brown Tim Watts Anika Wells Andrew Wilkie Josh Wilson Tony Zappia

Migration Amendment (Strengthening Sponsorship and Nomination Processes) Bill 2024; Third Reading

Migration Amendment (Strengthening Sponsorship and Nomination Processes) Bill 2024

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024; Second Reading

Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024

I would like, in continuation, to go through some of the so-called facts that we found out were not going to be facts. We were told a fact at the start of the year that there was going to be an El Nino. It was going to be very dry, and that was from very reputable organisations like the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO. They all went out and said that. A lot of people—and this is for real—sold their cattle. They designed everything for and got ready for a drought. Boy, didn't they get themselves into trouble? It wasn't a drought. It actually started raining, and we had one of the wettest seasons on record.

If you'd gone out at that time and said, 'No, it's not going to be El Nino; it's going to be La Nina,' you would've been up against the most abundant and proficient information backed by peer reviews, and this bill would've allowed them to say, 'No, that's unreasonable.' You would've had that censored and blocked. You're allowed to be wrong in life. It's one of the great things about living in a liberal democracy. You're allowed to be stupid. You're allowed to be crazy. You're allowed because of freedom. We believe in another person's capacity to say, 'I've heard the respective member, the respective sage and the respective reporter, and I completely disagree.'

Today, we see—this is a fact, but some might disagree—Mr Trump is going to be President Trump again. I think we can all understand that. There are a lot of people there who said, when they were interviewed for vox pop, they weren't going to vote for him, but they did. This just goes to show you that so often people want that space. They want that space to go against the views; they might determine that aggravates others. We saw that in the Voice, where so many people who were asked, 'Are you supporting the Voice?' said: 'Oh, yes. I'm supporting it.' But they weren't. People want that liberty to be free. They don't want to be corralled, and they don't want that form of—especially the government. They are inherently sceptical about the government starting to have further rights in their lives. There are so many people—I've said this before and been mocked about it—who want the government out of their face. They want to not see the government in their private lives. They don't want the government to have a say over their opinions. They don't want the government to determine what they can read and what they can assess as right.

No-one is suggesting, for one second, things that are of a criminal nature such as child pornography or people who entice young girls, especially, on body image or eating disorders—we all know about that. Of course, the capacity of the platforms—to find key words, to have the analytics and to write the code, especially with AI—is there now. They should do it. That would be an entirely different debate from what we are having here right now. But this is not about that.

It talks about having religious beliefs, but they have got to be reasonable. Well, who is determining whether my beliefs are reasonable? I am far from a perfect person—if you put that up for a vote it would be won overwhelmingly!

How would you vote?

I would vote with my conscience and vote that I'm not a perfect person—and I would be joined by you, no doubt. But I do believe that a person called Jesus Christ died, was crucified and rose three days later. Many people would say that that is entirely unreasonable. They would say that that's against science, that it's unprovable. They would say a whole range of things about that. But that is my belief, and I'm allowed to have it. I don't ask you to believe it; you can do what you like. But I'm allowed to believe it, I'm allowed to read it, I'm allowed to write about it and I don't want the government involved in it. I don't want the government anywhere near my belief structure. They could line scientists up from here to Goulburn saying that everything I have said is unprovable, unreasonable and not the truth. But—absolutely, 100 per cent—I believe it, and that is my right. It's also the right of about two billion other people who believe the same thing.

You can see where our concern is with this, and I think the prudent thing to do is to reaffirm to the Australian people that you have no intention of going into that space. You show you have no intention of going into that space by removing this bill, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, from the agenda.

Of course if you don't, I and others will run a very strident campaign against this. On our side, on these sorts of things, we have success; you saw it in the Voice. You are seeing it right now with intermittent power. Intermittent power has gone from something that everybody supported, or 70 per cent supported. Now even Jennie George doesn't support it. It's just fallen flat on its face; it's absolutely falling out of bed at the moment.

If I can't appeal to the logic, let me appeal to your political nous. If you, the government, go forward to an election with this, we will absolutely hammer you and we will get votes. We will peel them off—100 per cent. It's not that the public like us or that the public don't like you. They don't like either of us. They have a cynicism against people in government. This bill that is proposed here says that the government knows what you should personally believe. It says that the government will determine what is reasonable for you to believe and that the government will allow you to read certain things and not read other things, because they will be the arbiters of the truth. That is why I find it so important that I have come out of my room to speak on this and make sure that we get this. I will put up on Facebook. I don't give a rump. I bet you it gets knocked out of the park. You'll have 2,000 likes or 3,000 likes and a thousand shares. As you know, member for Riverina and member for Moncrieff, who sits beside me—Angie and I go back a long way—these are the sorts of things, when you put them out there, you will get an overwhelming response. I bet you, if you go out there and say you are supporting this—

It will be the opposite way.

Yes, you will get an overwhelming response too—it will be the opposite way! So do the clever thing. The really clever thing is, going into this election, if you want to stay on that side of the chamber, if you want to have a good crack at this—and, honest to God, it is not going well for the government at the moment; it really isn't—lose this barnacle. Chuck this one out the door straightaway and give yourself a shot at the election. But if you don't listen to the argument, I will tell you right now I am going to love this piece of legislation. If you stick with it, I will absolutely smash you at every opportunity and I will have so many friends in that process.

Between 1991 and 2002 I edited a daily newspaper in Wagga Wagga. That newspaper first published on 10 October 1868, at which point, above its editorial comment piece of the day, it used these words: 'This is true liberty, when freeborn men, having to advise the public, may speak free.' It is a verse attributed to John Milton, a 17th-century English writer, who, in 1644, addressed the English parliament on unlicensed printing. But the context of his speech and the theme of his words during that address are about freedom of speech. Milton's verse, as it became known, was used by me as well. I continued the tradition of editors of the Daily Advertiser since 1868 and used that very good line on the editorial comment piece each and every day of the years that I edited the Wagga Wagga Daily Advertiser. It is a shame that it is not still there—it has been taken down in recent years—but the precepts of the line remain so for that publication because free speech is vital.

We are lucky because we are covered by parliamentary privilege in this place. We can stand at this dispatch box and say whatever we like without impunity by the courts. But with free speech and with parliamentary privilege come responsibility and we ought never forget that we need to be responsible as community leaders and parliamentarians for what we say because words are important. I'm pleased I can say this is where I am because outside these hallowed halls, this hallowed room, I may not get away with it. But in recent days we have seen a couple of court decisions which have shown that our court system is an interesting beast at times. I refer to a court case involving senators Mehreen Faruqi and Pauline Hanson just last Friday, when Senator Hanson was found by the court—the Federal Court, no less—to have defamed Senator Faruqi in a tweet. The post on Twitter, now X, was described by Justice Angus Stewart as 'an angry personal attack' that conveyed a 'strong form of racism'. Never mind the fact that Senator Faruqi had herself posted some things online about former prime minister Scott Morrison which, coming from a parliamentarian, were less than parliamentary.

Scott Morrison saved lives and jobs during COVID, Member for Bruce, and I will stand by him for as long as I have breath in me.

Worst Prime Minister in the modern era.

We ought to be civil. I think we could agree about that—that between parliamentarians, we should be civil, whether it's online or in here. We may agree to disagree. I just disagreed with what the member opposite had to say. He disagrees with what I had to say, and that's fine. In a civil society, we are allowed to do that. But this court case involving Senators Faruqi and Hanson has ended up in the federal court. The federal court has made a decision which you would find that many Australians would not agree with.

Today we've got a case in which we've had a ruling about the ankle bracelets worn by people. A court has determined that that should not have happened. These decisions make ordinary, everyday Australians shake their heads and think: 'Why is this so? Why is this happening?' As I said, we're lucky because we get parliamentary privilege, but the bill before the house, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, is, as the member for New England has just eloquently described, an attack on free speech. It is. The coalition will always stand up to defend free speech, just as the Wagga Wagga Daily Advertiser has done since 1868. We are so privileged to live in a society where we can, within reason, exercise free speech.

Just down the road there is a monument at which there are bronze rolls of honour commemorating 103,000 lives lost by men, and women too, who've gone to war and fought so that we can have a free, fair and democratic society where we can have free speech, we can have free votes and we can have fair trials. We ought to not ever forget that. I have had any number of people who have written to me and taken the time, trouble and effort to question the legislation before the House. As the member for New England correctly questions: why would the government, just months out from an election, want to put this before our nation? What effectively this legislation does is give the Australian Communications and Media Authority alarming power to determine what content is allowed on digital platforms.

As Robert Coombs of Wagga Wagga said to me, 'It would potentially act as a ministry for truth.' He was talking about ACMA. He said, 'I urge you to reconsider this bill and protect the democratic values that are fundamental to our society.' His words were ringing true in so much of the correspondence I received. John Sparkes of Cootamundra wrote: 'We've always had the freedom of speech for everyone in Australia. What will happen with this bill is one group will censor those they disagree with. We should not pass this bill.' I wholeheartedly agree. Graham Oakes of Yerong Creek said: 'I'm very concerned about the bill being pushed through by Labor and its cronies. This bill impeaches upon my freedom of speech.' 'Impeach' is one word; 'Impinge' is another. Either way, it definitely encroaches on people's freedom of speech.

I don't always agree with some of the correspondents who wrote to me about this, but the theme that went through their emails, letters and notes to me were all of the same theory. They do not want ACMA or a group of people who are unelected having to determine what they can and cannot post online. Whether it's the pub test, the courts or the general public, the fact remains that, if you put something online that is misinformation or completely defamatory, you will end up suffering the consequences. I don't agree that the court decision last Friday was necessarily correct, but that's my view, and I'm allowed to say it. I think many Australians would have the same view.

Freedom of expression is unfairly infringed by this bill. It's misinformation and disinformation. Even the two words are misnomers in themselves. If you went down the main street of any regional town—indeed, any community in Australia—and asked what the difference between mis- and disinformation are, you'd get a lot of different views. A lot of people wouldn't actually even understand what the difference was. But they do know that they have a right to genuine free speech. They do know that they don't want their views censored, and they do know that their forefathers fought so that they would be able to have freedom of speech.

The bill is untimely. No matter what time the government ever brought this in, it was going to be the wrong time. This is a reconfiguration of an earlier version of the same bill that Labor went away and tried to fix up. It has come back, and it's still all about face. It's still not right. It's still wrong. What's going to happen is that ACMA are going to have huge power, huge authority, over what people can and cannot say. Who are ACMA to determine what people can or cannot say? Due to the backlash and significant issues with this bill, Labor scrapped plans to introduce it late last year, opted to overhaul it and have now brought it back again. It's still a dog's breakfast. It stifles academic debate. How can a single authority claim it can determine and regulate the supposed objective truth of science or morality?

I can well recall a press conference when I was Deputy Prime Minister—I might even have been Acting Prime Minister—where I was asked a question and I said that facts could be argued about a certain matter, and I got absolutely slammed by the usual suspects on X or Twitter. Call it what you like, but it was Twitter back then. Still to this day, people throw it up at me. There are so many subjects where you get people of academia and learned authority who are steadfastly of one view. To say that they are 100 per cent correct is always sometimes subject to question. If we still went along with that theory that authorities are always right, we would still believe right now that the earth was the centre of the solar system or the universe. Copernicus was absolutely maligned for having his view. People were burnt at the stake for having certain views that were different to the church and the crown at the time. Those views that were being expressed by the crown and the church at the time have now proven to be completely wrong and completely distorted.

Even Meta and X are concerned that this bill goes too far. The member for New England said that he would campaign against it and encouraged the government to bring it on. There are so many people out there who are just so sick and tired of their views being stifled and their opinions being shut out. We've seen all too often, particularly in recent years, how the bubble here in Canberra have thought one thing and the silent majority out in the rest of Australia have known the other thing. They've expressed it at the ballot box. They expressed it at the referendum ballot last year when the Voice was roundly defeated. But many people's views at that time were also shut out. In a future referendum over any particular subject or other, would people have their views censored by ACMA if this bill were to succeed?

At the moment, as I speak, we're seeing an American election. I remember that the last time we had an American election we had people being able to take PTSD leave after the result went one way or the other. Even when Donald Trump won the first time, people were seeking leave from their work because they didn't like the result. There were so many things said and done over that election that just caused so much division within society. Thankfully, we're not quite there yet, and hopefully we will never get to that stage. I think this parliament and this society is far more conciliatory than the USA. That said, this is bad legislation. This is a bad bill. It needs to be rejected. It must be rejected for the sake of freedom of speech in Australia.

Given the special significance of this piece of legislation and the feelings of anger it excites in me, I have done something I have not done before. I have engaged the services of a speechwriter I'm happy to admit. Members opposite and on my side, having heard my previous contributions, might think that a very good idea. You'll find the language perhaps somewhat dated, but I've got to admit that it's so rare that I have found and come across someone who has been able to speak from my heart with their own lips. So bear with me.

The time, it is to be hoped, is gone by, when any defence would be necessary of the "liberty of the press" as one of the securities against corrupt or tyrannical government. No argument, we may suppose, can now be needed, against permitting a legislature or an executive, not identified in interest with the people, to prescribe opinions to them, and determine what doctrines or what arguments they shall be allowed to hear.

… … …

If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

… … …

In the present age—which has been described as "destitute of faith, but terrified at scepticism"—in which people feel sure, not so much that their opinions are true, as that they should not know what to do without them—the claims of an opinion to be protected from public attack are rested not so much on its truth, as on its importance to society.

It's a decision made not by the people but by those who lead them.

Mankind can hardly be too often reminded, that there was once a man named Socrates, between whom and the legal authorities and public opinion of his time, there took place a memorable collision.

He says Socrates:

… was put to death by his countrymen, after a judicial conviction, for impiety and immorality. Impiety, in denying the gods recognised by the State; indeed his accuser asserted (see the "Apologia") that he believed in no gods at all. Immorality, in being, by his doctrines and instructions, a "corruptor of youth." Of these charges the tribunal, there is every ground for believing, honestly found him guilty, and condemned the man who probably of all then born had deserved best of mankind, to be put to death as a criminal.

… … …

In politics, again, it is almost a commonplace, that a party of order or stability, and a party of progress or reform, are both necessary elements of a healthy state of political life; until the one or the other shall have so enlarged its mental grasp as to be a party equally of order and of progress, knowing and distinguishing what is fit to be preserved from what ought to be swept away.

Each of these modes of thinking derives its utility from the deficiencies of the other; but it is in a great measure the opposition of the other that keeps each within the limits of reason and sanity. Unless opinions favourable to democracy and to aristocracy, to property and to equality, to co-operation and to competition, to luxury and to abstinence, to sociality and individuality, to liberty and discipline, and all other standing antagonisms of practical life, are expressed with equal freedom, and enforced and defended with equal talent and energy, there is no chance of both elements obtaining their due; one scale is sure to go up, and the other down. Truth, in the great practical concerns of life, is so much a question of the reconciling and combining of opposites, that very few have minds sufficiently capacious and impartial to make the adjustment with an approach to correctness, and it has to be made by the rough process of a struggle between combatants fighting under hostile banners. Of any of the great open questions just enumerated, if either of the two opinions has a better claim than the other, not merely to be tolerated, but to be encouraged and countenanced, it is the one which happens at that particular time and place to be in a minority. That is the opinion which, for the time being, represents the neglected interests, the side of human well-being which is in danger of obtaining less than its share. I am aware that there is not, in this country, any intolerance of differences of opinion on most of these topics. They are adduced to show, by admitted and multiplied examples, the universality of the fact, that only through diversity of opinion is there, in the existing state of human intellect, a chance of fair play to all sides of the truth. When there are persons to be found, who form an exception to the apparent unanimity of the world on any subject, even if the world is in the right, it is always probable that dissentients have something worth hearing to say for themselves, and that truth would lose something by their silence.

… … …

I do not pretend that the most unlimited use of the freedom of enunciating all possible opinions would put an end to the evils of religious or philosophical sectarianism. Every truth which men of narrow capacity are in earnest about, is sure to be asserted, inculcated, and in many ways even acted on, as if no other truth existed in the world, or at all events none that could limit or qualify the first. I acknowledge that the tendency of all opinions to become sectarian is not cured by the freest discussion, but is often heightened and exacerbated thereby; the truth which ought to have been, but was not, seen, being rejected all the more violently because proclaimed by persons regarded as opponents. But it is not on the impassioned partisan, it is on the calmer and more disinterested bystander, that this collision of opinions works its salutary effect. Not the violent conflict between parts of the truth, but the quiet suppression of half of it, is the formidable evil: there is always hope when people are forced to listen to both sides; it is when they attend only to one that errors harden into prejudices, and truth itself ceases to have the effect of truth, by being exaggerated into falsehood. And since there are few mental attributes more rare than that judicial faculty which can sit in intelligent judgement between two sides of a question, of which only one is represented by an advocate before it, truth has no chance but in proportion as every side of it, every opinion which embodies any fraction of the truth, not only finds advocates, but is so advocated as to be listened to.

Deputy Speaker, as you will have worked out quite quickly, my speechwriter gifted me this some time ago. It was in 1859, when it was written by John Stuart Mill. It comes from the second chapter of his book On Liberty. It torments me no end that we are back there, finding ourselves in that same age-old debate between the voice of the many that struggles to be heard and the might of the few that would suppress it. We are back there, and I am happy to stand against the government on this bill. I am happy to find myself standing with Mill.

Among all of the words that rang true in 1859 and that we find ourselves dealing with today is the idea that, not just in this place but in the world around us, amongst the voices of those that we represent here, there is not a uniformity of opinion—quite the opposite. There is the constant competition of ideas playing out right across Australia and across the Western world. We are a reflection of that, and it's important that that plays out. I would argue that that competition of ideas is what has bent the arc of Western civilisation towards freedom, towards the better world that we live in now, towards equality and towards just laws. Competition plays its part. We must always be wary of governments, corporations or anybody who would use their power to stifle or reduce the voice of the many. This is an age-old problem. There is nothing new in what is being presented in this bill or in the government's intent. This is an age-old fight, and we must stand by the freedom to say what we would say. It must belong to us. It cannot be taken from us. We cannot stand by and let this fall away.

My message to Australians who will hear this debate played out, as the first attempt quite frankly played out and failed across Australia, is: Australians, say your piece and say it now. The intent of the government is clear. It seeks to stifle debate. It seeks not only to determine what is truth but to stop words being spoken that are against that chosen truth. One of the clearest denouncements we can make of this bill and its intent is that what that truth is can change not only from government to government but from minister to minister. The ridiculous idea that our conversations will now be judged on a single axiom that comes straight out of the executive carpet is absolutely ridiculous and will be fought against. This is a battle that has lost the public debate once in Australia and will lose it again. I have absolutely no doubt. The member for New England was quite right: Australians will not tolerate this. Australians will not tolerate being told by a government what they can and cannot say, what is right and what is wrong.

There's an ongoing debate in Western society about what it is that ails us and why it is that we seem to have reached a peak in the last decade where we've stifled and stalled, where our growth is no longer there, where cultures that do not contribute as much to the world as ours seem somehow to be overtaking us and moving faster than us. I would point to this very bill as an example of what is wrong with Western civilisation at the moment—that it would seek to strangle its own voice, that it would no longer value the contributions of its own members and turn towards a totalitarian view of how we are governed and how we allow ourselves to be governed.

I am against this with everything in my body. I never imagined, when becoming a politician, that I would be standing up and speaking against a bill that would give the government the power to determine what is right or wrong and to shut down those who oppose its view. It is beyond my comprehension that in this day and age that idea could have made its way all the way here. It belongs in some undergraduate, left-wing, university campus, Greens party debate. It's ridiculous. It is beneath us. We went through this centuries ago. We must stand up and fight it. There is nothing more important to Australia right now than this. On all of the decisions that government makes, be they right or wrong, we have formed a system of government, the Westminster system, where we can scrutinise openly and publicly those decisions. We can challenge them in debate. We have that right here on the floor of parliament. We cannot allow a world where that right stops once we walk outside these walls. That is not an Australia that is deserving of the sacrifices of all those who fought and died for this great nation. It is an absolute betrayal of all those who worked hard and came here under different waves and made this great nation.

This bill is almost an exact replica of what went before it that was rejected so forcefully by the Australian people. This government should hang its head in shame for bringing it back again during the closing down sale of this government. It's a last desperate attempt to save a failing government. The member for Riverina was quite right in his comments. We must maintain the dignity in our debate, and I acknowledge that this issue brings out feelings of great anger in me. It is important that we can debate this and debate it in a way that is based on values, based on policy and is not an attack on each other.

I do think it is important to point out the intention behind this bill. I think it is beneath this government to seek to silence Australians who choose not to accept their version of the truth. I think it is beneath this government. That is not the Labor that I remember from my youth. That is not the Labor government that, in previous years, has served this nation well; it is not. It is certainly not a bill becoming of the Australia I grew up in and it is not a bill that is becoming of the Australia that I am raising my children in. We must fight against this. We will continue to and we will win.

Like the member for Groom giving his passionate address, I also rise to speak on the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. We have seen this before. There was an exposure draft last year. It was condemned by a range of groups including human rights groups, civil liberties groups, lawyers and proponents of free speech in this country and it was withdrawn. What has come back is no better. What has come back is a shocking attack on free speech in this country.

But before I go into detail about what I believe is wrong with this bill, let us talk about the principles that we believe in and that we should believe in in this country. We should believe in free speech and we should believe in the fight to defend it. As the member for Riverina said earlier, there is a memorial not far from here which details the sacrifices and courage a lot of people who went before us in this country showed in order that we could have a free and fair society, and freedom of expression is part of that free and fair society.

I believe in the often-quoted Voltaire line in relation to freedom of speech: 'I disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.' That should underpin and indeed has underpinned the principles of Australian society. It is what makes living in Australia and comparative free nations in North America and Europe different to the lives of people who live in regimes in parts of Asia, in Eastern Europe pre-1990, when those freedoms were not afforded to those people and those societies did not succeed.

Some people come into my office and I fundamentally disagree with them. I fundamentally disagree with them, but isn't it great that we live in a society where they can come into their local member's office, put positions that are at odds with what I believe but that I am obligated to listen to them? I don't want their right to put those views on social media to be taken away from them, even though I disagree with those views. This happens on a regular basis.

The key problem with the government's misinformation bill is it has a very broad definition of what 'misinformation' is. That captures opinions that can be held in good faith. There is no requirement in this bill that the maker of the statement is actually maliciously intending to deceive people. If something is reasonably verifiable as misleading and reasonably likely to cause and contribute serious harm, it can be captured as misinformation. We use the word 'reasonable' a lot in this place, and it's in a lot of laws. What's reasonable, and who decides what is reasonable?

I'm just going to give you an example of something. Liberal Senator Chandler said something in the Tasmanian newspaper the Mercury in 2020. I'm not commenting on the issue itself; I'm commenting on the reaction as to whether her comment was reasonable or not. Senator Chandler said:

You don't have to be a bigot to recognise the differences between the male and female sexes and understand why women's sports, single sex change rooms and toilets are important.

Now, there will be people who don't agree with that. I think it's a pretty reasonably held view, but this is what Tasmania's Anti-Discrimination Commissioner said in relation to that. It determined that 'a reasonable person is likely to anticipate that a person who is a member of the LGBTIQ+ and gender-diverse community would be humiliated, intimidated, offended and insulted' by that comment. I use that example just to show where some of this bureaucratic reasonable opinion can lead us.

The definition of 'serious harm' in this is also broad. It's possible that a large amount of material could be captured as serious harm, and this can happen in areas such as elections—we're going to fight an election campaign next year, and I want that to be a battle of ideas; I don't want people banned from putting up on social media things that they believe to be true—and referendums—and we've been through this. It also includes—and I love this one—imminent harm to the economy or financial markets. I might quote our shadow minister for communications, who commented that 'imminent harm to the economy or financial markets' could cover just about all of the Greens' economic policies.

Digital platforms will face huge fines for failing to manage misinformation and disinformation, and they'll be incentivised to censor content. Platforms will self-censor. Given the broad definitions of 'misinformation' and 'serious harm', that censorship will capture legitimately held views of Australians.

The legislation endows the Minister for Communications with extraordinary powers. The minister can personally order misinformation investigations and hearings on his or her terms. A lot of people have invoked George Orwell in this place—the Ministry of Truth. It's a slippery slope to a place where we don't want to go. There are existing powers which now could be used under this bill to order ACMA to conduct specific investigations. The minister can order public hearings. The only constraint on that power is that it cannot relate to particular content posted on a digital community platform by a single end user identifiable by ACMA. I think the way this bill is drafted means that it's open to political abuse, and that's inconsistent with what our democratic values are and should be.

Also, different classes are treated unequally by this bill. Anything that is reasonably distributed for an academic purpose cannot be misinformation, but the same exemption does not apply to everyday Australians, so there's a bit of elitism creeping in there. The same exemption rules apply to anything that is distributed for an artistic or scientific purposes or things said for the purpose of parody or satire. If something appears in professional news content, it cannot be misinformation. But, if that same view or a contrary view were put outside professional news content—and, let's face it, a lot is in our discourse—it could be misinformation. This also applies to journalists, who would be protected in publishing within professional news content but not on their personal social media.

This is our view in parliament, but let's have a listen to what some other people have said on Labor's misinformation bill. There was a terrific contribution to the Senate inquiry from the Victorian Bar association, and I'm going to quote from that submission:

… the Bill's interference with the self-fulfilment of free expression will occur primarily by the chilling self-censorship it will inevitably bring about in the individual users of the relevant services (who may rationally wish to avoid any risk of being labelled a purveyor of misinformation or disinformation).

… … …

The Bill's response to false information thus does not seem warranted. It may even be counter-productive when one recalls that the purveyors of so-called misinformation and disinformation are often part of relatively small online communities who are brought together by feelings of isolation and distrust of the State. The perceived silencing or targeting of these groups is unlikely to address the underlying social problems animating the dissemination of false information. It is widely accepted in liberal democratic societies that it is better to fight information with information and to attempt to persuade rather than coerce people towards positions grounded in evidence and fact.

That brings me back to what I said earlier. This is why our society has flourished and Western society has flourished—because we combat bad ideas with good ideas. Some people might think, 'Their idea is bad; my idea is good,' but that discourse is important. Rather than shut down the debate, let's win it. The societies that I talked about, such as eastern Europe in the latter part of the 20th century, just sought to shut it down. That's a dangerous way for society to go.

Some faith groups have had some things to say on this bill. The Australian Christian Lobby said:

There is no excuse for what's proposed in this bill.

… … …

Where the government should be safeguarding the free speech of Australians, it will instead require social media to control our public discourse. From public health to politics to the economy and ideology, how this bill defines harm will determine what you are allowed to say online.

The Australian Jewish Association submitted concerns:

… it is not the role of a government or regulatory authority to censor political speech or opinion, nor should the government or regulatory authority be the arbiter of truth.

There is overwhelming opposition to this bill, and that's with good reason. The problem with limiting free speech is: who gets to decide what the limits are and who it is applied to? This is what New South Wales Solicitor-General Michael Sexton said about the legislation:

It targets contestable political opinions on social media and is based on the patronising assumption that members of the community cannot make a judgment about those opinions but must be protected from the obvious inadequacies of their judgment.

It's paternalism. It underestimates the capacity of Australians to make up their own minds.

In a democratic society, we might not always like the result that Australians come to. I didn't particularly like the result of the previous election in Australia, except for the seat of Nicholls, but it was a free and fair contest of ideas, and the Australian people made up their minds. Next year, the Australian people are going to make up their minds on how good they think this government has been, and people should be able to express that. Even in question time today, there was an attempt to have some legitimate opinions that were put forward ruled out of questions, and those were that this is the weakest and most incompetent government since the Whitlam government. That's a view that some people will have. It's a view that other people will disagree with. But let's have the debate. Let's have the discussion. Let's put the ideas out there, and the Australian people can make their minds up. I think this bill will restrict Australians' free expression, and I think it will diminish our democracy, and that is why I oppose the bill.

It is indeed a very important point in time right now for Western civilised democracies. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate President-elect Trump on a stunning victory in the American presidential election. There's still counting to go, of course, but it's very clear that it was a much stronger victory than what was anticipated. There is some suggestion that the Republicans will take the US Senate and perhaps even the US House of Representatives. Given that I've got this opportunity, I want to send out a congratulations to President-elect Trump and the broader Republican movement in America.

This morning I took up an invitation which was graciously offered by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and the War Memorial to visit the redevelopment of that facility now under construction. Of course, it was a $500 million commitment by the former coalition government, and it's well on track for portions of that redevelopment to be open by Christmas and for other parts of that redevelopment to be ready for visitors by Christmas 2025. Being there, I was reflecting, as I always do when I'm in that building, on the 103,000 or so names that sit on the walls of remembrance. These are the names of men who laid down their lives, effectively giving up their futures for ours. What they were seeking to ensure is that Western democratic societies could thrive and that we could continue to govern societies on the basis of fundamental tenets of democracy. One, of course, importantly, is freedom of expression.

Others have used, probably, more colourful language than me, but this is a significant intervention. The member for Nicholls, before me, was referring to the 1949 George Orwell novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four. He mentioned the ministry of truth. There were four ministries in the dystopian government of Oceania. There was the Ministry of Peace, which concerned itself with war; the Ministry of Truth, which, of course, concerned itself with lies; the Ministry of Love, which concerned itself with torture; and the Ministry of Plenty, which concerned itself with starvation. These contradictions weren't accidental, nor did they result from ordinary hypocrisy. They were the deliberate exercise of doublethink.

Granted, it's 2024, so 40 years after Orwell set his dystopian novel, but here we are in the Australian federal parliament discussing a bill referred to as the 'combating misinformation and disinformation bill', which would effectively establish in this country the ministry of truth. When I took the opportunity to look through what was proposed—and I should say, if it's not clear already, I categorically reject all aspects of this bill. The idea of politicians and members of the bureaucracy sitting in judgement of what is and is not true offends everything I can think of. When I got to this point in considering the bill, I literally shuddered. Embedded within the bill is the extraordinary power for the communications minister of the day to personally order misinformation investigations and hearings on terms that he or she chooses. Have a think about that. We would have the ministry of truth, we would have the minister for truth, and we would literally have—and I'm not even joking—the truth police. What point have we got to? We're literally debating whether we should give these extraordinary powers to a member of the government of the day.

Like the member for Nicholls, I didn't much like the outcome of the 2022 election, I've got to say. I enjoyed the 2019 election, and I'm sure, if there had been an election in 2020, I would have enjoyed that too, as I am enjoying the results of the US election occurring now. I didn't enjoy the results of the 2020 election in America; maybe that's what I've been thinking about. But, even if we were to have won that 2022 election, I would be offended by the idea that even a colleague of mine that I was close to would have these extraordinary powers.

You don't need to take my word for how these powers might be enacted. I'm just going to take us down memory lane for a moment—and apologies to my friend opposite, because some of these memories are uncomfortable. But, of course, one of the potential debates in this country where a misinformation or disinformation investigation might take place is at a future referendum, so let's turn our minds back to the most recent referendum. It was around the question of the Voice.

Like the member for Nicholls, I think the best antidote to a bad argument is a good one and the best way to disinfect lies is sunlight, facts and debate. Some, like me, prosecuted the argument—which I continue to believe—that the establishment of the Voice as proposed by those opposite would effectively divide this country by race, establishing two classes of Australian citizenship. I think it's an argument that was taken up by the Australian people and one which strongly motivated their choice to vote no comprehensively at the referendum.

During the course of our making that argument, many of those opposite referred more than once to that argument as mis- and disinformation, and, lo and behold, we now have the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill. So it doesn't require too much mental gymnastics to form the view that, had this legislation been in place during the course of the last referendum, there might well have been a declaration by the minister of the day that an investigation ought to be undertaken in relation to that argument that was being run by 'no' campaigners such as me.

I just wonder what would have happened at that point. Presumably, at my address in Mount Gambier, I would have got a knock on the door, and well-dressed officers would have asked me to come with them, and I would have been subjected to some sort of interview for expressing views that I reasonably held and—I reasonably put to you—many other Australians would have held. Where it would have gone from there I don't know, save and except that it would be a particularly brave individual who, having been subjected to that investigation, would continue to speak out. This is why the Victorian Bar Association has commented that this bill represents a troubling entry into potential self-censorship, because of course you're going to self-censor if you would otherwise potentially be subject to massive fines and investigative behaviour.

By dint of the fact that I'm a member of the South Australian division of the Liberal Party, you might not be surprised to learn that I'm not a huge fan of Pauline Hanson and One Nation. If I had been, I would have joined One Nation a long time ago. I didn't. I joined the Liberal Party, and, of course, that's because I believe in the tenets of our party and our 'we believe' statement. But I watched some rather chilling television last night. It was Andrew Bolt interviewing Pauline Hanson. Pauline, or Senator Hanson as I should perhaps refer to her, is a strong, forthright woman. She's not someone who anyone in Australia would describe as a shrinking violet. She was recently subject to court proceedings when a fellow senator sought to pursue her for alleged defamatory communications. I think it was a tweet. In the first instance that particular proceeding hasn't gone Senator Hanson's way. She was reduced to tears, and I thought to myself, 'I haven't seen Senator Hanson in the media recently, and this perhaps explains why.' This judgement was only weeks ago. And this is what this bill seeks to achieve. It seeks to silence voices in the civic square. That's not a strong society, that's a weak society.

A strong society provides a soapbox for any and all people to express their views as strongly as they are able in the civic square. I participate in civic debate regularly. I enjoy it, and I have no doubt those opposite think of my contributions what I sometimes think of their contributions—that is, I completely disagree. But never ever have I thought that the best way to combat an argument being made by those opposite is to get them shut down. No. The appropriate way to deal with what I might regard as ill-considered opinion is to debate against it, to highlight the potential hypocrisy, to indicate how that might lead to unintended consequences. It's very lazy to simply say: 'You can't say that. You just can't say that.' As an aside, I should say my favourite thing to say at that point is, 'Well, I just did.'

Under the laws that operate in this country right now if those opposite say to me, 'You can't say that,' or someone in the community more generally says, 'You just can't say that,' I can confidently say, 'Well, I just did.' The difficulty with this bill and the real harm in this proposal is that if it's passed—and it will, no doubt, given the numbers here and in the other place—and becomes law then when someone, potentially from the Ministry of Truth, the truth police, says to me, 'You can't say that,' I'm going to actually have to say, 'Yes, sir; I know.' When this bill is law, which we will rescind when we come into government, then that will be a sad day. Not because of my contributions, but because I won't be the only person saying that. There will be many others much more erudite than me, potentially stronger in their convictions than me and no doubt more intelligent than me making stronger and better arguments and they'll also be saying, 'Yes, sir; I know.' It is so wrong.

I'm pretty sure if we could poll the 103,000 or so Australian diggers whose names hang on the walls of the Australian War Memorial, they would agree with me that it is wrong and it's not what they gave up their futures for. So before we do this, before we make good on George Orwell's fictional dystopia, I just ask those opposite to think again. We don't need the Ministry of Truth or the— (Time expired)

I rise to speak on the government's Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. George Orwell has had a bit of trot-out in this debate. I'm not surprised. He published Nineteen Eighty-Four 75 years ago, a novel about the control of people's lives through surveillance, propaganda and thought control. The technologies don't seems so outrageous in today's electronic world. Its underlying themes highlight the dangerous overreach that is represented in this government bill on combating misinformation and disinformation.

I can understand why the government feels as though it needs to make an attempt to condition the information that some people receive. My daughter once wrote an article in the Stock Journal in South Australia. She was writing a regular column at the time. She said that, given modern information platforms, consumers need to be able to identify and assess the value of the source of the information—whether there are vested interests, where the author sourced the material and whether it's well researched or relying on second-hand hearsay, second-rate primary material. I can only heartily agree.

The demise of traditional media in Australia is, as I have said in this place on a number of occasions, an underlying threat to our democracy. The funding sources that have paid for traditional media are quite quickly slipping away. They've all gone to the computer in our pocket—this thing here, our mobile devices. Real estate, cars, property, advertisements are all on the internet, hollowing out the funding streams for traditional newsrooms and journalists, who were expected to check sources for veracity, to clip things that were actually true. The replacements do not, and the question today is: do we legislate against misinformation, even in genuine error, or do we educate against it?

My greatest concern about this bill is that honestly held opinions of Australians would be able to be deemed misinformation, with digital platforms required to remove them in such cases. So what of religious beliefs? Can they be categorised as wrong or right? This external assessment of beliefs is an area of concern for the religious community. Can those assessments impact on the religious schools that are operating in the education system? The bill gives the government regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, extraordinary powers to regulate speech. I'm not questioning either the independence of the ACMA or its record, but I do make the point that its chair is appointed by the Governor-General at the behest of the government of the day. That opens up questions about independence and perhaps predilections and existing opinions that they may have.

More concerningly, the minister of the day will have the ability to exempt their preferred platforms, providing enormous power to control the news stream, to effectively control the message. This is where the reference to George Orwell stands out like a beacon of light—even the chant from Animal Farm, the decree of the ruling force summarised by the pigs: 'Four legs good, two legs bad.' It's a perfect example of one-line propaganda. Then, as the ruling forces adapted to the benefits of power and wealth, the chant was altered to, 'Four legs good, two legs better,' in a complete rejection of an earlier slogan, the important point being that the ruling power controls the message. Orwell said, 'If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people things they do not want to hear.' I think that's a very telling quote—the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. While we all have concerns about some of the rubbish peddled on the online platforms—me as much as anyone else, I'd have to say—we should not risk muzzling the ability of the minority to question the ruling point of view.

Well-functioning democracies require open and vigorous questioning. It is the firewall which corrals corruption. Oppositions must be able to pursue questions which go to the heart of government management and honesty. This legislation risks that function. The legislation determines the minister will be able to decide whether the platforms have sufficiently censored the online posts to meet their interpretation of the truth. Inevitably governments will believe that they speak the truth and that their critics do not. The legislation will allow communications minister to personally order a misinformation investigation and misinformation hearings on terms of their choosing. The legislation will allow noble government officials to require the handover of information and documents related to information.

If the major platforms do not sufficiently censor misinformation—take it off their sites—they face large fines; in fact, up to five per cent of global turnover. You would know, Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz, that Google is a major player in this space. Google global turnover last year was US$307 billion, five per cent of which is US$23 billion. One could forgive Google if they became conservative about what they allow on their pages. In fact, they have to make a qualitative decision in front of the ACMA examination of their work.

It is worth reflecting that Galileo in the 15th century was tried and found guilty of heresy and was confined to house arrest for the final nine years of his life for opposing the scientific consensus of the day that the earth was at the celestial centre of the universe and all the planets were revolving around it. He questioned the ruling scientific general opinion of the day and gave up nine years of his life for it. 'As the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?' John Maynard Keynes is often given the benefit of being the first user of that clause but it is contested. In this changing world, the concept of challenging the established order can be deemed as misleading and thus illegal. Can a case be built against the status quo? How can a case be built against the status quo?

For instance, could the exposure of thalidomide or of the Khemlani loans affair happened if this legislation had been in place at the time? Could Australian whistleblowers have raised sufficient concern to have caught the attention of the public on issues such as PFAS contamination to prosecute their case? I am indebted to the member for Barker, who just spoke on the recent referendum in Australia. What constraints would have been put on at least one side of that referendum debate by the minister of the day being able to control which organisations can sell the message and which ones can't? Can they refer an investigation on the very things that the member for Barker raised? Are all of those concerns unknowns? It just feels like overreach on every level. Is it the baby or is it the bathwater? Me thinks, in this case, the bill goes too far.

This legislation is unparalleled in other like-minded countries. Places like the USA and the United Kingdom don't have laws that even come close to what the Albanese government is proposing. Like other MPs, I have received a high level of concern on this, and I can assure the public that the coalition is strongly opposed to it. There are so many other things that sit within it. I talked about the newsrooms of Australia and the fact that they are fewer and further between the journalists, the people who we would trust with the kind of information that we rely on. We were given an apology from the ABC again yesterday. The one news organisation that this parliament funds to give a true and factual correct record has been caught out yet again. There seems to be a conga line of apologies coming from the ABC. There have been people on this side of politics who have for a long time thought that the ABC is a biased organisation; it is no longer trustworthy. In fact, why would an organisation that had the most trustworthy news service in the world have to continually advertise that fact to us? Methinks that maybe they are not confident about their own claim.

We are reducing all the time. We don't have those radical news sources now. While on one hand the government argues that the contributions of those who are mischievous is causing a problem, it should also concede that there are people out there who have genuine concerns and are able to raise issues, using the megaphone of the electronic media, and bring this parliament's attention to the problems that exist within. Without that megaphone that they have at the moment, perhaps they can't move the case. So it's too dangerous for me. We are a free democracy. I think we need to find another way to crack this nut, if that's what is required. So I will be voting against this along with my colleagues, and I commend that case to the parliament.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right in our democratic society. Yet here we are watching our freedom being openly threatened by Labor's misinformation bill, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. The federal Labor government wants to be the arbiter of the truth. It wants to tell every Australian what they can and can't post online if they disagree with it. So, if your thoughts, your views, don't align with the government, you could be taken off social media. You could be punished. That's not freedom. That's not how freedom of speech should work. We should be allowing disagreement and discord, because freedom of speech doesn't mean hurtful speech. Freedom of speech means you should be able to disagree in a respectful manner with what the government's position is—or anyone else's—without fear of being removed from a platform or not being able to communicate to your friends and family. Yet this misinformation bill goes directly to that.

Previously, this bill was brought to the House and withdrawn, last November, after a massive opposition from 20,000 Australians all voicing their outcry, all saying loud and clear, 'This isn't what we want.' Yet this Labor government isn't listening. Now the bill is back, with a few tweaks and adjustments, but none of us are fooled by the idea that anything has really changed. This bill clearly remains a wolf in sheep's clothing. It's masquerading as harmless while seeking to threaten our fundamental freedoms. This is not just a piece of legislation but a direct challenge to our democratic right of free speech.

This bill aims to control digital platforms, give powers to the communications minister and selectively allow government approved messaging online. It's scary stuff, and it will fundamentally change how Australians interact with each other on social media. It's not only a disgrace but an affront to the principles of a free society. This bill has no rightful place in Australia. The coalition stands in strong opposition to it, and a coalition government will repeal it.

This bill threatens digital platforms with massive fines if they fail to pull down what the government considers to be misinformation. What do you think most platforms will be forced to do if they're given a choice between protecting free speech in Australia and being fined millions of dollars? It's obvious. If there's even the slightest possibility that any content could be regarded as misinformation by the government, the platforms will shut it down. This will have a chilling effect on free speech online throughout our country.

Imagine posting your honest opinion on a current event, something you feel passionate about, only for it to be deleted by the tech overlords, who are overseen by someone somewhere throughout the country, because the Australian government might not like it. Or consider that you want to share your perspective or maybe even challenge an opinion but you hold back because you're worried about being labelled as a spreader of misinformation. So your voice is silenced before you even try to speak.

My own social media page is one of the places where I go to hear from people throughout the electorate and the country so I can have a finger on the pulse and hear from the people on the ground on the important issues in our community. I get to hear all sorts of opinions and thoughts. Some are great, some not so. I get free advice. But it is a place of free debate and free speech. Even when we disagree, I go out of my way to either meet with the people that have put these comments up or engage with them on my platform. I allow everyone to be involved in this debate because that's a part of free speech. Much of this valuable community engagement would simply disappear if this bill were successful. It aims to clamp down on the free expression of Australians.

So here we are facing a bill with definitions so broad they are nothing but invitations for an abuse of power under the vague term 'misinformation'. This bill requires no burden of proof to show intent to mislead or maliciousness. Ordinary Australians expressing genuine opinions will find themselves in the crosshairs of censorship. Consider what this bill defines as 'serious harm'. This term stretches to cover everyday conversations around elections, referendums, public health and the economy. Imagine posting a perspective about the economy which is not favoured by the government of the day. Under this bill, your voice could be silenced because it could be considered seriously harmful for not toeing the government line. Or how about reposting a news story during election time that seems damaging to the current government? With one stroke, your story could vanish because it's considered seriously harmful.

The best news for the government is that the dirty work of censorship can be outsourced to big tech, which will be forced to decipher what 'misinformation' means to the Australian government of the day to avoid financial penalties. But it doesn't stop there. This bill aims to do more than just silence genuine debate. It grants extraordinary powers to the communications minister, who would begin dictating what is true and false online. The minister could initiate investigations and call for hearings all based on the minister's personal view of misinformation. The idea that a politician could order investigations into opinions they don't agree with online would be laughable if it weren't so serious and imminent. It has absolutely no place in our democracy. This is not just an oversight; it's a massive overreach.

The bill further empowers the ACMA with information-gathering capabilities, forcing platforms to turn over documents under threat of penalties. These are extraordinary new powers for the communications minister and the department. Is it any wonder, then, that the Labor government is attempting to ram this bill through parliament? The public were given just seven days to voice their concerns. The government's haste in pushing this bill through with minimal public consultation is offensive to the Australian people and is undemocratic.

Of course, none of us are surprised that the government's allies who toe the party line will be spared the heavy hand of censorship. This bill identifies groups of people who will come under its protective umbrella, and they are so-called experts, whose opinions are apparently more reliable than those held by the Australian people. Academics, scientists, comedians and so-called professional news networks will get an official exemption to post what they like without fear of censorship. Heaven forbid any Australian comments on one of their posts. Imagine getting into an argument with an academic online only to be swiftly censored, blacklisted, while they continue to enjoy their public platform or disagreeing with the way a comedian jokes about a subject only to be silenced because everything they are saying is satire and above any kind of criticism. How about challenging a story broadcast by mainstream media? If you'd dare to question the way they report, you'd be on a fast track to cancellation while the government approved message remained untouchable.

This is quite relevant right now when not even a month ago Heston Russell was in court with the ABC, where they doctored, misled and lied to the Australian people around what happened in Afghanistan. They were found to be guilty. He would be hauled over the coals with this bill. If he challenged that, if veterans around the country challenged this online, which is how it started, they would all be censored. They would be told, 'No, you can't comment on this, because the government says this is the truth and only the media and other protected groups are allowed to post what they like.'

Even podcasters need to ensure their script complies with the ministry of communications' guidelines or face being deplatformed. The minister may also exempt specific platforms from the operation of the bill so that the platforms can crack down, and the most ruthless and the most reliable in doing the minister's bidding will be rewarded with perks and benefits. This legislation will openly reward government approved speech while penalising free speech. It violates the principle of equality under the law, where your right to speak freely is regarded as less valuable than someone with a different job title to you. Suddenly we're looking at a two-tier system in freedom of expression where the privileged few are exempt from the same rules that will bind the mouths of ordinary Australians. Unequal treatment before the law is just as undemocratic as it is un-Australian.

It's not just politicians who are raising the alarm. Numerous legal experts have warned us about the grave dangers to free speech presented in this bill. New South Wales Solicitor-General Michael Sexton said:

It targets contestable political opinions on social media and is based on the patronising assumption that members of the community cannot make a judgment about those opinions …

He goes on to say that this bill:

… is designed to sanitise public debate on a range of political issues so any debate that does occur accords with the views of a group of government-appointed bureaucrats.

The Victorian Bar has said something similar. The Queensland Council for Civil Liberties have commented.

This is a bad bill. Residents throughout Townsville, around the country and in all of our electorates have been talking about how bad this bill is. One person from Deeragun, in Townsville, told me:

The contents of this Bill essentially give the power of truth to whichever political party is in power. This is yet another attempt by Politicians and Bureaucrats to destroy personal freedoms for every Australian.

A veteran wrote to me and said:

As you know, Australians are a nation of sportsmen and we like a bit of banter between the teams … and many blokes like us veterans are completely blown away by the audacity of the Labor Party to feel that they have the God given right not to allow us to express our opinions.

Another constituent called my office and asked if he was allowed to post his opinions online about the Queensland state election or if there would be any penalties for saying the wrong thing.

Having served in the Australian Defence Force, with time in Afghanistan—a place still under the grip of an iron-fisted authoritarian regime that crushes even the slightest whisper of dissent—I find this bill utterly disrespectful. I find it un-Australian. We are facing a similar threat here to our freedom of speech, and I would urge all in this place to vote against it. Freedom of speech is not just about speaking; it's about being heard without having fear of being silenced. The coalition's commitment is to ensure that free speech remains free. Failing to reject this bill puts our democratic society in jeopardy.

This is not just legislation; it's a gag order on democracy itself. The coalition will strongly oppose this outrageous bill, and we will defend the right of every Australian to speak, debate and dissent. In a free exchange of ideas lies our strength as a society, and we are determined to protect it. This is a bad bill. This is an attack on your free speech. This is an attack on every Australian. I urge people listening at home today as the debate goes on to contact your MPs. Contact them and tell them that you want your free speech—you don't want a government, a minister of truth, someone in parliament, telling you how to think and how to feel and what you can and can't say. This is an attack on your liberties, and we oppose it. The coalition opposes it because freedom of speech is a part of our democratic values and we must fight to protect it.

I congratulate the member for Herbert on a very fine contribution to this debate. There's not a single thing in what he had to say that I would disagree with. This is an appalling attack by a government that came to the last election promising openness and transparency, promising to let the sunshine in, and yet what we've seen over the past 2½ years is completely the opposite.

I've heard many of the contributions from those opposite, saying, 'This is really not much of a concern—we're dealing with misinformation and disinformation.' Let me just remind the House that it's usually those who are on the wrong side of the argument that shout 'misinformation' or 'disinformation'. It's those who are losing the argument that resort to name-calling and epithets, because they know they've lost the argument and can't win it on the facts. We've just seen that in the Queensland state election. Much as I disagree with what was done and said in many of those campaigns, and in the campaign more generally, that is the beauty of democracy: you can say things that people disagree with. That is what Western civilisation is built on. That's what our society and our culture are built on. There's a free exchange of ideas in a contested environment. Where somebody posits a proposition or says something, you have the right to say, 'I disagree with you for these reasons.' That's why we have the vibrant society and democracy that we have today.

Sadly, there are those in this place, on the government benches at the moment, who want to stifle that debate. The reality of the situation is that, in many cases, their ideological position in the world doesn't accord with the facts and they don't know how to deal with that, because they're marooned on this rock of ideology. Heaven forbid that the facts would ever get in the way! Let me give you an example that I came across today.

It has been revealed that the bureau of meteorology in the United Kingdom stands accused, after a freedom-of-information request, of manufacturing temperature records for over 103 locations where they have no temperature-monitoring equipment. At various times in this place we have had a discussion about the homogenisation policies that our Bureau of Meteorology uses, and the veracity or otherwise of those. Anybody on this side that stands up and questions those is accused of misinformation, disinformation, climate denial or whatever the case may be, but the reality is that those on the left who have a certain view of the world don't want to actually deal with the facts. We've seen the situation of Professor Peter Ridd at James Cook University and what he had to go through by standing on his principles and values and stating the facts. That finished up in a court case. It's not that this legislation is actually required, because those on the left are already trying to muzzle those that disagree with them and seek to point out the reality of what's going on. Those on the Left and those on the government benches do not like that. They take exception to it.

We've recently seen the COVID report handed down. During COVID, there was much commentary on various platforms and social media platforms that I disagreed with, and I think the COVID report revealed that much of that was incorrect. Yet there was also much that was commentated on during that period that was correct, and the COVID report bore that out, yet the people that said that during that period were vilified and treated as pariahs.

We now have a situation in this House where we're discussing a piece of legislation that will only reinforce the ability of those on the Left and those currently in government to further muzzle debate and to use the full apparatus of state to achieve that. That is not what this country was built on, as the member for Herbert quite rightly pointed out. I too have had many emails to my office on this issue. I'll say that zero are in support of it, because Australians out there recognise the danger of this piece of legislation. It's an appalling and chilling attack on our free speech and our ability to have a sensible public debate on contested issues. Just as we have a contested debate on a piece of legislation before this House, we should also be able to have a contested debate out in the public sphere, whether it be on social media, in a pub, in a club or on an online debating forum—whatever the case may be.

Where I will draw the line is—as I'm sure Deputy Speaker Buchholz saw during the recent state election campaign—when people start to attack other people personally and vilify them. What I'm finding in the public debate is not issues with free speech or the contesting of ideas; what I find increasingly troubling in the debate in the public sphere is the willingness, particularly of the Left of politics, to resort to demonising and seeking to tear down and destroy one's character when they've lost an argument or they don't believe they can win the argument.

I got taught in high-school debating that, if you start attacking your opponents personally, you can sit down because you've lost the argument. But this bill before us will achieve exactly what I'm concerned about—that is, it will result in the diminishing of the quality of public debate because the people in our community who have a different view that is not approved by the government or some other government body of the day can and, I suspect, will be silenced. As I've outlined in a number of examples, we've seen that already in evidence, even without the provision of this legislation.

I find it interesting that, under this bill, academics, scientists and artists are exempted from the bill but not everyday Australians. Why not? Why do we need this legislation? Give me an example of why we need this legislation. There is no example of why we need this legislation. It is only coming into place because the government wants to further control and be involved in people's lives. I'll say to anybody listening to this debate this evening, be very afraid when the government says: 'We're here to help. We'll make your lives better.'

I heard the member for Newcastle speaking earlier, and her remarks on this bill. She was talking about her committee and the work she's doing on that committee and made a reference to the issue of abuse et cetera online of children. Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz, you would have seen the sad case of a young lady in Queensland who took her own life earlier this week as a result of bullying and vilification. And yet what we see is this government introducing this bill, which seeks to muzzle everyday Australians, but they refuse to do anything about age verification or dealing with any of the issues of online bullying. And don't for a minute pretend that this bill is about online bullying. It's not. That is a completely different issue that's not covered by this bill.

If the government is genuinely concerned about dealing with issues of online bullying and age verification for children online so that they're not being exposed to harmful material—on this side of the House we've already put up a proposition for that, which the government is yet to respond to or to do anything with—then go ahead and do it. That is far more important and far more relevant today than this bill, which seeks to muzzle free speech and reduce the rights and the freedoms that we have fought for so hard in this country over the past couple of hundred years.

And it's not only in this country, it's across the world. Western culture, as I said earlier, is built on the notion of free speech and contested ideas. The idea that a communications minister, a minister of state, can personally order a misinformation investigation or misinformation hearings on the terms of their choosing is an extraordinary power. I think I'd be in safe territory in saying that is an unprecedented power for a minister of state to have directly given to them, and that's exactly what this bill proposes. So if somebody out in the public says something that the minister disagrees with or the government of the day disagrees with, they can put that person through the ringer through a misinformation inquiry or hearing. Honestly, the Gestapo would be proud of that. Fidel Castro's Cuba would be proud of that. There are many other countries that have an enormously poor track record in this space of human rights and basic human freedoms who would be proud of what this bill is potentially going to do.

The breadth of the definitions in this bill are extraordinary. The term 'serious harm' is being applied to elections and referendums. What would have happened if this bill were in place during the Voice referendum? Would you have heard both sides of the argument? I suspect not, because it was frequently a cry from the rooftop from those opposite and from the proponents of the Voice that those who were prosecuting the argument for the 'no' vote were spreading misinformation and disinformation. And yet the Australian people spoke with their voice, and roughly 60 per cent of the Australian people voted no—one of the highest votes in a referendum in the history of this country.

This bill is an absolute disgrace, an abject failure of governance and a threat to the democracy that this country is proud of and has been built on for the last 120-odd years. We should oppose this with every fibre of our being, because it will not make this country a better place; it will make it a worse place, not just for this current generation but for the generations to come. I oppose this bill with every fibre of my being.

I join the consistent calls of my colleagues in comprehensively condemning and rejecting this legislation that the government has put forward, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. Obviously, I indicate that I don't support the bill being read a second time. This might be the worst piece of legislation that I've ever made a contribution on in my six years as a member of this chamber, and that's saying something, because this government has had some other shockers. But never have we had one that is really about undermining the fundamentals of this very building that we're in and the democracy that we, of course, are so honoured to participate in.

To me, it is completely objectionable in what I think is the most vibrant democracy on the planet, Australia. I think we have excellent free and fair elections. We have robust contests for elected office—the federal parliament, state parliaments and local government. I'm certainly someone who likes to fight as hard as I possibly can, but I always accept the result and the verdict of the people, I believe the people always get it right, and, of course, whenever the next opportunity comes along to contest an election or to put forward a new policy proposition, we again engage in a spirited, robust public debate which is completely grounded in the foundation of us having the right to free speech in this country and there being no mechanism, particularly not one run by any government, to impinge on that.

My first point would be that I actually suspect that this legislation isn't even constitutional. If it passes the parliament, which I hope it doesn't, I fully expect it to be before the High Court pretty rapidly. I think that it is wrong for the parliament to be considering passage of legislation that has any risk of falling foul of the Constitution. I would very rarely criticise the great Menzies government, but they were indeed wrong to legislate the illegalisation of the Communist Party, and that was legislation that was struck down by the High Court. This is legislation that falls in a very similar category. If this parliament is foolish enough to pass it, I strongly hope that our High Court, as an important check and balance to the legislative branch of our government and, indeed, as guardians of our Constitution, will toss it out. It most surely falls foul of precedents they've already established in previous cases, around the implicit right to free speech that exists within our Constitution. In my view, beyond question, this legislation—every element of it, from its principle down to some of its appalling specific characteristics—is completely at odds with that great fundamental right that we have in this nation, in our democracy, to free speech.

Indeed, I find that it adds insult to injury that we're debating this bill so close to 11 November, that solemn date when we commemorate and reflect on the sacrifice of so many Australians in the First World War—but now, of course, Remembrance Day is about the sacrifice of our soldiers in all conflicts, who, of course, have often sacrificed their lives and certainly have sacrificed their youth, their innocence and what they could have done in their early years rather than join and serve our nation and fight in wars for freedoms like our freedom of speech. In a few days, at 11 am on 11 November, we will all pause to reflect on the sacrifice that they've made.

Apart from reflecting on their sacrifice, what we as members of this chamber can do is a vote down a bill that betrays that sacrifice and that effectively says we as a parliament, despite the fact that more than 100,000 Australians have lost their lives in conflicts of good versus evil and, beyond question, protecting democracy and protecting freedom against dictatorship and tyranny, are considering passing legislation that belongs in an autocracy. It belongs in a dictatorship. It belongs in eras like the Third Reich in Nazi Germany or many of the other abhorrent and appalling regimes that have existed that we have stood up against throughout the history of our nation. It is truly appalling that we are even considering this legislation.

'Misinformation' and 'disinformation' are the sorts of labels you expect to read about in fictitious novels about big government controlling the citizenry. This is not even a thinly veiled attempt, in my view, to conceal the fact that we have a government that is seeking to pass legislation to proudly restrict the freedom of citizens of this country to express themselves and to say what they want about issues of the day, things they feel strongly about, things they feel passionately about. I very much have diametrically opposed views to a range of opinions that are put out there particularly in social media. I have the right in this great, free society, with my right of free speech that every other Australian has, to contest things I think are inaccurate or wrong or matters that I disagree with.

I have great faith in the power of argument. I have great faith that, if someone is making a point that I believe is incorrect or that many of us believe is incorrect, particularly in the context of political debate, election campaigns and arguing between different propositions or proposals for our country, a strong argument will defeat a weak argument and/or inaccurate argument. I think, by and large, that actually happens. When I think about all of the great contests that we've had in the public debate through the history of this great democracy, I can't think of many examples where the best argument hasn't defeated an inaccurate argument. I have no fear—as all of us in the coalition have no fear—even if people are engaging in misinformation and disinformation through online platforms and anywhere else in our society. A good-quality constructed argument against that should have no fear of winning the day, whatever the contest might be.

I am suspicious about the timing of this bill. I am very suspicious that the government wants to sit late and get this through the parliament. I can see it probably will pass the House of Representatives, disappointingly, because the government controls this chamber. I don't say it that often, but thank God we have a Senate—because at least that is a chamber where I can hold out hope that even people that we do not tend to be on the same side of an argument with, generally speaking, on the political left might hold some of the same fears that we in the coalition do about government regulating free speech in this country. But we are sitting late to force this debate to conclude. There are rumours that this parliament might not meet again after the November sittings, and I have significant concerns that the reason this is being raced through the chamber now to get it to the Senate so the government, they hope, can pass it through the Senate is for this legislation to be in place before the next federal election. That is deeply concerning, even if the High Court strikes this sort of legislation down, and I hope if this bill were to pass that will occur. I also don't know what damage may occur to our democracy in the meantime, particularly if there is an election held under this legislation, or what that will mean and what impact that will have on the rights that we absolutely fundamentally have to speak freely in political debate.

I'm from the state of South Australia. We have electoral laws for state elections that are nowhere near as bad as this, but they're still pretty curious. They're called the truth-in-advertising laws. There are indeed proposals from the government on top of this terrible legislation to also legislate a similar regime for federal elections. As someone who has participated in the campaign hierarchy of a number of state elections in South Australia, they absolutely lead to and achieve the opposite of what they sound like they're meant to be achieving. It turns into a situation where the legislation is weaponised by political opponents. We've certainly received evidence from the Australian Electoral Commissioner himself during the electoral matters inquiry into these truth-in-advertising laws saying: 'Please don't make me some kind of arbiter over truth. I want to be an independent officer that runs elections. If you come to me and say, "Hey, that candidate has put this thing out, and it's wrong, and you need to determine that it's wrong," that compromises my independence, and it obviously turns me into a participant in a political contest when I am meant to be and want to be the independent arbiter.'

This is what's all before us if this legislation passes. This of course will be weaponised. We will have situations in political contests and a whole range of other parts of civil society—regrettably, this applies way beyond just political debate, but it's the first and best example of why we should fear it and defeat it—where we have open lawfare becoming a part of political debate and political contest in this country. It'll all be about lawyers at 20 paces. Every time someone has something to say about what they'll do if they're elected or what their opponent might do if their opponent wins, it'll all be about racing off to court and having a dispute about it. Through this legislation, it'll be about when we post things on online platforms and what and how pressure is brought to bear to try and censor people's arguments and legitimate and fair rights to engage in political contest and political argument. Again, I have confidence that the High Court won't let legislation like this ever get that far, but I also make the point that there'll be a period of time until the High Court deals with all of those matters that is at risk of having serious consequences to our democracy.

The worst part that I identify in this legislation, on top of the appallingness of the principle, is the powers it gives to the executive government and the powers it gives to the minister and agencies that report to the minister. Again, we have this situation where misinformation and disinformation are totally contestable. Anyone can concoct a claim that something is misinformation or disinformation. In this legislation, we have a situation where the minister has these powers to direct inquiries and investigations. Of course, ministers are from the political class. They are political participants. They are in the government that is campaigning against an opposition. They are compromised and have a bias with these powers to use them in ways that might bring about political advantage to them or political disadvantage to their opponents.

I could go on and on about a whole range of other significant issues with the specifics of the legislation, but, whilst they're important and they make the argument about why there are so many problems with this proposal, beyond that, the most important thing is that fundamentally this is an assault on the cherished right of free speech that all Australians have and enjoy. More than 100,000 Australians have died to secure and ensure that that right is enduring for us into perpetuity. I strongly urge this chamber to reflect on the principle that we would be embarking upon if we made a decision to legislate something that is so grotesquely abhorrent and offensive to the values that, until this legislation was brought before this parliament, I believed were held in ubiquity by every single member of this chamber. I urge that the second reading be defeated.

The principle of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth should underpin everything we do here. The fact that you sit here in the centre of this chamber, Deputy Speaker Vasta, from an elevated position, with a degree of authority, indicates that you are not here to be the arbiter of one side or the other but that you are to represent a fair and honest debate without fear or favour. That is a role that you, personally, take very seriously. I know you do, as do most of our deputy speakers.

The flags that adorn this chamber are representative of our great and free country that many men and women have given their lives for in one way or another. Some may not have directly died in defence of that democracy, but they have given their lives in the pursuit of that democratic power and that principle that we have as a country. It's something that is near and dear to my heart.

I believe in protecting our hard-fought freedoms, and the right to free speech is one of our most cherished. It's not a freedom that we've won lightly. It stands on the sacrifices of generations of men and women who have given everything to protect it. They stood up, unwavering, against those who would strip it away from us. Their courage has afforded us the right to live, to think and to speak freely. It's our duty to honour their legacy, this principle, and to fiercely protect these rights for the generations who follow. We cannot yield. We cannot allow a backwards step. The consequences would be deeply troubling for a nation that prides itself on that democracy and those principles.

For those of us who hold freedom of speech dear, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 is deeply troubling at best. It represents a line that we cannot, as a nation, afford to cross. It is a bill that, simply, is an attack on our right to speak freely and to think freely. It's an attack on our right to hear the voices of our fellow Australians and to engage in ideas even when they're uncomfortable and even when they're controversial. It's an attack on our right to make informed choices for ourselves.

The government is proposing that the Australian Communications and Media Authority, or ACMA, be granted sweeping powers to oversee or to penalise digital platforms. ACMA would be authorised to decide if digital platforms have taken 'adequate steps' to control misinformation and disinformation. If a platform's actions are deemed inadequate, they could face significant fines of up to five per cent of their global revenue. Imagine the pressure that this would place on companies, effectively forcing them to police or to censor or to change what Australians can say online simply to avoid financial ruin. This power is a slippery slope. To avoid punishment, platforms are likely to overcorrect—to silence far more of the content than is necessary in order to comply. When we restrict speech to such a degree, we deny Australians the right to voice their views freely.

One of the fundamental issues here is the broad and vague language around what constitutes misinformation. Under this bill, misinformation doesn't have to be deliberately false or malicious. It simply has to be reasonably verifiable as misleading and potentially able to cause serious harm. But serious harm, in itself, is undefined in any meaningful way.

The reason robust societies protect the open exchange of ideas is important. History has shown us that censoring opinions or dismissing them as harmful ends badly for a society. It leads to a climate of fear, to a reluctance to share ideas and, ultimately, to a society that is less capable of growth or resilience.

In this digital age Australians aren't just sharing photos or news. They're exchanging ideas to critique the decisions of those in power and to stand up for what they believe in. This bill risks silencing all of that. It's telling Australians, 'You can speak, but only if you toe the government line and you say what we like.'

The impact of this bill extends far beyond the online world. Consider the communications minister's power to initiate misinformation investigations or hearings under this bill. The minister would have the authority to direct ACMA to investigate digital platforms or order public hearings. The only restriction on this power is that it cannot be directed at a single end user. Beyond that, the minister can decide the terms of those investigations. This is a sweeping and deeply concerning power, one that could be misused to influence debate or silence critics under the guise of controlling so-called misinformation.

If that isn't enough cause for concern, the bill includes further exemptions that highlight a double standard. Academics, scientists, artists and even satirical commentary are all protected under this legislation, but ordinary Australians aren't. That is a double standard that I cannot live with. In other words, the government's saying those who are deemed to be professionals or who create content within approved spheres are allowed freedom of speech. However the rest of us are expected to stay within the bounds of the government's deemed definition of 'safe'. This distinction is one that fundamentally undermines the principle of equal free speech for all Australians, irrespective of their position in society.

It doesn't end there. Professional news content produced by mainstream media is also exempt from this legislation. So if a major newspaper publishes an article with a particular viewpoint, it is safe from being labelled as misinformation. But if ordinary Australians do the same, then it could be considered under this bill. It's not fair. This two-tiered system essentially suggests that mainstream media is more credible than the voices of Australians. That's not right. This puts professional journalists in a separate category—many of us may consider they are already—shielding them from the rules that could restrict their content on personal platforms. But it does not protect the average Australian sharing the same information. This is an approach that does not respect Australians, their intelligence or their right to engage in a variety of opinions.

This bill also extends ACMA's powers significantly, allowing it to demand documents and information from individuals associated with digital platforms. The penalties for failing to comply are harsh. The powers that cast a wide net will create a culture of fear that discourages robust and honest discussion.

My key responsibility in this place is to fiercely, honestly and succinctly represent the views of those living across my electorate. This is a responsibility that I take very seriously. Therefore it's no surprise that the response to this bill in my electorate has been swift and significant. I've received phone calls and emails. People have stopped me in the street. People are angry.

Here's what some of them have said. Laszlo Faludi from Ulverston said:

As a swing voter, the threat to democracy posed by this bill is alarming. I value my freedom to post online and fear that this legislation will severely restrict it. The threat to freedom of speech, the looming censorship, and the increased powers of the government, particularly the ACMA, are issues that cannot be ignored. The potential consequences of this bill on public discourse and the open exchange of ideas are troubling.

Lynn Dunhan from Spreyton said:

It is essential that we protect our democratic values and ensure that legitimate concerns and differing opinions are not silenced by government intervention.

I agree with you, Lynn.

Stuart Greig from Penguin told me:

I have even less faith in ACMA's ability to oversee such powers in a balanced manner than I do in the sincerity of the proponents.

I'm with you, Stuart, on that one. He went on to say:

Australia does not need a Ministry of Truth—

well said—

particularly not one staffed by Canberra ideologues. It is always disappointing when government believes the answer lies in more legislation and regulation. Repealing legislation or reducing government interference is never an option apparently.

Paul Jacques from Wynyard said:

The broad definitions of misinformation and serious harm, coupled with severe penalties for non-compliance, are likely to result in over-censorship on digital platforms.

Wayne Spradbury from Trial Harbour said:

I urge you to reconsider the impact of this bill on our democracy and the fundamental right to freedom of expression. It is essential that any measures to combat misinformation and disinformation are balanced, transparent, and respectful of individual liberties.

Tony Downey from Leith said:

The definitions of misinformation and serious harm in this bill are overly broad and vague, leading to a high risk of over-censorship.

Anne Brewer from Ulverstone simply said:

Isn't this what China does?

I think you're onto something, Anne.

That list goes on—lists of legitimate complaints and concerns. People are deeply troubled and angry. This government doesn't seem to get that. This is a bill, at its core, that is supposed to be about preventing harm. It's about control. It's about so-called standards. The good thing about standards is there are so many standards to choose from. Which one do we choose? The Albanese government wants to decide what Australians can see, what they can say and, ultimately, what they can think. This approach is fundamentally at odds with the values of free and open democracy. Australia does not need a government approved version of the truth. We need a population equipped with critical thinking skills, a society that encourages open debate and a culture that allows its people to question authority without fear.

This bill is a misguided attempt to solve a problem that can't be solved through censorship. Australians deserve to be heard. Australians deserve to hear from each other. Australians don't deserve to be silenced. We can't silence anybody; it hurts all. It takes away our chance for debate, to question and to grow. Speaker, if you haven't gleaned it already, my position's fairly clear. The coalition's position is fairly clear. The voices of my electorate are very clear. I vigorously oppose this bill and the Albanese government's attempt to tell Australians what they can and cannot say. Freedom of speech is not just a right. It is at the foundation of our country, and we must hold it dear.

For 20 years of my life, I held a rifle in defence of this country, under that flag that I talked about earlier. I was in a corps—the Royal Australian Corps of Signals. On our badge is Mercury, the Roman runner of the gods. In his hand, he has the caduceus, intertwined with two serpents. Those serpents and that caduceus indicate truth. We are required in the military, in the signal corps, to deliver the truth irrespective of the content. That person that receives that message might not like the content, but the validity of that content is important. If we go changing that, if we go censoring that and if we go changing the context of that, then people die. I'm very fearful as I stand here, should this bill look anywhere near passing, that our democracy will die with it. I condemn this bill.

I want to acknowledge the member for Braddon and that outstanding speech that he gave. I want to acknowledge the service that he has given our country, as well as all members in this House that have worn the uniform of the ADF. The member for Braddon has so succinctly put the importance of fighting this bill and has linked it back to the service that he's provided, particularly in the signals corps. The signal corps is all about communication, as he just indicated, and he spoke about the badge that he wore on his hat and the importance of truth. I think that that's a lesson that everybody in this chamber can really take some notice of today.

I share the member for Braddon's disgust in the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, and I want to take a few moments now to talk about my concerns. We as members of this place are in a privileged position. We're in a very wealthy country. We have a lot of freedoms, but, as they say, freedom ain't free. I'm trying to get my bearings here—help me out, member for Braddon—but there are 103,000 men and women just down the road who we've acknowledged paid the ultimate sacrifice for us, as 27 million Australians. Freedom is not free. They fought and paid the ultimate sacrifice so that we can stand up and speak our mind.

I may not like what the member for North Sydney says, but I'll defend her right to say it. I may not like what the member for Scullin says—I probably won't; that's a pretty safe bet—but I will defend his right to say it. What really concerns me about this bill is this undercurrent that the government knows best, because government will ultimately be the arbiter as to what is truth, or what they perceive to be truth, and what they perceive to be fiction.

Like the member for Braddon, I'm going to spend a few moments reading through some of the submissions and the hundreds and hundreds of emails and messages that I've received. I don't remember too many other bills that have come before this place that have inspired such a visceral response from my constituents. Very few of them have been supportive.

As Aldous Huxley wrote in Brave New World, 'Most human beings have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted.' For 124 years, Australia has been the envy of the world, a beacon for freedom and a bastion of democracy and prosperity, but the decisions that we make in this place either increase or inhibit those freedoms. This legislation puts those very freedoms at risk. I think this bill that we're debating, the so-called combatting misinformation and disinformation bill, is one of the most flawed pieces of legislation that I have had to debate in my eight years in this place.

Last year, the government was forced into a humiliating backdown after Australians overwhelmingly rejected the bill. More than 20,000 submissions and comments were made by Australians in opposition to this bill. I can't remember having seen that sort of response from Australians. Australians tend to say, 'She'll be right, mate.' Unfortunately, I don't think Australians really get too uptight as much as I'd like them to. But, on this bill, they have certainly seen the red flags and they've been motivated.

Instead of listening to the Australian people and binning the bill, Labor have come back with this second iteration, and it is a shocker. This bill is like putting lipstick on a pig. This new version of the bill gives the regulator, ACMA, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, powers to require digital platforms that take specific steps to reduce misinformation and disinformation. They will determine whether digital platforms are taking adequate steps to prevent and respond to misinformation and disinformation. Failure to comply could result in fines of up to five per cent of the company's global turnover. Do you reckon that's going to make the platforms sit up and take notice? You bet it will.

No-one disputes that misinformation and disinformation pose threats to social cohesion and democratic resilience. I am the deputy chair of the PJCIS and the deputy chair of the Defence Subcommittee. No-one knows that better than I do, perhaps with the exception of the member for Braddon. I know the important role that information warfare plays in national security and our offensive and defensive capabilities. We know that our competitors and organised crime gangs are using AI and online platforms to sow discord, spread disinformation, and impact on the results of elections. We've seen that just today, with reports about Russia trying to influence the outcome of the presidential elections today. We've seen leaked reports from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service of the Chinese Communist Party trying to influence the last two federal elections in Canada. This is not make-believe stuff. This is happening in the world today, as we speak. We in Australia would be very naive if we thought that it wasn't happening here. It's happening in the States, it's happening in Canada and you'd better believe it's also happening here.

With that caution, widescale public censorship cannot be the solution. As the former deputy chief health officer Professor Nick Coatsworth said:

The terms "misinformation" and "disinformation" have become overused in public discourse … to dismiss opposing viewpoints without engaging in debate.

As the Victorian Bar Association put it, 'It is better to fight information with information and to attempt to persuade, rather than to coerce people.' What we're talking about in this legislation isn't about defence. It inhibits dialogue and it is dystopian. It's the stuff of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. It's Huxley's Brave New World. We're talking about the age of Big Brother, the age of the thought police, a government-run ministry of truth determining what is real and what is not. As Huxley wrote, 'Reality cannot be ignored, except at a price.'

Which reality will bureaucrats and this Labor government decide is misinformation? If I attest that Israel has the right to defend its very existence against a network of terror regimes, will I be cancelled? If I argue that nuclear energy will secure cheaper, cleaner and more consistent energy long into the future, will I be hauled before Labor's ministry of truth? If the decisions and the politics of this government are any guide, then these kinds of genuinely held beliefs and empirical truths would be captured under the misinformation laws. Huxley, again, said, 'Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth.' The censorship of free speech, whether fact or fiction, is fundamentally wrong.

As I said, very few proposals from the federal government have raised the ire and concern of everyday Australians. I spoke earlier about some of the concerns that my constituents have raised with me. Lynda from Peachester told me:

I am worried about the impact this bill will have on my freedom to post online, my freedom of speech, and the threat of censorship.

Marilyn from Currimundi wrote:

This bill poses a serious threat to democracy, freedom of speech, and grants excessive powers to the government.

As Jacob from Landsborough said:

This bill is nothing less than an assault on the free speech of everyday Australians.

And, as Carol from Little Mountain put so well:

It is crucial that we protect the open exchange of ideas and opinions, even those that may be controversial or unpopular.

The Australian people have had their say. They want the parliament to bin this bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, if, after all of that, you're still not convinced—and I reckon you are—then let me explain why this legislation is so flawed. The legislation imposes big fines on digital platforms who don't comply with the relevant rules, codes or standards, but that is a decision made by ACMA. I am absolutely no fan of social media platforms. I have been taking them on since 2016, ever since the death of Dolly Everett. They've failed to keep kids safe online. They've failed to protect our most vulnerable. They've failed to show the transparency and accountability that Australians and Australian businesses expect and demand. But this legislation does nothing more than to incentivise overregulation and overcensorship online. In order to avoid the risk of fines, it would make sense for digital platforms to censor content which ACMA may see as misinformation or disinformation. In so doing, it is likely that the platforms will self-censor the legitimately held views of Australians so that they don't cop those big fines—five per cent of their global annual turnover. Do you reckon they're going to be a bit gun-shy? Worse still, the minister has the power to exclude any platform from these obligations, so a digital site that supports the government could be excluded as a result. Once again, this Labor government shows that it's owned lock, stock and barrel by big tech and the big end of town.

One of the most contentious elements of the legislation is the vagueness in some of the key definitions, as the member for Braddon so eloquently put in his speech. Most concerning is the broad definition of 'misinformation'. As it stands, this definition captures the opinions of Australians which are held in a good faith. That could have catastrophic outcomes for the freedom of speech and political communication in our country.

Religious freedom is the example that immediately springs to mind. As the shadow minister for communications put so well, 'Spirituality is the domain of the individual, not the state.' Yet these laws give the federal government and overzealous digital providers the power to decide which speech, including which religious speech, is reasonable. In their submission on the bill, a group of faith leaders said that providers will be 'empowered to determine whether the teaching is reasonable in itself'. The Australian Catholic Bishops conference noted in their submission that judges could then be required to adjudicate on the reasonableness of religious expression. The idea that big tech and government will be made the arbiters of truth and reasonable religious expression isn't just a matter for people of faith; it is something for all Australians to be very concerned about.

I'm no particular ally of the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties. I think this is probably the only time I've ever agreed with them on anything. But, on this occasion, even the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties said:

The government's role as an intellectual arbiter of the truth in social and political debate must be constricted, if not completely denied.

It flies in the face of the most fundamental principles of law, our human rights obligations and the separation of church and state. From philosophical, public procedural and policy perspectives, this bill misses the mark completely. It is philosophically un-Australian, and it must be rejected.

The prevalence of misinformation and disinformation both on digital platforms and in the media more broadly is a cause of great concern not only for me and my community of North Sydney but around the world. As a result, to effectively combat this issue, democratic governments worldwide are trying to tread a fine line that balances the need to objectively deconstruct untrue and harmful content whilst protecting freedom of expression. After all, online platforms can be used for purposes that both strengthen and undermine democracy and values. They can increase access to information and facilitate the free exchange of ideas, increasing diversity of voices contributing to public discussions and allow for broader public participation in a democratic conversation. But they can also be used in ways that pose a threat to democratic processes through disinformation campaigns that undermine trust in public institutions and exacerbate divisions within society. As the Australian Human Rights Commission stated in their submission to the Senate Select Committee on Foreign Interference through Social Media:

The challenge lies in ensuring that any policy responses mitigate the risks posed by the latter, without disproportionately impacting upon the former.

That is the challenge before the parliament now—to assess whether this bill strikes an equilibrium between safeguarding against disinformation while protecting freedom of speech.

This bill has drawn a lot criticism, and I'm sure I'm not alone in receiving substantial amounts of correspondence from my community with concerns about potential implications of the bill before us and getting the balance wrong. On the one hand veering too far towards combating misinformation risks shutting down free speech, delegitimising alternative opinions and justifying censorship. It risks imposing a single view of truth, as some have written, or a chilling effect on free speech that stymies innovation and alternative thinking. On the other hand, veering too far towards protecting free expression risks ignoring the spread of disinformation, leading to political interference in elections, inciting violence and, amongst other risks, spreading severe, harmful health related information.

Disinformation has already influenced democratic processes around the world, from the 2016 US presidential election to the UK's Brexit referendum. A World Health Organization's review of studies into misinformation and health found social media propagated poor-quality health related information during the pandemic, humanitarian crises and health emergencies at an increasing rate. The report notes that such spreading of unreliable evidence on health topics amplifies and promotes unproven treatments. The COVID-19 pandemic was a prime example. A review of 14 studies conducted across different countries found that serious harm had occurred because of COVID-19 related misinformation. Cases included hydroxychloroquine overdoses, drug shortages, changing treatments of patients with rheumatic and autoimmune diseases, and panic over supplies and fuel. In just one example, a popular myth that consumption of pure alcohol could eliminate the COVID virus led to 800 deaths and more than 5,000 hospitalisations.

Yet, while the reasons to legislate are becoming increasingly evident, striking the right balance is going to be tricky. It was clear that the government's first attempt in the 2023 iteration of this bill did not hit the mark. To its credit, the government has appeared to listen to some of that criticism, but the reality is that there is much in this bill that continues to need to be addressed. The growth of digital platforms over the past two decades has fundamentally changed the way we all access information, with social media platforms now the equivalent of the modern-day public square. Indeed, according to the Genroe Australian social media statistics, in 2023 almost four in five Australians had active social media accounts and more than half of them used social media as a source of news. Yet, while these digital platforms have developed rapidly, the regulatory environment has not. There is growing consensus, then, that the new digital environment, while increasing pluralism and engagement with politics, also poses significant threats to both our society as a whole and individual safety, with a number of recent reports highlighting the harmful effects of misinformation and disinformation disseminated on digital platforms on civil society and vulnerable minority groups.

From the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's digital platforms inquiry to the Senate Select Committee on Foreign Interference through Social Media and the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report on the conduct of the 2022 federal election, legislators have been discussing this challenge for some time. To be clear, personally I am not a fan of government legislation as a way to regulate industry. I would much rather see sectors self-regulate effectively, ensuring they are putting the needs of their consumers ahead of their own profits if necessary. But Australia's voluntary Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation implemented in response to the digital platforms inquiry has not been sufficient to stop the problem because a number of the major platforms, including Reddit, Snapchat, WeChat and, as of November last year, X, are not signatories. Voluntary commitments on the part of companies have not always been implemented effectively, and a lack of transparency and consistent data means that the implementation has been difficult to measure. Ultimately, the truth is that these platforms are commercially driven and are designed to keep users on them as long as possible to attract advertisers. In this way, the environment is absolutely primed for manipulative techniques.

That brings me to the bill before us, which aims to drive these commercial entities to prioritise their end users' welfare. Just as we wouldn't let a dodgy car on the road with bad brakes, we cannot allow these businesses to continue to operate with the same poor standards. The bill proposes to do that by regulating the platforms so that they take reasonable steps to ensure that their products are not being used to spread mis- and disinformation. The bill aims to do that by imposing obligations on the digital platforms to assess the risk of mis- and disinformation on their platforms and publish a risk report, to publish their policies for managing mis- and disinformation and to publish media literacy plans to detail the measures they will take to help users better identify mis- and disinformation.

It also provides the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, henceforth called ACMA, with powers to obtain information about mis- and disinformation from digital platforms, to make rules requiring digital platforms to keep records relating to mis- and disinformation and implement a process for handling complaints and resolving disputes, to register enforceable misinformation codes that set out the measures the industry will take to reduce the risk of mis- and disinformation, and to make misinformation standards for sections of the digital platform industry if the codes do not adequately protect from misinformation.

Importantly—this is really important for people to understand—these codes and standards will be disallowable by this parliament, and the digital platforms will continue to be responsible for the content they host and promote to users. In this way, these new powers are designed to promote transparency and hold digital platforms to account for the actions they take to counter the spread of mis- and disinformation on their services, but they do not enable ACMA to engage directly with the content producer nor demand that content be removed. As made evident through the impact analysis of the bill, significant effort has been put into drafting the legislation to ensure that these powers are appropriately balanced so that any limitation on freedom of expression would be proportionate to the ultimate objective of protecting the community from serious online harm.

That being said, many still have concerns about the legislation, and they deserve to be acknowledged and answered. The most common is that this bill will unduly restrict the implied right to freedom of expression and freedom of political communication. Many are concerned that, rather than protecting our community, these powers as exercised through ACMA will ultimately mean that it will be the government of the day that decides what is and is not acceptable to say, capturing valid expression under the definition of misinformation. As one person wrote, if the last few years have demonstrated anything, it's that what is often labelled 'misinformation' may actually later be proven to be correct.

Some are also worried about the potential for the silencing of legitimate concerns or over censorship, and these concerns are shared by some very prominent human rights organisations, with the Human Rights Commission highlighting a number of deficiencies in this bill. Again, I want to reiterate that I understand these concerns. It isn't surprising that the Australian community would be worried about their right to freedom of expression, given that this right is not explicitly protected in our federal Constitution or our statutory law. Additionally, across the globe we are increasingly seeing authoritarian governments using misinformation to their advantage, and at home we are witnessing the increasing suppression of the right to protest and the prosecution of whistleblowers. Again, while I acknowledge and understand these concerns, I do believe this bill includes appropriate guardrails to ensure that, to the extent that there is a restriction on freedom of communication, it is justified and proportionate.

Importantly, the fact that these new ACMA powers are directed to digital communication platform providers and not individual end users provides me with some comfort that, while certainly not perfect, this bill is at least headed in the right direction. By focusing on incentivising digital communication platforms to have robust systems and measures in place to address mis- and disinformation, I believe this legislation turns the responsibility back onto the service providers themselves. Importantly, if the legislation had enabled ACMA or any minister or politician to have direct take-down power for individual content or accounts, I would not even be considering supporting it. But, as it's currently drafted, this reform also actually protects certain implied rights, including the right to participate in public affairs, the right to vote and be elected, the right to security of person and the rights that protect against vilification and discrimination.

Ultimately, weighing up these competing interests and rights requires an ethical framework, and this is where we are at a disadvantage as a nation. Australia is the only liberal democracy in the world without either an overarching federal bill of human rights or a human rights act. If we had that in place, arguably this conversation and debate would be far easier.

On that point, I just want to draw particular attention to what I see as a completely inconsistent stance taken by the opposition on this legislation. Only a few months ago, as the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended Australia introduce a human rights act, the opposition dissented vociferously on the basis that Australians' rights are already adequately protected. Give me a break. You can't have it both ways. Either rights are adequately protected or they're not.

I've also heard concerns from my community about excessive powers granted to ACMA. As one person put it to me:

The notion of ACMA acting with such authority, effectively becoming a gatekeeper for what is allowed on our digital platforms—from public health debates to political discussions—is deeply concerning.

These concerns are valid, but I do believe they are being addressed through the increased safeguards added to this bill since that first draft back in 2023.

In particular, I want to draw people's attention to section 70 of the bill, which provides a review mechanism which includes an assessment of the impact of the bill on freedom of expression three years after commencement and 'must be conducted in a manner that provides for public consultation'. I would have liked to have seen that review being undertaken within 12 months, but, having been here for 2½ years now, I get it—things don't move as quickly here as they do in the real world.

Further to this, however, I note the bill does not stipulate that this review be conducted independently from the government. In that context, I have been working closely with the minister and her team to try and ensure this is amended in the final legislation. In addition to this, I would draw the First Nations peoples' Aboriginal corporation concerns to the minister's attention as I believe they raise important issues on how cultural knowledge systems like Indigenous health practices may be wrongly classified as misinformation. Censoring community based health perspectives could risk exacerbating a lack of trust in health institutions, reducing First Nations engagement and necessary services and limiting the freedom of First Nations communities to manage their own health and wellbeing. To ensure these concerns are appropriately addressed, Indigenous leaders must be properly consulted in their review of the bill's impact and the government should give consideration to embedding a culturally aware framework into the legislation, as per the corporation's recommendations.

In addition to this, Australia's broader plan to combat online misinformation must be improved. Digital literacy campaigns are a useful shield against inappropriate online influence, with numerous studies and reports highlighting the importance of media literacy to combat mis- and disinformation without threatening the right to freedom of expression. In the Nordic countries, for example, which consistently top the Media Literacy Index, media literacy education is a core component of the school curriculum, as are critical thinking skills and comprehensive civics education. In comparison, a recent study by the Australian News and Media Research Centre found that 68 per cent of Australians had a low or very low level of news literacy. Clearly, there's an opportunity to increase Australia's digital literacy.

Ultimately, I believe combining education with effective regulation to hold digital platforms to account would potentially drive the best outcomes for all, but just because I think that doesn't make it true. Therefore, I commend the member for Goldstein for also moving amendments that she believes would strengthen researcher access to the information within the bill so that we can actually have independent research on how misinformation spreads and how best to combat it.

In closing, the risk that mis- and disinformation poses to this country is so great that I do believe we need to start somewhere. Perfect should not be the enemy of good. So, while there is certainly room for improvement in this legislation, particularly with regard to an independent review and academic access to information, with some amendments I will be inclined to support this legislation as a first step to reduce the spread of harmful mis- and disinformation.

The centre of the education system, when I went through it in Queensland, had a number of hallmarks. Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four were on the reading list for some 60 or 70 years. They've recently been taken off the reading list. For those who are not familiar or have forgotten these works, I found them extremely scary. In both cases they had thought police, and they were monitoring what you said and what you did. If they didn't like it, watch out. They talk about an Orwellian spectre. It conjures up images of Big Brother watching you continuously. If you go into a hotel now in Queensland, there is a camera there on you. If you use any language that may be considered racist by the thought police—and what is racist is their opinion of what is racist. If you exemplify anything against LGBQTs or whatever they call them then, again, you're breaching laws, and Big Brother is watching you.

I was on the front of the Australian newspaper the election before last, because I had two of my grandsons coming up and I said, 'Oh, beauty, we'll get the Diana air rifles going and set up the targets.' My wife said, 'No, they're under 16'—the boys—'and they're not allowed to have them.' They're just old air rifles. They couldn't hurt a flea. But, oh, no, you're not allowed to do it. It's illegal. I said, 'Alright, let's rig up the flying fox'—zoom, zoom, zoom and splash into the swimming pool. But, no, we couldn't take a panel off the swimming pool fence. I said, 'They won't come out and inspect us; we're two kilometres out of town.' But they were out last week, and our fence was 2.8 centimetres lower than it should have been and he wanted to replace the whole fence. He goes, 'In order to replace the fence, it's $3,800.' I said, 'Alright, we'll start work on the second stage of the tree house.' She said, 'No, a kid fell out of a tree house two months ago in Brisbane, and tree houses are banned.' I said, in desperation and exasperation, 'We'll go down to the flat'—we have 11 or 12 acres—'and we'll teach them how to boil the billy and make damper.' The most iconic Australian image is boiling the billy! It's part of our national identity. But, no, you cannot light a fire in the open without getting a permit, and it'll take two or three months to get a permit.

Is this a free country? When that song was chosen to mark the 200th anniversary of Australian settlement, there were only 300,000 or 400,000 people—maybe only 200,000 people—living here, and then suddenly there were lots and lots of people living here. To commemorate that, they kicked it off with a song which was sung, quite rightly, by Slim Dusty, 'We've Done Us Proud'. It goes:

We've done us proud to come this far—

two hundred—

… years to where we are,

Side by side, hand in hand, we've lived and died,

For this great land, we've done us proud.

The song says, 'We sailed the seas in search of freedom.' Freedom? Freedom? Your kid's not allowed to boil the billy. Your kid's not allowed to have a tree house. Your kid's not allowed to zoom, zoom, zoom into the swimming pool. Your kid's not allowed to have an air rifle. Is this a free country?

What you believe people should and shouldn't do is your business. Don't impose those values upon me. This is a free country. Don't impose those values upon me. Well, of course, they impose those values now, every day of the week.

Tonight was the result of the election in the United States. There's a hell of a lot of wokies in this place. You better start saying your prayers—although you don't believe in God, so I don't suppose you could do that. But you better start worrying, because there was no doubt that was an election of the wokies versus the Americans.

There's an election coming up here, and you've already seen the results in Queensland. I was working on those booths. Those people weren't interested in anything other than getting rid of the Labor Party.

If you want to know what the Labor Party are about, have a look at their last week in office. They passed anticoercion laws. If I raise my voice to my kids, watch out, that's coercion. I don't care what definition of coercion you want to use. Legally or in the dictionary, coercion falls into the category of: if you scream at your kids or your wife screams at you or you scream at your wife, that's coercion. So they've passed a law to go into your house and decide what you can and can't say and how you can and can't say it. That is the extent to which these people have destroyed our freedoms.

The Department of Home Affairs—I have felt ashamed of being an Australian, but this one really made me feel ashamed, and the government has sat there and done nothing about it. They've spat upon our Australian flag and said it can't be flown. A government department? The people running this country are the people living here in Canberra. I don't want to be nasty, but it's a very small gene pool. If you've got to get the brains of a country out of 300,000 people who are inbred now over five generations of public servants breeding with each other here in Canberra and who think that they know everything about everything and that they can impose their will upon the rest of Australia, I'll tell you what, mate: you're in for a big shock.

If you'd worked on those polling booths and you were a Labor supporter in Queensland, you would have gone home, visiting a certain place before you went home, because you would have been scared silly and quite rightly so. The people now are rising up in their righteous anger. They know that you're un-Australian. They know you represent all the values that we fled Europe to get away from. Graeme Connors in his magical song said, 'I sailed the seas in search of freedom.' If you want to really look at what they were after, yes, ostensibly it was gold, but gold meant freedom to them. They lived under a regime where rich and powerful people could tell you exactly what to do. They could take advantage of you if you were a young lady working as a maid in their big mansions. They could take advantage of you. They were running the world slave trade and the world opium trade, and they controlled what you could say and what you couldn't say. Our forebears fled to Australia to get away from that, and here it is coming at us again.

The Department of Home Affairs has banned the use of the Australian flag. My family lost a son in the First World War and lost a son in the Second World War, so please excuse me for having strong feelings about the flag. Where it came from and what it's about is not the point. The point is that it is our Australian flag. If you don't believe in those values, for heaven's sake, leave this country because you're not an Australian. For all the years I've got left that Jesus provides me, I am going to very aggressively fight you. All my uncles and cousins and my father and everybody went out to try to defend Australia from being taken over and having all of our freedoms taken off us. Yet we now have a fifth column in Australia. The Americans dealt with their fifth column in fairly rough justice.

ACMA is going to control what we can and can't say. Who are ACMA? They'll be people selected by public servants here in Canberra, and they will be deciding what you can and can't say. Most of the democracies in the world were based upon the works of Alexis de Tocqueville, the Frenchman. America is of course the first really, truly democratic state, and their constitution was very much based upon the works of Alexis de Tocqueville. His most famous idea was the tyranny of the majority. The tyranny of the majority is bad enough, but this has gone a lot further than that. What we're watching here is the tyranny of the minority.

When you say there is an elitist gene pool here in Canberra—I claim to have a bit of blackfella, First Australian, in the family tree. I don't know whether I have or not, but I come from Cloncurry, I'm dark, and we always identify as a 'Murri from the Curry'. Also, I have many, many relatives of course that fit into that category. We have our own way of doing things, in the way we approach things, and they may not necessarily be the values that are exemplified here in Canberra, but they're our values. Now, a little group of elitist, well-educated people that are in Canberra are going to tell us what to do and not do. Let's just view how these people have administered the First Australians. The life expectancy of a First Australian living in their homelands is 56. For the rest of Australia, it is 82. So Australians live to 82, except if you're First Australian.

I tried for four years desperately to get the late Jason Ned, who was the mayor of Doomadgee—he had mustered more cattle than anyone else in human history—a Good Australian Award off the Prime Minister in front of 400 or 500 people at the Mount Isa Rodeo. Jason sadly died a couple of weeks before that. Of Jason, the biggest cattle owner in Australia, someone said, 'How is Jason going?' and I said, 'Good, mate. He has got over a thousand head now. It's worth about $1½ million, what he has got together.' You try sitting in a saddle all day and having to go again and again at a flat gallop to wheel a breaker into the mob and risk your life. If your horse hits a hole in the ground or a branch, you're literally dead. Yet this bloke had done it. He'd also mustered more cattle than any other person in human history. However you measure a person, this was a great man, and he was getting, quite rightly, a Good Australian Award.

The next two people who will get it are, as the architect of the year, CopperString, which will open up massive mining developments and the biggest wind farm maybe in the world at Hughenden—a wonderful leap forward; he's getting an award—and the builder of the first medical school in 44 years in Australia, aiding medical schools to walk through the door he opened. They're the people who are getting this.

Jason Ned was getting this. He was a good Australian. He was a famous man. He had sat in the saddle for years of his life and got together $1½ million for his family. And this is how his country said thanks to him. I applied for four years to get him a pastoral lease so that he'd have some sort of ownership of his own homeland, where his family had lived for 30,000 or 40,000 years. 'No, we want to look after you! We want to look after you!' I don't want to use the word 'socialist', because I don't think there are any socialists left in here, to be quite frank. What's more is that, as a very active member of the CFMEU, I'm called a socialist all the time. So I won't use that turn of phrase. But the people that run Australia say: 'We want to look after you, you poor downtrodden blackfellas. We just love you and we want to look after you!' Well, to quote Percy Neal's brother at the big riot demonstrations against the COVID lockdowns: 'We don't want you to look after us. You whitefellas, we don't want you to look after us; we just want you to go away. Get out of our lives. Go away. We don't want you to look after us.' But, no, you say you've got to look after us.

So you're looking after the land for us? We can't actually use the land for the purposes which we used it for the last 40,000 years? No, a little group of elitists down here in Canberra say, 'We're looking after the land for you.' Well, go up and have a look at how they're looking after the land for you. Go and have a look at the Forty Mile Scrub, the most iconic national park in northern Australia. There's nothing there—nothing there at all. It has been burnt to a cinder because you don't look after it; the cattlemen look after it. At all the cattle stations around it, there is no fire at all. But the national park's gone. That is what is being imposed upon our First Australians.

They want to control what we say and what we don't say. Well, we've seen how you run things. We see a graphic indication of that. I really hate to say this, but what is taking place in the Torres Strait must get to the United Nations sooner or later. Among those people, the women had fruit and vegetable gardens. Every single house had fruit and vegetable gardens. They've been banned. They got their income from fishing. It's been banned.

Debate interrupted.

ADJOURNMENT

Negative Gearing

The government have recently made a lot about their changes helping and assisting young people. One change that I fear is negative is the government's secret modelling of removal of tax concessions in relation to negative gearing, which would impact, in particular, young people's opportunity to get ahead. My electorate of Mitchell is one of the electorates with the highest proportion of people that negatively gear in the country, and I want to say that both positive gearing and negative gearing are legitimate pathways for people to create wealth for themselves and their families in Australia. We're talking about very ordinary and very simple people with very average incomes, in the main, who access negative gearing in particular. I want to note that probably about five to 10 per cent of property portfolios, or something similar, are positively geared, which means that most people with property portfolios access negative gearing and tax concessions by claiming a loss on rent on investment properties that they own.

Why a Labor government would seek to undermine a fundamental principle of Australia's wealth creation for ordinary people still remains a great mystery to me. Not only did they promise it under their leader Bill Shorten in an election which they lost, but they have now accepted that they are modelling and looking at the policy of negative gearing in Australia and have asked for advice about how to further address it.

The research has come back from voters, particularly from people across Sydney—and I'll just speak about Sydney for a moment—including in north-west Sydney, in my electorate, which has about 15,300 people who have a negative rent income. This is the single highest number in the country, and that is one of the concerns I have. But there are many other parts of Sydney which would be affected. For example, the seats of Bennelong, Greenway and Reid each have 12,000 to 13,000 people who claim a loss on their rent in an investment property that they own. If you go to any of these areas or you understand Sydney very well—I challenge the Labor members, in each of those cases, to go to their electorates and ask them about this—you will find that the average income of people who own those investment properties and are claiming that loss on their investment property and rent are very ordinary Australians who are sacrificing and putting aside money now to own an investment property for the future. They're doing so deliberately as part of their family's wealth creation

The Australian Financial Review had a very good story in relation to this, and it certainly sought some interviews with people around the country. There are plenty of examples you can go to, and I won't spent all day today talking about them. There are so many people who've come forward to say that they have deliberately decided to have an investment property put together for their family's future in which they have a loss of $500 and they obviously get a tax concession under our current system. This process—which they do over many, many years of their life, to end up owning that property for their children or their family wealth, to be able to make sure they don't have to live off the government in the future—is a very important process to them, and they are sacrificing their income and sacrificing other ways of generating wealth by using this mechanism. Are they doing anything wrong? Absolutely not. Are they taking money off other people? No, they are not. Is this unfair? No, it isn't, because anybody can access it and anyone can put money aside to do it. Other people make other valid choices about their investment and income decisions and their lives. But if you decide to take advantage of this, whether it's positively geared or negatively geared, this provides pathways for very ordinary people with very ordinary incomes to end up with an investment property—a second or first property in some cases, depending on their circumstances—which they would not ordinarily have had.

On the ladder of opportunity that Labor likes to talk about, this is one of the fundamental ways that Australians have used to create and generate their own wealth. But Labor is considering changes to these concessions again, after the verdict of the Australian people—including, I might add, in seats like Reid, Bennelong and Parramatta. The verdict about these tax concessions was clear and almost unanimous in 2019. It was that people wanted them. People wanted access to them. Ordinary Australians want to be able to generate wealth for their family's future and do it by negatively gearing as well as positively gearing.

For Labor to be back at this table, to be looking at options again, to be considering it and to be not ruling out changes, in all parts of Western Sydney and Sydney, which are very simple places that want to just get ahead for themselves and their families, it is the wrong thing to be doing. On behalf of my electorate, which is absolutely No. 1 in the country for accessing these concessions—people who earn their way in life, have high incomes and work hard—but also for every other part of Western Sydney that's taking advantage of them, I say to Labor: drop this flawed proposal to change negative gearing.

Manufacturing Industry

I rise tonight to talk about new technologies and new industries, some of which are in my electorate, and how they are part of the exciting future for this country. The Albanese government's agenda is broad and wide. It's really looking to attend to major challenges that we confront, whether it's making sure that we meet our targets for net zero by 2050, ensuring that we provide greater sovereign capability in civilian and defence areas of our economy or ensuring that we move faster to renewables. We need to do these things. To do that, we need to have innovative companies and businesses in this country. Future Made in Australia is centred on fostering a sustainable and self-reliant economy, particularly through investments in new energy infrastructure. It's about encouraging innovation and new technologies while ensuring that this shift benefits local communities and businesses and the Australian workforce.

3D printing or additive manufacturing is an example of such an industry. It's revolutionising supply chains and manufacturing, and Australia would do well to be at the forefront of these changes. Imagine a world where spare parts can be manufactured on site rather than having to be ordered and manufactured elsewhere before being delivered, which in some industries could mean weeks or months of delay, or a world where custom items can be manufactured on demand and products can be easily and cheaply adapted to whatever bespoke requirements are needed, where materials used are optimised and waste is eliminated and where construction of new houses moves from planning to completion more efficiently, more productively and more safely. This is the power of 3D printing. It's not just the musings of science fiction writers; the future is with us now. 3D printers are currently being used by construction companies, sole traders, the defence industry and even space agencies, and they've shown that they can reduce the cost, carbon footprint and construction times for a wide range of projects.

Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to visit LUYTEN 3D, which is a local business in my electorate of Gorton. It is a leading provider of advanced robotics and additive manufacturing technology. It was a very insightful visit, I have to say. I got a firsthand look at how the cutting-edge 3D printers are making a significant impact on modern manufacturing processes and are helping to tackle some of Australia's most pressing challenges, from housing to climate change. There was a mix of skills and technology on display at LUYTEN 3D, and I couldn't help but leave having been impressed with their vision for the future. This was a great example, in my view, of the Future Made in Australia agenda in action. I'm also happy to say that the Minister for Industry and Science subsequently visited this company, accompanied by the Labor candidate for the next election, Alice Jordan-Baird. I'm very happy that they turned up.

As a result of that company putting in a bid for a project, they received about $3 million. The Albanese government has backed this company, LUYTEN 3D, in order to ensure that it can commercialise its technology with a cooperative research centre project grant, and I'm very pleased to see that happen. By fostering a 3D printing ecosystem, the government can help support job creation in high-tech industries while driving down costs, for example, of renewable energy projects.

Additionally, 3D printing can expedite the development of critical infrastructure, enhancing Australia's capability to meet its energy transition goals. It embodies a forward-thinking approach to sustainable manufacturing, positioning Australia as a leader in advanced technologies. By investing in the right mix of skills and high-precision 3D printing technology, we are upskilling our workforce and generating innovative solutions to problems that matter to Australians. I commend LUYTEN 3D, and I'll watch with interest as this and other new technologies are embraced in the years to come.

Member for New England

To be quite frank, I was given this adjournment slot and was wondering what I'd speak about. Then something came to me. On 29 October 2004 I was elected. That was 20 years ago. It was a funny election. No-one gave what was then the Queensland Nationals a chance. We had lost the Senate seat to One Nation. There were the Australian Democrats who were still at work. No paper gave us a hope. To be quite frank, during the election the Liberal Party campaigned against me.

The first thing I would like to say on this is thank you once more to the people of Queensland who originally elected me and a huge thank you to all those people in any political party who help you on your way, who stand behind you and who never get paid. They are amazing people and I still ring them up and talk to them in western Queensland to find out what's going on. A lot of them, to be quite frank, have now passed away. I'd also like to say sorry to all the people that I hurt along the way; that inevitably happens in a political career. You should always remember those who helped you and those who you hurt.

I also want to briefly reflect on some of the issues that were important then and are still important now. The first is the importance of the family. No-one's perfect but the family is a great structure. If you haven't got the family structure right then trying to create a nation on top of that is incredibly difficult. You have to respect the structure of the family and do what you can to support them.

Even in 2004 there was the issue of the rise of totalitarianism. There was the concern of where Communist China would end up, and that concern has actually grown. What was seen at the time as scaremongering and ridiculous is now seen in its fruition in so many areas. If the trend is to be observed, we've got to be incredibly careful about where this nation is. You can lose it. If you are not diligent, you can lose this nation. That's more important than any other issue, because that's the one that will lose you your house, your mother, your father, your wife, your husband, your daughter, your superannuation—the whole lot. That's one of the paramount issues. I believe it's held on both sides of the House, but we've really got to focus on exactly how we sustain ourselves because the comparative power now between totalitarianism and democracy is vastly more scary and more evident than it was before the Second World War. Nazi Germany did not have the comparative power that the United States of America, England, France and—after Operation Barbarossa—the Soviet Union had. Most definitely, the comparative power of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea is vastly in excess of what fascism was before the Second World War. So we have got to be focused on that.

There's the power of small business to provide freedom for the individual. Big business gives you a job, but small business gives you a career. It gives you that sense of freedom to be master of your own ship, and that is getting lost.

There are the rights of the individual. The individual doesn't have rights unless they have private ownership over property rights. These have been diminished more and more, taken away from people. There's the protection of the individual by law and order. Law and order is a huge thing in some areas. People feel threatened and scared. They feel more threatened and scared than they used to and you can see that, whether it's from Garbutt in Townsville down to northern New South Wales or right down to the western suburbs of Sydney. People should not feel scared.

There's the ability to express views. It's for others to debate your views and not to diminish or denigrate you because of your views. There should be an open discussion and debate of the issues. One of my big issues that brought me into politics, and I have to stand behind it, is that nobody has the right to kill you the day after you were born and nobody had the right to kill you the day before. The right of the individual is to be sanctified and to be held in the highest process. No-one has the right to take my life without my permission. You may have a duty of care but not a right over my life.

Albanese Government

As we near the end of 2024, we can look back on what has been another extraordinary year throughout the world. The fallout from COVID continues to impact countries, while the combination of extreme weather events and human conflict has caused widespread suffering and hardship. Throughout the world, I detect a growing sense of insecurity. Whilst the meaning of Donald Horne's famous description of Australia being 'the lucky country' is sometimes misunderstood, there is little doubt that we do live in a lucky country and we are lucky to live here.

That is not to deny or ignore the Australians who struggle every day with living costs and other hardships. That is why, since being elected, the Albanese Labor government has made cost-of-living help a priority. We have done that by putting more money into Australian households and reducing costs for essential everyday services. In the limited time that I have tonight, I will touch on some of the government's achievements. Labor has boosted the wages of workers in child care, aged care and low-paid industries. We have provided $300 of energy relief for eligible Australian households and $325 for small businesses. Every Australian taxpayer received a tax cut. We extended Paid Parental Leave to 26 weeks and added superannuation to it. Also, 500,000 Australians have benefited from fee-free TAFE places and around three million Australians have had university debts reduced by around $1,200. HECS debts will reduce even more after the next election if Labor is re-elected. A Commonwealth prac payment will also be established so Australians studying to be a teacher, nurse, midwife or social worker can get paid to go on prac placements.

Importantly, the Albanese Labor government has reduced health costs by making medicine cheaper and bulk-billing more GP visits. Today, some 75 Medicare urgent care clinics, including one in the Makin electorate, have been opened, and another 12 are in the pipeline, ensuring people have access to urgent medical care when they need it at a bulk-billing medical centre. An additional 15,000 GPs have entered the workforce since Labor's election in 2022 and health services are being restored.

To support our veterans we are establishing 10 veterans and families hubs across Australia, employing more staff and providing record funding for the Department of Veterans' Affairs and eliminating the veterans claims backlog and simplifying the claims process.

For the nation's farmers, food producers and wine industry, trade relations with China have been rebuilt after those sectors were decimated by the last coalition government. And Labor is taking steps to stop the price rip-offs by the big supermarkets. Labor has increased rent assistance by 40 per cent, expanded the eligibility for parenting payment for single parents and made child care more affordable. We are delivering NBN upgrades on time and on budget. After nearly a decade of neglect, protecting the environment is also back on the agenda.

I will just highlight some more of the achievements from Labor. We have delivered a 25 per cent increase in renewables in our national energy grid in two years, established a new vehicle efficiency standard and introduced legislation to set up Australia's first national independent environment protection agency. We have kept the Great Barrier Reef off the World Heritage endangered list by protecting it with a $1.2 billion investment and boosted recycling capacity. Very importantly for my state of South Australia, we've rescued the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

We have also established the National Anti-Corruption Commission to restore integrity and trust in our national institutions. Labor is also rebuilding the Australian economy. Inflation has fallen from over six per cent in 2022 to 2.8 per cent, one million jobs have been created, wage growth has returned, we have delivered back-to-back budget surpluses and national debt has been reduced by $150 billion. This has all been achieved in two years.

Australia is part of a global economy, and we are directly affected by world events. We know there is much more to do. But we are rebuilding our economy, acting on climate change, protecting the environment, growing wages and reducing the debt, and confidence is being restored. We have the natural resources, and we have the people to meet the challenges of the future. I believe the worst is behind us, and we have every reason to look to the future with confidence.

Sutherland Shire Police Area Command Medals and Awards Ceremony

On Friday 20 September, my community gathered to commemorate National Police Remembrance Day at Woronora Memorial Park and Woronora cemetery, in the Sutherland Shire, where 24 police officers are buried or cremated. These men and women gave their lives to protect our community. It was an honour for me to join their fellow police officers, their families and their friends to commemorate what they gave, which was the ultimate sacrifice of their lives in protecting our community. Twenty-four of these officers are buried and cremated there. Eleven of those officers were killed in the local area command of St George, in the Sutherland Shire, and 13 from the rest of the state.

I'm incredibly proud of our police, who are working night and day to keep our community safe, putting their lives at risk, and I was incredibly proud last week to go to the Sutherland Shire Police Area Command medals and awards ceremony as well. It was a pleasure to join Superintendent Don Faulds, the commander of the Sutherland Shire Police Area Command, to recognise the valued members of the New South Wales Police Force in the Sutherland Shire.

The following officers and one community member received the commander's certificates of commendation: Chief Inspector Gary Ford, Sergeant Simon Moore, Leading Senior Constable Casey Beldon, Constable Jonah Sigal and Constable Miriam Suka. The officers performed cardiopulmonary resuscitation for 30 minutes on a security guard who was in an altercation and tragically passed away.

Constable Trent Paterson and Constable Corey Sainsbury chased an offender who was wanted for assault in Sutherland. The offender stopped while being pursued, produced a knife and aggressively approached the officers. Constable Paterson successfully deployed his taser. Their quick thinking and willingness to protect those around them prevented further escalation and risk to the community. Thank you, Trent and Corey.

Constable Jacqueline White and Constable Shannon Brennan also responded to a priority broadcast from Marine Rescue NSW in a collision on the Port Hacking river at Grays Point. They performed CPR on a female victim of the collision, while a helicopter hovered directly above them, causing strong gusts of winds and flying debris. Tragically, this woman was unable to be revived, but Constables White and Brennan assisted the family members of the deceased. Thank you for what you do.

Shawn Peach, a community member, was also recognised. He was driving when he saw a female standing on the footbridge railing over traffic. Mr Peach did not hesitate in stopping his vehicle under the footbridge to minimise the risk of a potential suicide attempt and immediately engaged the woman on top of the bridge. He gathered details and assisted police to help save the life of this potential suicide victim. Shawn is not a member of the police force; he's just a member of the community who stepped in and did the right thing. Like many thousands of members in the community of Cook, he exemplifies the volunteering and community spirit.

I would also like to recognise the following award recipients and thank them for their contributions to my community. The following officers received the New South Wales Police Medal, recognising 10 years of eligible service and commitment: Sergeant Michael Quick, Detective Senior Constable Jake Chalmers, Senior Constable Elisha Francis and Senior Constable Jacob Heagney. The following officers also received the first clasp to the New South Wales Police Medal for 15 years in service and for serving with integrity: Sergeant Trisha Laughlin, Leading Senior Constable Casey Beldon, Leading Senior Constable Mark Johnstone and Detective Senior Constable Howard Cunliffe.

The following officers received the second clasp to the New South Wales Police Medal for 20 years: Sergeant Trevor Hill, Sergeant Nathan Kirkwood, Sergeant Paul Watson, Sergeant Grayson Withers and Senior Constable Karlee Ball. The following officers received the third clasp to the New South Wales Police Medal for 25 years: Detective Sergeant Jane Scrivens, Sergeant Matthew Hecimovic and Sergeant Richard Hill.

The following officer received the fourth clasp to the New South Wales Police Medal for an incredible 30 years service: Chief Inspector Michael Stuart. The following officer received the fifth clasp to the New South Wales Police medal for 35 years: Chief Inspector Michael Stuart. The following officers received a warrant of appointment for promotion to sergeant and senior sergeant: Sergeant Trisha Laughlin, Sergeant Nathan Kirkwood, Sergeant Michael Quick and Sergeant Paul Watson. The following officers received the Commander's Certificates of Merit: Constable Natalie Overall and Senior Constable Anthony McLachlan.

Aston Electorate: Infrastructure

It was wonderful to welcome the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories, the Hon. Kristy McBain, to my electorate of Aston early last week. Whilst in my electorate, I was able to show the minister some of the local road and infrastructure projects underway and discuss our forward priorities. As a federal member living in the beautiful outer eastern suburbs of Melbourne, I know how crucial roads and their conditions are. Over the past 19 months since being elected, I have received many emails, social media messages and phone calls from constituents regarding the poor condition of some of the state government and local roads, and I should know. I have seen them myself while driving around the electorate.

That is why I am absolutely wrapped that the Albanese Labor government has delivered a massive funding boost to local governments in the form of the Roads to Recovery Program. Working in partnership with Knox City Council, projects funded by the Albanese government are improving the safety of our local road networks, supporting local jobs and unlocking new social and economic opportunities. The Roads to Recovery Program, which directly funds local councils to ensure that roads are properly maintained, has seen a huge increase in funding compared to previous years. Around $6.5 million in Roads to Recovery funding will flow to Knox City Council over the next five years—a boost of $2.8 million on the previous federal coalition government funding. This will pave the way for a pipeline of future road safety upgrades, with $300,000 for improvements at Templeton Street in Wantirna and $650,000 for a 300-metre section of Station Street at Ferntree Gully. All of this is from the Albanese Labor government supporting improvements to road surfaces and kerbs.

This builds on work already delivered, such as upgrades to Rickards Avenue in Knoxfield, with just on $650,000 from the federal Labor government, making this busy route to Carrington Primary School a lot safer. Through phase 4 of the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, Knox City Council is receiving over $730,000 for high-impact local projects. This figure includes over $432,000 for cricket net upgrades at the Marie Wallace oval in Bayswater, something the community has long called for, which will improve player safety and boost participation. The surface of Knox BMX track, which regularly hosts state championships, is also being upgraded this year, thanks to $300,000 from the Albanese government, improving the use of this facility in all weather conditions. Safety upgrades to Henderson Road in Knoxfield also continue to progress thanks to over $14.2 million from the Albanese government, with the project on track for completion in mid-2026, where slip lanes will be added at the Ferntree Gully Road and Henderson Road traffic lights. This is set to reduce traffic congestion and travel times on this key suburban road. Melbourne's east is fast growing, which is why I'm proud to have secured millions of dollars for our local community, ensuring we continue to build for our future. Without our funding commitments, these important road and infrastructure projects wouldn't have got off the ground.

In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, the debate is interrupted.

BILLS

Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024; Second Reading

Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024

The Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 demands careful consideration. While the government's desire to tackle the harmful effects of misinformation and disinformation in our media is both important and worthy, its somewhat piecemeal approach to the issue raises concerns both about the potential limits of its effectiveness and about its potential to limit freedom of expression in this country. Misinformation and disinformation can have devastating effects on human rights, on social cohesion and on democratic processes. Australians are increasingly concerned about them.

The rise of internet technologies has amplified diverse voices within our society. These technologies have enabled new economic opportunities for many. They have democratised access to information and education. They have given all of us, globally, new ways to connect together. However, internet technologies have also enabled the rapid spread of abhorrent and illegal materials. Hate speech, misinformation, disinformation and child exploitation content have contributed to an erosion of trust in our media and democracy. The vulnerable, children, women, Indigenous women and men, people of colour and LGBTQIA+ individuals are particularly targeted by harmful content, harassment and hate speech.

The digital providers have failed to voluntarily address the aspects of those platforms which enabled the spread of harmful content—features such as recommender systems, dark patterns, invasive data harvesting, ineffective and vague content moderation policies, addictive design features and opaque mechanisms for reporting misconduct or abuse online. There have in fact been no commercial incentives for the platforms to regulate misinformation and disinformation; in fact, it's the opposite. Inflammatory content drives engagement, which in turn drives profits. The digital platforms are most able to reduce their harmful content. They're the ones who can do that most easily. They have to be made responsible for mitigating the harms that they actively enable.

Effective citizenship requires access to reliable information. Democracy cannot flourish without a diversity of media sources and a regulatory regime that protects consumers against the spread of misinformation, which ensures trust in what we hear, read and see. The erosion of trust in our media is a serious concern, and we do need to address it, but we also need to be conscious of the need to ensure that any measures taken to address misinformation and disinformation do not, paradoxically, exacerbate the toxic erosion of trust and the feelings of disenfranchisement expressed by so many in the population.

I'm particularly concerned about this bill's definitions of 'misinformation' and 'disinformation'. It's very important to differentiate between the unintentional and deliberate spread of false information, but the current wording of this legislation lacks clarity. Drawing a clear line between truth and falsehood is not always simple. There may be legitimate differences in opinion as to how content should be characterised. We have to ensure that these definitions are robust enough to capture harmful content and significant forms of bad action by bad actors but not so broad as to capture legitimate political expression, robust and open expressions and discussions of differences of opinion and scientific debate. There are legitimate fears that the bill could be used by politicians or government officials to suppress dissent and control public narratives.

My constituents are concerned that the government may not be a reliable judge of truth, that it might exempt itself from the same scrutiny that applies to others. Misleading content is published in print and online every second of every day in every region of the world. The terms misinformation and disinformation are vastly overused in public discourse. Too often they are employed by both the far left and the far right to discount opposing viewpoints without engaging in reasoned debate. We all know that, we recognise it and we try to address it, but many people struggle with giving our government the ability to decide what is and what is not true. Many Australians lack faith in the ability of digital platforms to adjudicate on such matters with sensitivity and rigour.

I've also heard from my constituents concerns that this bill grants excessive powers to the Australian Communications and Media Authority and to eSafety Commissioner, allowing them to regulate and censor online content. There are valid concerns that these authorities, were they to act in an overzealous fashion, could silence legitimate criticism or opposition. In response to such criticism and other feedback from the Human Rights Commissioner and other legal experts, the government has refined its definition of 'serious harm' such that it must now constitute significant and far-reaching consequences. Health related content is only in the scope of this legislation where it relates to public health or preventive health measures. While the ACMA retains broad powers under this bill, it cannot ask that accounts be blocked or posts removed if they are simply posting misinformation unintentionally, unless it comes from bots.

The bill does not deal with the dissemination of content which may be incorrect or false, only that which is regarded as seriously harmful and reasonably verifiable as false, misleading or deceptive. In that, the law remains piecemeal. It doesn't cover professional news, it doesn't cover government communications, art, satire or religious content. Hate directed at specific groups has to meet the legal bar of vilification to fall under the remit of this legislation.

We need to consider the complexities involved in platforms' content moderation systems as part of these oversight strategies. Recent experience has shown that automated oversight processes, such as those seen in the robodebt scheme, are prone to error when tasked with interpreting complex human behaviour, intention and meaning. The outcomes can be both unintended and devastating. As we saw with robodebt, automation can allow organisations to cut costs, at the expense of accountability and transparency, prioritising efficiency over justice and oversight.

Applying this to the media context, automation in content moderation raises a severe risk of algorithmic overreach. Imagine AI algorithms trained to detect what is deemed harmful or misleading content across Australia's diverse media landscape. In practice, this could well result in uneven, opaque and arbitrary systems of content regulation. The inherent subjectivity in defining misinformation and disinformation makes it especially unsuited to the blunt instrument of algorithmic enforcement. Equally, the proposed dependence on automated systems could well foster a sense of faithless moderation. When individuals are subject to opaque and unaccountable decision-making processes, they are left feeling powerless to challenge or understand the rationale behind any content removal. Moreover, as we've seen with the gradual expansion of surveillance technologies, there's a real risk that these automated content moderation systems, which are initially presented as narrowly targeted solutions, could incrementally expand their reach over time, potentially ultimately encroaching upon a wider spectrum of online expression.

I'm glad that the legislation has been amended now to require that platforms grant access to approved independent researchers, such as academic institutions, not-for-profit entities and other non-commercial researchers. Those researchers should be given immunities to protect them from the sorts of attacks that have recently occurred with X Corp's litigation against the Center For Countering Digital Hate and Meta's actions against CrowdTangle and Reset Tech Australia.

To my mind, the greatest weakness of this piece of legislation is its carve out for the dissemination of professional news content, which it defines as that produced by or for newspapers, magazines, television, radio and websites. We expect with this legislation that Meta and Instagram will police their content, but we as a country remain happy to accept the frequent and deliberate misleading of Australians by professional media sources, who, in my mind, are worse because they operate on a much larger scale in a mainstream format, and they rarely receive anything other than the mildest admonishment from the media regulator.

Watch Sky, read the West Australian, listen to the dross on 2GB or KIIS FM, then go to Instagram, TikTok or Facebook. On which platforms are women more often subjected to overt misogyny? In which formats are Muslims and Indigenous Australians more often subjected to racism and to bigotry? Who is more likely to attack trans people and kids in the Australian youth justice system? Russian bots or Sky presenters? Who has published the text messages of alleged rape victims? Who has outed women who've made confidential sexual harassment claims? Who has falsely named an innocent individual in Sydney as a mass murderer? Which media outlets in this country most often exhibit clear, intentional political bias reflecting the editorial influence of their owners? The answer, sadly, is the mainstream media not only in the press but also on digital platforms. This is not to say that the purely digital platforms are not also guilty of these sorts of behaviours. It's just that, in this shameful race to the bottom, regulation of all forms of media in this country is deeply problematic. We also have the recent example of the referendum debate, which, both online and in the mainstream media, became contaminated by falsehoods and by lies, disguised as truth and repeated and amplified by the mainstream media just as much as they were by the digital platforms.

In 2020 more than half a million Australians signed a petition calling for the establishment of a royal commission into the Australian media landscape. A subsequent Senate inquiry concluded that the Australian regulatory environment for all forms of news media is weak, fragmented and inconsistent in its governance arrangements and in standards across platforms. That inquiry found that focusing on the internet platforms alone would not resolve the grave problems in Australia's media sector. It recommended consideration of a platform neutral, single news regulator. In 2021 the Google owned platform YouTube suspended mainstream broadcaster Sky News for broadcasting medical misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic. In that instance, a private company was able to act swiftly and effectively to protect the public from misinformation, but ACMA, the purported media regulator, was not.

When she introduced this legislation, the minister referenced the false accusations made against an innocent individual after the Bondi Junction stabbings. Those accusations were made and amplified by Seven Network every bit as much as they were by the digital platforms. For years we have seen that ACMA is ineffectual and toothless. A statement of ministerial expectations regarding its actions might well give strength to those who are unsure whether or not to support this bill.

If we pass this law but do not act on the manifest deficiencies of mainstream media in this country, we are kidding ourselves that we're making any difference to public trust in this country's media landscape. We still need a judicial inquiry into media regulation in this country—an inquiry which should consider a single, independent media regulator to harmonise news media standards and oversee an effective process for remedying which would likely result in a much more effective process for remedying, which would consider complaints from all parts of our media landscape, than would result from the legislation that we're debating now—which would do away with duplication and inadequacy.

In opposition this government was supportive of the concept of meaningful media reform. Now that it's in power, it's happy to act on digital platforms to limit their forays into misinformation and disinformation, while also threatening to impose financial levies on those platforms to prop up mainstream media. This is at a time when it is also actively protecting the advertising streams of mainstream media through its refusal to ban gambling advertising, which it knows is harming Australians and which it knows is allowing the mainstream media to behave in ways at odds with the standards that we are proposing in this legislation.

In its current form, with these limitations, this legislation will not do enough. It won't protect democracy in this country, as we so desperately need. It will be just another half-effective half-measure; an inch when we need a mile; a gesture when we need a stand.

I rise to speak on the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. In the 2½ years since I've been elected, I've had a lot—hundreds and hundreds; probably thousands—of emails from constituents, but I have been completely overwhelmed by the number of emails and meetings and correspondence that I've had in relation to misinformation and disinformation.

This bill is a revised version of the exposure draft misinformation bill, which was published and then withdrawn in what we say was a humiliating backdown last year by the Minister for Communications, and it followed overwhelming opposition from a wide range of groups, including human rights groups, civil liberties groups, leading lawyers and proponents of free speech. More than 20,000 Australians made submissions and comments opposing that original bill. While this bill has the stated aim of reducing the spread of seriously harmful misinformation and disinformation on digital communications platforms, there are so many flaws in this bill. It has not been well thought out. We've heard from a broad cross-section of sitting members in this place about their issues with this, and I think that the communications minister—with all due respect—needs to go back to the drawing board.

It's unclear, for example, whether the bill will operate in a manner compatible with Australia's international human rights obligations related to freedom of expression. The definitions of 'misinformation' and 'disinformation' create some uncertainty as to the breadth of content that is captured. The bill introduces supposed transparency requirements for certain digital communication platforms related to misinformation and disinformation, including obligations to publish information on risk management actions, media literacy plans and complaints processes. However, the bill provides the Australian Communications and Media Authority, or ACMA, with new powers to create digital platform rules that require digital communication platforms to report and keep records on certain matters related to misinformation and disinformation, providing ACMA with a graduated set of powers in relation to the development and registration of industry misinformation codes and misinformation standards. What we have here is a lot of power being put into a bureaucracy.

The bill has been referred to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry, with a reporting date of 25 November 2024. Both the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights have raised concerns with this bill. While the stated purpose is to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to facilitate the introduction of rules, requirements, codes and standards for digital communication platform providers, aiming to reduce the spread of seriously harmful misinformation and disinformation, as always with legislation, the devil is very much in the detail. The bill is supposed to respond to recommendations made in a 2021 review of the voluntary industry Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation. As I've said before, it's supposed to be a refined version of an earlier exposure draft bill that was released by the Labor government last year.

There is significant concern in my electorate, as I've highlighted, as well as throughout our country and internationally, about misinformation. The University of Canberra published the Digital news report earlier this year and found that 75 per cent of Australians are concerned about online misinformation. That was up from 65 per cent in 2016 and well above the global average of 54 per cent. The Human Rights Council of the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution on the role of states in countering the negative impact of disinformation on the enjoyment and realisation of human rights.

We live in a world now that is very different to that of previous generations, where people received their news through hardcopy newspapers and magazines. These days, most of the under-30s that I know, for example, have never looked at a broadsheet newspaper, unless they have been down to their grandparents' house. Similarly, they don't even follow those news platforms on their phone. They are far more inclined to pick up all of their news through various social noticeboards or through Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and various other platforms. That means that we are living in a very different world. As policymakers we have to look at what is and is not acceptable to be on these platforms, having regard to the overwhelming desire that we have for freedom of speech. This is an issue that the former coalition government dealt with. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's digital platforms inquiry in 2019, for example, highlighted the significant risks posed by increasing prevalence of misinformation and disinformation shared on digital platforms.

Speaking of recent contemporary events, I think we particularly saw a level of fear through the pandemic. There were certainly levels of significant misinformation and disinformation put out during that period. Like me, Deputy Speaker Freelander, you no doubt receive emails from constituents and from people who aren't constituents about a range of concerns that they have. They can be referred to as conspiracy theories. They can relate to everything from 5G to chemtrails and things like that. This is a serious issue, and it certainly needs to be addressed.

On our side we say that there are probably three or four key issues that we have with the government's proposed legislation. First of all, it acts as incentive for digital platforms to regulate free speech. We say this because digital platforms risk big fines if they do not comply with digital platform rules or industry codes and misinformation standards. ACMA will determine whether or not a digital platform is compliant with the legislation. That, I think, causes concern when it is just one bureaucracy that is looking at whether or not something is misinformation or disinformation. In doing so, it is likely that the platforms themselves will self-censor the legitimately held views of Australians.

There is also a very broad definition of 'misinformation'. The bill captures opinions that are held in good faith. There is no requirement that the maker of the statement is acting maliciously or setting out to deceive people. If something is considered to be 'reasonably verifiable' as misleading and 'reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harm', it can be captured as misinformation. So I think there is an issue when there does not need to be any intent proven in regard to the misinformation.

There is also concern around the broad definition of 'serious harm'. A large amount of material could be captured as serious harm because some of the topics on which misinformation can be encapsulated as serious harm include elections, referendums, public health and preventive health measures and imminent harm to the economy or financial markets. So material on a broad range of topics could be encapsulated and then, in fact, shut down by social media platforms.

Another concern is the level of power that this gives the minister. The communications minister has existing powers which could now be used under this bill to order ACMA to conduct specific investigations under the misinformation bill. The minister could also order public hearings. The only constraint on that power is it:

… cannot relate to particular content posted on a digital communications platform by a single end-user identifiable by the ACMA.

So the power seems to be very wide and potentially very open to political abuse. We say that this is completely inconsistent with basic democratic values. The minister under this bill also has power to exempt digital platforms. A digital site that has politics perhaps less favoured by whichever government is in power at the time could be excluded simply on the basis that the government of the day does not like its particular politics.

I turn to some of the comments that have come through to me from my constituents. As I said, I was quite overwhelmed by the volume of correspondence on this one issue. It's probably the most correspondence I've had on any one piece of government legislation in 2½ years. I will iterate some of them. Robert from Illawong said:

The threat of severe penalties for digital platform providers who do not comply is alarming and is likely to result in over-censorship.

Damian from Engadine said:

The … Bill compromises the integrity of social media by granting the eSafety Commissioner increased authority, which has been used to further censor content in response to X Corp's principled stance.

David from Engadine said:

Another concern is the definitions of the terms "Serious Harm", "Misinformation", "Disinformation" and "Truth". Who decides what these terms apply to, and indeed, whether they can even be adequately defined in practice?

These definitions are highly subjective, and who decides what is or is not truth in these times?

Lance from Alfords Point said:

This, in my mind and most of my friends, is the most dangerous and Orwellian Bill put forward in Australia. This is a direct assault on our freedom of speech and by default on our freedom.

Tracey from Wattle Grove said:

This Bill would further constrain free speech, going against the principles of the Internation Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.

Paul from Illawong said:

The Bill could suppress conservative, religious or minority viewpoints on various issues.

Andrew from Bonnet Bay said:

This bill appears to have the sole purpose of suppressing criticism of government.

Ross from Bangor said:

Civil penalties against digital platforms may stifle public discourse and disproportionately affect certain viewpoints.

Tanya from Woronora said:

The government needs to stop attacking our liberties and freedoms and trying to "protect" us by introducing legislation that threatens the very heart of our democracy that our ancestors fought so hard for us to enjoy.

Sarah from Jannali said:

I am concerned about the Government and mainstream media being exempt—

from this bill.'

Jackie from Sutherland said:

This bill represents complete government overreach. More than that, it is a path to authoritarianism.

Marjon from Como said:

Freedom of speech is the bedrock of a free and fair society. It is a fundamental value of Australia. Despite denials to the contrary, the proposed bill will erode this fundamental human right.

Steve from Bangor said:

The draft exposure says it is about keeping Australians safe from "harm". But the government will cause harm by silencing Australians! The Commonwealth is responsible for protecting the rights of the individual, not suppressing them.

Cameron from Holsworthy said:

This legislation if passed will also jeopardize any future on-line discussions on any subject the government of the day does not want the general population to discuss contrary to the government of the day's beliefs.

Annetta from Bundeena said:

Even social media companies such as Meta and Twitter have voiced their concerns over the proposed law because it's easy to see how the power given to the Australian Communications and Media Authority could be abused.

Thomas from Heathcote said:

To quote John Stuart Mill: "All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility."

It is not just the coalition and it's not just members of the crossbench that have issues with this legislation. These are just a couple of examples from my electorate. In all of the circumstances, I join with other members of the coalition in saying that I cannot support the legislation as it's currently drafted.

The Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 addresses misinformation and disinformation that causes serious harm to public health, groups of people or elections. It says that digital platforms have to disclose what they're doing about mis- and disinformation and provide information to prove it, and, if they're not doing enough, it gives ACMA the power to require them to do more. A range of limits have been put in place to reduce the potential for infringing freedom of expression. Thanks to some amendments to which the government's agreed, I think this is a step in the right direction in meeting my community's desire to see digital platforms held to account for the harm that they can enable.

Seriously harmful online misinformation and disinformation pose a safety and wellbeing threat to Australians, as well as undermining trust in democracy. A number of people in my Curtin community have expressed real concern about online safety and harm generally. This was reinforced to me by a strong response to my survey on a review of the Online Safety Act. My community welcomed better regulation on current and emerging harms and technologies, and supported greater responsibility being placed on digital platforms through a statutory duty of care. This is consistent with research by the independent Reset Tech Australia that commissioned a YouGov poll in April 2024 and found that 93 per cent of people agreed that social media companies should have a duty of care to take reasonable care of their users. While it doesn't create a duty of care, I understand that this bill is one of a range of reforms the government intends to propose in the broad online safety and big tech space.

Voluntary self-regulation has not worked. The fact is, we need to hold to account the companies that allow misinformation and disinformation to be distributed. We need strong processes to ensure our communities are protected. The concept of better regulating digital platforms from seriously harmful misinformation and disinformation is not novel, and has broad in-principle support. The government is attempting to do it here, and the coalition's 2022 election platform included a commitment to increase the information-gathering and enforcement powers of the media regulator to combat harmful online misinformation and disinformation. I agree it needs to be done too, with transparency and accountability being at the forefront. This is consistent with my fair and transparent elections private member's bill, where one of my priorities was seeking to ban lies in political advertising.

The need to regulate harmful, false communications is particularly pertinent today, of all days, as we watch the US election in a febrile atmosphere of a divided populous and online echo chambers. But how we regulate misinformation is a complex challenge. How do we make sure the communications we receive are truthful, while also making sure people can continue to communicate easily? How do we strike the right balance between combating misinformation and disinformation on the one hand, whilst sufficiently protecting freedom of expression on the other?

The broad aim of this bill is to incentivise digital communications platform providers to have robust systems and measures in place to combat misinformation and disinformation. The bill does three things. Firstly, it imposes core transparency obligations on digital platforms, which will be required to publish a report on a risk assessment of their platform, a current media literacy plan and their policies for tackling misinformation and disinformation. Secondly, it provides ACMA with information-gathering and record-keeping powers to hold digital platforms to account. ACMA can require platforms to maintain and keep records, it can obtain information on an as-needed basis when investigating and it can publish information that's not commercially sensitive. Thirdly, it enables ACMA to approve codes and make standards if voluntary platform efforts provide inadequate protection to prevent and respond to misinformation and disinformation on their services. These codes are industry led and can be approved and registered by ACMA, whilst standards can be set by ACMA as a last resort. A code or standard could include obligations on platforms to have robust systems and processes such as reporting tools, links to authoritative information, support for fact-checkers, and demonetisation of disinformation. Approved codes and standards will be legislative instruments subject to parliamentary scrutiny and disallowable.

I have some concerns about ACMA's ability to fulfil these new roles. This is beyond ACMA's current role. But I understand that additional funding has been allocated and the evolving role can be addressed in an updated statement of expectations from the minister, which is a public document. The bill doesn't apply to all misinformation and disinformation; it only applies if the information causes serious harm. 'Serious harm' can mean harm to public health, vilification of a group and harm to the operation or integrity of an election. Given the bills are proposed to improve the integrity of our electoral system, particularly relating to truth in political advertising, I'm pleased to see this on the list.

In Australian federal elections, the AEC is operating in an information environment increasingly impacted by misinformation and disinformation, which has the serious potential to impact elections, as well as eroding voters' trust in the legitimacy of results. As parliamentarians, we must be doing everything possible in order to restore voters' trust in a time of record disinterest and distrust in our democracy. The Australian public has a high level of trust in the AEC, and the AEC sees the value in considering legislation to increase the transparency and accountability of major digital platforms and their responses to misinformation and disinformation. So that's a good start.

But the Law Council of Australia and other civil society groups are concerned that this bill will amount to a restriction on the freedom of expression, and I agree that any restriction on freedom of expression should not be made lightly. We're back to the balancing act I mentioned before.

I acknowledge that, in drafting, the government has attempted to limit restrictions on freedom of expression. Firstly, ACMA's powers are directed to digital communications platform providers and not to individual end users. These digital communications platform providers will be incentivised to have appropriate systems and measures in place to combat misinformation and disinformation. The bill does not empower ACMA to require digital platforms to take down or remove online content, except for disinformation involving inauthentic behaviour such as bots or troll farms. It does not give ACMA any direct take-down power or the ability to fine or regulate individual end users. Also, various content is excluded from the bill—things like parody or satire content or content for academic, scientific or religious purposes. Professional news content is also excluded, on the justification that it's subject to existing industry oversight.

Changes have also been made since the 2023 exposure draft bill, including narrowing the definition of misinformation and disinformation and the scope of serious harms—both done to reinforce protections to safeguard freedom of expression. These changes have been designed to better align definitions with our international human rights obligations.

I'm encouraged that the government has agreed to make some amendments after listening to concerns raised by the crossbench and other stakeholders. Firstly, the government will now put up an amendment to ensure the three-yearly review is undertaken by an independent person. This was an amendment proposed by the member for North Sydney, and I'm glad the government is accepting it. Given how quickly this area is changing, it will be important that we have a credible and clear-eyed review of whether it's working.

The second amendment that the government is now proposing relates to access to data for researchers so policy can be informed by emerging insights in this rapidly changing space. There's no better disinfectant than sunlight, and giving researchers access to data for appropriate research purposes, along with legal protection, means digital platforms will no longer be a black box. I recognise that the Data Access Framework proposed is based on the EU model, which is still a work in progress, so I'm glad to see that data access for independent researchers will be reviewed in 12 months.

I would like to see more public reporting. As the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties says in its submission to the legislation committee:

Regulatory transparency ensures that the government can hold platforms accountable, but public transparency allows for a multi-stakeholder approach, where civil society, journalists, advocacy groups, and individuals can play an active role in monitoring misinformation efforts. Without public access to critical data and reports the regulatory process risks becoming opaque, which could diminish public trust in both the government and digital platforms.

But I'm yet to work through the detail of the amendments being proposed to determine how much public reporting is now included directly or indirectly by providing access to researchers.

I note that there have been concerns raised about exempting traditional media outlets from the bill on the basis that there are other regulatory frameworks in place. I accept this, but issues with misinformation and disinformation should be addressed appropriately under those existing frameworks. Given that this is a relatively new area of regulation and a rapidly changing space, I'm glad this legislation will be reviewed every three years to ensure it keeps up with the structural evolution in how people obtain information.

It's worth noting that, while the crossbench has been engaging constructively with experts and the government to improve the legislation, those in opposition are yet again playing a pointscoring game and refusing to even consider how we might work to address this issue, which they have recognised is a problem. Despite previously announcing their intention to introduce legislation to combat harmful misinformation and disinformation online, members of the opposition are refusing to even engage in a constructive way in this debate, and then they have the gall to criticise the crossbench for voting with the government when the government introduces the very amendments that they've negotiated. The pointscoring remains more important to the opposition than the substance.

With these limitations on power and the agreed amendments, I think that there's an acceptable balance between the right to freedom of expression against other rights—although I would be open to supporting additional amendments that put further safeguards in place for freedom of expression, and I look forward to seeing how the bill operates at its first review. In the interests of combating online misinformation and disinformation that causes serious harm, and consistent with the stated desire from my community in our online safety survey, I intend to support the bill in its amended form. I commend this bill to the House.

At a time when Australians expect their government to be doing everything in its power to address the cost-of living-crisis that they face, Labor is instead trying to control the public debate. This is one of the most egregious pieces of legislation I've seen in my 2½ years in this place, and the coalition will not be supporting this bill, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. There has undoubtedly been a rise in online harm, whether it's bullying, deepfakes or the abhorrent spreading of footage after violent attacks. As lawmakers, we have a duty to keep Australians safe from online harm, but this must always be balanced with the value of free speech that has underpinned our democracy. Democracy is moved forward when we can debate issues and have opinions heard. No great nation has ever been built by a government that considers itself the arbiter of all truth.

But the challenges we face today in modern society aren't new. They are challenges that have been faced by civilisations for centuries. Let's use one example of a citizen many, many years ago: Galileo. The trial of Galileo comes to mind. Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial. What was his crime? His egregious crime was holding the belief that the earth revolves around the sun. This was deemed incorrect by the church at the time. This was the second time that Galileo was interrogated for his strongly-held personal beliefs, despite the fact that it had been known for centuries that the earth was not the centre of the universe. Under this misinformation bill, if Galileo was posting his views online, his views would be deemed misinformation, despite the fact that it was his reasonably-held belief. Even if he didn't intend any harms by his belief, they could still be labelled misinformation and shut down from the public debate. This highlights the delicate balance between combating harmful misinformation and ensuring the freedom to explore and discuss new ideas.

If you try looking to other countries for similar legislation, you won't find it. Countries that are comparable to Australia, including New Zealand, the US and the UK, do not have laws that remotely resemble what the Albanese government is proposing. This is the government's second attempt at ramming through this bill, following overwhelming opposition to its first bill from human rights groups, civil liberties organisations, lawyers and over 20,000 Australians, with submissions overwhelmingly saying that this bill was an attack on free speech and would censor the legitimately-held opinions of Australians.

Those opposite went back to the drawing board. They went through a 10-month consultation period and they've come back into this House with a bill that still attacks free speech and will radically alter the landscape of political communication in this country. To make things worse, the government has limited consultation on this second bill. They knew how bad it was after the Human Rights Commission, lawyers, barristers and Australians had their say on the first round. This time they limited the consultation period to just seven days. Let's think about that.

This is a bill where they're asking the Australian people to trust them. There asking the Australian people to trust the government, build trust in our society, and they give the community seven days to respond, because they didn't like the response in the first, 10-month consultation period. That tells you everything you need to know about this government. They don't really want to listen to the Australian people. It's all about beach houses and flights. This is by far one of the biggest changes to Australian democracy. It's one of the most complex and wide-reaching bills we have seen, with an explanatory memorandum of over 100 pages, and Australians were given seven days to make submissions. Submissions have now closed, which is shameful. It shows that the government knows this is a bad bill, and it shows the contempt the government has for the Australian people.

The lack of consultation on this bill was slammed by the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties, which said:

… we strongly assert that the decision to allow only seven working days for public submissions on such a critical and complex piece of legislation is incompatible with the principles of transparent governance.

It reminds me of when the Prime Minister talked about a kinder, gentler parliament and then went on to insult every Australian with Tourette syndrome by directly attacking the shadow Treasurer—another example of the hypocrisy of the Prime Minister, who said one thing before the election and has done completely different things since the election.

With this bill giving the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, the power to determine what is and is not an acceptable statement online, ACMA will determine whether digital platforms are taking adequate steps to prevent and respond to misinformation and disinformation. If they are not, the digital platforms will face fines of up to five per cent of their annual turnover. The digital platforms will want to avoid these fines, so they will censor a large amount of free speech of everyday Australians who want to have their say online. When it comes to digital platforms, the government isn't just talking about what you post on Facebook or Instagram. It extends beyond that to include websites, podcasts, news sites, message boards and search engines—in reality, most of the internet in Australia. ACMA is going to be telling all of these digital platforms how to comply with these new laws. Let's have a look at how they are going to do that.

The explanatory memorandum makes clear:

Digital communications platform providers could be required to use automated processes and technology to detect and act appropriately on misinformation and disinformation … For example, they could be required to use technology or algorithms to 'down rank' or reduce the spread of misinformation …

Algorithms are one of the biggest challenges we face with social media. When I talk to people who aren't very tech savvy about how algorithms work, the best example I can come up with is Netflix. I don't get much time to watch Netflix, but, without looking at who's signed in, you can tell pretty quickly whether it's my station or my kids' or my wife's, depending on what pops up. That's the reality of an algorithm. The Australian people will not even know that they are not being shown the content they want to see. It will be hidden from them before it even becomes possible for them to read that information, get a wide variety of views and make an educated decision.

Clearly, to avoid hefty fines, these platforms are going to begin censoring all kinds of material. It's going to happen on a large scale, with algorithms trained to censor posts and content that fall into the government's loose definition of 'misinformation'. This definition includes statements that are held in good faith. People have opinions and beliefs, but, under this bill, even if you believe something with all your heart, that belief can be labelled 'misinformation'. It doesn't have to be a malicious post. Even if it was not intended to deceive, it can be misinformation under this bill and the platforms will censor the post.

Digital platforms are required to sift through and determine content that may be misleading, and the government has told them, through this bill, that the test that they should apply is whether the post has been fact-checked by a third-party organisation, and what the experts say. We have all experienced fact-check sites that we don't agree with, fact checks that have quite a bit of bias in them, but we apparently have to accept it—although this creates an awkward situation for the government, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. We hear the Treasurer talk about—I'll quote him because I don't agree with it—the $1 trillion of debt that they were left with. Now, the problem the Treasurer, the Prime Minister and those opposite have when they use that statement is that ABC fact check found that that was not true. The budget papers showed that it was between $517 billion and $535 billion when you look at net debt, and about 35 per cent of that was actually accumulated under the Rudd and Gillard governments.

So we have again the hypocrisy of the Treasurer standing up in question time and blatantly creating misinformation—by the definition in this bill—for the Australian people. I have no doubt that the Treasurer would have seen that fact check from the ABC, but he continues to spread that misinformation—by his own government's definition—to the Australian people today.

Practise what you preach.

Practise what you preach, Member for Wannon. It's probably because he's got a PhD in political spin that he's so good at it.

To make things worse, academics, scientists and artists are exempt from the bill, but not everyday Australians. So anything an academic or scientist says cannot be censored, but the legitimately held view or opinion of an Australian on that same topic can be censored, which really brings into question who determines who is an academic and who is a scientist. What are the requirements to determine whether you meet those criteria?

An honourable member: Dr Chalmers!

Dr Chalmers—well, yes. And this is a very confusing part and a very concerning part of this bill. The Minister for Communications could personally order misinformation investigations and hearings on terms of her choosing. The minister can also exempt certain platforms, so a digital site that has politics favoured by a government could be excluded from complying with these laws.

But let's use another real-life example of misinformation and disinformation, and how this could play out based on, again, the government's own words. When the now Minister for Home Affairs was the minister for industrial relations, there was quite a lot of legislation that they rammed through this House. There was a lot that was disagreed with by those in the industry, and the minister stood at that dispatch box in question time and labelled that information misinformation and disinformation. The minister stood there and said the arguments used against his own legislation were misinformation and disinformation. Under this legislation, if the minister for industrial relations made that accusation, the Minister for Communications within his own government could personally order a misinformation investigation and hearing because Master Builders Australia and other industry bodies, the Minerals Council of Australia, the BCA and others dared to question the all-powerful minister for industrial relations.

That's the reality of what we're dealing with. That situation could play out because the minister was prepared to use the terms 'misinformation' and 'disinformation' at that dispatch box multiple times in question time when those pieces of legislation were being discussed. Those terms were used at the same time they were looking to ram through the legislation the first time. That is an egregious breach of democracy. Every government should be held to account. Industry bodies have the right to argue their case, but under this government, under this bill, that would be in question—and that's one case study that is a live example.

From public health to politics, the economy and ideology, this bill will impact what Australians are allowed to talk about online. It will limit public discourse and debate and it will diminish democracy. Look out, Australia. First, Labor sent your cost of living through the roof and broke their promises, and now they're trying to limit what you can say about it online. The coalition stands firmly opposed to Labor's misinformation bill because we believe in free speech and always defend that right. In the words of Voltaire, 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'

The scourge of misinformation and disinformation on the internet presents one of the most pervasive and complex challenges of our time. The issue threatens public safety, social cohesion and even our democracy, by enabling mass manipulation and undermining public trust in outcomes. The scale of the problem is staggering and it is scary, because we know a democracy is only as strong as the information available. The fact is you have a situation where misinformation and disinformation is currently in an unchecked environment. It's simply not right.

The World Economic Forum has classified misinformation and disinformation as one of the top global risks for the next two years. That really is an incredibly sobering warning. We only need to look at what's happening daily on social media platforms and, unfortunately, all too often in our legacy media, where misinformation and disinformation is platformed on traditional media—and I will get to that and the issue that this Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 does not address in a moment.

Unfortunately, you only have to see the outcome today of the US election, where the amount of false facts—misinformation—that has been part of that debate is staggering and incredibly scary for what that means and how it influences outcomes. With a federal election looming in Australia by March or May next year, I am incredibly concerned that Australia is woefully unprepared to counter AI-generated and pushed content that is misinformation and disinformation.

There's ample evidence that misinformation and disinformation is a critical issue facing Australians. In 2022, a Roy Morgan survey showed that over two-thirds of Australian adults have encountered deceptive news misinformation. In a speech to the National Press Club this year, the Australian Federal Police Commissioner—I hope all members of this place can at least take into account the warning from the Australian Federal Police Commissioner—stated that social media companies are 'pouring accelerant' on the flames of misinformation and extremism. If that isn't a sobering warning, I don't know what would get you to pay attention.

You only have to look at some of the practical examples. During the Bondi stabbing attacks and another stabbing incident in Sydney, the spread of graphic and false information and posts, and the speed at which that inflamed the community, was really concerning and demonstrated the impact of misinformation on safety and community cohesion. That's why it's so urgent that we do address this issue.

The government's bill builds on the draft released last year, and there has been a fair amount of consultation. I've been critical of the timing and the ability to provide submissions. I was able to provide a submission to the exposure draft early, and I'll address some of the concerns that I had.

In that submission, I expressed concern about the extensive powers that were being granted to the Australian Communications and Media Authority and concern that there is not sufficient oversight over that body. I'm disappointed that this still has not really been addressed. ACMA's capacity to handle these new responsibilities is still unproven, yet it is a crucial role in how we are going to fight misinformation and disinformation.

There's no independent external review mechanism to ensure accountability of ACMA. I've expressed my concerns that ACMA ultimately reports to the minister and therefore the government. I know that is the area that the opposition has taken to criticise this bill in relation to concerns over how this can be manipulated for political gain. I don't disagree. If there is a change of government, I'm assuming that the advantage of these loopholes and this fault in this legislation would be taken by all sides of government, and that is a huge concern. We need that independent external review of ACMA, and we need to have it at arm's length from the minister and the government. That is an area I'll continue to discuss with the minister. We know that there has been some movement since the exposure draft. Under it, the powers afforded to the minister were capable of being misused, should the political and social environment enable this to happen, and could be used in a way to threaten freedom of speech and democracy.

The bill does provide an impact assessment on freedom of expression, yet this is only set to occur three years after commencement. The review provisions are that there's going to be an assessment after three years of the impact on freedom of speech and the operation of ACMA. My concern is that three years is a long time and that more regular review should be required. I feel the review should be taking place annually, certainly in the early years of operation of this bill, to ensure that it is meeting the purpose intended and that it is doing so in the most effective way. We need to ensure transparency and responsiveness to any unintended consequences. That's why an overly burdensome and earlier review process can be that overprotective, extra layer of certainty. I note from briefings with the minister that there are provisions that ACMA will publish a yearly account of its engagement and action and use of the powers. Whilst that provides some accountability, I still would urge the government to consider a more frequent review than the three years provided at the moment.

The definitions of 'misinformation' and 'disinformation' in the original draft were broad and untested, and that posed a huge risk of misuse. The bill now contains more refined definitions. There's been much discussion between the crossbench and a number of members with the minister. Those changes have been welcome. The Australian Human Rights Commission has called it largely positive but is concerned about significant issues remaining that could impact freedom of expression. I will come back to that in a moment.

I also welcome the adjustments the minister and the department have made in relation to excluded content provisions, now renamed as excluded dissemination, which clarify that these powers don't apply to professional news content. This is a step in the right direction, but further discussion is needed to fully understand and manage the implications of these changes. I should note that, whilst it's essential to have exceptions for news content and we do so under defamation law, the Privacy Act and so many other areas of legislation, those exceptions for news content come with a responsibility to act with ethical diligence in accordance with the codes, and ACMA, which is there as the body to oversee how media and news actually operate, must be an effective cop on the beat.

It must be an effective check against, for example, news and media platforms, including legacy platforms, using those exceptions to be the very conveyors of misinformation and disinformation. We know that's a risk because we saw it in the practical example—unfortunately, the real-life situation—of the Bondi stabbing, where a legacy media company named the wrong person. Nothing in this act would prevent that from happening. Of course, defamation proceedings kicked in and that was resolved, but there is great concern. The hope is that this legislation will stop the misnaming of the person from getting traction and growth and will stop it spreading in online content. That, hopefully, would stop legacy media from jumping onto the misinformation and conveying it further, but it does raise the question: does nothing in this bill address misinformation and disinformation as published and pushed by legacy media companies? That is a step that still needs much work.

Another key amendment that's been introduced concerns access rights for independent researchers to review platform data. This is essential and I do welcome the government moving on this issue. I know many on the crossbench and many other groups have pushed for these amendments. It's incredibly important that online platforms be compelled to produce their data so it can be analysed and used for research and we can actually assess the risks of what is happening online. From eating disorders to online bullying and mental health, there are so many areas where legitimate, independent researchers need to have access rights for platform data. We know the platforms hold that data very closely. They do not share it willingly. Again, this will be managed by ACMA, with an initial review after a year to see how it's going. This is a lot of responsibility to be putting on ACMA, which again raises concern that we need a review of the operations of ACMA to make sure that they are robust, diligent and fit for purpose. This change in relation to independent researchers helps to address the opacity of social media platforms and to promote better research into the very impact of misinformation.

One of the fundamental considerations of this bill is the balance between free speech and public safety. The Human Rights Commission has raised concern that this bill could infringe on free speech rights. But, at the same time, we have to acknowledge that freedom of speech—and I should say that the High Court has acknowledged this—is not the right to spread misinformation and disinformation. There are two very different things in that. The human right to free speech does not override human rights in relation to racial vilification, discrimination and all the other aspects of human rights.

I find it interesting that so many in the opposition are here rallying to the call for human rights, yet no-one is prepared to stand up for a human rights act. Other than the crossbench putting it forward, there has been objection to codifying human rights here and having a specific law to address that. It is always really difficult to find a balance between different rights—the right to be safe, the right to not be racially vilified, the right to not be vilified for sexual orientation. Free speech is not an unlimited right, and that is the balance that has to be struck. I'd say, in the context of the campaign around this legislation, that there have been a lot of conspiracy theories, and we certainly have received a lot of information both ways, but, overwhelmingly, we have to take into account the widespread damage caused by misinformation and disinformation. Ultimately, whilst I have some concerns, for me it highlights the need to implement this legislation.

The bill may not address every aspect of this complex issue. Nevertheless, its immediate implementation could provide a solid foundation to begin tackling these challenges, with improvements to be made through ongoing review. Essentially, I see this as the start of putting up some guardrails against misinformation and disinformation, but I think that much work is going to need to be done and we are going to need to be incredibly diligent to make sure that those guardrails are working effectively.

We can't talk about misinformation and disinformation without talking about something that I have been trying for four years to get all members in this place to sign up to, and that is a standard in political advertising similar to that in consumer advertising. It is absolutely unacceptable that we have yet to legislate against misleading and deceptive political advertising. I have put forward the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Stop the Lies) Bill 2022. I have put forward voter protections. Despite the government saying it will act on this, we have not yet seen it, and we are running out of time again, with another election coming. What I say to people is: 'The only way you are protected is you have to inoculate yourself against misinformation and misleading and deceptive content. If it doesn't sound right, if it seems a little bit like an odd claim, it probably is. Check your sources. Make sure you know where to go for fact-checked information.'

The role and authority of ACMA will require careful monitoring in this situation. Historically, ACMA has been partly funded by the media sector it oversees and it has not demonstrated robust accountability. We know that. We've seen that in too many examples.

I've had many a discussion with the minister, who has indicated that a clear statement of ministerial expectation will be made that will set the bar high for ACMA to act. The minister said there will be care taken to make sure that the expanded role meets public expectations of integrity and transparency. So while I have concerns, I commend the bill to the House as an important guardrail against misinformation and disinformation.

It is a late hour and there certainly aren't a lot of government members here to listen to our contributions on the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. It's disappointing that we haven't got more government members willing to defend their own bill. It's certainly an important bill. It's an issue that I've probably had more correspondence on than any other that has been before this parliament. It's something that the government should have given a lot more thought to before they introduced this for a second time. It's something that certainly a lot of voters across this country are very concerned about. Certainly, a lot of my constituents and certainly the feedback I've heard from members across the aisle is that this has certainly been a hot issue and one that is worthy of a good, lengthy debate from both sides.

The conventional wisdom once held that the world was flat, that smoking was healthy and that slavery was part of the natural order. People with opposing views were denounced as heretics, radicals and charlatans. Heretical views are often silenced by authority, only to later become accepted facts. History shows us you should never trust government to be the sole arbiter of truth, but I have complete faith in the Australian people to sort fact from fiction. I think that's the significant ideological difference that I would have with the previous speaker, the member for Warringah. I have faith that the Australian people are best placed to sort fact from fiction.

We live in an era of infinite information. It's all available at our fingertips: the good, the bad, the inaccurate, the absurd, the AI generated funny images, the ones that we can't quite tell are real or not. Our freedom to access and analyse this knowledge improves accountability, drives innovation and advances the betterment of society. But I bristle at the thought of a big government information directorate or big tech predigesting this information and spoonfeeding it to the public. There's no algorithm, no regulation and no team of cyber bureaucrats that can sort fact from fiction as effectively as the inquiring and sceptical mind of the average Australian. But this Labor government has a different view on the role of the state and big corporates in controlling information.

This bill seeks to create special powers to tackle online misinformation. The bill will place new censorship burdens on digital platforms and empower the government to obtain information in relation to any breaches. Fines for non-compliance could be as high as five per cent of a digital platform's global turnover. But the problems begin when you look at what would constitute misinformation under this bill. For example, the definition includes any views that might harm public confidence in Australia's banking system or financial markets. My mind goes those who were blowing the whistle about issues to do with those very sectors of our economy in the lead-up to the banking royal commission. It also includes anything that might vilify someone based on their gender identity, and I think about the public outcry over certain participants in the Olympics earlier this year. These are debates that we should be having in this country and I don't think we should be shying away from them.

It also applies to anything that calls into question the efficiency or the efficacy of public health measures. Deputy Speaker Buchholz, you would appreciate that there were certainly a lot of questions to be asked during the recent pandemic, particularly when I think to the Queensland government, which tried to impose a mask mandate for people driving alone within their vehicle. The public should be critical of that. There should be open debate on that and calling into question matters like that should be part of a healthy society. Certainly, I don't think there should be any role for government in terms of trying to curtail criticism; they should be open to the debate.

It doesn't require a lot of imagination to see how easily this broad and subjective definition could be politicised and used to silence dissent. If you recall Orwell's 1984, this feels like a modern twist on 'newspeak'—the language crafted with a limited vocabulary to crush critical thought. I trust Australians to assess the value of information rather than leaving it to faceless bureaucrats or Silicon Valley algorithms. This bill feels like a dangerous step towards Big Brother style control with significant risks of ideological overreach, and, of course, the coalition will not be supporting it.

I take the point made strongly by the member for Casey earlier about the seven days of consultation on this latest version of the bill—seven days for one of the most important pieces of legislation, with huge ramifications, not just for those working within this building but across Australia's society more broadly. The government, obviously, didn't like the massive response that they had to the first round of consultation on this and wanted to limit the days. But I think seven days is wholly inadequate when you consider the size of this bill, the size of the explanatory memorandum and the scale of public interest.

This misinformation bill is one of the most dangerous bills that has come before our parliament in recent memory. Claiming to protect Australians online, it goes way too far and is a shocking attack on free speech. Government should never be the sole arbiter of truth yet, under this legislation, that is what the government is hoping to achieve. There is a list of topics under which misinformation can be considered serious harm under the bill. It includes public health and preventative health measures, imminent harm to the economy or financial markets, referendums and elections. I note some of the commentary that the previous speaker made around misinformation when it comes to elections and I think about the recent Queensland election that we have just been through. I think of an example by the Labor member for Redlands with a huge billboard which outlined that the incoming David Crisafulli government would sell a new satellite hospital that has been built within my electorate—a total fabrication, totally made up, no sense of truth in it at all but still something that is put forward. We were able to use that and counteract that message. This bill, I don't think, provides anything that would have been able to deal with that but it goes to show that, for the moral high ground that some try to take on the other side of the chamber, there is certainly a lot of misinformation that I saw in the course of that campaign.

I have a number of serious concerns with the bill, particularly the unequal treatment of content. One of the previous speakers outlined that academics, scientists, artists, and anything done with parody or satire in mind, are exempt from the bill, or exempt from the definitions of 'misinformation'. But the same exemption doesn't apply for everyday Australians. The same exemption rules apply to anything that is distributed for an artistic or scientific purpose, or things that are said for the purpose of parody or satire, but I wonder about those everyday Australians—many Australians—who are using social media to get involved politically, offer their opinion—honestly held opinion—and what this bill will mean for those individuals getting active within our democracy in that context. Also, the unequal treatment of content in relation to professional news content: if something appears in professional news content—by the definition, effectively mainstream media—it cannot be seen as misinformation. But if that same view or a contrary view was put outside of professional news content, it could be, under this bill, seen as misinformation. This applies to journalists. While their content would not be misinformation if it were within their professional news content, it could be if it were expressed on their personal Facebook page or on Twitter, for instance. I think that's a concerning lack of consistency within the bill.

I'm also concerned that the minister may exempt certain digital platforms. We can certainly foresee a situation where some digital platform may be more favourable to one side of politics or the other, and the fact that the minister, under this bill, may exclude any platform from the operation of the bill opens it up to abuse. This would open up an opportunity for a minister to say, 'One platform, which is favourable to my side of politics, can be excluded, while other ones will be put right through the wringer of this bill.'

It is certainly concerning that the minister, under this bill, would have the ability to personally order misinformation investigations and misinformation hearings. Some good examples were given by previous speakers, so I won't dwell on that. But, when I consider the powers that that would invest in the minister to be able to target dissenting views in relation to any number of policies, I think the ability to personally order that is open to massive abuse and is certainly something we don't want to see in Australia.

The bill would also impose huge fines on digital platforms if the government decides that they have not done enough to prevent or respond to misinformation. This is really my primary concern with this bill. The digital platforms are going to err on the side of pulling off anything that they think might even come close to infringing on these provisions. As is totally understandable from their perspective, they are going to err strongly on the side of limiting the free speech of Australians, and that worries me significantly. We're talking about a scale where individuals can't be making individual calls about whether this or that is misinformation and what's accurate and what isn't; they're going to be relying on algorithms to make those decisions for them, and, to stay on the safe side, they're going to have to err as much as possible on the side of caution.

The communications minister is reportedly warning that there would be devastating consequences should this legislation not be passed by the end of the year. I find this totally alarmist and desperate language. The government has had more than two years to do this already, and I think that—

An opposition member interjecting—

Absolutely. We believe in freedom of speech on this side, and we certainly want to defend rights and we want to put this through the proper process. It certainly shouldn't be rushed through this place or the other.

Let me turn to some of the comments that have been made by stakeholders. There were many thousands of submissions made to the Senate inquiry, and only a fraction of those have been uploaded for public view. We know, of course, that this second take on the bill has only been open for consultation for a week, but we have had some interesting stakeholder feedback on many aspects of this bill. The Victorian Bar association has made a scathing submission, which warned the bill would undermine free speech by encouraging, 'chilling self-censorship' and stifling discussions of 'sensitive or controversial views'. The Australian Human Rights Commission has warned that the proposed law 'does not strike the appropriate balance' with respect to free speech, and it said:

… it also needs to be recognised that information may be opportunistically labelled as 'misinformation' or 'disinformation' to delegitimise alternative opinions, and limit open discussion about issues of public importance.

I think that's incredibly sound advice from the Australian Human Rights Commission on this front. A submission from combined faith leaders said:

Christian Schools Australia are another group that have outlined in their submission their opposition to this bill. They've said:

… social media companies are incentivised to broadly interpret the definition of 'misinformation' and narrowly interpret content that is reasonably disseminated for a religious purpose.

Christian Schools Australia also note:

… social media companies will be able to exercise discretion about how to interpret their obligations and whether content by faith-based schools is reasonable dissemination for a religious purpose.

Disputes under the misinformation bill are ultimately subject to court rulings. This creates the disturbing scenario where a court may determine whether or not a religious belief is reasonable. As outlined by the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, the bishops have said in relation to this bill:

It also leaves open to a judicial authority to decide what is and is not "reasonable" when it comes to expressing a religious belief, and whether the expression of a religious belief is always for a "religious purpose."

They have gone on to extensively rip apart this bill. There have been a number of other stakeholders who've made similar comments in relation to the religious aspects of this bill and the concerns about what digital providers may or may not interpret as misinformation.

Ultimately, I think this comes down to a significant ideological difference between us and the government. We have faith in the Australian people to sort fact from fiction. We believe the Australian people should be the arbiters of what is truth when it comes to any public discourse in this country. We have faith that they've got the capacity to do that. We do not support this bill. This is a massive overreach. We ask the government to reconsider this. Go back to the drawing board.

According to a survey on trends in Australian political opinion in 2022, 43 per cent of respondents indicated a high interest in politics in Australia. This level of interest has been consistent for the last 60 years. I mention this as it's a good baseline measure when comparing the number of emails and phone calls my office receives on a particular bill. Non-contentious bills attract low interest commensurate with the non-contentious nature of the bill. Similarly, contentious bills attract a high level of interest. The bill we have before us, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, created a high level of interest beyond what we would normally expect, even for contentious bills.

The response from my community is clear: they do not like what they've read about the bill, and they are concerned about the implications on their freedom to express views and for democracy itself. This, of course, reflects the broader community's view on the bill. The exposure draft received around 20,000 comments and 2,418 public submissions during the consultation period in 2023. This is well above the normal engagement on exposure drafts. Disappointingly, this bill, while amended to address some of the concerns identified in the exposure draft, was limited to a mere seven-day consultation period. For a bill that seeks to impose significant and unprecedented impositions on our freedom of speech, one would have thought a more extensive consultation period would have been prudent.

The genesis of this bill stems from the rapidly changing nature of how Australians create, obtain, engage and distribute news and information. Social media has opened immediate access to sources of information globally, 24 hours a day. However, the digital revolution that has enabled the dissemination of material on platforms accessible on watches, phones and personal computers has created opportunity for the spread of misinformation and disinformation, often facilitated by complex algorithms that target and corral users. Australians are rightly concerned about the spread of misinformation, and they are deeply worried about the potential misuse of social media platforms in elections. But is it possible to legislate a solution? I think that's what we need to be arguing today.

This bill seeks to add a new schedule 9 to the Broadcasting Services Act, the BSA. There are three broad elements. Firstly, it imposes core obligations on digital communications platform providers. Secondly, it empowers the Australian Communications and Media Authority, the ACMA. Thirdly, it defines serious harm as a consequence of misinformation and disinformation, albeit in very broad and subjective terms.

A fundamental tenet of democracy is the right to freedom of expression, acknowledging that we have existing and appropriate laws that put some constraints on this freedom to prevent individuals from invoking violence or discrimination. However, this bill puts an obligation on social media providers who are presented with a complaint to consider the falsity of the information and any serious harm that may arise. This social media provider must then make a decision to either risk civil penalties if its decision is not to remove the post and it is subsequently determined by ACMA to be misinformation and disinformation or take the easy path and simply remove the offending post. Inevitably, social media providers will choose the easy path and remove the post. The consequence is an immediate reduction in the freedom of expression.

There are inherent problems with any attempt to adjudicate what is true information. In the context of ideas, who is right and who is wrong? Many of our great advancements in scientific understanding were considered false before their acceptance. Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species was considered heretical at the time, only to become the foundation of evolutionary biology theory. Do we want an environment where ideas that don't conform to an established orthodoxy are removed from discussion? An editorial by Michael Sexton in the Australian put this most succinctly. He said:

No doubt some of the statements made on social media stretch credulity but, as American jurist William O. Douglas said in the early 1950s: "When ideas compete in the market for acceptance, full and free discussion exposes the false and they gain few adherents." To similar effect, another American jurist, Oliver Wendell Holmes, said in a judgment of the US Supreme Court in 1919: "The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market." It might be thought that Australians have generally had a history of scepticism for political views and that the optimism of Douglas and Holmes would be borne out in most cases.

The obligations on social media providers and the empowering of ACMA are the stage of the prevention of 'serious harm' which this bill defines as:

A reasonable person would agree that these harms are, indeed, serious. But the practical capture of these harms in the real world poses considerable problems. The Australian Human Rights Commission addressed this in their submission to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, arguing that they are too broad, providing the following example:

… legitimate discussion of interest rates may harm any number of Australians confidence in financial markets, especially during times of economic hardship. However, this isn't information that should be captured as causing or contributing to serious harm.

The commission made one recommendation: the bill should not be passed in its current form.

No-one wants to see the spread of false or misleading information, but I don't think people want us to entertain the censorship of ideas either. When governments become the arbiter of truth, we start on a perilous path that must be avoided accordingly. I most certainly will not be supporting this bill.

I rise today to speak against the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. As many of my esteemed colleagues have identified throughout this debate, this legislation presents a serious threat to Australians' freedom of speech. At a time when Australians are living in a cost-of-living crisis, it beggars belief that the Albanese government would think that this proposed bill would be a priority. If you ever need evidence of how out of touch this government is—and of their warped sense of priorities—you need look no further than this bill before us this evening.

The bill before us provides the Australian Media and Communications Authority, known as ACMA, with powers to require digital platforms to take specific steps to reduce misinformation and disinformation. If ACMA determines that a platform is not taking adequate steps, they can impose fines equivalent to five per cent of a company's global turnover.

Under Labor's plan, something can be misinformation even if it is the honestly held opinion of an Australian. Such a statement doesn't have to be malicious or designed to deceive. This can include unintentionally misleading statements about elections, referendums, the economy or the stock market. There are also some exceptions in this legislation. Exceptions apply for academics, scientists, artists and even comedians although I'm not entirely sure how we define what a 'comedian' is. But the views of everyday Australians—well, they are captured under the government's planned legislation and they receive no such exemption. The practical effect of this bill will be widespread censorship. This should be obvious, as the digital platforms will want to avoid these fines which could be, as I've said, up to five per cent of their global turnover.

Another concern of mine is that the communications minister can personally order investigations and hearings into what the government decides is misinformation. This is quite clearly open to abuse and, in my opinion, will see diverse voices censored. So, what would the minister have done with that power last year? I ask you to consider that.

As I've just mentioned, referendums are one of the topics identified in the bill whereby misinformation can constitute serious harm. Time and time again, those opposite labelled questions or criticisms about Labor's Voice to Parliament model as 'misinformation'. The brains trust behind the referendum—we know the crew: the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Attorney-General and the then Minister for Indigenous Australians—all came into this place and labelled any dissent to the Voice as 'misinformation'. If you don't believe me, it's in Hansard. A month before the referendum, the Treasurer said:

When you strip away all of the conspiracy theories and all the mistruths and you look through the fog of misinformation and manipulation, this opportunity is really clear and really important to our country and to all of its people.

There are still people out there who believe that the Voice referendum was rejected in every state because of misinformation. They refuse to accept that everyday Australians came to their own conclusions and voted no simply because the Voice was a bad and divisive proposal.

I believe this is a very big motivator for why combating so-called misinformation is a priority for Labor. They believe that uncensored debate is harmful as it stands in the way of what they deem to be progress. We know that it's not because Labor are committed to the truth. Let's not forget Labor's guilty track record of spreading untruths. Who could forget their 2016 'Mediscare' campaign or their 2022 campaign scaring pensioners into thinking they would be placed on the cashless debit card? In both of those instances, Labor didn't believe those mistruths that they were spreading. If Labor are seriously worried about the harm caused by misinformation, why do they consistently run on it? We know they plan to do it again. We've already seen the memes unleashed of three-eyed fish in response to the coalition's proposed nuclear policy. It's a classic policy of do as I say, not as I do.

While I mentioned the Voice, it's clearly not just the Voice, because misinformation has become a left-wing catch-all phrase for everything they don't like to hear. Put simply, if you agree with Labor, well, it's all good. If you have a different opinion, then guess what? That must be misinformation! In July, the WA Labor member for Hasluck said in a speech to the House in reference to the live sheep trade debate:

Unfortunately, there has been a lot of rhetoric and a lot of misinformation, not just from those opposite, but by leaders within the farming bodies such as the National Farmers' Federation …

This is just another example of dissent being branded as 'misinformation'. See where we're going here? I'm very concerned that this is a very slippery slope, and I'm sure a lot of Australians would be shocked to know that this is even possible. Unlike the US, we don't have a constitutional provision enshrining the right to freedom of speech. The debate around a bill of rights here will no doubt continue. But I will just say that the Americans got it right in providing a free speech protection in their First Amendment. It makes sense that it would be first, as, without free speech, the other rights are in ever-present danger of being taken away.

I'm not suggesting for one minute that there isn't troubling content out there, particularly in the social media world. Personally, I think we would all be better off as a society if we spent less time online and more time in the real world—I would say less time online and more time out in the great electorate of Durack, to be more specific. However, when we're talking about troubling speech, the traditional approach has always been that the way to combat bad speech is with more speech. Labor is abandoning this approach in favour of mass censorship. So mark my words: this will lead to a further decline in trust for government and, of course, leave many of those censored feeling vindicated and only further commit them to their cause. Just think of the old saying, 'If they're coming after you, you must be doing something right.'

These are issues that really should have been considered by the minister, given that this bill had a long holiday. As we know, there was a 2023 bill, which was even more extreme than the one before us this evening. In response to that version of the bill, the government received more than 20,000 submissions and other responses strongly opposing it. Groups including the Human Rights Commission, civil liberty bodies, the Australian Law Commission and religious institutions deeply criticised the draft legislation. Unfortunately, after binning the previous bill, they've now brought it back. Mr Speaker, I can tell you I have heard from many, many constituents right across Durack that they deeply oppose this bill. They share my concerns that this radical bill represents an unacceptable attack on the freedom of speech. Constituents have raised with me that they are concerned by the vague definitions of 'misinformation' and 'serious harm' and fear this could easily lead to overcensorship, which will stifle legitimate discussion and debate. I'm certain that this isn't just Liberal and National members receiving this feedback from our communities; I'm quite sure that those sitting opposite have also been receiving the same lack of appreciation for the bill before us this evening.

Given the former version of this bill received tens of thousands of submissions and the considerable feedback we, as members of parliament, are receiving, you might have thought that the government would establish a proper community consultation process. Unfortunately not. The government provided just seven days for submissions to be made to the committee looking at this bill—just seven days for a bill that is more than 70 pages long and has an explanatory memorandum that is over 140 pages long. Really? What is this government running from? Just seven days? What's it hiding? Despite such a short time for public submissions, to make it clear, the idea remains friendless. Already, we've seen the Victorian Bar association, the New South Wales Solicitor-General and the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties slam this bill, to name just a few.

I'll use this opportunity to give attention to some of this criticism. New South Wales Solicitor-General Michael Sexton was quoted in the Australian saying that this bill:

… targets contestable political opinions on social media and is based on the patronising assumption that members of the community cannot make a judgment about those opinions but must be protected from the obvious inadequacies of their judgment.

The Australian Christian Lobby has said:

There is no excuse for what's proposed in this bill.

… … …

One of the areas open to censorship under this bill is public health. Professor Nick Coatsworth, former deputy chief health officer, was one of the lucky few that got an opportunity to make a submission. Professor Coatsworth's comments included the following:

The terms "misinformation" and "disinformation" have become overused in public discourse, often employed as a way to dismiss opposing viewpoints without engaging in debate. In an era where limited attention spans hinder reasoned discussion, these terms have become shortcuts to shutting down conversation

… … …

Rather than seeking to impose the truth upon the public through legislation, we must focus on equipping our communities with the tools to critically assess and judge information for themselves.

Quote such as these speak for themselves and clearly identify that this is just another antidemocratic and nanny state action taken by those opposite.

In wrapping up, I will not be supporting this bill. Freedom of speech is fundamental to our democratic society, and providing for widespread censorship is, quite frankly, un-Australian and dangerous. As French writer and philosopher Voltaire said, 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' I urge everyone across the chamber to vote against this legislation.

Misinformation and disinformation cost our social cohesion and democracy, and there's clearly a need to address it. Earlier this year in my electorate of Wentworth a lone attacker entered Bondi Junction Westfield and indiscriminately attacked and brutally killed six people. In the wake of that attack, a student from the University of Technology, Sydney, was incorrectly identified as the perpetrator on platform X, which precipitated abuse, threats of violence, hate speech, and racial slurs those against him and the Jewish community, of which is a member. This August in the United Kingdom, anti-immigration riots erupted when misinformation was spread following the tragic death of three young girls at a dance school in north-west England.

There is clearly a cost to allowing harmful misinformation and disinformation to propagate and spread unchecked on social media. It can have significant and sometimes tragic consequences. But fighting misinformation and disinformation can also have real costs. We are in a time of low trust in government, low trust in media. We have only recently emerged from a pandemic which imposed restrictions on our community at levels never seen before. We are facing, too, deep divisions and a battle of narratives and facts regarding a war in the Middle East. In this context, real and perceived restrictions to freedom of expression and ideas, and restrictions on contesting ideas and facts, have the potential to undermine trust in government, trust in our institutions and trust in our society. In doing so, it perhaps makes people even more vulnerable to true misinformation and disinformation. This is the fraught context in which this bill is being debated.

This bill will empower ACMA to require and enforce industry developed codes relating to the treatment of misinformation and disinformation on digital media platforms. ACMA will be responsible for approving codes and standards and will be able to determine if codes are suitable. Where industry codes are not sufficient, ACMA will be able to impose codes on companies. This bill provides guidance for assessing the threat of misinformation and disinformation, and the misinformation content will need to meet four criteria. These criteria include, most critically, that misinformation can be reasonably verified as false and that it is reasonably likely to cause harm or contribute to serious harm. Disinformation is differentiated from misinformation by additional condition of inauthentic behaviour, which is widely understood to be the dissemination of bots. ACMA will not be able to remove specific content, nor will it be able to take action against specific individuals for producing content. It will, however, be able to enforce civil penalties on media companies for noncompliance with the codes to reasonably prevent misinformation and disinformation.

Measures to prevent the spread of information at the source will clearly impact freedom of speech and expression, and, while I acknowledge freedom of speech is not absolute, as it stands I'm not yet convinced that this bill is the correct approach. There are substantive issues that have been raised about the bill, particularly around the potential for this bill to limit freedom of expression, and this is of great concern to me.

The first of these issues is the definition of 'verifiably false'. While this may be clear-cut in the majority of content, it ignores the nuance that what is considered true and false may vary over time and also by the interpreter of information. As a special rapporteur noted, it is difficult to classify all types of information into the binary analysis of true and false. As one of my constituents observed in one of their emails to me, experts sometimes get it wrong. Even members of my constituency who have written to me about this bill have noted, for instance, that, while they agree with many of the public health notices that came out during COVID, they did believe that it was important there was a debate about what was true and false and important for that debate to be public and allowed to flourish.

Secondly, while there are definitions of 'misinformation' and 'disinformation', there is no clear definition of the types of information that will be considered. This leaves open ambiguity or, at least, a presumption that all information posted by an individual, regardless of purpose, such as commentary or opinion, may be determined to be misinformation. This bill addresses, through exemptions, some of the most important examples, such as professional, news, satire and academia, but it does not clarify on the more fundamental question of content posted by ordinary Australians.

Thirdly, perhaps the most controversial is the harm threshold. For content to qualify as misinformation and disinformation it must be reasonably likely to cause harm. Some stakeholders, including the Human Rights Commission, believe it is too low a threshold for determining misinformation. However, I'm more concerned by the six discrete categories of harm that will be treated with greater scrutiny, including election interference, public health, vilification, physical harm to an individual, damage to infrastructure and harm to the economy. While some of these may not be controversial, I do have concerns—and so have many of my constituents—with the restrictions on the discussion dissemination of matters relating to public health and the economy, in particular. Misinformation was certainly a problem during the pandemic, but part of this bill raises more concerns from my constituents, as I mentioned before, even those who actually agreed with the public health information coming from the government. Ignazio and Luke, two of my constituents, are concerned that these powers could silence genuine and valid critics of public health measures, including whistleblowers, and prevent proper scrutiny of corporations, such as banks, that have a significant impact on the economy.

The other area that I think is really important to explore is the unintended consequences of this bill. The most concerning unintended consequence of this bill is that the penalties that can be imposed on digital media companies for breaches of the code could result in an overly cautious approach being taken to publishing content. If this approach is taken, this may mean that they overly censor their work to avoid falling afoul of the regulations put forward in this bill.

I understand that the government has tried to thread a needle here in terms of effectiveness and proportionality. And I note that the community of digital, legal and human experts are divided on the bill. For example, I note that the Human Rights Law Centre believes that the restrictions on freedom of expression are proportionate to the intentions of this bill. This may be true, but it's not just a matter of these issues that there was proportionate. And I'll also note that the Human Rights Commission itself is not a supporter of the bill. This is a very contested piece of legislation

So what are the alternatives here? I think that we, perhaps, in this situation, may be putting the cart before the horse. Can we really say with confidence that there are no other ways of moving forward in our objective in terms of suppressing and stopping the spread of misinformation and disinformation while, at the same time, preserving trust in the system? Are there better ways that we could approach this here?

First and foremost, I think transparency is key. I know that many people have observed that, in this space, social media companies are already taking actions against misinformation and disinformation. This is correct—and that is already a threat, I think, to our democracy and our ability to exchange ideas. I welcome, particularly, the amendments put forward by the member for Goldstein that seek to create greater transparency over what is being done through the algorithms and the actions of the social media companies in this space, and particularly to give researchers access to this information from digital media companies. If we start with, frankly, that greater scrutiny on what actions are already being taken—how misinformation and disinformation are already being addressed—that will be a really important part.

In addition to this transparency, which could be the first building block of better addressing misinformation and disinformation, there are some other safeguards that are being employed, perhaps, in other jurisdictions, that I think could be potentially useful in this space. There is scope to bring in content warnings that could indicate misinformation or identify where claims cannot be verified. Emerging literature is showing that these are types of warning labels, and they certainly have been used in the past in public areas, and certainly some of the students I spoke to and consulted in my response to this bill highlighted how useful some of those warning labels were—effectively, labels to say, 'Hey, check the facts on this one.' This could be legislated on media companies without discouraging the publishing of material or limiting the ability of a consumer to view the material and make up their own mind. Similarly, several jurisdictions, including the US and the UK, are exploring the use of watermarks on AI content, or, at the very least, provisions on AI providers to enable detection and tracing of AI content. Again, I think these are some really positive steps. It will require some coordination, but I believe that these could be quite effective measures to deal with misinformation and disinformation without limiting the power of AI, but also without some of the potential restrictions and some of the concerns that the community will have—and do have and have certainly expressed to me—if they feel that legitimate debates are not being allowed to be prosecuted on the basis of misinformation and disinformation.

When I spoke to members of my community about this, I spoke particularly to young people: one group of high school students and one group of people between high school and university and starting work, and all of these students identified the challenges of misinformation and disinformation. However, they all came back to me and said that perhaps the strongest and best approach in this area is actually education and critical thinking—'How do we better equip people to critically assess the information that is in front of them?'—as well as having some of the warnings on content and those pieces. That was certainly what they suggested should be our first area of action.

So I come back to where I started on this bill, which is to say: I recognise that misinformation and disinformation are significant threats to our country and to our society and to our social cohesion, and I take those threats extremely seriously. However, I believe that restrictions on content—real but also perceived restrictions on content—are also a threat to our ability as a society to trust our government, our society and the media and other things. I do think that poses a very significant threat to our country as well. This is a situation where we have to get the balance right and, I'm afraid, with the contested perspective on this bill, at this stage, with the bill in its current form, I don't think the bill has got that balance right.

The question is that the bill be now read a second time. I give the call to the honourable member for Hinkler—

A point of order—

A point of order from the member for Hinkler.

Given that we're very close to the 10 o'clock cut off, Mr Speaker, I wonder whether you'd consider the issues surrounding the staff, who I'm sure are due to go home, and perhaps we could recommence in the morning. I know this is a significant matter that needs to be debated in the very near future, but, as we approach 10 o'clock, I think that's probably appropriate, given that the lighting also needs to be considered at this time of night. Mr Speaker, I'm sure I can leave it in your able hands to deal with the matter.

I can always rely on the member for Hinkler for wise advice. In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The House stands adjourned until 9 am tomorrow.

House adjourned at 22 :00

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS

Davey, Jack

On 29 October a tragic car accident caused the death of an 11-year-old boy and injuries to four other students from the Auburn South Primary School. On behalf of the Kooyong community I mark our sadness at the loss of Jack Davey and the injuries to those other innocent children. I mark our gratitude to the school staff, particularly to its principal, Marcus Wicher, and the staff member, Millie, who stayed with Jack throughout. I thank the policeman, the paramedics and the state education department. The school's staff and students have received hundreds of messages from other schools. People have come from everywhere to help.

Last Tuesday was a sunny day in Melbourne. Parents dropped their kids off at school, kissed them goodbye and drove or walked away without further thought. But by the end of the day things have changed. We held our children tighter and we held them with grief. We knew that life is fragile, unpredictable and fleeting.

Jack loved football. He barracked for the Demons. He played basketball for the Titans and footy for the Gladiators. He was in a futsal team with other kids in his class. He was a beautiful boy and he is gone too soon. On behalf of all the Kooyong community I send our love and our sympathy to Jack's parents, Michael and Jayde, and to his sisters. We will always keep Jack Davey in our hearts, and our community will be there for them always.

Medicare

Bulk-billing, or the ability to see GP without charge, is the critical core of Medicare and the strength of our primary healthcare system. It literally determines, at times, whether people live or die, and impacts every part of the health system. For people, particularly low-income earners, to be able to go to their GP without a charge rather than fronting up to the public hospital means conditions are picked up earlier, lowering cost of treatment overall and saving expensive, very costly visits to emergency departments, clogging them up when conditions can be treated elsewhere. The good news is, while there's more to do, things are finally improving on the bulk-billing front.

In 2022 when the government was elected, it's no exaggeration to say that bulk-billing rates in this country were in freefall after a decade of the Liberals' cuts and neglect, and a freeze to the rate that GPs are paid. That's really important, because when you freeze the rate, as the previous government did, so doctors are paid the same year after year after year after year, they have no choice. It was such a difficult decision for so many GPs in the suburbs and the regions to make to start charging their patients, because it was the only way they could pay their staff, pay their insurance, pay their rent and earn some modicum of a wage. Now, who was the health minister, you may well ask, who started this cycle of neglect and cuts? Surprise, surprise! It's the now opposition leader, Peter Dutton. He said it made 'no sense' for Australians to expect to access a GP for free. At least he's consistent; it's comparable with his brilliant idea when he was the health minister to charge Australians to access hospital emergency departments. It's no wonder that the medical profession—the doctors—voted him, literally, the worst health minister Australia has had in 40 years.

I'm proud that one year ago this government made the largest investment in bulk-billing in the history of Medicare, tripling the bulk-billing incentive and restoring or moving back towards that core principle—that Labor principle—that it's your Medicare card, not your credit card which determines your access to health care. In the last 12 months since that change, an extra 5.4 million bulk-billing visits have occurred—that's more than 103,000 bulk-billed visits to the GP every week. There's more work to do, but that is real progress. We've also put in place Medicare urgent clinics—seven days a week, extended hours and bulk-billed for non-life-threatening conditions but things that are too urgent to wait to see a GP, to keep people out of the public hospital waiting rooms. In my electorate, at the Narregate clinic in Narre Warren, more than 15,000 people have been bulk-billed over the last year or so. We've made medicines cheaper with more than $1 billion of savings, cutting costs, 60-day scripts and lowering the safety net threshold. It's a fundamental contrast with Peter Dutton, the worst health minister in 40 years.

Telecommunications

Collinsville residents have been calling for reliable telecommunications, not as a luxury but as an essential service that is frankly overdue. With a poor response from the Minister for Communications to my correspondence regarding this very issue, I visited Collinsville with a Telstra representative so that they could hear from the community directly.

At this public meeting, I listened as locals shared their frustrations, anger and even fear about the lack of mobile coverage. For them, this isn't a minor inconvenience; it is a crisis. Locals who live in constant fear for loved ones with serious medical conditions know that, in an emergency, they may not be able to call for help. There are small businesses who's to day-to-day work is impacted, affecting their bottom line, while community nurses who provide care to Collinsville's most vulnerable are unable to complete their paperwork on the ground with their patients. Imagine being in that position. Imagine the frustration. This would never be tolerated in our capital cities, so why should it be acceptable in regional Australia?

Following this meeting, with promises for an upgrade to their telecommunication tower sometime this financial year, I made an urgent appeal directly to Telstra's CEO, asking her to prioritise this essential upgrade. The response I received was both frustrating and disheartening. Rather than committing to resolve the ongoing issues, these pleas were missed citing a lack of funding for much-needed improvements. In response to my letter, Telstra stated that, while it has plans to improve mobile performance in the Collinsville area, it simply doesn't have the funds to make it happen right now.

Labor often boasts about record spending on regional telecommunications, yet here we are: one of the major telecommunication providers in this country claims they can't afford to deliver these essential upgrades. This reveals a disturbing disconnect between what the government says and what is actually being delivered. Rural and remote communities like Collinsville are sick of hearing about promises of funding that never seemed to reach them. Let's be clear: this is not just about phone calls; it's about safety. It's about the security of knowing that, in an emergency, help is just a phone call away. It's about accessing essential services, staying connected with loved ones and having the dignity of knowing that rural Australians are as valued as those in our cities.

I'm not willing to accept this complacency. I refuse to let Collinsville be left in the dark. This fight is far from over. I will be contacting the Minister for Communications again and I will not stop until she finds the funding she so often speaks of. My constituents deserve better than vague promises, or worse yet, the suggestion that they simply switch to a different provider—as was the advice given by the minister's office.

To the people of Collinsville: I hear you and I am standing with you. I will continue fighting until we see the action you deserve.

Veterans

The doors are now open at the new Central Coast Veteran and Family Hub, located in the heart of our community at 31 Hely Street, Wyong. I was proud to join local RSL subbranch members, RSL LifeCare and my friend New South Wales Minister for Veterans and Member for Wyong, David Harris, at the official opening last month.

The hub will support the 8,000 Central Coast veterans and their families, with improved access to specialist services closer to home, offering a range of tailored services to assist with transition, employment, social connection and advocacy services, along with important mental and physical health support and care. Recently, I joined the veterans walking group from the hub, led through Wyong by Peter. The walk was followed by morning tea back at the hub, where veterans expressed the meaningful difference the hub is already making to them, their families and fellow veterans. A highlight was the date scone versus plain scone bake-off between manager Kristin and Jamie, who currently holds the trophy spatula.

Our government has delivered $1.7 million in funding through the Veteran Wellbeing Grants program, to establish the hub in Wyong. Thank you to the local RSL LifeCare team for the that work you're already doing for veterans in our community, and I look forward to continuing to work closely with you for our veterans and their families.

Since I was elected eight years ago, I've hosted seniors' forums across my community, to keep local seniors up to date with important local and national information. Over the last few months, I've held forums in Kanwal, Wyoming, Long Jetty and Toukley. Locals at each forum have heard from representatives of Services Australia, My Aged Care, seniors rights Australia, providing up-to-date and relevant information to them and their families. I've been able to update seniors on our government's work to help ease the cost of living for older Australians, including tax cuts for every taxpayer, energy bill relief and important changes in health services. At every forum, attendees have raised with me the real and significant difference that freezing the cost of PBS medicines and increasing accessibility to bulk-billing local doctors have made for them and their families, so critical at that time of your life.

Whether it is meaningful cost-of-living relief or repairing aged care, our Labor government is focused on delivering for local seniors in regional communities like mine on the Central Coast. I'd like to personally thank the hundreds of local seniors who've enjoyed my forums across the coast. I'm delighted to continue to provide every one of them with our local seniors kit, which is still available from my office, if seniors would like the most recent copy.

Hawkesbury River Dragons, 1st Asquith Scout Group

Berowra electorate is home to around twenty different scouting groups, with boys and girls learning life skills and the value of contributing to their community. One of our fantastic local scouting groups is 1st Asquith. In recent years, Asquith has produced three Queen's scouts. I've also had the honour of awarding the Australian Scout Award to Thomas Bury of 1st Asquith. I've seen the positive impact that the scouts can have, including the work of Will Bury, who organised a Cancer Council fundraiser through the local soccer club's yellow sock day, and Kateyln Cleary, who, during COVID, organised a fundraiser for local healthcare workers and was named New South Wales Scout of the Year in 2020. The group's accolades are a testament to the work of people like David McFarlane, Mary Jo Ison and David Pattinson.

At my recent visit to 1st Asquith, we talked about the group's plans to set up a rover crew, providing scouting opportunities for 18- to 26-year-olds. Another thing we talked about was the state of the facilities, which are shared with pastors Peter and Ejay Mbakwe and their congregation at the Awesomerock Church, along with other community groups. The toilets and showers at the hall are rundown and in urgent need of repair. They were built in the 1980s and are largely suited men. This doesn't represent the scouts of 2024. I've been pleased to support Asquith scouts the entire time I've been a member, and I'll be on their side to ensure they can continue to develop the next generation of leaders in our area.

The Hawkesbury River Dragons are a fantastic local sporting club in our community. The club is based at Brooklyn and started small in 2011, but, since that time, membership has grown, with more than 40 members joining in the last two years alone. The club's successes have continued to grow too, with members competing right across Australia, recently placing fourth overall in the 2024 Region v Region Regatta.

Recently, I went out on the water with the Hawkesbury River Dragons at one of their regular training sessions and got a crash course on a sport which dates back 2,000 years. While there, I heard from President Steph Hague, Kavita Kuczynski and Helen Wood, along with Beverly, Jane, Leanne, Ryan, Vio, Martin and so many others about their love of being on our beautiful Hawkesbury River.

I also heard about the state of their current storage facilities. I saw the old shed where they store their equipment. It isn't what the club needs as more and more people recognise the physical, mental and social wellbeing benefits of being part of an active group like the Hawkesbury River Dragons and as that great club continues to grow. The Hawkesbury River Dragons presented me with an idea, a well thought out, modest but practical storage solution. So, while I'm awaiting for the Hawkesbury River Dragons' call up to lead them to success at their next competition—I think I'll be waiting a while for that call!—I'll be working on a plan to support this great local club to get the facilities it needs so it can continue bringing our community together and bringing that great competitive spirit that the 2,000-year-old sport of dragon boat racing has. As they tell me, life's short, paddle hard.

Ayliffe, Mr Mark, Eden-Monaro Electorate: Community Events

Today I'd like to honour one of Eden-Monaro's quiet heroes—Mark Ayliffe, who died unexpectedly on the 22 August, aged only 54 years. Mark joined the RFS in his early teens as a junior under his father's captaincy and he continued to volunteer throughout his life. Indeed, he was captain of the Cobargo RFS during the black summer bushfires. Mark had immense knowledge and expertise both of the local terrain and of all aspects of firefighting, which he shared not only with his own branch but as an RFS trainer with brigades throughout Eden-Monaro. He not only served in the brigade but helped train others in the district to get qualified. He devoted his life to helping others. Wherever there was a call for help, Mark was always there to assist without question. Mark will be remembered as brave, strong and determined. My sincere condolences to Mark's family and to the entire Cobargo community.

I am a huge lover of country pubs, and one in Eden-Monaro just took out a top gong. At the Australian Hotels Association New South Wales 2024 Awards for Excellence, the Lake George Hotel in Bungendore was named winner of the Best Steak category. The Lake George was competing against top pubs from across the state, including in Sydney, and I'm so proud that the best pub steak can be found just down the road in Bungendore. A huge congratulations to the hotel's owners and staff. I look forward to getting in for a steak very soon.

Motherland is Australia's first online rural mothers group program, and it held a special fundraiser over the weekend to celebrate Rural Women's Day and Perinatal Mental Health Week. Motherland was founded by Stephanie Trethewey, who was this year's Tassie Australian of the Year. The fundraiser was held at Motherland alumni and employee Kate Brow's Bibbenluke property on the Monaro. A massive congratulations to the entire community for getting behind this fundraiser. Despite buying a ticket, I couldn't get there, because I was unwell, but by all accounts it was a fantastic event where women could connect with other women from across the region while raising much-needed funds to support rural mums right across Australia.

I recently ran into a local celebrity and ultra-distance athlete Dane Waites, who next month will cycle from Pambula to Batemans Bay, a distance of over 220 kilometres, including visiting local schools along the way. Dane's raising funds and awareness for Nardy House specifically for therapy services to improve the quality of life of residents. Nardy House is in Quaama. It's the permanent home of six people with extremely high physical disabilities. This is on the back of Dane's run from Perth to Pambula, some 4,000 kilometres, in 2017, where he raised money for Beyond Blue and Autism Spectrum Australia. Good luck, Dane. Thank you for your amazing work. We're all right behind you. Jump on Facebook and get onto Smile with Dane's Facebook site and donate.

Forrest Electorate: Sport

I rise to celebrate the 14-year career of Kookaburras captain Aran Zalewski, who has announced his retirement from international hockey. Aran grew up in Margaret River and developed his love of hockey playing with the Margaret River Hockey Club in the South West League. He debuted for the Kookaburras as a 19-year-old in a clash against India in Bunbury, very quickly cementing himself as a very competitive centre half and midfielder. Aran leaves the national team as one of their most decorated players of the modern era, winning three Commonwealth Games gold medals, one World Cup and the Champions Trophy twice. At Olympic level, he has represented Australia three times, winning a silver medal at the 2020 Tokyo Games.

Outside of hockey, Aran is a fierce advocate for the south-west in sports and ensures that regional athletes have access to sporting opportunities and facilities. He became a dad last year, so I'm sure he'll be looking forward to extra time with his family. But he's not stepping away from hockey altogether. He'll be representing the Kalinga Lancers in the Hockey India League starting in December. But I wanted to congratulate Aran on a stellar career for the Kookaburras and for proving once again that in Australia you are not limited by your postcode.

Congratulations also to Harvey local Joe Comito, who has earned the title of Australia's top darts player, dominating the Australian Pro Tour. He will also represent Australia at the Paddy Power World Darts Championship in December in London. Best of luck to Joe.

Also congratulations to Sophia Tomas, who recently won a karate gold medal at the World Shoto Cup in London. She is from Harvey. Over 350 competitors from 18 countries took part in the competition, and Sophia took home gold in the over-18s division. Again, you are not limited by your postcode in this country.

Finally—and this is a different one—what a top job Cruiser did, the six-year-old hardworking sheep-wrangling kelpie from Yalyalup in my electorate. Cruiser was WA's finalist in the 2024 Cobber Challenge and finished seventh overall. Cruiser shares a very special bond with his owner and trainer, as you would expect, and he works very, very hard. His owner and trainer is James Carr, and he had to run a total of 125.3 kilometres with speeds of up to 7.42 kilometres an hour. This competition recognises the value and importance of working dogs in our regional and rural areas and farms. Congratulations to my wonderful achievers, and, again, as I say in Australia, 'Look what you can do.'

Labor Government

On the weekend, the Prime Minister and Minister Clare announced that a re-elected Albanese Labor government will cut student debt by 20 per cent for every Australian carrying a HECS-HELP debt. It will also raise the threshold at which debt has to start being repaid, bring down minimum debt repayment levels and make fee-free TAFE permanent. These measures combined will slash $5,500 from the average level of student debt and put $680 a year back into the household budgets of university graduates and their families, including 8½ thousand across my electorate of Lyons.

Bringing down student debt is part of Labor's broad suite of measures to tackle the cost-of-living pressures that we inherited from the Liberals three years ago. When Labor was elected, interest rates were on the rise and inflation was more than six per cent. The budget was suffering from waste, rorts and incompetence. Our new Labor government took immediate steps to bring down the pressures that had built up under 10 years of Liberal mismanagement. Labor brought down two budget surpluses in two years, when the Liberals achieved none in 10. Labor delivered tax cuts for every taxpayer, including bigger tax cuts for nine in 10 Tasmanian workers, when the Liberals planned to give big tax cuts to high-income earners but no new tax cuts for low-income earners. Labor created one million new jobs, a record achieved by no other new government since Federation.

Labor increased bulk-billing across Australia, when it was in freefall under the Liberals, and created Medicare urgent care clinics—opposed by the Liberals. I look forward to one opening in my electorate imminently. Labor slashed the cost of medicines on the PBS and introduced 60-day scripts—opposed by the Liberals. Labor provided energy bill rebates—opposed by the Liberals. Labor made child care cheaper—opposed by the Liberals. Labor introduced fee-free TAFE courses for skills in critical short supply—opposed by the Liberals. And Labor introduced a $10 billion plan to address the nation's critical shortage of housing supply—opposed by the Liberals and, inexplicably, opposed by the Greens. Key elements of Labor's housing supply plan still remains stuck in the Senate, condemning tens of thousands of Australians to homelessness while the Liberals and the Greens play politics.

Every time Labor have tried to fix the mess left behind by 10 years of Liberal neglect, the Liberals have opposed us. Every time Labor have tried to make life just that little bit easier for Australians struggling with the cost-of-living pressures that are affecting countries worldwide, the Liberals have opposed us. And now, predictably, the Liberals are opposing our plans to reduce student debt. We will get on with the job of fixing the mess the Liberals left behind. We will get on with the job of building Australia's future.

Riverina Electorate

As I drove to work in Canberra some months ago, I noticed, at the intersection at Manuka Circuit, which intersects with Canberra Avenue, going into Captain Cook Crescent—it's a wonder they haven't changed the name of Captain Cook Cresent; they probably will, knowing that we're in Canberra—there was a crash. The windscreen was all over the road, and it's still there. I say that in the context that this is the national capital, and this debris has been there for many months. That wouldn't happen in a country town, certainly not in a country town in my electorate. I say that in the context that last weekend Parkes won the Overall Tidy Towns Award for 2024. Well done to Parkes.

I well remember driving through Temora a year or so ago, and there was a piece of paper in the main street, which is very rare because it's such a tidy town. I thought, 'I must send a text to the mayor, Rick Firman, when I pull up, and say, "Hey, mate, you've got a bit of rubbish in your main street."' But, when I travelled back there, it was gone. It was Saturday afternoon, and it was gone just a few hours later because they take care of their town. They love their town. They take pride in their lawns. That is country communities. That is regional Australia. That is the real heart of this nation.

We have got so many volunteers. There are so many good people in the regions. I've attended three events in recent times. One was in, what will hopefully be the new part of my electorate, Murrumbateman. The others were in Harden and Illabo. There is such a number of hardworking, dedicated people who get behind these communities. At the Murrumbateman Field Days, the president, Iain McCall, the vice president, Steph Helm, and the treasurer, Jenny Weekes, headed up a dedicated committee that has held these field days for many, many years. It was such a good event, with thousands of people descending upon that little community. It was such a good day promoting agriculture and country living.

The Harden Kite Festival draws on assistance from more than 50 to up to 100 volunteers working with the dedicated committee there. Gee, they do some good work. Of course we were aided and abetted by a windy day on the Harden Racecourse. The colour and vibrance of that day—if you haven't been there, make sure you put it on your bucket list. Then there was the 102nd Illabo Show, presided over by Simon Muller with secretary Nicole Hopkins and treasurer Gerard Ryan. The new amenities that were put in place by the coalition government during COVID are something to be seen. Well done indeed to the Illabo Show and to all the shows. They are what country communities are all about. Long live those agricultural shows because they do so much good and create so much benefit for our local regions.

Whittlesea Show, UGFM Community Radio, Romsey-Lancefield Avenue of Honour

Of course we know Australia's best agricultural show is the Whittlesea Show. With 165 years of continuous show, this marvellous event is recognised as one of the most popular agricultural shows in the state. It's great to watch the community come together, to catch up with old friends across the region and also to thank residents and organisations for their continued support for what the Labor government is doing for us and our community.

The Whittlesea Show has it all: woodchopping, carnival rides, trade exhibitions, livestock and animal competitions, and little kids riding motorbikes, with their helmets looking bigger than the motorbikes themselves. But they're out there having a ball in the grand parade and just having fun. There's also all the local cuisine and other things, like craft and photography. You name it, it's there and everyone is having a great time. Congratulations to the Whittlesea Agricultural Society for another fantastic showing. Thank you to everyone who stopped by our tent to have a chat.

Sadly on the Saturday night there were some terrible winds that came through and knocked down quite a few of the marquees. It meant that a lot of the exhibitors lost all their product. One gin distiller lost every single bottle that was in there as his marquee blew over. But what happened on Sunday morning? Everyone was out there helping and trying to put it all back together to make sure that the show stayed on. It was just great fun on the Sunday. I spent the day with the Lions doing tickets and having a ball. It was a fantastic event.

On 26 October it was my utmost pleasure to attend the 30th anniversary of UGFM. UGFM is Upper Goulburn radio, and it graces our local airways, providing essential information to keep communities safe in times of emergency and uncertainty. It's a beacon of local news that you can trust, particularly in times when our community is suffering the most. Through the Black Saturday bushfires, the flash floods and the wind damage, they're always there with accurate, on-time real information. It also keeps us updated about festivities, events and local news, demonstrating why community radio is so important in rural and regional areas. It's a testament to why we need to keep them on air. Peter Weeks, one of the presenters, who I have been having a chat with every fortnight for over 12 years now, also got inducted into the Community Broadcasting Association of Australia's honour roll, which is a fantastic achievement. I wish them well for another 30 years. It's an institution that we rely on very much because of the importance it plays.

Lastly this Sunday my wife, Lisa, and I will join Mike Garnett and members of the Romsey-Lancefield Rotary Club to unveil two plaques on the Avenue of Honour between Romsey and Lancefield. These plaques will join the plaques that I secured $8,000 of funding for. The one we're launching this year is the Tobruk campaign plaque. It's important to both of us because both of our grandfathers served at Tobruk as rats. It's been a great honour to work with the rotary club to get this done. We'll have our one done and the other one done, which will be the Malayan campaign, which was supported by members of the Romsey-Lancefield Rotary Club.

In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.

BILLS

Migration Amendment (Strengthening Sponsorship and Nomination Processes) Bill 2024; Second Reading

Migration Amendment (Strengthening Sponsorship and Nomination Processes) Bill 2024

It is a pleasure to rise to talk about a bill around migration, one of the most important parts of our community and our society. As many of us know and talk about, the three key pillars of our Australian story and our Australian society are our Indigenous culture, our British heritage and democracy, and our migrant story. Like many Australians, my family came to Australia in the fifties—1953—and they settled in Silvan, which is in the electorate of Casey. They established a farm, and that farm, that establishment and that community have been a key to my journey here today and as a third-generation local. Many of us have a migrant story and I'll talk a little bit about the importance of making sure we get that right in a minute.

How we get our migrant balance right is so important from an economic perspective. It is crucial to fix the skill shortages that we face as a nation, exacerbated, no doubt, by COVID and the need to close the borders. It plays an important role in productivity. As we know, productivity is down over six per cent in the last 2½ years. The RBA monetary statement yesterday showed that they are now forecasting further productivity drops in the next 12 months. Getting skilled migration right can be a key pillar in driving productivity. It also plays a crucial role in economic growth. How we get the details of this legislation right is important.

There's also really important element to the Migration Amendment (Strengthening Sponsorship and Nomination Processes) Bill 2024 when it comes to social licence and making sure that the Australian people continue to support our migration program as we move forward. Every member of parliament has the amazing opportunity to attend citizenship ceremonies in their electorates to welcome new Australians. It is one of the most enjoyable parts of our roles as members of parliament, welcoming those new Australians as they celebrate becoming Australian citizens, many coming from different journeys. There are skilled migrants, refugees, family reunions—many stories, but the joy on their faces when they become new Australians is one of the highlights for all of us, no doubt. When I get the opportunity to talk and share my story with our new citizens, I talk about those three pillars of Australia. We're very lucky in the Yarra Ranges Shire to always have an amazing Welcome to Country from Julie Coombs. Julie does a fantastic job and the Indigenous story is an important part of our local community. Healesville has a strong Indigenous community through Coranderrk, which was an establishment more than 100 years ago, recognising the Indigenous people in Victoria and in Healesville. Julie gives a beautiful Welcome to Country to make sure we acknowledge that pillar of our society.

We as elected officials are there through the democratically elected process, recognising our British traditions, the importance of democracy and the role that we play. That third element is our migration story. As we all know, more than half of Australians have at least one parent born overseas. Those three pillars are so crucial, and when I talk to the new Australians and welcome them and share my family story about how anything is possible, I describe those three pillars as the Australian rope. The reason I describe it as a rope is the three individual strands by themselves have a level of strength, but when you bind those three strands together, that strength multiplies significantly. That is what we need to continue to do as an Australian community and in this House. Getting legislation like this right so we're bringing skilled migrants into the country to make a difference is an important part of keeping that strength together as a country.

When I look at this bill and I look at the impacts for my community, there are three specific areas that I want to talk about that impact the community of Casey directly: hospitality, farming and construction. As we know, there is a shortage of skilled workers in our country when it comes to construction. Housing prices have increased significantly and those skill shortages are exacerbating that. We need to continue to get that balance right and make sure we bring more tradies in to do the work.

My electorate, the electorate of Casey, is the No. 1 electorate in the country when it comes to trades as a percentage of the workforce, so we know how important trades are to our community. But every tradie that I talk to knows that the biggest challenges they have are trying to get new apprentices in but also finding workers to work with them. It's crucial that we understand that having skilled migrants coming in is not replacing Australian jobs; it's allowing the small-business owners in my electorate to create more opportunities and more jobs on which to work together.

The second area that is very relevant to my community of Casey is the beautiful Yarra Valley. The Yarra Valley is known for its farming but also its hospitality. I have spoken to many hospitality venues about the concerns they have about not being able to get access to the workers they need.

One of the particular skills that we need to allow for, through all our migration policies and our skills policies, is the specialisation around authentic cuisines. I have a wonderful restaurant chain with two venues, in Warburton and Belgrave, called Babajis. Billy and the team there do authentic South Indian cuisine. It's very unique—very different to what you would get at many other Indian restaurants. Billy and her team need to bring in specialised workers from the south of India to make sure that the food they create is authentic. Again, this is not taking jobs from Australians; it's creating more jobs. It allows her team to create that authentic product and to create jobs for waiters and for cleaners, for staff within the venue, and to buy food and produce from our local farmers as well.

So we need to have some flexibility within this list. We need to understand that regions have different concerns, but also that a catch-all around chefs does not necessarily capture the uniqueness of our culture or the uniqueness of different countries, with chefs creating authentic food in tribute to their region but also creating more opportunities within the local area.

I know that, for many of our farmers, getting access to workers is crucial as well. So we need to look at how the skilled occupation list will cater for different employment needs across regions. The needs of my electorate of Casey are different to many needs in the inner city and other areas. We need to have that included. And we always need to avoid a top-down approach. A localised approach will deliver the best outcomes for areas, whether in farming, hospitality or construction. They are the concerns of my community. We need to know how Jobs and Skills Australia will function to allow for those regional differences, because, as I said, what we are concerned about is different to an area in the inner city, as an example.

Creating the flexibility within the system will become crucial as well, because the shortage we have today will not be the shortage we have in six months or 12 months, particularly when we look at technology and the speed at which technology is moving. Whether it's AI or quantum or the AUKUS agreement and pillar 2, we see the importance of that technology. How are we going to ensure that Jobs and Skills Australia, and this legislation, these rules, will be dynamic and able to be adjusted as new opportunities come? When you're dealing with the tech sector, you're dealing with trends and opportunities that can develop almost overnight, and we need the ability to bring talent in, as a start-up looks to scale up—to bring software engineers in, so they can go from a start-up series A to a series B and series C, and, hopefully, become the next Canva or the next Afterpay of Australia: billion-dollar global companies.

Having that flexibility is important. We need to continue to look to those differences around technologies, around regional areas, and around farms and construction, in particular, given the shortages. So it's an important step that we're taking, but I hope we can always look to have that flexibility, for the needs of local areas and unique technologies.

I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum.

I want to thank all those members of parliament who contributed to this debate. This bill implements a commitment made by the government through the migration strategy to introduce a new temporary skilled worker visa, the skills-in-demand visa. The bill will legislate the income thresholds and index those thresholds for the specialist skills, core skills and proposed essential skills streams for the skills-in-demand visa, which is replacing the temporary skill-shortage visa.

The protection of Australian workers and their jobs and incomes is paramount for this government. That's why this bill legislates minimum income thresholds that will ensure persons nominated to work in Australia are less likely to be displacing an Australian worker and will be less vulnerable to exploitation, as the bill ensures that they receive fair remuneration. Legislated income thresholds will also ensure that persons nominated to work in Australia have adequate wages to support themselves and their families. Indexation of these wages ensures parity between migrants and Australian workers and that, over time, migrants are not paid less than Australian workers where they're performing the same role.

The bill also provides protections and oversight mechanisms through the establishment of a public register of approved sponsors. The register includes the name of the approved sponsor, their business postcode, the number of sponsored workers and their occupations. This will help temporary skilled migrant workers find a new sponsor and provide a resource to check that a sponsoring employer is legitimate.

The bill provides for annual indexation of the income thresholds for the specialist skills and core skills streams. This ensures that persons nominated for these streams have adequate wages to support themselves and their families whilst they're in Australia. Indexation of these wages ensures parity between migrants and Australian workers so that migrants will not be paid less than Australian workers where they are performing the same role. Proposed annual indexation of the income thresholds for the essential skills stream will be determined in each agreement or in accordance with the requirements prescribed in the amendment to the Migration Regulations.

Based on the feedback of businesses, the bill amends the Migration Act to provide that labour market testing will be completed within six months—and we're increasing that from four months—prior to the sponsor of a skilled migrant worker lodging a nomination. This change complements the removal of the requirement that we made in December 2023 for employers to advertise positions exclusively through Workforce Australia. The bill provides protections and oversight mechanisms through the establishment of a public register of approved sponsors. The development of a public register is important in ensuring transparency and accountability.

Temporary migrant workers make a valuable contribution not only to Australia's prosperity, fulfilling much-needed labour and skills where shortages exist, but also to our communities, our national identity and our connections across the world. This bill will ensure that persons nominated to work in Australia will be less likely to be displacing an Australian worker and will be less vulnerable to exploitation. It also ensures that persons nominated have adequate wages to support themselves and their families in Australia.

The bill delivers on the government's commitment to introduce a new temporary skilled worker visa to address critical skill shortages and better align the immigration system to the country's workforce needs. The bill is another important milestone in the government's reform agenda in migration policy, and I commend the bill to the chamber.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Migration Amendment (Strengthening Sponsorship and Nomination Processes) Bill 2024; Consideration in Detail

Migration Amendment (Strengthening Sponsorship and Nomination Processes) Bill 2024

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 15), omit "occupation; and", substitute "occupation;".

(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 16 to 17), omit subparagraph 140GB(2)(c)(iii).

(3) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (line 11), omit "(2)(c)(iii), (d)(iii)", substitute "(2)(d)(iii)".

Whether a migrant works in construction or computing, we want to welcome the best and brightest to our shores. The new specialist skills visa pathway is supposed to enable this by granting a fast-tracked visa for those earning more than $135,000. But the government, for some reason, has decided to exclude trade workers, machinery operators, drivers and labourers from this new visa pathway. There has been no clear rationale articulated for this decision, aside from an outdated distinction between so-called blue-collar workers and white-collar workers.

The decision to exclude construction workers comes at a time when we urgently need to build more houses and expand the construction workforce. So, while I support this bill, I do not believe that the carve-out for skilled trade workers is justified. More broadly, I do not want to see politics and political pressure involved in decisions about our migration system. I don't think it is appropriate that the politicians or government of the day get to choose who is excluded or who isn't excluded from these pathways. That's because I think the point of the specialist skills pathway visa, the point of having this threshold of $135,000 in income, is to say that when industry know what they need these people should be let in, not that the government of the day should once again be pulling the strings based on pressures they may be under. I believe that this carve-out needs to be removed or that an alternative solution needs to be brought forward quickly to bring in highly skilled trade workers to Australia.

My amendments would remove the carve-out by preventing the minister from specifying whether particular occupations are eligible or ineligible for this new visa pathway. I acknowledge that this amendment is not a panacea that will end Australia's shortage of skilled tradies overnight, but it would make a positive difference to the building sector. It is aligned with the government's Migration Strategy and it will help ensure our skilled migration program is fit for the future.

I want to acknowledge the constructive engagement I've had with the Minister for Home Affairs on this issue over several months and acknowledge our shared desire to address skills shortages in construction. I urge the government and the opposition to support this amendment, because I believe the Australian people do not want to see politics and political considerations in relation to getting the best and brightest into the country. I ask the assistant minister two questions. Firstly, if the government is not willing to support this amendment, can you please give me an explanation as to why? Secondly, will you at least commit to providing an alternative pathway for bringing more skilled tradies to Australia—for example, by ensuring that all relevant occupations are included on the priority list for the new core skills pathway?

I thank the member for Wentworth for her constructive consultations with the minister. Unfortunately, we can't support these amendments. The amendments that the member seeks to move would allow skilled trades to access the specialist skills pathway, and there's a distinction. As part of this visa there is a specialist skills pathway and a core skills pathway. Those who are working in the trades will be in the core skills pathway. The reason for that distinction is that the Parkinson review recommended the establishment of a high-income, highly skilled specialist pathway for skilled migration. In relation to that, the review stated specifically:

It is our expectation that this group be limited to professional occupations and not generally include the skilled trades.

The government has accepted that recommendation, and this bill reflects the government's adoption of that approach.

Skilled trades will still, however, be eligible for the core skills pathway if their occupation is included on the core skills occupation list. Jobs and Skills Australia have undertaken a thorough consultation regarding that core skills occupation list. They've consulted with businesses, unions, industry associations, the state and territory governments and other stakeholders. They've made a recommendation to the Minister for Home Affairs. The minister is finalising that process, and we'll publish that list soon.

But I would say that the government are committed to ensuring that we support employers who do have requirements for skilled labour in the trades area, particularly in the construction trades. It was reported in estimates this week that 11,349 skilled building workers migrated to Australia over financial year 2023-24. That's the highest number of skilled building workers in 10 years to have come to Australia and double the number that came to Australia under the final year of the coalition government. So we are responding to the needs of employers when it comes to ensuring that we're processing visas for skilled trades workers as quickly as possible to ensure that the construction sector can continue to grow in Australia.

I'd like to address some further questions to the minister. We know where we are in construction. I don't need Jobs and Skills to come back to me—or anyone, frankly, in this parliament—to know that we are absolutely in a hole in relation to construction skills in this country. It is absolutely evident when you talk to any builder. It is evident when you see that there is a cost blowout of $30 billion over the $120 billion in government infrastructure spending.

As a country, we are paying over the odds on our construction at the moment and we unable to build housing because of a lack of skills. So I still cannot understand why the government hasn't made a commitment, at least on the core skills pathway, to include all construction workers, because we know we need them—we need them now. Firstly, what is the rationale for not doing this? Secondly, what is the timeframe in which the minister is going to undertake the considering of this? The need is desperately evident. Honestly, it just doesn't make sense to me.

The government certainly recognises that there are challenges in the construction industry associated with increasing costs. Much of that is to do with supply chain issues off the back of COVID. Some of it is to do with increasing labour costs.

But this government is committed to ensuring, firstly, as a foundation, that we are training more Australian tradespeople, and that is the philosophy behind the government announcing this week that fee-free TAFE will be permanent so that anyone who wants to do a trade in the construction area gets access to doing that trade and that we're training more Australians. That's the foundation. But where there is a requirement for additional labour, the government is putting in place a migration system that will allow employers to bring in skilled tradespeople for the construction sector as quickly as possible to supplement that labour. I reiterate that this government has brought in more skilled building workers in the last year than at any time over the last 10 years. So the government is responding to the needs of industry and to that increase in demand.

Secondly, of course, we're making sure that we've got the housing policies in place to build more houses and to increase housing supply. Those policies that are associated with increasing investments in social and affordable housing—such as the Housing Australia Future Fund, and Help to Buy, which is held up in the Senate—are all aimed at ensuring that we're increasing the housing supply and that more Australians get access to owning their own homes.

I just come back to this question: what's the timeframe under which the government is going to come back in relation to the core skills pathway, and what is the commitment in relation to ensuring that construction workers are on that list? I appreciate what you're saying about TAFE and skills, but when you talk to businesses and people right now they will say that, if there's any chance of meeting any of the housing targets, what you need is construction workers now.

There are construction workers being approved now. They are being approved. The timeline regarding the Jobs and Skills Australia draft and the Core Skills Occupation List is, as I said, with the minister at the moment. The minister is currently finalising that, and that will be released over the coming months.

Question unresolved.

As the question is unresolved, in accordance with standing order 188, the question will be included in the Federation Chamber's report to the House on the bill.

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (line 10), before "different kinds of occupations", insert "subject to subsection (5A),".

(2) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (after line 11), after subsection 140GB(5), insert:

(5A) None of the following kinds of occupations may be prescribed for the purposes of subparagraph (2)(c)(iii):

(a) trade workers;

(b) machinery operators or drivers;

Can I say in the first instance that it's good to see that we are having this debate. This is something that the Leader of the Opposition put on the national agenda in his budget-in-reply speech in May, and it's very good to see that there is a realisation that we have to do something about the shortage of workers that we have in the construction space. What we would like to see is the government addressing the shortage of carpenters and joiners, electricians, plumbers, bricklayers and stonemasons, building inspectors, construction managers, painters and decorators, plasterers, roof tilers, and wall and floor tilers, because if we are to deal with the construction crisis we've got at the moment then we have to make sure that we can complement our domestic workforce.

One of the things—and we've been pointing this out for a very long time—that the government has made an absolute botch of is its migration program. Over one million people have come into this country in the last two years, and we do not have the houses to be able to support that level of population increase. One of the things which are absolutely clear is that those numbers are going to continue because, every time the government has a net overseas migration target, it misses it and it misses it by tens of thousands of people, and it's going to continue to do so. And, while they continue to miss their net overseas migration target, they're not building the houses that we need. This is causing the housing crisis and it's causing a rental crisis, and the government needs to address this.

We are all absolutely in favour of making sure that we have got more people locally doing the trades that we need, but we've also got to make sure that, during this housing crisis and this rental crisis, we are complementing our domestic industry with the skills that they need. Now, we know why this isn't being done at the moment, and that's because of the CFMEU. But we also know that the CFMEU has been put into administration. So the government can work now to make sure that we are complementing the workforce skills that we need in the construction space.

The Assistant Minister for Immigration has talked about a core skills pathway and said that these things should go on the core skills pathway. Well, I would ask the minister this question: at a minimum, why don't construction managers and building inspectors go onto this list? They should be on this list. Construction managers and building inspectors, at a minimum, should go onto this list. I would say to the minister: why are they being excluded?

Now, our view is, as I've made very clear in my amendment, that what we should be doing is putting in trade workers, machinery operators or drivers, and labourers because, given the crisis that we have at the moment, which is so great—and especially when it seems that this government is not going to be able to bring net overseas migration under control and that one million is going to head to 1.5 million rapidly—something needs to be done and it needs to be done urgently. That's why we need trade workers, we need machinery operators and drivers, and we need labourers to be able to complement our existing domestic construction workforce.

If we're going to go back and say, 'The review said this, and the review said that,' I would say to the assistant minister, 'Why aren't construction managers and building inspectors at a minimum on that list?' The whole process that the government has embarked upon—and I give the assistant minister a leave pass because he's part of the new ministers that have come in to try and clean up the mess of the previous ministers, but we need this mess cleaned up quickly. So, Assistant Minister, why won't you agree to our amendments, given what is happening, and why in particular won't construction managers and building inspectors be put on the list?

I thank the shadow minister for his contribution. The government won't be supporting the amendments that he's moved. There's a simple reason why we have a housing shortage in Australia and it's that the previous government didn't invest in constructing new social and affordable housing in Australia.

There was no investment in additional housing supply under the previous government, and this government is having to clean up that mess through policies such as the Housing Australia Future Fund, Help to Buy and others, and it's working. This coming 12 months, 13,500 thousand new social and affordable houses will be constructed under this government's Housing Australia Future Fund allocation.

As to the core occupation list, I reiterate the point I made earlier that the core occupation list, as recommended by Jobs and Skills Australia, has been put together after a thorough process of consultation between businesses, in particular, unions, workers, state and territory governments, employer associations and industry associations. The list responds to the needs of industry. Again, that is what the government is doing. We have brought in close to 11,500 skilled building workers over the last 12 months, which is more than were brought in under the coalition in its final year. In fact, it's double the numbers under the coalition in its final year.

We're responding to the needs of industry, we're ensuring that we're bringing on that additional supply in the housing market, and this bill, with its specialist skills pathway for those who are working at trade level and above and its core skills pathway for trades occupations, ensures that we get the right labour that we need in Australia to meet those demands into the future.

I say to the assistant minister that over a million people have come into the country in two years and we've got a housing crisis and a rental crisis. The government is using this figure that 11,000 people have already been brought in to help deal with the skills needed for the construction industry, and especially the housing industry.

Does the minister think, as we're now heading to nearly 1.5 million people coming in over three years, that 11,000 is enough or does the minister think that we need to make sure that we've got additional skilled people to help with this housing crisis and rental crisis, and that we therefore have to find additional pathways to be able to bring in the construction skills that we need? That is why we need to do something urgently to address this issue. Otherwise, the minister is saying that, with 1.5 million people coming to this country—which is a record number we've never seen the likes of—11,000 additional skills in this area is enough. Is that what he's saying or do we need more?

As the shadow minister is aware, there is a certain allocation of a number of visas in different categories that are outlined by the government each year. The overwhelming majority is allocated to skilled migration, to ensure that employers have the skills that they need to meet the demands of industry in Australia.

I mentioned earlier that our focus in terms of providing that labour is to train more Australians. The priority for this government is to train more Australians in traineeships and apprenticeships, particularly in the construction trades, which is why we're making fee-free TAFE permanent. But where there's a need and demand for additional for additional labour, there are opportunities for employers and the states and territories to sponsor skilled workers.

The numbers that are allocated in that program are based on demand. It's up to an employer to make an application to the department or a state or territory government to sponsor a skilled worker. The federal government responds to that application, assuming that the person meets all of the relevant criteria, by granting a visa. So the list is compiled based on the demands of industry and meeting the demands of industry, and that will continue into the future.

I asked the assistant minister whether he thinks that the government's very ambitious—some would say highly fanciful—housing target can be met given the existing construction workforce in this country at the moment. Is it possible for the government to achieve its target for housing in this country over the next five years? The shortfall is seen by most people as between 400,000 to 500,000, so is the existing workforce going to be able to meet the government's target? Everyone in the industry says that it won't be able to. So how are you going to complement the domestic workforce to cover that 400,000 to 500,000 likely shortfall in your housing target?

The first thing that we're doing is building more homes, which is what Australians want and need. Under the previous government, investment in social and affordable housing stalled, while a number of state Liberal governments were actually selling off public and affordable housing. This government is committed to, firstly, ensuring that we're increasing the housing supply by building more social and affordable housing through policies such as the Housing Australia Future Fund, through our Social Housing Accelerator, through the co-investments with the state and territory governments. We've also got schemes that ensure that we're assisting renters with the cost of increasing rents.

At the same time, we're investing in the skills development of Australians to meet that future demand through policies such as fee-free TAFE. We're also ensuring that, where there is a requirement for employers for additional labour, they get access to that skilled labour, particularly in the building trades, as quickly as possible. And it's reflected in the figures; it's reflected in the fact that we've had a doubling of the number of skilled trade workers for approved skilled visas over the last 12 months, compared to the final year of the coalition. It's the highest that it's been in the last 10 years. So the claim that the government is not responding to the demands of industry is a fallacy. We've doubled the numbers, and we're putting in place a new system that will ensure it's more responsive to the needs of employers, particularly in the construction trades.

Question unresolved.

As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.

Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024; Consideration in Detail

Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024

In today's digital world, privacy is becoming an increasingly precious commodity. With so much of our lives shared online, Australians are rightly concerned about how to safeguard their personal information. A recent survey shows that 89 per cent of people want stronger laws to protect their personal information. Although, concerningly, only 32 per cent of Australians feel they have control over their own data. That is telling. Our current Privacy Act is outdated and does not account for the complexities of the internet, smartphones or the digital identities we all have. The massive amounts of data we generate come with risks and make us particularly vulnerable to scams or exploitation. In fact, 74 per cent of Australians feel data breaches are one of the biggest privacy risks they face today.

It's clear that we must strengthen our privacy laws so that Australians can confidently navigate the digital landscape without fear of losing control of their most personal information. As I mentioned in this place only a few weeks ago, scams are rising and causing a lot of heartache to so many in our community, including in Warringah. It impacts people of all ages—we have to be clear about that. Ninety-six per cent of Australians were exposed to scams in the five years up to 2021 alone, and that has been increasing in the last few years. In 2023, we lost some $2.74 billion to scammers, which is more than $5,200 per minute. Much of it is online.

We need strong, robust and up-to-date privacy laws that the public can trust and that can be a key part of our economic success. It means government and companies of all stripes must invest in the appropriate measures to keep people's information and data safe. Too often, we hear of data breaches that are impacting a huge amount of Australians. We've seen so many of those incidents in recent years. Think back to the hacking of Medibank and Optus. These are trusted brands, but there you go—data was taken. People's personal information was hacked and used for malicious purposes.

Almost four years since the privacy act review commenced, we now have the first stage of reform before the House. Many feel it does not quite hit the mark and address how many feel about privacy in Australia in 2024. The bill does finally introduce a statutory tort for serious invasion of privacy, and that has been anticipated for more than a decade. It's good to finally be there. It will allow Australians to sue for damages for serious invasions of privacy. This is either an intrusion into seclusion—for example, being filmed in a private place—or misuse of information relating to a person where they had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

I think it's important to emphasise that the threshold has been put at 'serious invasions of privacy', so the law will only apply if that invasion is considered serious—it meets that threshold—and is committed intentionally or recklessly. Serious harms caused by an organisation's negligence would not be enough, which is concerning, because those are certainly the most high-profile data breaches and have impacted the highest number of people.

The bill also includes an anti-doxxing offence, with prison sentences of up to seven years. It's in part a response to an incident earlier this year, when the personal details of hundreds of Jewish members of an online support group were published without their consent, leading to great concerns about so many in the community. It also provides a process for a potential children's privacy code and tiered penalties that provide lower fines for more minor breaches of the act.

It is good to see this bill not place any further compliance obligations on small businesses. We know that is a difficulty. And, whilst we want everyone's privacy and information protected, it falls to larger companies and corporations, particularly the social media companies and platforms, to do much of the heavy lifting in this area. Small businesses are already under immense pressure and have faced a plethora of new laws and compliance obligations in the last few years. Whilst many are still struggling from the effects of the pandemic and subsequent cost-of-living crisis, the exemption in the Privacy Act for entities with less than $3 million annual turnover ensures a degree of nuance between small and medium enterprises and larger ones that have the resources to fulfil the compliance obligations of the act.

Nevertheless, it is a high-stakes road map. (Extension of time granted.) There are some shortcomings in this bill to modernise our privacy laws. The most significant, impactful proposals to reform the Privacy Act, long flagged by the government as its policy intent and expected by the industry, have all been left out of the bill. I do have questions for the Attorney-General as to why that has happened. The suggestion is that these will be in a second-tranche bill sometime after the next election. Unfortunately, that doesn't give much confidence when people are concerned about those elements being missing in this legislation.

The bill as it stands will not address any of the systemic problems with toxic social media, intrusive data brokering, online tracking, profiling and targeting or the algorithms which push hate speech, misinformation and other harmful content. However, there are two potential changes, dealing with foundational matters, that could be made now to this bill that the government already says it plans to make. I would urge the Attorney-General to consider these changes to the bill now to make sure we have those additional protections.

As such, the two suggested amendments would go a long way to tackling the excessive practices of larger companies, such as—in recent news—Meta scraping all of its Australian users' data to train its AI, which they don't do to Facebook users in Europe because the EU's definition of consent in their equivalent law is stronger. So Australians have been left less protected than Facebook users in Europe because of that definition, and so that is something I urge the Attorney-General to turn his mind to and to consider in this legislation now, rather than delaying.

The change includes clarifying and updating the definition of 'personal information' to ensure that modern digital practices are within the scope of the regulation, and clarifying and updating the definition of 'consent' to reflect community expectations that individual consumers should not be tricked into online and offline surveillance activities without their active choice and consent. I urge the government to consider such amendments, as they will enhance this bill as it stands now and will go some way to assure Australians that we in this place and the government are making changes that are up to date in a very rapidly changing digital world.

I would also ask the government to consider amending the laws of contempt as part of its wider privacy reform considerations—specifically, as to the way court materials are and have been leaked to the media in recent instances: in particular, in the case of the proceedings relating to incidents in this place, and such as the Lehrmann civil trial that concluded earlier this year. It's clear that material that reached the media was obtained under court order, but there were no repercussions for this breach. The difficulty is that our privacy laws allow exceptions for news and media. That is appropriate in a democracy; we want free media. But with that freedom come responsibilities: for it to be used in accordance with the law, in accordance with the rules—especially our rules in court—and with due care and responsibility, and I feel that that has been lacking. That line has been blurring for some time, and it's time for there to be some regulatory catch-up to ensure all in our public discourse deal with information sensitively and appropriately, especially when it involves private material that is then used in the media inappropriately. It's an issue I intend to continue looking at, in particular through legislative amendments.

So I will support the bill. I welcome amending the Privacy Act to bring the act up to date and increase those protections, But again I urge the government to be bolder and to more quickly look at what outside experts are proposing and asking for and to consider these two specific amendments in relation to the definition of 'consent' and 'private information', to ensure this current tranche of reform meets the desired intent of providing greater protection for privacy for Australians online.

I welcome the support of the member for Warringah for the bill, the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. Just in relation to the questions that she's asked in respect of possible amendments, particularly the updating of the wording in the definitions of 'personal information' and 'consent': as I've made clear in introducing this bill, this is the first stage of the government's commitment to amending the Privacy Act overall, with the intent of providing individuals with greater control over their personal information. The particular matters that the member for Warringah has mentioned—that is, the definitions of 'personal information' and 'consent'—were matters that were considered as part of the broad Privacy Act review that was undertaken by the Attorney-General's Department. We published both the review and the government's response to that review earlier this year. The government has agreed in principle that the definitions of both of those terms should be updated, and I want to make it clear that we intend to continue to advance the proposals that we have agreed in principle to progress in our response to the Privacy Act review. We are continuing with targeted consultation with stakeholders on draft provisions. It's very important to ensure that amended definitions, which are obviously foundational to the operation of the Privacy Act, are drafted carefully, so that they're fit for purpose and workable in a diverse range of contexts. At this point in the process, the government doesn't support amending the definitions as currently proposed.

I want to start by reading some words, published in the Jewish Independent, from the wonderful Lee Kofman, a Jewish writer in my community:

The covert and overt antisemitism my Jewish peers and I began experiencing ... I had to do something, otherwise I feared I'd sink into depression ... This led to the establishment of the WhatsApp group—for mutual support and self-preservation.

Lee started a WhatsApp group with Jewish artists so they could support one another and have a safe space to grieve. Six hundred members of the community joined because they too needed a space to share. In January this year, the names and details of members of this WhatsApp group were published online, including photos of Jewish artists with the caption 'genocidal'. The workplaces of Jewish business owners were boycotted. Jewish artists were declined job opportunities. Their children were threatened. Some people even had to move home. What we saw happening to the Jewish community was more than a trend. It wasn't just hurtful; it was dangerous. It had real consequences.

To me, what was just as concerning was how people were responding to the stories about doxxing. People said they deserved it. As Lee said in her article:

Many Australian Jewish artists and academics are still living the doxing consequences, but new anti-doxing legislation was just introduced for debate in Federal Parliament—

the legislation we are debating today—

following what happened to us. So perhaps our adversity will benefit Australian society at large.

That's why I am so proud of this bill and why I'm so pleased to speak on and support this bill, because it will protect every single Australian online.

What happened to members of my community is unacceptable, but the sad reality of the online world is that it was not an isolated incident. The digital world is changing and becoming more dangerous. The threats and dangers are evolving. The Australian Institute of Criminology has found that one in 20 Australians have been doxxed and that young people are more likely to be affected by it.

Online spaces have increasingly become unsafe for women as well. This is a universal problem. Data shows us that women across the world are experiencing abuse and discrimination online. I have seen it with my own eyes. When prominent women express their views online they face a torrent of misogynist abuse. The harms of doxxing are magnified for women when the release of their personal data is used in the context of domestic and family violence. The publishing of a woman's photo, workplace, home address, phone number or any other personal details online is often used as a tool of intimidation and escalated into major emotional and physical abuse. While doxxing happens online, the harms extend far beyond it. It impacts people's safety and sense of security. Doxxing is often accompanied by other forms of harassment, such as the non-consensual sharing of intimate images or AI deepfakes. The situation facing women in this country is not new but it is, without question, a national crisis. This legislation is part of keeping women and families safer online.

The Albanese Labor government has already acted to improve online safety for women, including by quadrupling ongoing base funding for the eSafety Commissioner. We also initiated a review of the Online Safety Act, to ensure our laws are keeping up with the emerging online threats and harms. This legislation protects each and every woman. This legislation seeks to protect every single Australian.

I have met countless academics, artists, business owners and other members of the Macnamara community who have had similar experiences to Lee's. In every conversation I've had with them they have spoken about the pain they endured after the doxxing. We spoke about what can be done to fix it. We spoke about making sure it doesn't happen in the future to any minority, any person of faith, any woman or any child. The legislation before us seeks to fix this.

This bill will impose a maximum six years imprisonment for publishing online private details, such as names, addresses and numbers, with the intent of causing harm. Importantly, this will be increased to seven years when a person or group is targeted on the basis of their race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, disability, nationality or ethnic origin.

It not only makes the practice of online doxxing a criminal offence with high penalties but, importantly, gives victims an avenue to seek redress before the courts—redress for the emotional distress but also for the impacts on businesses and livelihoods. This bill creates a new course of action which empowers victims to seek compensation directly from any person who commits a serious invasion of their privacy. It is important to note that this bill does include safeguards for journalists and law enforcement officers in the proper discharge of their duties.

By criminalising the release of an individual's personal data online in a manner that would be menacing or harassing, we not only hold perpetrators to account but set a tone for the standard of behaviour that is acceptable online. Most importantly, this legislation was developed after consultation with victims of online doxxing, and it is designed to protect every single Australian. We must not accept abuse, harassment, misogyny and racism in our workplaces or schools. That behaviour would not be tolerated on the street, and now, with this legislation, it will be targeted online as well.

This legislation also reforms the Privacy Act framework. The people of Macnamara and all other Australians expect their private information to be exactly that: private. The reforms in this bill follow from the Privacy Act Review. It clarifies the objects of the Privacy Act and reaffirms our position that entities have a responsibility to protect Australians' personal information.

It will increase transparency around automated decisions using personal information. As the robodebt scheme highlighted, significant harms can materialise when decision-making processes are automated. This bill will provide members of our community with transparency about the use of their personal information. Privacy policies will be required to specify the kinds of personal information used in these sorts of decisions, and individuals will be able to request an explanation about how such automated decisions are made.

Importantly, we are strengthening the Australian Information Commissioner's enforcement powers. It will enhance the regulator's investigation powers to ensure that entities are handling personal information in a manner that Australians can respect and have confidence in.

The other part of this bill which is vital is the development of a children's online privacy code, which will apply to social media and other internet services which are likely to be accessed by children. The Children's Online Privacy Code will specify how these entities must comply with privacy obligations in relation to children. Right now, young people and children don't remember a world without the online space. While the online world can be a fantastic way to connect with the world and to learn and explore new ideas, the risks young people are exposed to cannot be understated.

The Privacy Act framework is currently not sufficient. It has not adapted to the needs of the digital age, nor has it responded to the large-scale data breaches of the last few years. Australians have a right to expect their personal information will be safe and protected, but, more than that, they have a right to expect that those who treat their privacy with contempt will face the full force of the law. A poll by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner found that 89 per cent of Australians want stronger legislation to protect their personal information, and 87 per cent of parents want more protections for their children. And that is what this bill is all about.

This bill is about strengthening the online space so it's safer for everyone. It's about protecting women and children from abuse. It's about protecting our communities' most vulnerable online. It's about ensuring every single person of faith is safe and protected online. It's about stamping out discrimination and hatred.

The reality of the online world is that we have seen massive changes in digital technology, and, with that, we have seen emerge insidious opportunities for invasions of privacy. This affects thousands of people every single day. Every one of us in this place has struggled to keep up, but this bill has taken us all a major step forward. There is more work to do, but I commend this bill to the House.

I also want to thank members of my community—in particular, those Jewish community members who have gone through this really stressful ordeal and have come through it, making strong recommendations to government. I'm proud that we've been able to achieve this bill together, and I commend it to the House.

I, too, rise to speak on the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. I understand that there will be further scrutiny of this bill, and I think that's a good thing because some of the elements of this bill are contested and they deserve further scrutiny. Schedules 1 and 3 of the legislation are relatively uncontentious, and they revolve around doxxing. So the bill addresses the practice of doxxing. Doxxing can take several forms, but essentially it's the public release of private information or personal details without consent. The eSafety Commissioner has outlined several types of doxxing:

Deanonymizing doxing

Revealing the identity of someone who was previously anonymous (for example, someone who uses a pseudonym).

Targeting doxing

Revealing specific information about someone that allows them to be contacted or located, or their online security to be breached (for example, their phone number or home address, or their account username and password).

Delegitimizing doxing

Revealing sensitive or intimate information about someone that can damage their credibility or reputation …

The most recent example of doxxing was very high-profile and involved details of hundreds of Jewish members of a private WhatsApp group being published by pro-Palestinian advocates. Indeed, it was the impetus to bring this bill forward. The victims, amid a disgraceful and rising tide of antisemitism in Australia, reported being shunned, suffering adverse professional and personal consequences and, in some cases, suffering death threats.

The coalition rightly condemned the doxxing of Jewish creatives and offered to work constructively to improve the legal framework. We have for some time been supportive of laws to respond to doxxing. The former coalition government commissioned a review of the Privacy Act during the previous parliament. The purpose of the inquiry was to examine whether Australia's privacy laws were fit for purpose.

The bill is not without controversy, and I do just want to make a few comments about schedule 2 of the bill. That is the schedule that would establish a statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy. The merits of putting that statutory tort into the bill are highly contestable, and we need to think about what the consequences of that would be. Any individual could sue any other individual, including a body corporate or a government, for misusing a person's personal information or intruding on their seclusion.

What that could lead to is more litigation, more people finding their way into courts and the driving up of insurance premiums. Plaintiff and class action law firms are, unsurprisingly, very supportive of this, but there are many business organisations that are not, including ACCI and the BCA, which have expressed concern about schedule 2. Coming from such an entrepreneurial place as my electorate of Nicholls—it is really based on private enterprise—I continue to say to the government in this place that, often, the more of this legislation you put forward, the more cost it puts on business.

Now, we can't have no legislation in relation to this, but we do need to think about what costs it puts on business and what impositions it puts on people trying to run private enterprise—insurance premiums, risk of litigation and all of those things—and I do think there are unintended consequences that I would like to see examined by further scrutiny of this bill. Ultimately, as we understand in this cost-of-living crisis, greater cost to business will be potentially passed on to consumers, and we need to consider that. So, while the new doxxing offence is a welcome element of this bill—and I congratulate the government on it—I think that schedule 2 needs more scrutiny. I worry about the unintended consequences and I would welcome further scrutiny of this bill, particularly schedule 2.

The Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 represents a significant legislative effort to modernise Australia's privacy framework and to address emerging challenges in the digital age. The bill proposes substantial changes to the Privacy Act 1988, reflecting the fact that it has not kept pace with Australians' widespread adoption of and reliance upon digital technologies and the concomitant risks associated with these technologies—specifically, that personal data could be subject to misuse or mishandling. Digital technologies can also be used as platforms for doxxing, in which personal information is maliciously disclosed with the intent to cause harm. Doxxing exposes victims to physical threats, to public embarrassment, to humiliation and shaming, to discrimination, to identity theft, to financial fraud and to other serious harms.

While the objectives of this bill are laudable, I'm quite concerned that this bill lacks clarity and specificity and that its broad scope and its somewhat vague language could engender potential for overreach and unintended consequences. One of the most significant concerns raised by this bill, concerns which have been raised by many of my constituents, is its potential to stifle freedom of expression. The bill introduces a new statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy. The model of the statutory tort set out in the bill was informed by the Australian Law Reform Commission. It's intended to provide individuals with legal recourse against those who wrongfully intrude upon their private lives, and that's a worthy intent. However, the bill's broad language and its lack of clear definitions could create ambiguity that could chill legitimate forms of expression, particularly those that engage in investigative journalism or political satire.

The bill attempts to address this concern by arguing that the tort will only capture actions that reasonable persons would regard as being menacing or harassing. However, the bill fails to provide a clear definition of what it constitutes as menacing or harassing behaviour. Its reliance on the concept of 'reasonable persons' in its justification for limiting freedom of expression is also somewhat problematic. This ambiguity could lead to uncertainty. It could potentially disadvantage individuals who hold minority views or people who express themselves in unconventional ways. The bill also fails to provide sufficient guidance on what constitutes serious interference with privacy.

There is no doubt that doxxing is loathsome behaviour, and victims may have to take significant steps to mitigate the harm which, unfortunately, can result from this process. However, I'm concerned that this legislation's establishment of criminal offences for doxxing doesn't adequately define the intent required for the act to be considered an offence. This bill could potentially criminalise the sharing of information that is publicly available or information which is shared for legitimate purposes, such as whistleblowing or public interest reporting. Information is sometimes shared to reveal criminal behaviour. The bill relies heavily on a court based enforcement mechanism for both the statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy and the criminal offences for doxxing. That gives us the prospect of airing additional sensitive, potentially private information, which could be a disincentive to seeking redress under the legislation. Conversely, the threat of expensive and lengthy legal action could be a disincentive to freedom of expression.

The bill introduces a new framework for eligible data breaches, empowering the minister to expand the collection, use and disclosure of personal information following significant data breaches. But the broad scope of those powers raises concerns about their potential to exacerbate privacy breaches. Moreover, I'm told by experts with whom I've consulted that the bill lacks robust oversight mechanisms to ensure that decisions are proportionate and necessary. An independent body or tribunal to review the minister's decisions and to provide greater transparency and accountability might be desirable.

This bill could represent a missed opportunity to create a truly comprehensive and balanced framework for privacy considerations. Engagement and further consultation with stakeholders could ensure that the bill strikes a better balance between privacy and other rights. The bill should be strengthened to effectively protect Australians' privacy while upholding fundamental freedoms. A more nuanced and balanced approach is needed to ensure that the law effectively protects privacy rights without unduly infringing upon other essential freedoms.

I join with the other contributors who have essentially all made a very similar point—that is, we're very happy to be debating and passing what hopefully is the beginnings of reform and tightening of the law when it comes to the protection of privacy. I think it's fair to say that most contributions have suggested that we need to go further than what Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 does, and I strongly agree with that contention made in debate by other speakers. When we had the debate recently around the Digital ID Bill, I certainly recall making this point—I think a lot of speakers made the point—in debate on that bill, which was that we were really waiting for the government to tell us where they were heading when it came to reforms to the protection of people's privacy. This bill would have been nice to have had sooner, and, indeed, it would have been nice to look at what this bill does and doesn't do in the context of some of the other legislation that we've had brought on for debate that is very relevant to the topic of privacy.

We've got very deep concerns, and I think there's unanimity around this. Data on people is much more abundant and kept in a form very different to that of years, decades and millennia gone by. Really, at a computer screen, a lot of people have access to people's personal information. Are the protections in our legislation strong enough? Clearly, they're not, because this bill is the beginnings of reform in this area. I desperately hope it's not the end.

I commend the beginnings of reform that I'm sure most members think need to be more robust than what this legislation does. Yes, the reform creates strong criminal penalties and an incrementally improved civil framework for dealing with breaches of privacy. But, frankly, this is an area of law and an area of dispute that I think will be extremely significant in the years and decades ahead. I hope this parliament is always landing on the side of protecting the privacy of Australians where government keeps information, where people within government have access to the information of Australian citizens and indeed where corporations and other entities in civil society are doing the same. This legislation has the beginnings of heading in the right direction. But, as other members have talked about in their contributions, we really hope the government has got a lot more planned than what is before us in this legislation. Given we're in the consideration in detail stage, my question to the Attorney-General would be to seek a clear understanding of what the government has planned beyond this legislation. Obviously, speakers have talked about a desire for a lot more than just what's in this legislation to be considered. I say in good faith that I'm sure the government has a lot more planned with regard to strengthening protections of people's privacy. But there are legitimate issues that have already been raised, and it would be good to know what plans, if any, the government for further reform in this area.

This bill is the beginning of certain steps in a certain direction, but we certainly would like to see a lot of other issues around privacy protection considered. Members have talked about some of the specific elements in the legislation, like doxxing et cetera. We absolutely condemn some of the awful examples of doxxing that we've seen in recent times, which this legislation touches upon. There are obviously a lot of other potential risks into the future. We mentioned that in the debate on the Digital ID Bill. I'm very concerned about the amount of data that governments in particular collect on people. We obviously reflect on medical data and other information that we are providing to government, but it's being more and more centralised and shared, and protections and appropriate penalties to dissuade misuse are very important as well. I'll leave those comments for any response to the issues that I've raised.

Earlier this year, almost 600 Jewish writers, artists and academics found themselves the targets of a cruel and malicious act. Their names and personal details were published online by activists. They were part of a private WhatsApp group, a forum where they could support each other in the face of a rising tide of antisemitism many had never experienced before. This space, meant for safety, solidarity and questioning and sharing views, was cruelly violated when a 900-page transcript of their private conversations, along with their personal information, was leaked by one of the group's members. This transcript, containing the intimate details of their lives, was then published online, and the consequences were devastating. In the words of one Jewish member of the WhatsApp group:

Imagine you wake up one morning to find your name, photo, contact details, and workplace published on social media, where you are wrongly accused of all manners of sins in an antisemitic online campaign that spreads on the internet in what seems like milliseconds.

Death threats follow. You are afraid to leave the house.

You lose your job, friends, or customers. Or you are shunned by colleagues. Or all of these things happen based on the false information disseminated online.

This is not an isolated case. This person reflects the broader experience of many in that group. The doxxing unleashed a wave of antisemitism, and what makes it most harrowing for the community is it echoes some of the antisemitism and some of the vilification of the Jewish people for generations, starting with the 1930s, when people were outed for being Jewish and targeted in various ways, including through their businesses. We know where that ended; that ended in the Holocaust. Members of the group were labelled as a cabal of Zionist conspirators reminiscent of the antisemitic tropes that have plagued Jewish communities for centuries. No-one should be vilified in this country. No-one's privacy should be breached in this country on the basis of their religion, their beliefs or their sexuality. No-one should be subject to what has happened to these people. Despite the clear harm caused by this act of doxxing, and despite the undeniable malicious intent behind it, this behaviour was not illegal under Australian law. This is a profound failure of our legal system. Alongside leaders of the Jewish community, I have called loudly and repeatedly for change from the moment this came out.

We need laws that recognise the severity of doxxing and treat it as the criminal and intimidating act that is. This bill does that, and so takes an important step forward. I thank the Attorney-General in particular for his work in driving this. He creates two new criminal offences specifically addressing doxxing. The first offence makes it illegal to publish or distribute someone's personal data in a way that is menacing, harassing or harmful. The second provision goes further, making it a crime to publish or share the personal information of members of a group where the group is distinguished by a protected attribute such as race, religion or sexual orientation. These offences come with significant penalties, including a maximum sentence of up to seven years imprisonment. These are serious crimes and they will now be treated by such as the law.

This legislation and the new offences it introduces have been welcomed by people in my electorate and by leaders of the Australian Jewish community. It's a significant and necessary step in criminalising some of the most egregious acts of antisemitism and hate speech we have witnessed over the past year. However, while this legislation is a positive step, it is not sufficient in its own to stem the rising tide of antisemitism and hate that we are seeing in our country. It is vital that we continue to build on these reforms. In particular, I will continue to urge the government to deliver on its promise to introduce further protections against serious vilification as part of changes to the Criminal Code, as the Attorney-General committed to earlier this year. This has support of leaders of the Jewish community and of the LGBTQ+ community, another very important part of my community. We need robust, comprehensive legal protections that not only punish the acts of serious vilification but also deter them. I'm making a submission to the Senate inquiry in relation to this bill at the moment because, while I support where the bill is going, it is not going far enough, and we need greater protections for Australians of all beliefs to make sure that this sort of hateful vilification is not acceptable in this country and carries punishment. This is not just about protecting one community. This is about upholding the values of tolerance, respect and safety for all Australians regardless of their backgrounds or beliefs.

I respect these legal frameworks. I respect the work that has been done on doxxing and I want to extend it in relation to vilification hate speech. But I think we have a deeper thing we need to do in this country—that is, we need to reflect on what is happening in relation to how we treat each other and how we behave. We need to guard against it—every single one of us in our country—in terms of how we behave.

Let me give you an example. I have students who come to see me every term, and this term I had a group of year 10 and year 11 students from many of my schools around my community. I always ask the students: 'What's important to you? What do you want me to know? What should be on my list?' One young woman stood up and said, 'I'm worried about going to university in two years time.' She is a young Jewish woman in my community and that was one of her greatest concerns—whether she would be welcome, whether she would be safe and whether she would be able to participate in university in a way that any other Australian student should anticipate participating in university life. This was absolutely devastating to hear, and she was not alone in this group of about 16 kids. This was one of the biggest concerns that this young woman had. This, for me, is one of the reasons why I'm most concerned about the attitudes and some of the behaviour we are seeing across our community.

I see this in my schools. I had a young man in a similar forum last term tell me about his experience of walking down the street, wearing his school uniform, and being concerned about whether he was safe wearing his school uniform, which shows he goes to a Jewish school. He told me of a person driving along the street, slowing down, pulling over and swearing at him about being Jewish, and then making a Nazi salute—in the streets, in my community. This sort of behaviour is unacceptable. It is un-Australian. As a non-Jewish member of the community, it's shocking to me that people would think that this is some sort of behaviour that can fit within this country.

We can change the laws. We need to take much stronger action to change the behaviour at the universities, and to change the mindset of our universities. In my community, we need to make sure that all of our kids are standing up against antisemitism and, frankly, any kind of hate or any kind of vilification. There is no place for this.

We need to all reflect on ourselves in terms of how we can make sure that, in all of our actions and in all of our words, we are bringing people together and we are trying to build on the strength of this country. My mum came out to this country, like many people, as a 10-year-old Italian who didn't speak English. She had a wonderful life and found a wonderful acceptance in the Australian community. I think that acceptance and that sort of equality is what we need to continue to build. It is up to everybody; as well, it is up to us and what we do in our legislation. It is up to me and others to constantly lead and constantly call out the behaviour that we see and say, 'This is unacceptable.' I will continue to say that antisemitic behaviour—basically, vilification, hate towards anyone on the basis of their characteristics—is unacceptable in this country and is un-Australian.

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4) as circulated in my name together:

(1) Schedule 2, item 10, page 67 (line 19), after "privacy was", insert "expressly".

(2) Schedule 2, item 10, page 71 (line 13), after "journalistic material", insert "about matters of public interest".

(3) Schedule 2, item 10, page 72 (lines 6 to 8), omit all the words from and including "reasonably believes" to the end of clause 16, substitute:

: (a) reasonably believes that the invasion of privacy is reasonably necessary for one or more enforcement related activities conducted by, or on behalf of, an enforcement body; and

(b) is conducting a lawful investigation in respect of a serious crime.

(4) Schedule 2, item 10, page 72 (line 15), at the end of clause 17, add:

; to the extent that the intelligence agency is conducting a lawful national security operation.

Australia's Privacy Act is not only outdated; it's simply not fit for purpose anymore, and it fundamentally failing to keep up with the rapid rise of technologies that rely on vast quantities of personal information. But given the act was introduced in 1988, prior to Australia even joining the global internet—the same year that the Brisbane Expo, I might add, here in Australia, espoused that by 1988 we would all be living lives of wonderful luxury because the internet would have helped us become obsolete—it's not surprising that this act no longer works.

Fast forward to today, and the reality is that digital technologies are rapidly making all elements of this act almost obsolete. Artificial intelligence has stretched beyond the confines of science fiction. Our biometric data is used by shopping centres for targeted advertising. Our social media photos are used to train AI. Our devices record and often share the details of our daily lives, our habits and our behaviours. I am sure every single person in this room has had that experience where they will have a discussion with someone that they love about something that they might be considering purchasing or doing, only to then to find, when they go onto a social platform on the next iteration on their device, that option is sitting right in front of them amongst its advertising.

Recent major data breaches have definitely raised public awareness and have further highlighted the need for wide-ranging reform of our privacy safeguards. According to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, just under half of all Australians say that they were affected by a data breach in the previous year, and three-quarters have experienced harm as a result of that breach. They report having their personal information stolen, being unable to unsubscribe from marketing communications and having to provide sensitive information when they preferred not to. As a result, many are left feeling disempowered, stressed and anxious.

The bill before us then is welcome, particularly the new civil penalties, the pathway towards establishing a children's online privacy code and the statutory tort for serious invasions. However, while the measures in the bill will strengthen Australia's privacy law, this modest legislation alone will not bring Australian privacy law into line with global best practice, and it is disappointing that the government has stopped short of truly modernising our privacy legislation. Ultimately the Privacy Act review report put forward 116 proposals for reform of Australia's privacy framework, of which the government has agreed or agreed in principle to 106. Yet this bill aims to implement just 23 of those proposals. For this reason I will continue to call on the government to introduce the second tranche of privacy reforms before the next federal election.

But dealing with what we have here, among the many shortfalls in this bill are: the absence of a fair and reasonable test for dealing with personal information; no requirement that entities take steps to mitigate harm to individuals following a data breach; no clarification of timeframes for notification of data breaches; and no updated definitions of personal information or consent. Yet one of the most significant reforms that is included in this bill is the introduction of a statutory tort, or a civil wrong, that will allow Australians to sue for damages for serious invasions of privacy and enable courts to award damages, grant injunctions and make a range of other orders. While I do think this is a good development, I am concerned that the proposed exemptions are unnecessarily broad.

Specifically the bill introduces new and broad exemptions for journalists, enforcement bodies and intelligence agencies that deviate from the model proposed by the Australian Law Reform Commission and endorsed by the Privacy Act review. The journalism exemption would exclude any acts ostensibly done while developing journalistic material and would apply regardless of the content or the purpose of the journalism. This would mean that blatantly illegal and unjustifiable infringements of privacy by journalists that are not in the public interest would be exempt from the right of action. This might include illegal phone hacking by a news corporation or upskirting photos taken of celebrities by a tabloid. I can't help but think that many people would rightly expect that this is precisely the type of infringement that this tort should apply to—serious infringements of privacy without a principled justification.

In addition, the exemptions for enforcement bodies and intelligence agencies are unjustifiably broad, in my opinion, given there is a separate defence already for invasions of privacy that are required or authorised by law that would already cover lawful government interference with privacy. The detailed amendments I'm moving today would narrow the journalism exemption to apply to public interest journalism and better clarify the application of the enforcement bodies and national security agencies exemptions. I commend the amendments to the government.

The government does not support the amendments that have been moved by the member for North Sydney, but I am grateful for the support that the member for North Sydney has expressed for the bill itself. The government has given careful consideration to the breadth of the proposed exemptions and defences to ensure that the protection of privacy is appropriately balanced with other legitimate activities. The defence for conduct authorised by law would apply to conduct that is expressly authorised or impliedly authorised where the conduct is clearly necessary to carry out an activity authorised under statute. This is consistent with a similar exception to a number of the Australian privacy principles.

Exempting all journalistic material from the tort will protect the free flow of information to the public through the media. Seeking to confine the exception to material that is in the public interest would lead to arguments about the merits of publications and would only serve to increase the length and expense of court proceedings. The exemptions for enforcement bodies and intelligence agencies are intended to ensure that these entities are not unduly restricted in carrying out their legitimate functions. They recognise that, in some instances, these may need to be privacy intrusive. These agencies do have their own oversight processes and mechanisms that regulate their conduct, which are designed to suit their operating environment.

Thank you for your response, Attorney-General. Can I ask a clarifying point. To your commentary just then, this bill does introduce broad exemptions for journalism. I'm concerned they will potentially cover unjustifiable infringements like upskirting, which is where a photographer will take a photo of a celebrity with the camera going directly up underneath their clothing, or even phone hacking, which we saw in the not-too-distant past, specifically in the UK. Can you please confirm whether under the current bill these activities would be exempt?

To answer the question that has been raised by the member for North Sydney, I can say that this bill introduces what will be a new tort to Australian law for serious invasions of privacy. As with the development of other parts of tort law, we will see, as proceedings are brought, what the courts choose to describe as the full extent of the tort, the civil wrong that's been created by this legislation and the extent of the defences. I'm not going to predict in advance exactly what the parameters of this tort are going to be. That's going to be a matter for case law to work through.

Question unresolved.

As the question is unresolved, in accordance with standing order 188, the question will be included in the Federation Chamber's report to the House on the bill.

by leave—I move amendments 1 and 2 as circulated in my name together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 7), insert:

(2) Schedule 1, page 58 (after line 27), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Part 16 — Miscellaneous amendments

Privacy Act 1988

90 Subsection 6(1) (definition of consent )

Repeal the definition, substitute:

consent means voluntary, informed, current, specific, and unambiguous indication through clear action, which has not since been withdrawn.

91 Subsection 6(1) (definition of personal information )

Repeal the definition, substitute:

personal information: see section 6AAA.

92 After section 6

Insert:

6AAA Meaning of personal information

(1) In this Act, personal information means information or an opinion that relates to an identified individual, or an individual who is reasonably identifiable:

(a) whether the information or opinion is true or not; and

(b) whether the information or opinion is recorded in a material form or not.

Note: Section 187LA of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 extends the meaning of personal information to cover information kept under Part 5-1A of that Act.

(2) For the purposes of this section, an individual is reasonably identifiable if they are capable of being distinguished from all other individuals, regardless of whether or not their identity is known.

93 Application of amendments

The amendments of section 6 of the Privacy Act 1988 made by this Part, and section 6AAA of the Privacy Act 1988 as inserted by this Part, apply in relation to acts done, or practices engaged in, after the commencement of this item.

One must only read the title of the act which determines Australian privacy law today, the Privacy Act 1988, to realise we might have a problem. The world was very different in 1988. Office desks had in-trays and out-trays for physical letters. The word 'email' was mostly used in the vernacular of academic and other niche circles, and the idea of a personal computer was one for science fiction. Throughout the 21st century, successive Australian governments have iteratively amended the Privacy Act to manage the rapidly accelerating and unpredictable change brought by technological progress to account for the once nascent but now fundamental concept of digital privacy. Europe's General Data Protection Regulation, the gold standard, inspired various other countries to enact similarly ambitious law, but not here—not for Australia.

The failure of our Privacy Act to fully scale to the demands of the digital era has been as dramatic as it has destructive. Just look to the headlines of recent years. The Guardian in November 2022 said, 'Hackers release records they claim are related to mental health and alcohol issues.' ABC in April 2024, following the Optus breach, said, 'More than 300,000 attempts of identity fraud blocked.' If these headlines show one thing, it's that the modern challenges of cyberspace have been too much for our Privacy Act to withstand, and individual Australians have largely been left to manage the deeply personal and lasting consequences of its failure, with many the victims of scams and other invasive offences.

A new tort to combat doxxing is a start, but it's too little, too late for the Jewish Australian creatives impacted earlier this year, many of whom live in my electorate of Goldstein. The problem is pervasive. According to the Consumer Policy Research Centre, if an Australian user were to maximise the privacy settings for all the apps and websites they use daily, it would take 30 minutes of toggling every day to do it. That's two minutes for every app we tap and website we visit. This takes a European user on average just 30 seconds. My question to this is: why? I'm not sure that the government has given us a good answer. There's no reason Australia can't legislate a regime of privacy reform on par with international best practice.

That is why I'm moving amendments which amend the definitions of 'personal information' and 'consent' in line with both the best international practice and the expectations of the Australian public. The low bar at which these two concepts are defined in Australian law enables the internet activity of Australians to be tracked across the internet to a greater extent than many other OECD nations. These two amendments are targeted improvements and do not represent the full scope of reform that needs to be done for our Privacy Act to meet international best practice, but redefining these two pivotal concepts is a start. Doing so would deal with a range of digital harms and offer certainty to businesses currently subject to Privacy Act regulation. Rather than wait, we can do this now.

The definition of 'personal information' needs to be expanded to include information that's both inferred and technical, such as IP addresses and device identifiers, where this information could be used to identify an individual. As it stands, if data does not meet this definition, none of the Australian privacy principles apply. This amendment creates a framework whereby the privacy of individuals is protected from systems which track their behaviour online, and this includes the unique fingerprints left by their devices, like the type of device that they use, their geographic location and various other forms of metadata. This includes where a person could be individuated in a data set by such inferred or technical information, even when their name isn't known.

My second amendment updates the definition of 'consent' and brings it in line with the digital era. Instead of consent being something that can currently only be expressed or implied, my amendment would revise it to one which must be voluntary, informed, current, specific and unambiguous. If this definition had been in place earlier, Meta may not have been able to scrape the social media profile data of Australians to train their AI models. These amendments are a strong start to improving the privacy of Australian citizens. Each is not only in line with international best practice but in line with the expectations of the Australian public. I commend these amendments to the house.

It's reflective of the complete lack of interest that the former government had in the Privacy Act that the only set of amendments that were produced by the former government for the whole of the nine years between 2013 and 2022 were amendments that I brought to the House in May of 2013 to create a scheme of notifiable data breaches. The then Liberal opposition said that they were in favour of the scheme of notifiable data breaches that were contained in the bill that I gave the catchy title Privacy Amendment (Privacy Alerts) Bill. Unfortunately, the bill, having passed the House of Representatives in 2013, lapsed on the proroguing of parliament for the election in 2013. The bill, despite the support expressed for it by the then Liberal opposition, did not reappear for another three years, and the scheme of notifiable data breaches did not become law until January of 2018. That is reflective of the near-complete lack of interest that the Liberal opposition, when they were in government, had in bringing the Privacy Act, which the member for Goldstein rightly points out was passed in 1988, into the digital age.

I don't detect from any of the things that any members have said about this legislation that it's other than supported. Indeed, everybody appears to recognise the need for the very substantial updating of the Privacy Act to bring it into the digital age. That's, of course, the process that the government has now embarked on, but it's going to be a big process.

The amendments that were moved by the member for Goldstein propose updated wording for the definitions of 'personal information' and 'consent'. These were among the matters that were considered by the very broad review of the Privacy Act that was carried out by the Attorney-General's Department, which the government has published, along with a later response by our government to that very broad review of the Privacy Act. We have agreed, in principle, that the definitions of both of those terms—that is, 'personal information' and 'consent'—should be updated to make it clear, as I did when I was introducing this bill, that the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 is just the first stage of the government's commitment to providing individuals with greater control over their personal information and bringing this legislation into the digital age so that it's fit for purpose.

The government has clearly stated that it intends to continue to advance proposals that it has agreed to in principle to progress the response to the Privacy Act review. We are conducting targeted consultations with stakeholders on draft provisions.

It's really important to ensure that the amended definitions, which are foundational to the operation of the act, are drafted carefully so that they are fit for purpose and workable in a diverse range of contexts. For that reason, the government does not support the amendments moved by the member for Goldstein, which is not to say in any way that there's a disagreement in principle that, along with many other provisions in the Privacy Act, there is a need for amendment and for the whole of the act to be brought up to date.

I rise in support of the amendments moved by the member for Goldstein because I just want to take a moment and reflect on how infinitely reasonable the amendments were that she has suggested to the government of today.

I thank the Attorney-General for giving us the background on reviews of the Privacy Act since it was introduced in 1988. But I would posit that the challenge we now face is that we have a moment in time where there is a government that is prepared to move forward in reform in this area, but it is moving so slowly that we may find ourselves in a situation where, in the next year, we go back to the polls and we have a change in government which means we get no further.

So, in reflecting on the fact that the Attorney-General has just rejected the amendments moved by the member for Goldstein, I would ask the Attorney-General: what is the timeline for the government doing this work which we have all, universally, agreed today in the chamber is needed? It's well past due. Can Australians expect to see this reform before the next election?

The government is consulting, as I've said, on further amendments to the Privacy Act. That is a targeted consultation about draft provisions, and I'm hopeful of bringing a further stage of amendment to the Privacy Act to the parliament in coming months.

Question unresolved.

Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024; Second Reading

Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024

I have stood in this chamber and spoken before about the critical importance of providing equal access to education and its opportunities in this country. In fact, some people might cruelly say that I only have three speeches, and the education one is my favourite one. However, this topic is crucial because education is the foundation we all need in order to go on and thrive in life—in our careers and in our heads. Education opens doors and leads to prosperity, to purpose and to wellbeing. It can offer transformative opportunities. One of the key features of this nation, I think, is that education can transform our lives. We are not consigned by our birth if we have a good education. Whether you live in the middle of one of our cities or in a small community in the bush, Australians should have the same educational opportunities, and the opportunities should be the same regardless of what your parents can afford.

That is where our mighty public school system comes into play. There are more than 6,700 public primary and high schools scattered across Australia, like St George State High School, which I attended; Trinity Bay State High School, which my wife attended; and Brisbane South State Secondary College, which my son attends right now. Hopefully, he's there today! These schools, our state schools, are open to everyone. The classrooms are filled with children of different cultural, religious and language backgrounds. Public schools also cater to the most disadvantaged children in this country—students from poorer families, students from rural and remote Australia, First Nations students and students with a disability. Every gate welcomes all to pass through it.

That is why I'm pleased to support the Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill. It proposes to amend the Australian Education Act and increase funding for Australia's public schools to help to ensure equality of access. Importantly, the bill protects Commonwealth funding, going forward, and ensures that it cannot go backwards. It also includes requirements for transparency about outcomes, so school communities and families can see the positive changes occurring as a result of increased funding.

The funding is part of the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement. This is due to replace the current National School Reform Agreement, which expires at the end of this year. The new agreement will run for 10 years, until the end of 2034, so it delivers much more certainty. With the joys of those four-year budgets, it's great to see a system where we will have funding certainty way out to 2034.

At the core of the new agreement is the assurance that all public schools will receive full and fair funding. It puts every public school on a path to 100 per cent of the schooling resource standard or SRS.

Now, this gets a little boring, but, as to the SRS, you need to remember the recommendation of the Gonski review back in 2011. 'Gonski'—people have heard that name. You need to remember that he was a banker. He was focused on productivity and economic reform. He wasn't a teacher or a school officer or a school aide. He was someone who saw education almost as an economic commodity—and that was a good thing, because the SRS, the schooling resource standard, is an estimate of the level of government funding that a school needs to meet the educational requirements of its students—government funding. Parents would still have to make some contributions. Theoretically, it is free, but we all know that there are some things that you need to pay extra money for.

Currently, the base amount per student is $13,570 for a primary school student and $17,053 for a high school student. David Gonski recommended additional funding, or loading, for the following cohorts: students with disability and First Nations students—and, interestingly, that was all First Nations students; even though half of First Nations students live in the cities, overall there was still some generational disadvantage in there. He also wanted more funding for those with socioeducational disadvantage and students with low English proficiency, as well as extra funding depending on the size and the location of the school. As I said, this was not because David Gonski was some bleeding-heart liberal but because he saw the economic returns that would go to business and to this nation.

The Gonski model is needs based. This means that, at non-government schools, the base amount per student is reduced and takes into account the average income of the parents at the school—not just of those in the surrounding area, but the actual data of the parents that send their kids to that school. As a result, the school may only receive a percentage of the SRS base amount. It's a better model. Take what happened in the past sometimes—like in my home town of St George, which was a disadvantaged one. Kids from St George who went to a boarding school dragged the poor postcode with them to their boarding school, and the boarding school got the advantage, I guess, of that old postcode, even though those who'd go to a boarding school were perhaps some of the wealthier people in the town. So this is trying to correct that and going to the actual parents.

Every state school gate accepts everyone in its catchment—a defined catchment. Some go a little bit broader, but the general rule is: they have their enrolment managed. But it is also true that schools look like their surrounds. So wealthier suburbs do produce wealthier schools. Battling suburbs have students that have more challenges.

The way that Commonwealth government funding is split with the states and territories is different for non-government and public schools. For non-government, it's a different arrangement. For non-government schools, the Commonwealth is responsible for 80 per cent of the funding, with the states and territories contributing 20 per cent. With public schools, the Commonwealth provides 20 per cent of the funding and the states and territories fund 75 per cent. You don't need to have passed maths at St George State High with the late, great Nick McMullen to work out that there is a five per cent shortfall.

The Albanese Labor government have been working hard to resolve this. The fabulous Minister for Education, Jason Clare, and his team are committed to getting all public schools on a path to 100 per cent of the SRS. This pathway opens up with contributions from both the Commonwealth government and the individual states and territories. The Australian Education Act currently indicates that the Commonwealth pay a maximum of 20 per cent of the SRS to public schools. This bill makes this 20 per cent a minimum, not a maximum. I see some graduates from Brisbane State High in the background there: Libby Crocker and Dene Crocker, who are still involved with Brisbane State High and the great work that it does. For all those people who go to state schools, such as Brisbane State High, what this means is that the Commonwealth proportion of funding becomes the new baseline for the states and territories. This will become legislation, meaning that the increased funding levels are confirmed and cannot be changed without further amendments to the act.

So far in 2024, the Albanese government has announced new public school funding deals with the governments of Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory. This is good news for students and families and means funding certainty from 1 January next year. The road to full funding in these agreements is short and straightforward. Every public school in WA will be fully funded by 1 January 2026—good news for Western Australians, I would imagine. In Tasmania, the public schools will be fully funded by 2029.

The changes are even more substantial in the Northern Territory, an area in Australia that has a lot of educational challenges, especially once you move outside of Darwin. The Northern Territory currently receives less funding than anywhere else in Australia. It is unacceptable that students in the public schools in the Territory receive around 80 per cent less than they should get under the Gonski recommendations. The new agreement with the Territory government fixes this inequity. Funding for public schools in the Northern Territory will double—double!—and we have fast-tracked the path to full funding by more than 20 years. To repeat: the reforms in this bill mean that the new baseline level of funding from the Commonwealth for public schools will be 20 per cent in all jurisdictions except for the Northern Territory, where it will be 40 per cent from 2029 because of the special challenges.

The other part of the bill that is important is the accountability measures it puts in place for school funding. Transparency and accountability will be included as a purpose of the amended act. This includes a requirement for the Minister for Education to deliver an annual report on the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement and the states and territories. As the Minister for Education put it, the funding agreements are 'not a blank cheque'. They include reform targets, such as phonics and numeracy checks early on in a student's primary school journey so that adjustments and extra support can be provided if necessary.

Other measures include additional funding for mental health and wellbeing, with qualified staff to deliver services—something that's particularly important for those kids who went through the COVID 'hiccup', shall we say, that put them a number of years behind when it comes to educational attainment. Teaching staff and school leaders will be supported to access targeted professional development. There will be incentives for teachers to work in schools that need additional support. The states and territories will also be required to publicly deliver reports on progress, to ensure transparency.

This bill is just one part of a package of Labor reforms that support Australians in their educational journeys. We are boosting teacher numbers with an additional 4,000 places in teaching degrees and $56 million for Commonwealth teaching scholarships. Reflecting our commitment to equal access, the priority cohorts for these scholarships are First Nations people, people from the bush—rural, regional and remote areas—and people with disability.

The Albanese government has targeted the improvement of school infrastructure, particularly state school infrastructure, with $490 million for rounds 1 and 2 of the Schools Upgrade Fund for new and enhanced facilities, IT equipment and the development of outdoor learning spaces. I know that schools in my electorate have taken advantage of that scheme.

We've increased the wages of our early childhood educators, underlying our commitment to the retention and growth of this crucial workforce—something that everyone involved in the childcare sector would be appreciative of, I'm sure. It also directly benefits the 1.8 million Australian children aged zero to five, the key years for brain, language and social development—in other words, the building blocks for good health, education and wellbeing later in life.

We have also invested in higher education. The Labor government directed $2.7 million over two years, from 2022 to 2023, to conduct a 12 month review of the Australian higher education system. The result was the Australian Universities Accord. The substantial reforms already underway, include wiping $3 billion of student HELP debt, providing a prac payment for teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work students and expanding the fee-free university ready course program.

We've also bolstered TAFE enrolments with our fee-free TAFE initiative. This has seen over 508,000 enrolments since January last year. The program has removed financial barriers to training, while focusing on addressing the skill shortages that we were left with. I'm proud that this program will continue under a Labor government.

On the weekend, Prime Minister Albanese announced 3 million Australians with student debt will have their debt cut by 20 per cent if neighbour wins the next election. For the average student, this means a cut of more than $5,000. For some with larger debts, it's more than that. Bizarrely, the LNP opposed this policy. That's a referendum at the ballot box that will make Julie-Ann Campbell, the Labor candidate for Morton, very happy and also make Renee Coffey in Griffith very happy I would imagine, Member for Blair, to go to the election on that. If you vote Labor, university students, you get a 20 per cent discount. That's a great campaign.

We know university used to be a lot cheaper. I know that when I went to teachers' college, I went for free. In fact, I was paid to go to teachers' college! I did have to pay for my—

Was it a good investment?

It was a good investment—11 years of teaching that I loved. I did have to pay HECS on my arts and law degrees, which was fair enough. It's not fair for this generation of students who are paying a larger percentage towards their tertiary education than I did.

We are also raising the threshold that people can earn before they start having to make their HECS repayments. With these measures, Labor is taking action on intergenerational inequality and enabling many more Australians into further study after school. The coalition left us a skills catastrophe, and we're fixing up.

The reforms in this bill lead to an additional $16 billion in funding for Australian schools, if all states and territories sign up. I'm proud to say this is the biggest extra investment in public education ever. As a proud graduate of St George State High School, as a former state school English, geography and history teacher and as the parent of a kid at a state school, I know how important this investment is. Ultimately, we can only trust a Labor government to make sure students, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, are not being left behind. To do so is better for the nation, better for business, better for our kids and I commend the bill to the House.

I rise to contribute on the second reading of the Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024 and, even more importantly, the amendment that's been moved by a Greens member, because the position of the Greens when it comes to school funding is very important and very relevant to all Australians but particularly to the people of my electorate of Sturt.

In my electorate of Sturt, 56 per cent of enrolments in secondary education is with the non-government school sector. That's more than half of the families in my electorate of Sturt who send their children in secondary school to a non-government school. Regrettably, the Greens have a radical and frightening policy position to defund non-government schools. If they get their way, if they are successful at the next election and can implement their values when it comes to school funding, they will be ripping away the entirety of taxpayer funding to the non-government school sector. That is truly frightening to me, to the parents in my electorate of Sturt who send their children to non-government schools and to any parent around the country who either sends their school children to non-government schools now or intends to in the future. This will be the most radical defunding of education in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia. That is the proposition that the Greens seek to implement if they succeed in having some kind of powerful position post the next election.

Why? The Greens are a communist party. At every opportunity they want government to do absolutely everything. They hate the non-government school sector because that is not the government providing an option for parents to educate their children. When it comes to the non-government school sector, it's even worse because almost the entirety of non-government schools are run by the faith based sector. One thing the Greens hate more than the government not doing something is the faith based sector providing services like education to our community. My position couldn't be more the reverse of the Greens when it comes to that. Whether it's education, aged care or the many programs that the faith sector provides in our community, we are lucky to have them and grateful for what they do. At every opportunity we will bitterly resist and oppose the hatred that the Greens have for the faith community and the faith sector.

Their position on defunding non-government schools is probably the one that would have the most frightening impact, particularly on my constituents. That's why I take the opportunity in this debate on school funding to make it very clear that there is an election coming up in less than six months. I think, regrettably, the Greens have had these crazy policy positions for a long time, and not enough attention has been put on the positions that they hold. In the last 12 months, I think people have started to wake up to the Greens—who they really are, what they really stand for and what the consequences of voting for the Greens, empowering them and putting them in decision-making positions might be on the lives of everyday Australians. My hope is that, at the next election, people take a much closer look at the policy positions of the Greens than they have in the past.

The Greens were a very different political force 10, 20 or 30 years ago. They were very much an environmental movement that became a political party. In the era of Bob Brown, certainly, they were focused on environmental issues and things that I have a great deal of support towards, like much better custody of our environment and addressing important issues like climate change and other environmental risk. But what has clearly happened in the last 10 years or so is that the Greens environmental political movement has been hijacked by the old socialists and communists, whose brand was completely trashed through the decades of the post-Second World War era up to the fall of the Berlin Wall. They were thoroughly, comprehensively and consistently rejected as a political option by the Australian voters through that time.

They have infiltrated the Greens political party and they have brought their insane policy positions with them, whether it's school funding and scrapping support for the non-government sector, whether it's private health insurance and getting rid of the private health insurance rebate or whether it's reintroducing death taxes on inheritance. In my home state of South Australia, they want to scrap the naval shipbuilding sector completely. That would mean more than 10,000 jobs in the South Australian economy gone. All these things will have an enormous impact on the people of Sturt, the people of South Australia and the people of Australia. But I actually think that the most significant and serious issue is their frightening position on funding for non-government schools.

I say very clearly to the non-government schools sector that we in the coalition back you and support you. We are here to make sure that you keep the quite appropriate, justified and necessary financial support that you receive from the taxpayer. Eighty per cent of school funding to the non-government sector comes from the Commonwealth. That will absolutely be there, reliably, under a coalition government. But the threat to it is the frightening scenario of the Greens political party holding some kind of balance of power after the next election and using that balance of power to implement their radical agenda. No. 1 on their list, unfortunately, is the non-government school sector and funding from the taxpayer to the non-government school sector. That will increase school fees for the parents of my electorate of Sturt by thousands of dollars a year, on average. In the middle of this cost-of-living crisis, the last thing that the people of Sturt need—56 per cent of the parents in Sturt send their children to a non-government school—is their school fees going up by thousands and thousands of dollars a year because the Greens have been able to implement their frightening agenda to de-fund the non-government school sector.

Now, this will be a debate that will, I think, be very significant in my electorate and many electorates through the campaign that is already under way, and there will be a spotlight on the position that the Greens have to de-fund non-government schools like there never has before. The unfortunate reality is that there is a higher likelihood than ever that they will be in a position to hold a future potential minority Labor government to ransom on these issues if we don't call them out on their policy positions and if we don't ensure that we defeat them at the next election. We are lucky and grateful to have the non-government school sector in this country. In some electorates, like mine, they educate more than half the students. Parents actively make a choice to send their children to a non-government school. We believe in choice and we believe in those options being properly and appropriately supported through taxpayer funds. Don't forget, an enormously higher amount of money goes to the government sector—generally and on a per-student basis—than the non-government sector. If we didn't have the non-government sector, the cost of providing education in this country would absolutely explode, and that means higher taxes for everyone. So, on top of the increased school fees for parents under the Greens' school funding policies, we'd also have to dramatically increase taxation on all Australians to fund the enormous growth that would be necessary in funding the government sector, because a lot of parents wouldn't be able to afford—if their school fees go up by thousands of dollars a year—to keep their kids in the schools that they're in right now.

I condemn the Greens for this dangerous policy but I give them a commitment that I will join with them in making sure everyone knows where they stand when it comes to funding the non-government sector or, in their case, de-funding it.

I'm pleased to speak on the Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024. In fact, we have a good education system in this country, but it could be a lot better and a lot fairer. The legislation can help us achieve this by increasing funding to public schools—known in my home state of Queensland as state schools—across the country and removing the current funding cap that stopped the Commonwealth from providing additional funding to state schools.

At the moment, the maximum the Commonwealth government can provide to state schools is 20 per cent of the schooling resource standard, and the bill turns that maximum into a minimum. It turns that ceiling into a floor. The bill will enable additional funding to flow to the states and territories who have signed up to the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement, or BFSA. It's a landmark piece of legislation, this, and will allow us to deliver more funding to state schools and tie that funding to reforms to help lift student outcomes, set targets and improve school funding transparency.

The funding is not without conditions. We make no apologies for tying this additional money to reforms that support teachers and helps students catch up on, keep going in and finish school. It includes practical things likes phonics checks, numeracy checks, evidence-based teaching and catch-up tutoring. We want to identify those young people who are students who need additional support, and make sure they get it. We're investing billions of dollars in public schools and we're going to make sure that money makes a difference—clearly, it needs to.

The BFSA is a 10-year agreement developed in collaboration with state and territory governments, First Nations peoples, education representatives and non-government peak education bodies. To date, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory have signed up to the Commonwealth's BFSA offer. We've put $16 billion of additional funding for state schools on the table and continue to work with the remaining states and territories to fully fund schools across the country. This will represent the biggest extra investment in state education by the Australian government in the country's history.

The legislation is about fully funding our state schools and tying that funding to reforms to keep students in education to finish their schooling. At the moment, nongovernment schools are funded at the level David Gonski set in the Gonski reforms. They are on track to get there or above it and coming back down to it. Most public schools or state schools aren't. We want parents to have the choice and decide which type of schooling their children should have—government or nongovernment. But we want our state schools to be cathedrals of learning. Children have a right to attend a well-resourced state school. My children attended Raceview State School and Bremer State High School, and they got a great education at both.

The Commonwealth government provides 80 per cent of the schooling resource standard or SRS funding for nongovernment schools, and the states and territories provide the other 20 per cent. For state schools, it's the reverse. The Commonwealth provides 20 per cent of the SRS funding, and the states and territories are supposed to provide another 75 per cent. It means there's a gap of about five per cent. This legislation amends the Australian Education Act 2013 and enables the Commonwealth to lift its share of funding to state schools above 20 per cent. It removes the funding ceiling that stops the Commonwealth doing so. It means that 20 per cent becomes the minimum, not the maximum. It enables the ratcheting up of funding.

This funding will enable the government to fully fund public schools in Western Australia, Tasmania, the Northern Territory and any other jurisdiction that signs up to the Albanese government's state school funding offer as part of the BFSA. It's a 10-year agreement for greater funding certainty. It's important to lock in the Commonwealth government funding for those schools to make sure they don't go backwards. It's increasing transparency, accountability and reporting mechanisms to the parliament by the minister on the progress of the national school and education reform. The legislation enables additional funding to flow to states and territories who sign up.

That's why we're putting this money towards education. It's not just about giving money; it's about making sure kids get quality standards, the best teaching, the best resourcing and the best schooling, which they need. We want to do the same across the country that we are going to do in Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory, including in my home state of Queensland. I recently met with representatives of the Queensland Teachers' Union, and made it crystal clear that the Commonwealth government is prepared to increase its funding. But the Queensland government needs to do much better. That funding and what it's used for are important. We want children who need our help to get the most, to catch up, to keep up and to finish school. NAPLAN results tell us that one in 10 young people at the moment are below the minimum standard we've set. One in three from poorer families are below that standard. The number of children finishing high school has been going backwards from 83 per cent to 73 per cent over the last seven years, and that's simply not good enough. We need to fix this. We need to turn that around.

I was the first person in my family to attend high school and complete it, let alone go to university. I want other young people in my community to have the same opportunities that I did. That's what this agreement is all about. The sad reality is that how much your parents earn still matters. Your postcode is still critical. Where you live is critical, as is your ethnic background and the religious experience you have. If you're a child from a poorer family, you're less likely to go to child care. You're more likely to fall behind in primary school. You're less likely to finish high school, and you're less likely to go to TAFE or university. It's the same if you're from an ethnic or Indigenous background or if you grew up in rural and regional areas or in the bush.

Our new national school reform agreement, the BFSA, is a real opportunity to do something about that. We want to give our kids the opportunity and tools for success in life—one that doesn't hold anyone back and doesn't leave anyone behind. I want to make some comments about schools in my electorate and in my home state of Queensland, which has just seen a change of government following the election on 26 October. We have a lot of great state schools in my electorate, across Ipswich, the Somerset region and the Karana Downs region. I've been proud to secure funding for upgrades to a number of local schools in recent years as part of our $270 million Schools Upgrade Fund, which is being rolled out by the Albanese government to provide and boost school infrastructure for students. These include several projects I delivered as part of election commitments—namely, $2 million for a community sports hub at Ipswich State High which is about to be built; $100,000 for an outdoor learning space, and toilets and playground upgrades at Springfield Central State School; $60,000 for a prep-safe playground at Brassall State School; and $15,000 for an audiovisual equipment upgrade at Karalee State School.

This year, in the latest round of the Schools Upgrade Fund, Riverview State School, in the eastern part of Ipswich, received $800,000 to upgrade learning and teaching spaces; and little Linville State School, in the upper Somerset region, received $850,000 to upgrade an amenities block, playground and tennis court, and to install a new pathway. I was very pleased to see these two smaller primary schools in working-class suburbs like Riverview and Ipswich and in the rural Somerset region receive this much-needed funding. Small schools like these and the children who attend them need our support in particular.

That's why Labor went to the last election committing to work with the states and territories to get all students an opportunity in life and to get all schools on a pathway to full and fairer funding. Delivering that $16 billion over 10 years in additional funding is critical, and it's on the table now. Of this, an additional $3.1 billion has been offered to the Queensland government for Queensland state schools. It should be taken up. This is because it's the biggest increase in Commonwealth government funding to state schools that we've ever seen. It would mean an extra $3.1 billion. Just imagine the impact that would have on rural and regional parts of Queensland.

Last year the former Queensland Labor government committed to ensuring that every state school was on a path to reach 100 per cent of the SRS. They also said that the states are in the process of lifting their funding to 75 per cent of the SRS. Note that the former government agreed that the share of state schools in 2024 was 70.5 per cent, and that Queensland had lifted its funding share by 1.24 per cent since 2018. The offer on the table had the Commonwealth offering to lift its funding share by 2.5 per cent in the course of the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement. Further, the former state government had cited the need to provide early intervention for Queensland students. The additional Commonwealth government funding will be tied to reforms to improve outcomes for students and their teachers, like in my community of Blair. These reforms will include initiatives to help attract and retain teachers and school leaders, and in-school wellbeing coordinators, and for targeted support for students who fall behind.

That's why the new Queensland government needs to take up this offer and come to the party as well. The reforms are particularly necessary given that the NAPLAN results that the Albanese government released recently showed an increase in the percentage of Queensland students who need additional support in reading. The government will introduce legislation into parliament that will remove the funding cap that stops the Commonwealth providing additional funding to state schools, and that's what this is about. The Northern Territory and Western Australian governments have reached agreements. The new Queensland government needs to do so as well. We need to do a lot better when it comes to this space.

So, in the interests of my local community and the broader Queensland community, I'm urging the new Queensland LNP government and the new minister for education, John-Paul Langbroek, to do the right thing and join in good-faith negotiations. Better still, just go ahead and sign the agreement to ensure full and fairer funding for state schools in Queensland, including in my electorate. I'm the product of Ipswich East State School for my primary education, I graduated from what was then called Bundamba State High School, now Bundamba State Secondary College, and I got a good education. I want young people to get the good education that I received.

In a small town like the one I grew up in, Coonabarabran, in north-west New South Wales, schools are a really big deal. Whether it's the community based preschool originally built by parents back in the seventies because, hey, someone had to do it; the Catholic school in Coona that still educates young people through to year 10; or the local infant and primary schools scattered in smaller towns like Binnaway and Baradine around the larger regional centre of Coonabarabran, each environment is not just a place of learning for young people but an actual beating heart of a community.

For me, my learning experience was pretty much a straight run from Coonabarabran infants school to Coonabarabran primary school to Coonabarabran High School. While being part of such a small community meant everyone knew everything, I'm grateful to my public school education, to the teachers that guided and coached me along the way and for the opportunities my education has afforded me. Yet, recently returning to my hometown, I was struck by the fact that the gap in what students there can expect and will experience today may be wider than it was for me. As with all public schools, the community out there is operating in a constant state of juggle as they try to meet every students' learning needs without the necessary funding.

Meanwhile, in my community of North Sydney, while there is much I love about it, the overcrowded public infant and primary schools, which are incredibly well respected but also generally feature demountables stacked on areas that were once green play spaces, and the lack of multiple publicly funded co-ed high schools are not on that list. Yet my community in North Sydney cares deeply about education. The local government area of North Sydney has one of the highest concentrations of educational facilities in the country, with 21 primary and secondary schools in just a 10½ square-kilometre area.

Recently, we had a couple of great new public schools open in our area: Anzac Park Public School and Cammeraygal High School, which both opened their doors during 2015 and 2016. In a relatively short period of time, both of those schools have contributed significantly to our community whilst ensuring young bright minds across North Sydney have access to some of the best learning experiences in the country.

In this context then, while I welcome this bill, which will increase the Commonwealth's minimum share of funding for public schools, I question whether it goes far enough to address what is a fundamental problem in our public education system, that being chronic underfunding. In that context, I strongly encourage the government to acknowledge the differing needs and circumstances of the states when making these funding agreements, as not all states are equal, with the state of New South Wales currently struggling to fund everything it needs following the recent GST reforms. I'd also encourage the government to go further by guaranteeing a Commonwealth funding share of 25 per cent at a minimum to make sure our public schools can meet the needs of our children regardless of where they live or their family's socioeconomic status.

Since 2013, in the wake of the Gonski review, Australia has based its goals for school funding on the schooling resource standard, which estimates how much public funding is required to meet students' educational needs. Under that model, the obligations to provide the funding needed are shared by the Commonwealth and the state and territory governments, with our current agreement seeing the Commonwealth contribute a maximum of 20 per cent for that while states and territories contribute 75 per cent. Thanks to my public school education, even I can do the maths on that and can see there is a current funding shortfall of at least five per cent that has persisted from government to government. Surely, after 11 years, it's time we rectified this situation.

As a nation, we have a proud history of public school education, with two-thirds of all Australian students educated in our public school system. Yet 80 per cent of the children being educated in this way currently come from families with low socioeconomic advantage. At the same time, more than 80 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and more than two-thirds of children with a disability are educated in the public system. So, while public schools give our children the guarantee of an education regardless of their circumstances, any short-sheeting of this system ultimately is far more likely to impact people who are already vulnerable. Today, only 1.3 per cent of public schools in Australia are fully funded—1.3 per cent—and that should be intolerable to our wider community.

The government's Better and Fairer Schools Agreement then aims to close this funding gap by raising federal funding to 22.5 per cent of the schooling resource standard with states covering the remaining 77.5 per cent. To do this, the bill amends the Australian Education Act to allow for this increased funding share. Its central provision turns what is currently a 20 per cent Commonwealth funding ceiling into a floor, meaning the federal government would have to provide at least 20 per cent of the schooling resource standard going forward. There is a special agreement between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory to ensure the Commonwealth can provide 40 per cent of funding in that region. On top of this, the bill introduces a ratchet mechanism which would ensure the Commonwealth funding share cannot be less than the year before. Finally, the bill removes the requirement for the Commonwealth funding share to be consistent across all jurisdictions, allowing funding percentages to differ depending on the needs of the states and territories.

But here's the rub. Digging further into the details of the bill, my community in North Sydney has strongly advocated for this funding increase to be supported, but many are also confused as to why the bill doesn't codify the full funding share committed to in the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement. While the government has outlined its intention to fund 22.5 per cent of the schooling resourcing standard, the bill sets the Commonwealth funding floor at 20 per cent. When explaining the apparent disconnect between the legislation and the intention, the Treasurer said the ratchet mechanism will ensure the 20 per cent floor is effectively increased over time. But, having survived in this environment for the past 2½ years, I can't help but ask the obvious question: why not simply raise the funding floor to align with the 22½ per cent agreement from the outset and avoid any risk of confusion? Or, better yet, lift it all the way to 25 per cent, and close the funding gap once and for all. After all, I've personally seen how quickly good policy can be neutered by different political ideology, and for this reason I would encourage this government to begin in a way which is consistent with how it would like to see the policy proceed.

This year alone, public schools across the country will be underfunded on average by $2,509 per student, and every year that funding gap goes unfilled is a year our public schools do not have the resources to fully meet the educational needs of the 2.6 million students in our public school system. We need to address this issue with the agency it requires.

At the same time, however, I've heard from teachers and experts in my electorate that the government's proposed 22½ per cent funding agreement doesn't account for the differing fiscal circumstances from state to state. We know different jurisdictions have different needs. In fact, the government has considered this by agreeing to move towards a 40 per cent funding share in the Northern Territory. But, in the case of my state of New South Wales, this consideration of fairness appears to have been lost. For example, compare New South Wales to WA. It's no secret WA has high revenue from its natural resources. On top of this, recent changes to the distribution of GST revenue have given WA a much greater share, estimated to be worth somewhere between $30 billion and $50 billion by 2030. These extra payments to WA are initially being funded through general Commonwealth tax revenue, yet New South Wales has received none of these 'magic new payments'. Indeed, our GST take has decreased, yet the Commonwealth government is arguing our state should expect to pay no more than what WA has already agreed to take in this circumstance. This just seems unfair and almost unnecessarily impunity to my home state of New South Wales. Our kids deserve the best education we can provide them, and this government should be more open to negotiating appropriate terms state by state.

More broadly, the key message I've heard over and over from my community is that the 22½ per cent Commonwealth resourcing share is just not enough. Public schools have now experienced more than a decade of federal promises to help meet the needs of schooling with no results. Under Julia Gillard, the Labor government promised to bring the school to 100 per cent of the funding standard over six years. However, the subsequent coalition government cancelled the final years of funding increases, and over the following 10 years the total funding gap between promised public school funding and reality ballooned out to $14 billion. To add insult to injury, in 2018, the federal funding ceiling of 20 per cent was implemented by the coalition government, locking in the funding gap that persists today.

For all of these reasons, the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement is an important step in addressing the current shortfall, but it leaves schools dealing with years of underfunding before reaching their goal. Ultimately, even with the 40 per cent provided to the Northern Territory, the community there will not reach 100 per cent of the schooling resource standard until 2029. Meanwhile, public schools continue to be forced to juggle staffing shortages as teachers try to manage large class sizes with limited support, while other schools are forced to limit subject choices, reduce library services or make cuts to essential literacy and numeracy intervention programs that help students in need. We can and must do better if we are to continue to stand as a nation that believes in public education.

As the largest recipient of tax revenue, the Commonwealth government has the capacity to close this gap much faster by ensuring future investment decisions prioritise education over things like, say, fossil fuel subsidies. Ultimately, the investment required by the federal government to immediately meet 100 per cent of the schooling resource standard in 2024-25 would be $2.8 billion, which either could be generated by increasing the petroleum rental resource tax to an appropriate level so that those extracting our non-renewable resources are compensating our nation appropriately, or, conversely, could be provided by redirecting the funding of diesel fuel subsidies for mining companies back to our schools.

Ultimately, it's important to remember that beyond the numbers this issue is about real people, real children and real futures. It's about schools, who must make hard decisions about which programs they can and can't afford offers students, it's about students in remote communities, who are already working to overcome the tyranny of distance and still don't have access to the additional teaching staff they need, and it's about an essential profession in the form of teachers, who can't access the materials and resources they need to provide our kids with the best possible learning experience.

Ultimately, both the ask of and the opportunity for this and all future governments is clear: commit to a minimum Commonwealth funding share of 25 per cent of the schooling resource standard. In advocating for this position, I am joining the calls of organisations like the Australian Council of Social Service, the Australian Education Union and Save Our Schools, and countless parents and educators who recognise the need for our federal government to provide greater support in this area.

At the same time, it's important that any investment in this area is not just seen as a pity move or as a sunk cost, as recent analysis from the Australia Institute found that funding public schools at a hundred per cent of the schooling resource standard would ultimately generate a fiscal gain of $3 billion to $7½ billion annually for the government over two decades. Education increases productivity and economic output, because it enables people to build their skills and live the lives they wish to create for themselves. All we need to do to realise this gain is to take a long-term view of the value of investment in education.

Ultimately, I urge this government, in the strongest possible terms, to listen to the experts, communities and educators on this issue and increase our federal funding commitment to at least 25 per cent of the funding for public schools in Australia so that we can meet the needs of every child, no matter where they live.

My Irish granny always told me, 'Education changes lives.' She would tell me stories of growing up in poverty in Northern Ireland and how she made sure her children—my mother and her brother and sisters—got a good education, so they could avoid the same poverty that she grew up in. And the stories always ended with this message: 'Education is important. Education gives you opportunities. Education means you can look after your family.' She and my grandad were lifelong Labor voters, because they knew that Labor supports public education—education for everyone, not just those who can afford it. I count myself very lucky to have grown up in a family that values education and values education for girls, and I'm incredibly lucky to be living in Australia—a country we chose to come to; a country that values universal education; a country that values the high levels of literacy and numeracy that universal education brings.

As we move from the information age into the digital age, or the data age or the AI age—whatever the preferred term is—education will only become more important. Education helps people make sense of their world. It helps people gain skills, to make the most of the opportunities that come their way—and, increasingly, we know that those opportunities will be the skilled jobs that we need now and that we will need even more in the future. We want Australians to be ready for those opportunities. We want Australians to prosper as individuals and Australia to prosper as a country, and that requires, as my Irish granny knew, education for all, so that we are all ready to grab those opportunities.

Labor values education for all, which brings us to this bill. The Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024 allows the Commonwealth to deliver more funding to public schools. It puts in place protections to ensure the Commonwealth's share of public school funding can't go backwards. It also introduces new transparency reforms, so that parents and school communities can see what improvements this funding is delivering to students across the country.

The 2011 Gonski review stressed the need for an equitable school funding system; it stressed that government should fund schools based on need, to the schooling resource standard, or SRS; that the system should ensure that differences in educational outcomes are not the result of differences in wealth, income, power or possessions; that social disadvantage shouldn't impact educational outcomes; and that each child gets educational opportunities according to their abilities, talents and efforts. That shouldn't be controversial.

So the Australian government has committed to working with state and territory governments to get every school on a path to a hundred per cent of its fair funding level. The Australian government has negotiated the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement to deliver the pathway to full funding. The agreement will run from 2025 to 2034, providing a consistent focus on key reforms for schools and teachers to implement over the next 10 years. This will see the Australian government lifting its share for government schools in states and the ACT, if they sign up to the agreement, to 22.5 per cent and to 40 per cent in the Northern Territory. If agreed by all states and territories this equates to an extra $16 billion in Australian government funding for schools. This is the biggest investment in public education by an Australian government in this country's history.

Amendments to the Australian Education Act 2013 are required to enable these new funding agreements. This bill will enable the Commonwealth funding shares for government schools to be tailored to support the varied funding arrangements across each jurisdiction. It will set a funding floor for the Commonwealth share of government schools at 20 per cent for 2025 and later years and at 40 per cent for the Northern Territory government schools from 2029. It will establish a ratchet mechanism that ensures that, once the Commonwealth share is set by regulation, it cannot be reduced without further legislative change. It should be self-evident that the provision of good, quality education to all children is a public good that benefits the whole country and should therefore be a key role for government. So establishing this ratchet mechanism in legislation means the funding cannot be sneakily reduced without scrutiny.

The bill is essential to delivering full funding to government schools, changing the current inflexible funding cap to instead be a floor. The current provisions in the act do not allow for the Australian government to set different shares across jurisdictions. This means that the uniform and inflexible funding cap in the act does not allow the varying agreed final funding shares and trajectories of jurisdictions agreed in the BFSA. This includes the increase to 40 per cent for Northern Territory schools by 2029 and to 22.5 per cent for Western Australian schools and Tasmanian schools by 2026 and 2029 respectively. Legislative agreements are also required to deliver other important funding mechanisms, including the funding floor and the ratchet mechanism, which strengthen the certainty of Australian government funding shares.

The bill will also strengthen transparency and accountability of school funding, including establishing transparency and accountability in relation to funding arrangements for school education as a purpose of this act, and require the Australian government minister to prepare an annual statement to parliament relating to progress made or to be made in relation to school education reform agreements, including the BFSA. If you believe, as I do, that the role of government includes the provision of basic community-level services, such as education, that help individuals but also set up our country for future success and that the role of government is about enabling the provision of public goods at a community level, providing benefit back to individual taxpayers in both the services they directly use and the broader standards of the community that they live in, then this is something that's worth protecting and monitoring.

Boothby has many fantastic schools, from Hamilton Secondary College, which I visited with the Speaker a year or so ago and which features a 'mission to Mars' educational experience, and Brighton Secondary School, which is a selective music school, to Suneden Specialist School and Springbank Secondary College, which provide inclusive education for children with disability, and so many others. I love visiting these schools and hearing from students about what they are learning and what their hopes are for the future. Our children deserve the best education that we can provide them, and our country deserves the best education. This bill gives these students and the students that follow them a great education and a great start to life.

I rise to speak briefly on the Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024, which is intended to address longstanding issues in the funding for Australia's public education. This bill includes three main measures. First it amends the Australian Education Act to allow the Commonwealth to increase its funding share beyond its 20 per cent of the schooling resource standard. This is a welcome step in addressing significant historical funding gaps which persist more than a decade after David Gonski's landmark review. Second the bill introduces a ratchet mechanism to ensure that the Commonwealth contributions cannot fall below that 20 per cent baseline. This is essential for guaranteeing stability in school funding in the future. Third this bill enables the Commonwealth's funding agreements with Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory to come into effect even if new funding arrangements with other states are still being negotiated.

Before I entered parliament I had the pleasure of running the Australian Business and Community Network. ABCN, as it's well known, is a not-for-profit organisation that connects workplace mentors with students from low socioeconomic schools, helping to close gaps that exist in education and workplace opportunities. It's a fantastic organisation, and, through this work, I was able to see firsthand the amazing talent and dedication that exists within our public schools. Many of the schools that I worked with, I'm very proud to still be connected with—schools like Cabramatta High School, where I had the great pleasure of working with Beth Godwin, who is one of those school leaders who really inspire you in terms of the work that they do. But I also saw the challenges, the frustrations and the need to improve how effectively and efficiently our public schools function and how to better support our educators. Since entering parliament, I've had the privilege of witnessing the incredible work being done by public schools in my electorate of Wentworth. I want to give a particular shout-out to Rose Bay Secondary College. But I have also seen that many of the same challenges persist.

Every child, regardless of their background, deserves a good start in life. That's why public education is a priority for me. That's why I'm campaigning for a new public high school in Wentworth. Whilst Wentworth is fortunate to have some incredible schools—some schools that really perform at the top of the state and show enormous excellence, as well as care for the students—the options for a public high school education are very thin on the ground. Half of our kids in Wentworth attend a public primary school, but less than one in five continues to high school in the state system. This isn't because there's a lack of demand, with three-quarters of parents, in a recent survey, saying they would prefer to send their child to a co-ed public high school but the options aren't there for them. Then there's the high cost of private schools, with private schools in Wentworth costing, on average, $29,000 per year for a child. Families are struggling with the cost of private school fees, and many families are moving out of Wentworth because of their lack of access to public education. Whilst I'm thrilled that the community pressure has delivered $42 million of investment in an upgraded co-ed public high school in Randwick, it's clear we need more options. That's why I've been working with a local architect and expert in urban school design to help develop a vision for a new high school in the east. The options are incredibly exciting, but we need the state government to back us and to plan for an additional public high school in the east in the future.

My commitment to public high schools and public education is also why I support all public schools reaching 100 per cent of their SRS funding as quickly as possible. In Wentworth, data from the Australian Education Union suggests that an additional $19.1 million per year is needed to bring all our public schools up to 100 per cent of the SRS. Statewide, the requirement is $1.8 billion per year across New South Wales. It's clear we have work to do and, because school funding is a shared responsibility, both Commonwealth and state governments need to step up. That is why the Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024 is a step forward. But I do have some concerns, both with this legislation and with the funding agreements being negotiated alongside it.

Firstly, while the bill makes some important changes, the deals negotiated with the states so far mean that public schools in Western Australia and Tasmania are not due to be fully funded until 2029. Public school students need to be fully funded sooner rather than later. Further delay risks depriving students of essential support, resources and opportunities.

Secondly, I'm concerned about the potential lack of accountability mechanisms if states and territories do not keep their side of the bargain. It's one thing to set a target; it's another to make sure it is met. Without proper accountability measures in place, there is a risk of these funding commitments continuing to fall short.

Thirdly, as noted by the Productivity Commission, the previous National School Reform Agreement did little to improve overall student outcomes. That's why it's critical that future funding agreements made under this bill must be about more than just money. We, as a country, have invested tens of billions of dollars more of money into public education since the Gonski review, and I support that investment. However, we are not seeing results in terms of outcomes for our students—educational outcomes, but also wellbeing outcomes. You see that Australia has had a steady decline in its PISA scores over the past two decades, with performance in maths declining by 37 points since 2006, equivalent to almost two years of schooling, and performance in reading literacy falling by 30 points, equivalent to a year and a half of schooling. This is us as a country going backwards in terms of the educational outcomes of each generation of children, and that is a problem.

National NAPLAN scores are no better, with the latest results showing that one in three Australian school students are performing below literacy and numeracy benchmarks. There is a lot of talk of productivity in this country, and I think this is certainly an example where we have spent more money but are not getting better results. This is an enormous challenge for us as a country. We need to make sure that the funding agreements set out in this bill drive real, measurable improvements in student performance and wellbeing and ensure that resources are allocated in ways that genuinely benefit students and staff.

As the Productivity Commission set out in its 2022 review of the NRSA, we need to 'support quality teaching and effective school leadership' by 'reducing low-value tasks and out-of-field teaching, disseminating best practice and producing evidence-backed resources' for teachers to use in the classroom. I saw this firsthand when I was running ABCN. I spoke to incredibly passionate and effective teachers and school leaders who were spending more and more of their time on low-value administrative tasks and didn't have the same time and energy for their classrooms—when we know that a great teacher, and the relationship between a student and a teacher, is what makes an enormous difference. We have to make sure that our teachers can spend more time on the differences they can make to our students, rather than on administrative tasks.

That also applies to evidence based resources. Again, I spoke to many teachers who were reinventing the wheel year after year in their schools, trying to cobble together great resources for their students. We have one curriculum in New South Wales. There's no reason why we shouldn't have truly excellent curriculum resources that all teachers can draw on and adapt differently to their classrooms. We need to have better resources for our teachers so that they can bring the best of themselves to their relationship with students.

The Productivity Commission review said secondly that we need to 'support all students to achieve basic levels of literacy and numeracy with 'specific targets and measures' to accompany this ambition. If students don't leave each year with appropriate levels of literacy and numeracy, they will fall further and further behind and their opportunities post-school will be limited. There has to be a real focus on getting those basics right.

The Productivity Commission also said we need to reduce differences in achievement across students by supporting those students who face particular challenges. In Australia we have some wonderful high performers, but we also have students who are not performing at that basic level. If we can lift them up it will make a difference to our educational outcomes but it will also make a difference to people's lives and the opportunities they have in the future.

These are the kinds of essential productivity reforms that must be a core part of future funding agreements. I implore the government to learn from some of the experiences of places like the UK, where they focus on evidence for learning. I know that the government has made investments in this space, but this needs to be the piece: evidence for learning and evidence of what actually makes a difference in the classroom, such as phonics instruction. If we can adopt that widely across our education system then we will have the greatest chance of improving the outcomes for our students. Again, the piece I urge the government to do is to make sure that the states, who control what actually happens in the classroom, deliver on things that will make students learn better—on actually improving the productivity and the outcomes of our education system, not just giving the education system more money.

My fourth concern is that this bill does not address the accounting loopholes that currently exist in our school funding arrangements. These loopholes allow states to allocate up to four per cent of total SRS funding towards areas unrelated to schools. These include public transport, capital depreciation and regulatory bodies. In 2019, Labor indicated from opposition that it would address this issue, but it appears that these loopholes may be allowed to persist under this bill.

Finally, my biggest concern is that funding agreements have not yet been reached with New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and South Australia. Without agreements in place, public school funding is at risk from the beginning of next year. This would be a devastating outcome for students, teachers and families in these states. I strongly urge both the states and the Commonwealth to return to the negotiating table as soon as possible. I note that the Commonwealth has come up with a significant investment and put that on the table for the schools, and I urge the states to accept this and work with the Commonwealth on this. I urge them collectively to deliver a pathway to 100 per cent SRS funding for our public schools that is both equitable and prompt. Our students deserve no less.

I rise to speak in favour of the Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024, but I also have an ask. As I stand here, my daughter Daisy is in her first transition session to her new primary school. I will acknowledge that I have locked in a FaceTime with Daisy for 10 minutes from now to see how it went. Daisy and some of her kindergarten friends have started their transition program for Camp Hill Primary School, a public school in the heart of Bendigo. We are quite spoilt for choice in Bendigo in terms of our big network of independent, Catholic and public schools. But Daisy and her kindergarten friends are not alone. Sixty per cent of her kindergarten class will go to public schools in our area. What frustrates me the most as I stand here to speak on this bill is that those children—all children going to public schools—will not receive 100 per cent of the resource standard. The children in her class going to Catholic and independent schools will.

I think about the journey that so many families are going on—those anxious times when their little ones start to enter primary school. It is a big transition moment not just for the children but for their families. That that school is not going to get the same resources as the other kindergarten children going to independent and Catholic schools is unfair. I say this with an ask to all of us in this place and to our colleagues and state governments: that is on us. We cannot hide behind the rhetoric that it is a Liberal government holding back our schools and that will not fund them properly. It is on us. Within my speech, I'd like to make and ask of and to encourage our Labor ministers at a state and federal level to work this one out. We know that this system is unfair. We know that our public schools are receiving less money than they should. If we want to live up to the ideal that every school student gets 100 per cent of the resource standard, and that it is not your postcode that determines your school and education outcome, then we have to get this right.

I do speak in favour of this bill, because it does allow the Commonwealth to deliver more funding to public schools. It also puts protections in place to ensure the Commonwealth gets its fair share of public school funding and that it can't go backward. It introduces a floor of 20 per cent for that and allows the government to negotiate each individual arrangement in each of the states to deliver the funding. I do believe that the Minister for Education in our government is genuine and in there fighting to ensure that we get the resources needed for our public schools. To ensure that every kid has access to the resources that they need to be successful, our schools need this funding. It is critical. It is critical for schools that might have a big make-up of children from a low socio-economic background, students from culturally diverse backgrounds and students with a disability that these schools get this funding.

It's also about ensuring that the school has the resources to deliver not just the basics but the extracurricular activities that keep kids engaged. We all have those experience of going out to primary and secondary schools and seeing how independent schools can put on great, grand school productions, while the public school up the road, because of the funding they receive and the demographic make-up of their students, just don't have the capacity to put on those productions. Productions are just one example of the inequity that exists within our schools. There's the ability to retain teachers, to have up-to-date equipment and to ensure they have support structures in place.

School funding is critical. It isn't just an impact that happens today. It becomes a legacy issue. You could trace the challenges that we have with school funding back to the Howard era and the divergence that we saw happen within our education system. We are unfortunately seeing an increased bleed of students from the public system to the independent and Catholic systems when they get to the secondary school level, and I've noticed that in my own electorate. That is why this bill is so critical. It's about putting a line in the sand and saying that this is the new floor and we hope to work it out to get the extra funding flowing to our schools.

The Australian government is committed to working with the states and territories to ensure that every school is on the path to 100 per cent. The Schooling Resource Standard is a fair funding level, recommended by Gonski all those years ago. It allows the government to negotiate a better, fairer funding agreement with each of our states. We know that there are agreements that have been reached with the Northern Territory, Tasmania and WA. And, yes, I appreciate that the bigger states with higher students numbers—Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria—are still to go. I strongly urge all governments to get together to work this one out.

If all states agree, this equates to an additional $16 billion, from the Australian government alone, to go into schools. It represents the biggest investment in public education by the Australian government in its history. The bill before us amends the Australian Education Act 2013, to enable these funding arrangements to occur.

I want to take a moment to acknowledge the schools in my electorate. Being a regional electorate, I have lots schools, from very large schools to quite small schools. There is Bendigo Senior Secondary College, for years 11 and 12, the largest provider of VCE in Victoria. Last Thursday, it had the biggest cohort of students in the state of Victoria sitting the English exam. From the largest to the very smallest of schools, Langley, a primary school which has three students, there are great public schools with a fantastic teaching network trying doing what they can. I know that, with his extra funding, they'll be able to support all students achieve an outcome.

Having the resources, one of the things that you can do is be able to run a program like the NETschool program, which a senior secondary school does. For students who've disengaged, are at risk of dropping out or have dropped out, the school gets them together off-site from the main senior secondary campus and runs a program that re-engages through art, sport and other activities. It is literally a 'net' school that captures kids falling through the holes—the gaps. It's a model that works but is only possible to be funded, the school says to me, because they have a large student cohort. Funding, by getting to the resource standard of 100 per cent, guarantees that they will always have the resources to keep such a program going. They say that they save lives. I believe they are also helping us to stop the statistic of one in five adult Australians not having the numeracy, literacy and life skills required to work in this country. This school helps children transition to a career, whether it be at TAFE, back into VCE or into work. It's a model that works and other schools could roll out something similar, if they had the resources.

This legislation helps all of our small regional country schools who have smaller student numbers. An increased resource standard means that they have more money in their budget. They don't have to make that choice between an art class or garden program; they have the ability to do both. They don't have to rely on donations for pencils or paper to do their art classes or other classes. These are the types of differences this makes.

We have an amazing network of Catholic and Independent schools in my electorate. When I've spoken to Sandhurst Catholic education department as well as my independent schools, they agree with this legislation. They too want to see all schools get to that 100 per cent resource standard. They don't want to see the competition that's in place, because they see the importance of having well-funded public schools in our area.

This bill is critical to ensure the investment required for our public schools for every student, not just Daisy, my daughter, and the next generation of young primary school students, but for every primary and secondary student currently studying in our public school system and every future student going into our system. This bill delivers for regional schools. It will deliver for Victorian schools. But, again, in my closing remarks I will say that it's up to us—and I really call upon our education ministers—to work this one out.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 16:00

I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that the Government should raise the Commonwealth contribution to public schools to at least 25 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard, so as to ensure that all public schools in Australia are fully funded in 2025".

Public schools in this country are in crisis. They've been left to flounder, abandoned by both state and federal governments, which seem neither interested in nor capable of delivering 100 per cent of the schooling resource standard, the level of funding that means a fully funded school. Only 1.3 per cent of public schools nationally receive the full SRS funding they desperately need, while 98 per cent of private schools are overfunded. This government is throwing more money at private schools while our public schools, where the majority of Australian kids study, are left behind.

Let's be very clear about what the schooling resource standard, or SRS, is. It's the absolute bare minimum of funding. The SRS is designed to get only 80 per cent of students across the line. The impact is very real. Across Ryan, we see this underfunding play out in schools every day. Our public schools are known for their fantastic teachers and engaged communities, but that goodwill isn't enough to keep them running without adequate funding. We have the latest numbers, and they're damning. Ashgrove State School is $1.7 million short per annum. Kenmore South State School is $2.5 million short. Ferny Grove State High School is $5.3 million short. Kenmore State High School is $5 million short. Mitchelton Special School is $1 million short, and that's nearly $12,000 per student. Ironside State School is $2.3 million short. And Indooroopilly State School is underfunded by a staggering $6.3 million.

What does this dire underfunding mean for the students? At Indooroopilly State High School, kids queue for the bathroom during their entire lunchbreak because there aren't enough toilets. Some have yet to see the inside of a science lab, a pivotal part of learning, purely because there's no space or funding for specialised classrooms. At Kenmore State High School there isn't enough space to hold an all-school assembly or ceremony. Other schools are relying heavily on already overburdened and overworked parents on the P&C to fundraise for basic classroom and school essentials. It's truly a testament to the amazing community in Ryan that these parents and these P&C members work so hard for the school communities. But they shouldn't have to beg for the bare necessities. It's shameful. Meanwhile, private schools rake in taxpayer money to build elaborate facilities like state-of-the-art science labs, Olympic sized pools or drama theatres. Every day this year, the federal government will give $51 million to private schools—that's every day!—while leaving public schools underfunded every day. How is that a fair system? It is not.

The SRS, remember, is a bare minimum standard. It's designed to fund only 80 per cent of students adequately, and still 98 per cent of public schools can't even reach that minimum. Under existing funding arrangements, the federal government contributes just 20 per cent of full funding to public schools, but it gives 80 per cent of full funding to private schools. The legislated 20 per cent default is a coalition relic. When the Prime Minister at the time, Malcolm Turnbull, introduced the original agreement, he was looking to completely end the federal government's involvement in public schools. At the time, Labor railed against this policy, so it's astounding that this bill does not guarantee more funding for public schools. It's just a recycled version of bad coalition policy.

This deal risks locking in the terminal decline of public schooling in Australia. Successive governments are eroding our public schools, forcing Australians to accept poorer standards or pay for a private system. Frankly, I find this embarrassing from a Labor government—no, more than embarrassing. It's absolutely destructive and an abandonment of the everyday Australians their party was set up to serve. What the Greens are proposing is common sense. Just ensure that all public schools are fully funded, and start by lifting the Commonwealth contribution to a minimum of 25 per cent.

Let's look at underfunding in Queensland. Public schools will be underfunded by $1.7 billion this year. That's $3,000 per child. This isn't just a dollar amount in a column in the budget. It's kids missing out on essential parts of their education—kids going without music classes or sports. It means there are just not enough teachers. Teachers are working themselves to utter exhaustion, even spending their own money—and I have seen this—on classroom basics.

Let me remind you here that schoolteachers are actually paying more in income tax than the entire oil and gas industry pays in PRRT. In the last decade, Australian teachers have forked out an average of $9.5 billion per year in tax; the oil and gas industry, $4.6 billion in PRRT. Teachers are getting squeezed and bearing the brunt of the underfunding crisis. The government will happily hand out billions in subsidies to fossil fuel companies but are unwilling to realistically meet the bare minimum standard for schooling across the country. It's a harrowing indictment of where the government's priorities lie.

Let's not forget the skyrocketing out-of-pocket costs for parents in our free public school education—and in a cost-of-living crisis. Families pay thousands each year for laptops, stationery, textbooks and excursions, all to close that gap left by government inaction. The average public school in Australia charges $409 in fees per student per year. Yet this government actually has the funds. They're boasting about an $18 billion surplus. They find billions for fossil fuel subsidies which worsen the climate crisis, they pour billions into tax breaks for investors that worsen the housing crisis and they're forecasting nearly half a trillion dollars for nuclear submarines—but the bare minimum for our public schools, for our kids' education? It's absolutely appalling.

This funding crisis is taking a toll. School infrastructure is actually falling apart, teachers are exhausted and burning out, kids are missing out on the most basic educational opportunities and, if we keep going down this road, public schools face decades of decay. Every child in Australia—every child—deserves access to a fully funded high-quality public school. Public education is the bedrock of a fair society. It opens doors, builds communities and lifts kids up. It's an investment in Australia's future, but Labor and the coalition have failed time and again to deliver this essential service—this essential right. They have deprioritised it. Shame! This is a rare chance to end a decade of shameful neglect and fully fund public education.

There is a simple solution. Lift the Commonwealth contribution to a minimum of 25 per cent and ensure 100 per cent SRS funding for all public schools by 2025. Without it, we'll watch another generation of young people miss out on the education they deserve. The government has a choice. Will they keep entrenching a two-tier system that leaves public schools struggling, or will they finally invest in every child's future and fully fund public schools?

The Greens will support the passage of this bill through the House, but we reserve our position in the Senate and will be seeking amendments to this bill.

Is the amendment seconded?

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

There are few things more important than the education of our children. A quality education system is and should be a primary aspiration for every country on the planet because education changes lives and improves societies. But this aspiration can only be fully realised when our education system is founded in both quality and equity.

There is a clear correlation between the quality of a country's educational system and its general economic status and overall wellbeing. A high quality and equitable education system costs money, there is no getting around that. But, apart from health care and protecting our planet, there is no better objective, in my opinion, for a society to channel its resources towards.

What is currently happening to create a better and fairer education system for all Australians? The bill we're debating today comes about because the National School Reform Agreement is expiring at the end of this year. It is to be replaced with a Better and Fairer Schools Agreement which will run for the next 10 years. The stated purpose of the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement is to ensure all public schools receive full and fair funding and to put every public school on a path to 100 per cent of the schooling resource standard. This schooling resource standard, known as the SRS, was conceived in the 2011 Gonski review and is the estimated amount of the total public funding required for each school to meet the needs of its students. When the SRS is 100 per cent, a school is considered fully funded.

The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority data shows that 98 per cent of private schools are funded above the SRS recommended by Gonski and more than 98 per cent of public schools are funded below it—excellent news for the independent schools, but obviously a long way to go for the public schools. The ACT is the only jurisdiction in the country that has achieved 100 per cent SRS funding. The Northern Territory is the lowest at 76 per cent. The rest hover in the high 80s or low 90s percentile. Until now, public schools have been chronically underfunded, with the Commonwealth contributing 20 per cent of the SRS and the states supposed to be contributing 80 per cent. However, the states in general have not met this mark, contributing just 75 per cent, and there has been a persistent 5 per cent gap in funding.

The fact is that public schools starved of resources have difficulty offering face-to-face teaching in the most demanding senior school subjects, let alone the full range of educational experience in the arts, physical education and competitive sport. One of the school leaders in my youth partnership program explained to me that she and other students at the local state high school 'are beginning to teach themselves'. Teachers are taking sick days as a poor attempt to stay afloat and students' educational needs are being neglected.

I visited the local state high school closest to my office on the northern beaches in Sydney, at the invitation of the P&C, who were desperate for support. I was deeply shocked at the substandard conditions of the school: toilets with no doors, staircases blocked off—too dangerous to use—leaking gas in the chemistry labs, mould on the ceilings, floors and walls, ripped up carpet and leaking roofs throughout the school, with committed and passionate teachers trying desperately to advocate for their students. I must admit, I was close to tears when I saw that the same art textbooks being used at that school were the same ones I used when I was in year 7, 40 years previously. What message are we sending our young people about the importance of education, if this is what we are offering them?

From a funding point of view, the Commonwealth is agreeing to lift its share of the SRS from 20 per cent to 22.5 per cent, in return for the states and territories lifting their share from 75 per cent to 77.5 per cent. Importantly, that funding cannot go backwards. It is a floor, not a ceiling, thank goodness. To date, the Northern Territory, Western Australia and Tasmania have signed up to the agreement. Funding arrangements aside, in signing on to the agreement, all governments around Australia commit to targeted reforms focused on three priority areas: equity and excellence, wellbeing for learning and engagement and a strong and sustainable workforce.

It is the first of these priority areas that I want to focus on today, and that will be the subject of my second reading amendment. Nowhere should the goal of equity be more important than in our public school system. The ordinary meaning of 'equity' is important here, because it is quite different from equality. To be treated with equity is to be treated with fairness and justice, whereas equality means providing the same to all. Equity means recognising that we do not all start from the same place, and we need to acknowledge and adjust for imbalances.

This is also the fundamental proposition of the Gonski philosophy of needs based funding. This is where all students in schools are funded but those who need more support receive extra loadings. It's a very simple proposition, and it's disappointing that the Gonski reforms were not implemented in full. It is this difference between the definition of 'equity' in the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement and that in the Gonski review that forms the basis of the second reading amendment that I am introducing today. I now move the amendment as circulated in my name:

That all words after "reading" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

", the House notes that:

(1) the bill enables the Commonwealth to provide a pathway to full and fair funding for Australian schools, as an investment in a better and fairer education system;

(2) that investment is provided by way of funding under the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement (BFS Agreement), to which the bill gives effect;

(3) a fair system is one which strives for equity;

(4) the definition of equity in the BFS Agreement is inadequate, stating only that an equitable outcome is one where 'all students are provided access to high-quality evidence-based teaching that is inclusive, where young Australians of all backgrounds and levels of need are supported to achieve their full educational potential';

(5) the concept of a 'dual equity target' proposed in the 2011 Gonski Review of Funding for Schooling is more robust than the BFS Agreement definition of equity, and requires that:

(a) all students should complete a level of education that enables them to participate in the workforce and lead successful lives, which means completing high school; and

(b) differences in student outcomes should not be the result of differences in wealth, income, power or possessions, and low-income, Indigenous, regional, remote area and other disadvantaged student groups should achieve similar outcomes to more advantaged students; and

(6) the BFS Agreement should be amended to adopt the Gonski definition of 'equity', to ensure maximum improvement in quality and fairness in Australian education".

The Better and Fairer Schools Agreement describes an equitable outcome as one where:

… all students are provided access to high-quality evidence-based teaching that is inclusive, where young Australians of all backgrounds and levels of need are supported to achieve their full educational potential.

That does not properly reflect the true essence of equity, which is the idea that some students will need more help than others—that they will need a higher level of support. Gonski's dual equity target does exactly that, requiring that all students should complete a level of education that enables them to participate in the workforce and lead successful lives—this means completing high school—and differences in student outcomes should not be the result of differences in wealth, income, power or possessions. Low income, Indigenous, regional, remote area and other disadvantaged student groups should achieve similar outcomes to the more advantaged students. It is this idea that differences in student outcomes should not be the result of differences in wealth or geography or intrinsic advantages that is critical. My second reading amendment simply seeks to swap one definition for another.

Education scholars Glenn Savage and Pasi Sahlberg have lamented the inadequate definition of equity preferred by the government. They are also disappointed that the agreement lacks specific targets to narrow achievement gaps between students from low and high socioeconomic backgrounds. The only specific target in the agreement for disadvantaged students is that there should be a 'trend upwards' in the proportion of higher NAPLAN proficiency trends. There is another target, the learning equity target, which requires the proportion of students achieving a NAPLAN level—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 16:18 to 16:34

As I was saying, there is another target, the learning equity target, which requires the proportion of students achieving a NAPLAN level A or B for reading and numeracy to increase by 10 per cent, and the proportion of those in level D to decrease by 10 per cent, by 2030. But such targets are not required to be met until schools are fully funded under the agreement, which is when they will receive 100 per cent funding for each student. Even worse, when they are fully funded, there will be no penalties for failing to comply with the agreement.

The experts are saying the targets are, in any event, too weak to make Australian school education fairer. What this may do instead, they say, is raise overall student outcomes but increase the achievement gap. In other words, the high-achieving students may improve and leave the lower-achieving students where they are now or, worse still, going backwards. We saw this happen in a similar program in Ontario, Canada, 20 years ago. The program there failed because, in order to achieve targets, schools focused on students whose standardised scores were just below the target levels and did not provide extra support to the students with the lowest scores, who are, of course, the ones who need the most help.

There is not necessarily a correlation between improving overall school results and equity. A rising tide does not necessarily lift all boats. Australia is the land of the fair go. For that to remain true, our education system must be firmly grounded in equity. Anything less is selling future generations short.

Is the amendment seconded?

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

I rise to speak about the Better and Fairer Schools (Funding Reform) Bill 2024, which deals with government funding of public schools. It is always a pleasure for me to talk about public education. I am very proudly the product of two public schools, South Cronulla primary school and St George Girls High School, and my children attended Gymea Bay Public School for their primary school education. I have some absolutely fantastic public schools in my electorate and I will refer to them shortly.

I think the starting point for this legislation is to go back and have a look at the background as to how we fund schools in Australia. They are jointly funded in this country through both state and territory governments and the Australian government. I think perhaps sometimes parents and others don't understand that. It is often thought of as simply a state issue, but the federal government has a very important role to play in public funding for government schools. Funding for schools is provided to the states and territories under the Constitution's sections 96 and 122. These allow the Commonwealth to set the relevant terms and conditions for the funding. Coming out of that enabling power within the Constitution is the Australian Education Act 2013 and the Australian Education Regulations, which impose additional requirements on states and territories as conditions for this financial assistance. They include, predominantly, a requirement to be party to intergovernmental arrangements on school education and to implement nationally agreed policy initiatives on school education.

What we have seen bring about this legislation is a system of national school reform agreements where each state and territory is required to have a bilateral agreement with the Australian government. Those agreements set out state-specific actions to improve student outcomes, including activities that may support particular student cohorts. Bilateral agreements also set out the minimum funding contribution that states and territories must meet as a condition of receiving Australian government school funding. So, basically, the Commonwealth says to a state, 'You must provide X per cent and then the federal government will kick in the remainder.' This is where the federal government and the education minister have reached a stalemate with the states. What we have seen happen following a few internal reviews—we're talking about a Labor government, and Labor governments love reviews, and so we've had a series of reviews since this government has been in power. Out of that we've had the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement. That proposes a new funding model. Then, following that, we have had agreement between the federal government and three states—Western Australia, the Northern Territory and, later on, Tasmania. But as of today Queensland, Victoria, South Australia and my home state of New South Wales have not yet signed up to the new funding arrangements. So there are a number of issues that need to be addressed there, and it shows that the education minister has, unfortunately, failed, to date, to secure the agreement of those other four states.

The Australian Education Union has also called for the Commonwealth to increase its share of funding to the states, which is currently at 20 per cent. The states are asking for 25 per cent, and the Australian Education Union—I don't normally stand here and support union positions, but I think the funding of our public schools is extremely important. The organisation Save Our Schools Australia has similarly criticising the bill and has said that funding should be further increased.

Parents that I speak to in my community are not so much worried about how much funding their schools are getting; they are worried about the quality of teaching within the schools and they're worried about the curriculum within the schools. This is something that is being addressed, particularly at a state level, in my home state. I am pleased with that because what we have seen for too many years is inquiry based learning. Instead of which, the New South Wales government—and I don't usually give the Minns government too much of a plug—has picked up on the reforms started under the former Liberal government, particularly the education minister, Sarah Mitchell. They are looking at now implementing evidence based teaching methods, such as explicit instruction. They are saying it must be mandated in every classroom.

I'll say that is a welcome inclusion. Teachers say to me quietly—because they are usually gagged in many circumstances by the current state government—that the inquiry based learning was a complete failure. Children, and younger children in particular, need to be taught facts, and then those facts need to be reinforced. Inquiry based learning is all well and good, but it does not work for five-, six- and eight-year-olds. That is something that is obviously looked at more in high school and later in life, at university or at VET.

It is absolutely critical, overall, that our education standards are lifted. Throughout the country, the NAPLAN results are telling us that one in three children—one-third of our children—are not meeting baseline standards in reading, writing and maths. I can tell you, as at 5.20 tomorrow, my children will have finished their secondary education, but the way they were taught maths, particularly in primary school, was a consistent frustration for me. Over the years, I have seen a real decline in the way we are teaching maths, and I think it starts with teachers at university not being properly trained as to how to teach maths. This has long-term impacts for us as a country. Maths is not about becoming a maths professor. Maths is about life skills. It's about being able to read the time. It's about being able to ensure that you are being paid correctly. It's about being able to ensure you budget correctly. They are very fundamental skills, fundamental reasoning and rational thinking that we need to do far better at. 'Far better at'—I was just about to say don't start me on grammar and the way grammar is taught today, and I've just finished a sentence with 'at', which my grammar teacher from year 7 would be shaking and criticising me for.

The funding of education is very important and I am very pleased that the New South Wales government, for example, has started on the factual-based, instruction-based learning rather than the very vague inquiry-based learning that we have seen over many years. The education minister said that she is paring back a lot of the gobbledegook, to use a technical term—I like that, 'gobbledegook', from an education minister—and a lot of the nonsense that was in the school curriculum in New South Wales. She said new English and maths syllabuses are already being taught, and from kindergarten, for example, history is going to be taught. History includes being taught about the Holocaust in primary schools, and I think that, in view of recent events that we've seen in our country and overseas, the importance of that cannot be understated.

I have some fabulous public schools in my electorate, and I want to give a shoutout to those I have visited so far this year. Coming up to the end of the presentations, there will be far more. I congratulate Loftus Public School, which was one of the recipients of my fathering project. I also attended Loftus Public School for the Anzac Day commemorative service earlier this year. The Cook School that was featured on Four Corners is a school for behavioural difficulties, and I subsequently went out and met the fabulous team there. At Marton Public School I met with the leadership team and did a flag presentation. Jannali East Public School is another recipient of my fathering project award. At Illawong Public School I was invited to attend their Arts for Advocacy exhibition, where they advocated for various social projects through the arts. That was their stage 3, so years 5 and 6. I thank Sutherland Public School for the flags. I was at Jannali Public School for flags and at Illawong Public School again for education week. I was at the Bates Drive School, which is a school for—it used to be called handicapped—intellectually and physically disabled children, and we did a flag presentation there. The teachers and carers at Bates Drive School provide a very important service, so I thank them. We also went to Lucas Heights Community School, which is unusual in that it caters for students from kindergarten right through to year 12. They have started a wellness hub, and particularly an Indigenous wellness hub, so they are also to be congratulated. I met with their leadership team, and I think the future around Lucas Heights is in good hands based on the quality of the leaders that I met there. I thank Holsworthy High School as well—I was privileged to attend their year 12 graduation ceremony and spoke to a couple of the students about what they are planning to do post high school. That was a very special occasion as well.

We really do need to do a lot better with funding of our public schools and I call on the federal education minister to negotiate with the four states—including New South Wales—to reach that agreement as soon as possible. I call on the minister to also look at perhaps tying future grants to curriculum changes and look at a far more sensible curriculum that does not place such a heavy burden on a lot of our teachers and that will empower our students throughout the country and ensure that they lift their overall NAPLAN standards. When we fail to teach our children literacy and numeracy, it results in the inevitable disengagement with the education system, dysfunction and youth crime. I can't imagine the frustration of not being able to read and participate in society, and that is what occurs if our students do not have a sound education system.

On that note, I largely commend this bill, but the minister really does need to do a lot more negotiating with the states, and there are some other changes—as I have highlighted—that he could be considering.

This Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024 is about a funding disagreement between the states and the Commonwealth when it comes to education. They split the cost of funding public schools, but the agreement that they reached adds up to 95 per cent of what's needed, not 100 per cent, so public schools are not currently being funded to the level required.

I want to talk about some of the underlying assumptions that this bill is built on and how the Commonwealth government could use this bill as an opportunity for broader longer term improvements in education funding, while still delivering on the purpose of this bill, which is to make sure that public schools get the funding that they need. The fundamental principle we must start with here is that every child in Australia should have a good education, no matter their circumstances or what school they go to. This is a basic principle of fairness and equality of opportunity. We need a well-educated population. This is essential for our social and economic prosperity, so we need to work out how to spend money to deliver the best education we can.

We know there are real problems with the direction education is heading. We hear that we urgently need greater support for students with increasing complexities and support for teachers and their schools to be able to meet these challenging demands. In WA, student performance on national and international tests has not shown any consistent improvement over the last decade. WA student school attendance and retention rates have been declining. ATAR participation rates are declining. Educational achievement is stagnating. This is a problem worth solving, and our common interest in a good education system and arresting these worrying trends should be first and foremost in any legislation about education.

The second principle is that funding should match need. Responsibility for public funding for all schools is shared between the Commonwealth and state and territory governments. States and territories have overarching responsibility for schools, including for the registration and regulation of all schools in their jurisdiction—government and non-government—and for the operation of public schools.

A formula has been developed to determine what funding is needed for each child in Australia, which is made up of a base amount and six loadings, including the school size loading, school location loading and individual loadings. This means that schools that are educating more kids with disabilities or with lower socioeconomic status or that are in a remote area should get more funding. Funding is calculated according to this formula and then the Commonwealth government pays the states the entitlement for the states to distribute. But the way it works is that, once the states have the funding, there's no requirement for them to allocate the funding in accordance with the formula and no requirement for them to account clearly to the Commonwealth for how it's spent. This seems completely crazy to me.

Sure, we can tweak the formula and continue to improve it as we learn more about what works and what doesn't, but then it just gets ignored. What's the of point allocating funding according to need, if it then doesn't get spent that way?

Built into this principle of funding matching need is an assumption that more funding will deliver better educational outcomes. Believe it or not, this is hard to prove. Intuitively, it seems to make sense, but only if we're investing in the right things. And we can't tell which are the right things without looking at the data. It doesn't help that the states refuse to provide all the data needed to find out what types of funding actually improve educational outcomes. The states don't make available information about funding at a school level that can be used to measure what effect it has against educational or other outcomes. I can't believe this. All these data exist. We already have a huge and valuable dataset available, one that contains every kid in every school in Australia, with all their different circumstances. Think of what we could learn if we added to that dataset how much funding was actually allocated for each kid and how much they and their classmates received and looked at how they did in school. If we used those data well, we could understand which additional funding translates to better outcomes and which doesn't. But, because of silly state-Commonwealth turf wars, we don't know.

This is the education sector. It's meant to be all about learning. But we're not learning and applying that knowledge. We do know that schools with very similar needs are being funded very differently. For example, the NSRB report on regional school loadings showed that three schools with the same needs, of the same size, with the same socio-economic status, with the same number of Indigenous students and in the same type of location were being funded to the tune of $12,000 per student, $18,000 per student and $24,000 per student, depending on which state they were in. This makes no sense. If we knew which types of expenditure helped with educational outcomes, we could spend our money better and educate our kids better.

So now you're asking: what does this fundamental problem have to do with the current bill? In earlier negotiations, the Commonwealth committed to funding 20 per cent of what each student in public education needs, and the states committed to the other 75 per cent. Anyone who's had a good Australian education can see that this does not add up to 100 per cent. Most of the states haven't even managed to get to the agreed 75 per cent. Queensland, in 2022, provided 70.2 per cent of school funding needed, Victoria provided 69.2 per cent, and the Northern Territory 56.5 per cent. But even if the states were funding to the level agreed of 75 per cent, there's still five per cent unaccounted for, and it's the kids who suffer in the meantime. Even if we address this last five per cent, states are now including extra items in that calculation, like capital depreciation and school transport, so we won't actually get the 100 per cent as it was originally defined.

This needs to be addressed so we are actually funding the full amount, irrespective of where the money comes from. WA, NT and Tasmania have agreed to split the difference with the government on the five per cent, and this bill is needed so that the Commonwealth can make good on that commitment and contribute more than 20 per cent. Some would say that the Commonwealth government should hold out and insist that the states pay the difference. Personally, I think that the schools actually get the funding is more important than quibbling about which bucket it comes from. So I'm fine with the change, whether it's making 20 per cent a floor or, preferably, guaranteeing 25 per cent, which is what many experts are advocating for. But, no matter how big the increase is, this bill presents a rare opportunity to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of education funding. If the Commonwealth is going to put up hundreds of millions or billions more in education funding, it should at least demand some data and transparency in return, so we can learn and spend our money better.

It may be appropriate to delay this bill until after the next national school funding agreement between the Commonwealth and the states is finalised, but this requirement for better data should be used as a bargaining chip. In the last National School Resourcing Board report, the board said: 'As highlighted in previous reviews by the board, the lack of transparency of school funding at the system level presents a major challenge. The board was only provided with school level expenditure data by three states and one territory—a situation that limited the analysis that the board could undertake.' I think it would be reasonable to ask the states to do two things if they want more education funding. Firstly, they should ensure schools receive the money that they're entitled to. There's no point having an agreed allocation if kids don't get the funding they need. At the moment, the states allocate the money any way they like. Secondly, they should provide school-level income and an expenditure data so that we can learn whether and how more money actually delivers better wellbeing and education outcomes. We are all on the same team here. We all want better education outcomes and money to be used efficiently. This common goal should override silly politics between state and Commonwealth control.

I understand that state-Commonwealth relations are difficult and somewhat vexed when it comes to these sorts of issues. But we need to put the interests of kids and the country ahead of the petty politics and spend our money well. That's why I now move a second reading amendment as circulated in my name:

That all words after "House" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

(1) notes previous recommendations of the National School Resourcing Board regarding improving transparency of Schooling Resource Standard loadings; and

(2) urges the Government to strengthen transparency and accountability measures regarding Schooling Resource Standard loadings, so that the implementation and effectiveness of allocations and expenditure can be assessed at a sector and school level".

This amendment makes any additional Commonwealth funding conditional upon the provision of the information needed to understand whether the schools got the funding they were allocated under the formula and how they spent it so we can analyse what works in improving outcomes. If the federal government doesn't take this opportunity to at least get better data, the opportunity is unlikely to come up again anytime soon. This would be a great example of prioritising long-term interests using taxpayer money in the best possible way to educate our kids. But the Commonwealth and the states and all sides of politics should be eager to find out what works and what doesn't when it comes to education spending. I urge the government to consider my second reading amendment to that effect.

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time, to which the honourable member for Ryan moved as an amendment that all words after that be omitted with a view to substituting other words. Subsequent amendments have been moved by honourable members. The immediate question is that the amendment moved by the member for Curtin be agreed to.

I rise to speak on the Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024. At its core, this bill is about increasing Commonwealth government funding for Australian public primary and secondary schools. My electorate of Indi is home to 118 schools. The large majority, 87, are public schools. From Wodonga to Wangaratta, Corryong to Kinglake and everywhere in between, I regularly visit these schools. I've visited 57 since being elected and visited many students virtually, online, during COVID, and I've had the pleasure of meeting many students here in the parliament.

I care deeply about these schools, schools full of teachers, administrators, parents and carers who want nothing more than to see their students reach their full potential. This bill is about resourcing public schools to achieve just that. The bill aims to increase public funding for schools by amending the Australian Education Act to ensure that the Commonwealth's share of funding for government schools from 2025 onwards cannot fall below 20 per cent. I want to see more funding for public schools because it's a well-proven fact that regional Australia has worse educational outcomes than our city cousins. In my electorate of Indi, we are less likely to complete year 12 and less likely to attend university and obtain a degree than our city counterparts.

Accessing quality education in those early schooling years is vital towards improving the outcomes in later education. But, unfortunately, we know that regional and rural school students often fall behind. According to the government's review to inform a better and fairer education system, regional, rural and remote students were three times more likely to fall below NAPLAN's former national minimum standards. Regional and rural students aren't just starting behind; they fall even further behind over time. This simply isn't good enough, and it shouldn't be this way. Rural and regional students have the smarts; they need the resources. Properly funding schools is the most important reform to close this gap.

It's worth pausing briefly to explain how government schools are funded. In 2011, David Gonski AC delivered a review into funding for schooling. The review identified several highly concerning trends in the educational outcomes of Australian students. In particular, the review made a clear link between low levels of educational achievement and disadvantage. Put simply, if you start out in life doing it a bit tougher than your peers, it's almost certain that you will also be disadvantaged throughout your entire education. To help address this persistent disadvantage in our schooling system, Mr Gonski stressed the need for equitable school funding model, one that ensures the differences in educational outcomes are not linked to how wealthy you are. To determine what equitable funding is, the schooling resource standard, or SRS, was created. The SRS estimates how much total funding a school needs to meet its students' educational needs, regardless of whether that school is public or independent.

How much the Commonwealth and the states contribute to the SRS was determined by the National School Reform Agreement, which will expire at the end of the year. Under that agreement, the Commonwealth funds schools 20 per cent and the states 75 per cent. This leaves a five per cent gap in meeting the SRS. It means that government schools have been, and will be, underfunded by between $6.2 billion and $6.5 billion every year from 2023 to 2028 under the current situation. It's no wonder that the Productivity Commission found in 2023 that the National School Reform Agreement had done little to improve student outcomes. With the National School Reform Agreement expiring, we have an opportunity now to fix this funding gap, to finally deliver on the full SRS and get on with the job of equitably and adequately funding our public schools. It's what our young people deserve.

The government has put on the table the new, 10-year Better and Fairer Schools Agreement. Under the new agreement the Commonwealth have agreed to increase their contribution from 20 per cent to 22.5 per cent. They are asking the states to increase their contribution by 2.5 per cent to 77.5 per cent so that we can deliver 100 per cent of the schooling resource standard. But the agreement isn't just about funding. It also includes reforms like year 1 phonics checks and early years of schooling numeracy checks to identify students who need extra help; greater wellbeing support by providing more counsellors and mental health workers; initiatives to help attract and retain teachers; and evidence based teaching and targeted and intensive supports, like small-group or catch-up tutoring to help students who fall behind. Without a doubt, these are important reforms that will help improve the quality of our education. But I want to remind the parliament that the Gonski review emphasised that public school funding is at the heart of the problems in our education system. He wrote that while reforms like improving teacher quality and strategies for low socioeconomic school communities are 'a good foundation', he also said they 'need to be supported by an effective funding framework'.

As part of the new agreement, the Albanese government are quick to say they've put $16 billion of additional investment for public schools on the table. But will $16 billion meet the needs of the students, the young people across our country, who this is ultimately about? In answering this question, I want to address two issues related to the bill before us. First, there is a strong case that the Commonwealth government must increase their share of the school resourcing standard beyond the 22.5 per cent currently on the table. A key concern for Victoria in not signing on to the new agreement is that the Commonwealth's offer won't achieve the full SRS and Australian kids will continue to fall behind. Victoria, along with the Australian Education Union, are asking the Commonwealth to increase their funding to a full 25 per cent, largely because the states already provide the large majority, 75 per cent, of public school funding. In response, the Commonwealth government says that the states could also lift funding by matching the Commonwealth's increase of 2.5 per cent to contribute 77.5 per cent of the SRS. But this doesn't reflect the reality of financial relations between the Commonwealth and the states. With less capacity than ever to raise additional revenue, the states have little room to manoeuvre. Frankly, only the Commonwealth has the resources and the capacity to make this additional nation-building and nation-shaping investment.

When we talk about funding public education we must also address government funding for private, or independent, schools. Independent Schools Australia, the peak body for non-government schools, says that government funding for private schools is about enabling 'educational choice': parents should be able to choose whether private or public education is best for their kids, and governments should fund both of these options. I agree with this, especially when it comes to choosing a school because of a family's religious beliefs or values. But we must interrogate the reality of how these schools are funded by governments. This is not about criticising private schools or the families who choose them; this is about fairness for each student no matter which classroom they're sitting in.

The Commonwealth actually funds Catholic and independent schools beyond what it is required to according to the current Commonwealth funding arrangements. During the period from 2022 to 2028, the Commonwealth government will overfund private schools by up to $2.8 billion. This is compared to chronic Commonwealth underfunding of public schools, as I've just outlined. To bring this gap between private and public school funding into sharp relief, research conducted by the Australian Education Union shows that five elite private schools spent more money on new facilities than governments spent on half of Australia's public schools collectively in 2021.

When choice starts to become about vast differences in infrastructure and quality of education between our public and private schools, I start to question whether right now parents truly are being offered a choice. We hear too often about public schools with unsupported teachers, run-down classrooms and sporting facilities, and minimal resources to help the students who are struggling. According to a survey conducted late last year, almost half of parents with children in private schools would consider moving them to the public system if the public system were better resourced. I firmly believe that more government funding for public schools would increase a family's educational choices.

Back in 2010, when the Gonski reforms were initiated, the then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, said that your postcode shouldn't determine how well you do in life. But unfortunately it does. Now, almost a decade and a half later, the Albanese government could finally deliver equitable public school funding. They could do this by funding 25 per cent of public schools. This would be a significant investment in Australia's young people and a significant legacy to claim.

The second issue with the bill is that the states' contribution of 75 per cent for government schools is not a true 75 per cent. The previous National School Reform Agreement allowed the states to claim, as part of their share of funding the SRS of public schools, funding for items that are specifically excluded from how the SRS is measured. This meant the states could claim things like funding for capital depreciation and school transport for up to four per cent of the SRS of public schools. Many states could also claim things like teacher registrations. According to Save Our Schools, this means the current Victorian funding for public schools in 2024 is actually 65.82 per cent, well below the 70.43 per cent they claim and even further below the 75 per cent they originally agreed to. This could be addressed by an amendment to the Australian Education Act relating to the conditions of financial assistance to the states. That amendment would require the states' funding contributions to be measured according to the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority's financial data reporting methodology.

In asking the Commonwealth government to increase its share of funding from 20 to 25 per cent, I'm not saying we should let the states off the hook here. They have to improve their funding too. I support this bill because ultimately I want to see more funding for public schools, but I urge the government to consider amendments to improve the bill so that schools and students get the funding they deserve.

At the beginning of this speech, I mentioned that I regularly visit schools across my electorate. I speak on this bill with these schools at the front of my mind. I think about the students, the teachers, the parents, the carers and the broader communities that they are intrinsically part of.

I was fortunate recently to visit Mount Beauty Primary School, a perfect example of how public schools can operate as a hub for the broader community. This school offers a breakfast program, so that every student can start the day with a full stomach no matter what's going on at home. They also have a wellbeing officer, who helps students access paediatrician appointments, speech therapists, occupational therapists and counselling—all vital services, for a young person to thrive—and this is in a very remote part of my electorate. The outside-school-hours program at Mount Beauty primary provides care for students after the school day ends, and the school's multipurpose building acts as a shelter for the local community during times of emergencies—especially important in bushfire prone areas like Mount Beauty. And there are stories similar to Mount Beauty's right across the electorate of Indi.

Schools in Indi are also especially important because they offer vocational education and training, or VET. VET courses are where our plumbers, hairdressers, electricians, childcare workers, disability and aged-care workers, builders, mechanics, hospitality workers, agricultural workers and more get their start.

I recently visited Yea High School, which includes students from neighbouring Seymour and Alexandra. Agriculture is one of the biggest employers in this town, and the school offers the agricultural certificate II program on site at the school and at a nearby working farm. They recently built an ag learning space, and I was privileged to plant the very first orange tree in their orchard. I want to thank Principal Brian D'Arcy for showing me around and for the invaluable work he and his staff do.

I could go on. I haven't had time to mention Wangaratta High School's expansive STEM program, Benalla college's involvement in the Victorian School for Student Leadership program at the Snowy River campus, and many, many more success stories. Just on the weekend, I was at the Wangaratta festival of jazz, and there was the Wangaratta High School show band, playing together with their teachers, or alongside them—those teachers giving up their weekends to make sure that those students could fulfil their musical capacity and ability and have the opportunity, the confidence, to perform in public.

I love our public schools. I want them to thrive. I want to see students right across Australia, no matter their socioeconomic status, do the very best they can. I want the government to support these schools to be the best they can, and this starts and ends with funding them properly.

There is a serious question before the House. Our public schools are in a state of crisis. Quality education is the foundation of opportunity and a fairer future, and it must be accessible for all. For too long, our public schools have suffered from chronic underfunding, with parents and carers stepping in to raise much-needed funds through sausage sizzles and school fetes.

In Warringah, our 21 public schools are significantly affected, and underfunding remains a pressing concern for families. In fact, I recently wrote to the education minister to express support for the findings of the expert panel's Improving outcomes for all report, which highlights the stark funding inequalities in our education system. The findings are deeply concerning. High school completion rates in public schools have fallen from 83 per cent to 76 per cent in just six years and over one-third of students are failing to meet literacy and numeracy standards on NAPLAN. While the government's bill here today, the Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024, goes some way to storing funding of our public schools, there is still a long way to go.

Like many parents in Warringah, I have actually had the opportunity, through my children, to participate and to engage in all levels and types of school. Ironically, my children have attended public primary schools. I've had a child attend a selective public high school. I have had children attend a faith based school and private schools. So I've had touch points with all systems, and I have to say that some of those decisions and choices were driven by a desire to give my children the best opportunity possible. But I did notice—I couldn't be blind to—the difference in resources and the quality of the facilities available to the students. They are vastly different, and that is intrinsically unfair. The government plays a part, with its funding model, to ensure that it's equitable—that there is access to those opportunities for all and the schooling and educational outcomes are a lot fairer.

The bill's intention, and that of the government here, is to do ongoing work to strengthen funding arrangements for public schools and to have more transparency. The bill introduces strong accountability and transparency measures, requiring an annual update to parliament on the progress of the national school reforms. From my point of view, it is so important that we have integrity and more accountability and transparency from the government on how the funding is working, so it's great to see that in this bill. But this bill is just a start. It can go a lot further.

We know that, back in 2011, David Gonski led the review of funding for schools and determined the schooling resource standard, the SRS. It's an estimate of how much total public funding a school needs to meet its students' educational needs. But unfortunately it's fallen behind, and there is a gap that has, I think, had a real impact on the outcomes for students, and it's something the government must address. Unfortunately, despite the good intention of this bill, there remains a gap, and those who pay the price for that gap will be the students. And, if the students pay the price for that gap, Australia as a country will pay the price because they're our future.

The responsibility, as I said, is shared. The Commonwealth is responsible for the majority of public funding for non-government schools, providing 80 per cent of the SRS, and the states contribute 20 per cent of that funding for non-government schools. As other members in this place have noted, non-government schools often see a much higher level of spending on facilities, and I've been able to observe that firsthand as a parent who has participated in that process. We have to make sure that public schools are receiving their fair share of funding.

The states, as the owners and administrators of public schools, are the majority funders of public schools. They're responsible for 75 per cent of the SRS, and the Commonwealth is currently responsible for 20 per cent of the SRS. So we've had this remaining five per cent gap which has meant that public schools have fallen behind in terms of the quality of their resources. They have not had sufficient funding to really meet the needs of students. That five per cent gap is the ultimate problem, and unfortunately it remains, despite the intentions of the minister. Certainly, there remains a 2½ per cent gap in relation to New South Wales schools. Clearly, more needs to be done.

The Better and Fairer Schools Agreement, this joint agreement that, it's intended, will commence on 1 January 2025, replaces the current NSRA that is due to expire. Unfortunately, there's a gap for New South Wales schools, and that is unacceptable. The reality is that it will fall to the Commonwealth government to meet that gap. The system needs greater funding certainty to ensure that children are getting the best education.

So, whilst there's an intention in this bill to strengthen funding to public schools, it doesn't guarantee it, and that is problematic. Chronic underfunding negatively affects students' educational outcomes and their mental wellbeing, and teachers' ability to perform and stay in the profession. So I urge the government to increase the minimum funding floor to 25 per cent to offer a genuine pathway for schools to reach that 100 per cent of schooling resource standard funding.

I look at examples within my community. Balgowlah Boys Campus, or Bally Boys, as we know it, is consistently ranked among the top non-selective schools in New South Wales—incredible results academically. Despite this, the school grounds are a huge community concern. I have visited the school grounds on a number of occasions. They're outdated facilities, with asbestos in the buildings and limited access to toilets, sports halls and music rooms. Many really felt like relics of another era. And I say this with respect because the boys and the teachers at that school are amazing. They are achieving so much.

I've raised these issues with Premier Minns and the New South Wales education minister. I've invited them to come and visit the school: 'Come and see for yourself the conditions in which these boys are performing fantastically, and tell me that that standard of facility is respectful of them and their futures and the efforts they are putting in.' But the invitation to visit remains unanswered. They have not taken up the call to come and see that firsthand. These exceptional students are overachieving despite substandard conditions, and they deserve better. Increasing funding and providing a clear path to full funding would ensure students from schools like Bally Boys have access to every opportunity during their school years.

I should say, in New South Wales there are other concerns around schooling. Currently, the New South Wales Department of Education is consulting with the community on proposed changes to the Northern Beaches high schools. Those proposals include significant changes, including changing class years groups accepted at NBSC Freshwater Senior Campus and potentially merging NBSC Mackellar Girls Campus and NBSC Balgowlah Boys Campus into co-educational schools, against the wishes of all the schools communities. While feedback is under review, it is essential that high-performing schools that are underresourced have the support necessary to meet the evolving needs of the community and the young people learning there.

We've also seen the New South Wales Department of Education announce changes to the opportunity classes at the Balgowlah Heights Public School, and that serves academically gifted students in year 5 and 6. That has been done, again, with very little consultation. It will have a great impact on the local student cohort, staffing and the quality of outcomes. I've written to the minister, but there doesn't seem to be a willingness to engage with the consequences of the proposed changes.

While I am here talking about local schools and public education, I have to say a huge thank you to my cohort of youth ambassadors. Every year for the last four years, I have been able to bring together the school leaders of all the high schools in the electorate of Warringah. We meet about every six weeks, and it is a fantastic opportunity to hear from these young leaders. It's about hearing their voices on the issues that they are concerned about. It's about giving them the opportunity to talk to their representative and to make sure they know what's happening in Canberra, here in parliament, on their behalf.

I should also shoutout all the beautiful year 5 and year 6 students who visit Parliament House. They are always so engaged and so interested in this process. It is always so motivating to know that I am in this place on behalf of them and their future.

I look forward to the minister engaging with the amendments before the chamber in relation to this bill. Fully funding our public schools in an investment in our children's future and our country. A strong education system is critical for spurring the innovation needed to tackle the climate crisis and ensuring our youth thrive in a complex and rapidly evolving economy. Quality education is essential to equip children with the skills to navigate the complexities of a digital world and to empower them with the knowledge to discern fact from misinformation. I urge the government to adopt the vital amendments and to make sure they are fully funding and futureproofing the funding of our schools today.

I was privileged to receive a very good education, courtesy of my parents, my late mother, Eileen, and late father, Lance. They sent me to St Joseph's, which closed not long after I departed there in year 2. It reopened later on. It burnt down and reopened again. I went to Henschke boys primary. It's now a co-educational primary school, in Wagga Wagga, in Turvey Park. I then went to St. Michael's Regional High School, a fabulous institution. I graduated there in 1980.

I give thanks to John Egan, John Zoglmann, Jan Batt, Brother Felix O'Connor in particular, Lyn Kensey and Bob Stampton. They were just amazing teachers. The discipline was strict. We had deputy principal Graham Kennedy, a former dual rugby league and rugby union New Zealand international, and he did not suffer fools gladly. I'm not saying I was a fool, but I'll tell you what—you didn't get out of line at St. Michael's Regional High School! Otherwise you faced the harsh sting of the leather across your hand. I received more than my share of cuts in year 7—25 times, in fact—and I was one of the better pupils. But I hold no grudges. Certainly, John Egan, who was my year 7 form master, and I are firm friends to this day. He still provides me with great advice. I then went to Trinity Senior High School, which has now been subsumed into Kildare Catholic College. Wagga Wagga has good Catholic schools.

I also, now, as the federal member for Riverina, represent many, many public schools. In fact, there are 130 schools across my sprawling electorate. I represent church schools, independent schools and, indeed, fantastic public schools. As the education minister joins us, I thank him for coming into the Federation Chamber in relation to this bill, because it is an important bill—it truly is.

When I was growing up, public schools were primarily called 'state schools', and there was a reason for that, because they received most of their funding from the states—as they should, because they are governed by the states. In 1893 all of the colonies in Australia had legislated to remove government funding from Catholic education, and it took the Goulburn school strike of July 1962, when the townsfolk and the local Catholic bishop said, 'Enough.' They required funding to build, of all things, a new toilet block at St Brigid's to meet government health requirements, and the protests came about because of heated political debate about state aid to Catholic schools, and accusations of sectarianism. I'm midway through reading an amazing and remarkable book by Jeff Kildea about Bridget Partridge, otherwise known as Sister Mary Liguori. This case divided the nation. She was a Wagga Wagga sister who fled the Catholic system, was looked after by the Protestants and went to Sydney. Her case ended up in the highest court in the land. Sectarianism then was rife in Australia—it was sheer hatred. Thankfully, it's not like that these days—at least I don't think it is!

But Catholic school funding still raises a lot of ire. It will be denied, but it is a true fact that if you take a Catholic schoolchild and place them alongside a public schoolchild, the public schoolchild will receive, on average, more funding than the Catholic school child. I appreciate that the Catholics look after their schools; I get the fact that they get Commonwealth funding—as they should—but there are a lot of people who think that all Catholic school funding by the Commonwealth should be abolished, and this is wrong. It is wrongheaded, it is not right, and if you take a little school in a country community, you see those kids do it every bit as tough as some of the public schools. You can never place enough funding into the education system.

It does annoy me when people decry our education system and say that the children of today are not as good as they once were. They talk about the three Rs: reading, writing and arithmetic—if you look closely at those words, they don't all start with R, but you get my drift. Those people who say that have probably not been to a school any time lately, certainly not a public school. I run an annual Anzac Day writing competition—I've done it for 14 years—and the education minister would be very interested to know that the quality of those entries is quite remarkable. The children are being well taught. Yes, they do need more resources. Yes, they do need more funding.

This bill goes to the heart of better and fairer schools funding, and no-one can deny that. No-one should deny that there should be more funding and better funding, and I get that. We hear so often, and it also really sticks in my craw, from the Labor ministers particularly who go to the despatch box and talk about the decade that we lost—the dysfunction, the lack of funding and all the like. It's just so untrue. The facts are that over nine years the former coalition government nearly doubled annual school funding from $13 billion in 2013 to $25.3 billion dollars in 2022. Our Quality Schools package had record funding of $318.9 billion to all schools between 2018 and 2019. We strengthened the curriculum with stronger, evidence-based content, including teaching phonics and the science of reading. We improved teacher training. We backed those teachers who were high achievers and delivered best-practice literacy and numeracy programs to close the gap.

Now, I appreciate what Minister Clare is trying to do in the education space. He's one of the better ministers and I value his input, because he has a very trusted role. He is the minister responsible for education, and some might argue that that's one of the most important ministries in government. It is, and it should be, because our children are our future.

The current National School Reform Agreement, extended by a year, is due to expire on 31 December. That is not far away. Currently, the Commonwealth contributes 20 per cent of the funding for government schools—state schools—with the states and territories responsible for the remaining 80 per cent. For independent Catholic schools, the model is flipped. It's reversed, with the Commonwealth contributing 80 per cent of funding and the states and territories contributing 20 per cent.

But why is it fair that there are people out there, many of whom are very high up in academia, who think that the Commonwealth should not be funding our private schools? You'll see them trot out the wonderful sports facilities, pools et cetera at Riverview, the GPS schools and the big sandstone schools in Sydney and other metropolitan cities. I heard the member for Indi talk about the remote areas of her electorate. If you go out to some of those regional towns, the Catholic schools do it tough too. They also have to raise funds through their wonderful parents and friends organisations and associations.

I remember I was the chair at the Sacred Heart Catholic School in Wagga Wagga when my daughter was in kindergarten. My daughter, Georgina, who, I might add, has taught in both the public and the private systems, is now teaching in Melbourne, and I'm very proud of the fact that she is the head of English at the middle school where she teaches down in Melbourne. It's a great achievement. She is transforming and shaping children's lives, and that's what good teachers do. I mentioned earlier the list of teachers who taught me. Some of them might deny that they taught me, but indeed they did, and I was very, very blessed and privileged to have the help of those teachers in shaping me so I could attempt to be my best self.

The specific contribution percentage for government schools will be prescribed by regulation. This allows the Commonwealth to have different funding arrangements for the states and the territories. This regulation will not be disallowable. Interestingly, for the Northern Territory, the bill provides that the Commonwealth contribution to government schools will be changed from a fixed 20 per cent to 40 per cent from 2029. Some might say the disparity between states and territories is not right et cetera.

The Northern Territory has its own set of challenges. I visited there on any number of occasions when I was the Deputy Prime Minister, and it has its own challenges and its own opportunities. I'm very pleased that Lia Finocchiaro has become the Country Liberal Party Chief Minister, because I think the work that she and the CLP team will do in the education space, working with Mr Clare and the Commonwealth, will be good. I encourage the minister to have a relationship with the new Northern Territory administration, because it's important. It's a growing place. We need the Northern Territory to realise its potential, and we can only do that if the children there are properly funded and properly resourced with the best teachers.

My daughter, Georgina, was part of a program run by the New South Wales department which helped out with HECS. Georgina went to Charles Sturt University. At the end, when the teachers were getting their diplomas and receiving their imprimaturs from the university, they were able to send them wherever they liked, and they sent Georgina to Griffith, then a remote school, which needed a drama and English teacher. I was pleased that she was able to do that. It gave her a great start. I think that a teacher in a remote public school will have the very best start because it will teach them the concepts and the necessity and how tough these children do it, as opposed to maybe, perhaps, a private school in a big city.

For the Northern Territory, the bill changes the model by which the funding is allowable from 2029, while the 80 per cent contribution for non-government schools will remain in the bill. This can be varied by regulation, which is subject to disallowance. Overall, this legislation—I appreciate there are amendments to it—is important because our kids are our future.

In the time remaining, I want to talk about the Gonski funding model. It's important to reiterate that, while the Commonwealth is currently meeting its agree 20 per cent SRS share, it's the states and the Northern Territory which have fallen short to varying degrees. That is a fact. Queensland's SRS contribution to government schools is just 69 per cent, well below the 80 per cent requirement. Victoria's is not much better, at 70 per cent. The Northern Territory, as I say, is a special case; it's only 59 per cent. So it was misleading, prior to the last election and since then, for the Albanese government to claim it would fully fund government schools, when the Commonwealth was fully meeting its agreed obligations. That said, most of the remit, most of the responsibility and most of the obligation should, as it always must, fall upon the states. They should be referred to as state schools, not public schools.

I decry anybody who ever says that our Catholic schools should not be funded by the Commonwealth, because they should. It started back in the early sixties, with that Goulburn bishop who withdrew the children from the school and marched them down to the front gates of the public school and said, 'Well, if you're not going to fund us, then you teach them.' We don't want to see again. I'm sure the minister doesn't want to see a whole heap of Catholic schoolchildren out on the front lawns here, demonstrating about lack of funding, particularly the funding for toilet blocks and the like.

Let's not criticise our teachers; they are doing an outstanding job. They have the responsibility of looking after what is our most important national asset, and that is our students. To our teachers, as it was just the other day international appreciate a teacher day, I say thank you. I thank the minister for everything he's going to do in this space. He's got a big job and I commend him for it.

I thank all members for their contributions to this debate, including the former Deputy Prime Minister for your mostly kind and very generous remarks, and also spend a moment to recognise the work that your daughter does amongst many hundreds of thousands of teachers across the country. I truly believe that our teachers do the most important job in this country, and I want to thank her and every teacher across the country for the work that they do.

This is a really important piece of legislation that we're debating here in the House today. This is a bill that will increase funding for public schools. As I said, when I introduced the Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024 a few weeks ago, education is the most powerful cause for good in this country, and public education, public schools, does most of that heavy lifting. At the moment, non-government schools are funded at the level that David Gonski set all those years ago or they're on track to get there or they're above it and coming back down to that level, but most public schools are not. This bill is about taking action to fix that, to close that existing funding gap, but it will also do something else. It will close the education gap that exists in this country, by tying that additional funding to important reforms.

As members will know, earlier this year, I signed an agreement with the Western Australian government's education minister, Tony Buti, that will see all public schools in Western Australia fully funded at that Gonski level by the start of 2026. That's now just over 12 months away. Since I introduced this bill a couple of weeks ago, I've now signed a bilateral agreement with Jo Palmer, the Minister for Education in Tasmania, that will do the same. That will see all public schools in Tasmania fully funded at that Gonski level by the start of 2026. Again, that's just over 12 months away. I was at Warrane Primary School in Hobart with Jo just a couple of weeks ago, where we signed that agreement. That's a classic example of Labor and coalition governments working together—forgetting about the politics and forgetting about the parties and focusing on what really matters here. This bill is necessary for us to be able to implement that agreement to be able to provide that additional funding.

This bill also enables us to honour the agreement that I've struck with the Northern Territory government that was signed with the former Labor Territory government and the former Northern Territory Minister for Education Mark Monaghan. I'm so glad to be able to inform this House that recently in the Territory parliament Jo Hersey, the new Minister for Education, has confirmed that the Country Liberal government in the Territory will honour that agreement. The former Deputy Prime Minister talked about the differential here and how this is designed to double Commonwealth funding to public schools in the Northern Territory. As he suggested, that's important and that's necessary if we're going to make sure that all public schools are fully funded across the country. At the moment, effectively one in five children in the Territory is not receiving any funding at all. The former Deputy Prime Minister talked about funding levels in Queensland. For the Territory it's below 80 per cent. So effectively one in five children is not being funded at all. This agreement, by doubling the amount of Commonwealth funding from 20 per cent to 40 per cent, helps to fix that. What it effectively does is bring forward the day that Territory public schools will be fully funded from 2050 to 2029. That's by more than 20 years. But we have to pass this legislation in order to do that—in order to make those additional payments and make that happen.

At the moment, the way the Australian Education Act works is that the Commonwealth government can provide a maximum of 20 per cent of the schooling resource standard, that standard that David Gonski set for public schools. What this bill does is turn that current maximum into a minimum. In other words, it turns the ceiling into a floor. It enables us to provide that additional funding and ratchet up funding for public schools. It means that when we, as a Commonwealth government, sign an agreement with a state or a territory government to increase funding to public schools that bigger Commonwealth share becomes the new floor for states and territories. In other words, it's locked in for good. It can't go backwards at the whim of a future government.

But it's not just about the money. It's not just about the additional funding that this bill enables. It's also about what that money is invested in. I've made it clear that the additional $16 billion that's available to provide additional funding to public schools, to all states and territories, is not a blank cheque. That money needs to be tied to real reform, like reforms intended to help turn around what I was talking about earlier in parliament today, which is the decline in the number of young people finishing high school. It's worth remembering this for a moment: the percentage of young people finishing high school in the last eight years has gone backwards from 85 per cent to 79 per cent, and in public schools it has fallen from 83 per cent to 73 per cent. When I found that out, it shocked me. Eighty-three per cent of young people in public schools finished high school back in 2017, and it's now 73 per cent. We've got to turn that around. It's more important than ever that more young people finish high school, because of the world we live in today and the world that will exist tomorrow, where more people will need more skills, whether that's from TAFE or university.

This funding in the agreements that I'm striking with the states and territories needs to be tied to the sorts of reforms that are going to help turn that around. That includes practical things like phonics checks and numeracy checks to identify children when they're really little, in kindy or year 1 or year 2, who are already falling behind. And then there are things like evidence based teaching and catch-up tutoring, identifying children that are behind really early, before they sit the first NAPLAN test in year 3. In early intervention, with things like catch-up tutoring, we know that, when it's done properly, if a child's behind in reading or in maths, if you take them out of a class of 30 into a class of three and you give them intensive support—it might be four days a week, 40 minutes at a time—they can learn as much in six months as they'd normally learn in 12 months. In other words, they catch up. You might think, 'Well, that's easy; that happens all the time.' But what we know is that most young people who are behind when they're little never catch up. If we can fix that, then we can turn around the decline in the number of young people finishing high school.

I also want to make sure that this money glows in the dark, and that's why this bill and the agreements that are linked to it strengthen reporting and public transparency requirements around how this extra funding is to be invested without placing additional burdens on schools or on teachers. The agreement includes a requirement for states and territories to outline how this additional money is going to be invested in those key reform areas that I just talked about. It also requires a new public reporting dashboard. The bill includes a new annual ministerial statement to this parliament where the education minister would be required to report on progress of the implementation of the school education reform agreements.

This goes to the second reading amendment by the Greens: it's important that this be a joint effort. The Greens' second reading amendment wants the Commonwealth to bear the entire burden of closing this funding gap. That ignores the way that funding of our public schools works and how it is a shared responsibility. I have consistently said since I got this job we need to fill and fix this gap and the way to do it is where the Commonwealth chips in more money and the states and territories have got to chip in more money as well. That's what WA has done, the Labor government there. That's what Tasmania has done, the Liberal government there. That's what the Northern Territory government has done as well. It's worth us just remembering here, when we contemplate how we close this gap and how we fix this funding gap, that, yes, we've doubled the money for the Northern Territory but the Northern Territory is going to chip in an extra six per cent as well. That's the way that we do this.

The member for Mackellar had a second reading amendment, and I want to thank her for her contribution to the debate. I agreed with a lot of what she had to say. I've said earlier in this debate that there is no more powerful cause for good in this country than what our education system does. I think that we have a good education system in this country, but the truth is it can be a lot better and it can be a lot fairer.

Making that a reality is what drives me in this job, and that's why there are equity targets built into the national agreement. It's why, in the agreements that I've struck with WA, Tasmania and the NT, we want to see funding go to the most disadvantaged schools first. It's why this funding is linked to practical reforms that are designed to help children who fall behind to catch up and to keep up. Guess what? They are overwhelmingly, disproportionately children from disadvantaged backgrounds.

I don't want us to be a country where your chances in life depend on who your mum and dad are or where you live or the colour of your skin. But the sad reality is that we are today. If you look at our higher education system, our school education system or our early education system, you can see evidence of that. Almost one in two young people today have a university degree, but not everywhere. There is an underrepresentation at university of people from disadvantaged backgrounds. If you look at the evidence of who completes school, fewer young people from disadvantaged backgrounds finish school than children from more advantaged backgrounds. I go back to the point I made about children falling behind when they're little. Overwhelmingly, it's young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. The evidence is clear even before school begins. The Productivity Commission report that I released a few weeks ago told us that it's the most disadvantaged kids in our country, the children that don't see a book until they start school, that are the least likely to go to early education and care and the most likely to benefit from it. Everything that I'm trying to do as education minister is about this, about fixing this.

That's what this agreement is all about. The reforms that funding is tied to and the targets that are in that agreement are about helping those young people who need additional support and making sure that they get it.

I also want to thank the member for Curtin for her contribution to this debate. She has a second reading amendment, and it relates to transparency and accountability. Transparency, as I said in my remarks a moment ago, is important as well, and I want to note that her second reading amendment emphasises the importance of transparency and accountability. As I said earlier, the provisions of this bill will give greater oversight in relation to Commonwealth investment in schools and the implementation of reforms. It's about making our education system better and fairer and about building a country where, as the Prime Minister often says, no-one is held back and no-one is left behind. At its core, that's what public education is all about. It's what it has always been about, and it's what this bill is about.

I thank all members for their contribution to this important debate and for their support for this important legislation.

The original question was that the bill now be read a second time, to which the honourable member for Ryan has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. Subsequent amendments have been moved by honourable members. The immediate question is that the amendment moved by the member for Curtin be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mackellar be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Ryan be agreed to.

Question unresolved.

Aged Care Bill 2024, Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024; Second Reading

Aged Care Bill 2024 Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024

I have here the Aged Care Bill 2024. It is quite a tome. But in this volume you can't get the feeling and the emotion and the hurt and the angst and the despair and the anxiety of regional people, for whom aged care is so important. I understand it is important for everybody, but it is particularly so in regional communities, where, lately, all too many older Australians who've given so much for this country have had to be shipped out to far-flung towns to get care in their twilight years, and this is simply not good enough. This document won't expound just how bad that is for the families of those loved ones who are forced into not being able to get ageing in place.

I spoke this morning to Ross Tout. He was the chairman of Uralba aged care in Gundagai for 14 years. He's now the vice-chairman of that organisation. It is fully booked. Its 19 beds are all occupied by wonderful Gundagai people. Gundagai is a very hilly town, and Uralba aged care is right next door to the hospital. The MPS needed to be right next door to the aged-care centre in order to receive federal funding when it was opened in 2011. It's almost like an episode of Yes, Minister. I recall 'The Compassionate Society', which is episode 1 of season 2, where you had Jim Hacker and Sir Humphrey Appleby talking about the best-performing hospital in Britain. The nurse who was talking to them said: 'Minister, it's one of the best run hospitals in the country. It's up for a Florence Nightingale award!' Jim Hacker says, 'Is it functioning now?' Yes, it was functioning, but it didn't have any patients. It's almost laughable. It was doing so well because it had no patients, so it was meeting all the criteria that a good hospital should for the mere fact that there weren't any patients in it.

I mention that because, at Uralba, they have a lift which joins, on this hillside location, the aged-care centre and the MPS. It has only been used, according to Ross Tout, about 10 times. Do you know why that is so? It's because there's a differentiation between the state and the federal departments that run these facilities. Rather than turn the lift on, unlock the lift and put in the patients in the aged-care centre who need to go to the MPS or to the hospital, they call an ambulance. Rest assured, there are just 50 metres separating these two facilities. But wait for it! The ambulance station is not that far away either. You could measure it in metres as well. They call the ambulance to pick up elderly patients in one facility and take them next door, because the state and federal government departments cannot agree about funding. This is right up there with Yes, Minister. This happened to Ross Tout's father, Ian, who is an 89-year-old fellow and a wonderful Australian. He gave so much to this country. And you have a situation such as that, which is just ridiculous. You've got these Tor Street facilities right next door to one another. And then you have the ambos, as good as they are. And they don't mind, because they're locals. They love their community. They do everything they can for their communities, and they have to drive up, get the patients and take them right next door.

The aged-care situation in regional Australia is dire, because you had a situation with a royal commission. No-one denies that royal commissions should not be very much adhered to in the main by governments which bring them on. But you have recommendations and then ministers not frightened to even so much as challenge a recommendation. I mention here the situation with the 24/7 nurses. You have regional communities right across my electorate and the member for Parkes's electorate, which takes up half of New South Wales—I have no doubt the member for Forrest has them too in Western Australia—with facilities that can't find registered nurses to fulfil the requirements that the aged-care recommendations said were necessary. You've got situations there like the one we had in Coolamon at Allawah Lodge, where they had to close an entire wing. In one of the three wings of that facility, they couldn't find enough nurses or staff, so they closed an entire wing of the Allawah Lodge. Fortunately, they've been able, using immigration visas, to fill those vacancies. Well done to Tony Donoghue, the general manager of the local council, which owns and operates Allawah Lodge, for being able to do that. Well done to the community for going along with it. That is fantastic.

But you also get the situation with Weddin Shire at Grenfell. They have difficulty—and I was very pleased that Weddin health council members, Chair Peter M offitt OAM; Peter Spedding; the then mayor, Craig Bembrick; and the office of Assistant Minister for Rural and Regional Health, Emma McBride, were able to meet, and I was very pleased that they were able to put their situation forward: the capital investment they need, but also local aged-care concerns.

It wasn't that long ago that the aged-care centre at Harden closed. Harden, one of the little twin towns of Harden Murrumburrah, had acquired a community-paid-for, fully-subscribed facility from Galong, years ago, and moved it into the twin towns, and then, for a number of reasons—it was particularly brought about by the then operators—it just closed overnight, virtually. That led to much heartache and despair in the community.

It's important to note that, in aged care, the regions are doing it tough, particularly in trying to find the staff and trying to find the registered nurses. And why is it fair, why is it right—of course, it's not—that people who live in a community all their lives, and reach what should be their golden years, then, all of a sudden, because of a lack of beds brought about by provisions in a royal commission, have to be shuffled out of town and into communities that they are not familiar with, far away from the communities they've lived in and loved all their lives? So then, all of a sudden, they don't see their people, their families, and particularly, in the case of couples who are married for decades, they are separated for the first time in many, many years, because of funding arrangements, because of those provisions, because of lack of staffing. It's just not right. It's almost inhumane—especially if one of the couple might have early dementia, and they love seeing their partner and then, all of a sudden, they're not able to do that if their partner does not have a driver's licence. These are very real situations that I hear about, and that, no doubt, the member for Parkes hears about just about every day of the week. It's simply not good enough.

Recently, we had the Salvation Army divesting itself of its residential aged-care services in Parkes. Now, Parkes is a big community of 12,000 people. The Rosedurnate aged-care centre and retirement village in Parkes was just closed. Fortunately, the Moyne aged-care centre in Canowindra, just outside, in the electorate of Calare, was acquired by the Roshana aged-care group. But the situation of Parkes is not resolved. It is not good enough. As for an organisation like the Salvos—many regional people have given mightily to that organisation, and it is a wonderful charity, but, on this occasion, they have failed the community of Parkes. They've failed the people who they should be looking after.

Forty-five residents will be displaced, with no clear sight as to which facility they will be rehomed in. This does require urgent intervention. It's simply not good enough. The council is working hard with local families to rectify the situation, but it's very worrying, as are some of the provisions of the aged-care situation at the moment.

I rise to speak on this Aged Care Bill tonight. I understand we have an ageing population in this country. I speak as someone who is a baby boomer, I've got to admit—one of the younger baby boomers, but a baby boomer. We are the largest cohort of citizens in Australia, and we, the baby boomers, are rapidly heading to being in higher need. So there's a need for this parliament to work through to improve legislation around aged care and how it's managed. It is incredibly important.

I would like to give credit to the government and Minister Wells and the coalition leadership team that agreed to work through this process and make some changes, particularly around regional funding. This issue is way above party politics. This is way above some of the issues that get debated in this place. There is a Senate inquiry happening, and, if it happens to identify issues that need to be fine-tuned or corrected, I'm certainly hopeful that the process is there to do that.

Fundamentally, with this large wave of Australian post-war babies that are coming through the system, there will be an enormous burden and pressure on this country—on the cost of funding that and on the workforce. By the time the baby boomers will need peak care, we're going to go from three out of five Australians in the workforce back to two. So not only are we going to have a smaller income coming to the government through income tax; we're also going to have a workforce issue.

It's the workforce issue at the moment that is creating some problems in aged care in my electorate, but, before I go on to that, I might just touch on something else. I was regional health minister during the pandemic, and I believe one of the absolute scandals was the way the Australian media portrayed aged care during that time. They made elderly people fearful, so much so that people are only gaining back the confidence to go into that higher level of care. Quite frankly, we've seen people languishing at home, living in less-than-optimum circumstances because of this fear of going into aged care.

Clearly, there were deaths in aged care, as in the rest of society, but, to be quite frank, aged care now has moved somewhat in the last 30 years. Originally, a lot of facilities were built as hostel-type accommodation for reasonably active retirees to live in a communal space. Now, with more focus on home delivered aged care, aged care has transformed into basically high-level care and end-of-life care. So the people that are going into these facilities now are going in for a lesser period of time, but they're also going into a space where they need a higher level of care. That people in aged care are actually dying at a higher rate than the rest of Australia is the bleeding obvious, quite frankly, but the scare campaign that went into that was very, very damaging to the industry.

Apart from scaring the elderly people, the degeneration to the staff that work in there—these are the salt of the earth, people that care for our elderly people. Years ago, it would have been the responsibility of the family, but, now, with people working in the workplace, we have put the care of our elderly into someone else's hands. Those people are gems. They are dealing with people who are suffering from dementia, that are disorientated, that have become aggressive, that need high-level care. They do it, and in every town I visit I see these wonderful people. And, quite frankly, they were demoralised after the pandemic by the way they were treated by the media and the way aged care was portrayed. It has been difficult to get people to look at going back into that occupation. I acknowledge the government is paying more money for that. But, aside from the money, we need to make sure these people are emotionally rewarded and recognised for the work they do.

With the best of intentions, I suspect—and we see this a lot—people who live in larger centres and the city don't understand regional aged care. The member for Riverina mentioned this. The need for registered nurses 24/7—while it's a lofty ambition, I'm sure—has created an enormous issue for aged-care providers in regional Australia. I'll give you an example. Southern Cross Care is the major provider in Broken Hill. I think they care for about 270 people when they're at capacity. They struggle because they're in competition with the Far West Local Health District, the Royal Flying Doctor Service and local medical practices for this very small cohort of people that have skills in that nursing care. So, in an attempt to meet the legislative requirements so they're not in trouble from the department for being noncompliant, they're bringing in agency nurses from the cities, who are paid at a much higher rate, which is blowing out the budget for these places.

Worse still, it's impacting the morale of the workforce. Picture a local registered nurse with 30 years experience working side by side with a new graduate, someone without that experience. They could be a good person, but they don't have any experience. They're not committed to the community; they've just flown up from Melbourne, Adelaide or somewhere to work for two weeks. For them to be earning more money than the local person, while they're working side by side, doing the same job, is a circumstance that's got to be fixed.

We've seen it with doctors. In an attempt to fix something in the short term—by throwing money at people to go and live and work in these remote places—we've actually created a bigger problem. We've got doctors now who choose being a locum as a career, rather than establishing themselves in a community. Now we're starting to see that with the nurses coming into aged care.

That got Southern Cross Care into a degree of financial problems, and I do want to recognise Minister Wells for her personal attention to this and the relief package that we got for Southern Cross Care. Broken Hill is a long way from other communities, and Far West Local Health now, in an attempt to free up their critical care beds, are moving people out, and, with Southern Cross not having the ability to take them, we are seeing people sent to Balranald, which is over 400 kilometres away. And so, as the member for Riverina spoke about, couples who have maybe been together for 60 or 65 years spend their final years apart. I've had family members who have had dementia, and part of the care is the ability for a family member to come in—because the nursing staff don't have that much time—to help feed them lunch, to stand there and hold their hand just for them to have company. There's all of that. So this is a tragedy.

I've been working with the Lake Cargelligo All Care group now for 15 years, I reckon, and the Murrumbidgee Local Health District are in the final stages of the plans for expanding the Lake Cargelligo MPS. I believe that those plans are now on the desk of the New South Wales health minister. I'm hoping that we can see that, because I've spoken to a couple of gentlemen in Lake Cargelligo whose wives have passed away—one was in West Wyalong and one was in Condobolin, both of them 110 kilometres away from where they lived. These gentlemen were in their mid-80s, and, at best, they could see their wives one day a week.

I'm pleased that Senator Ruston was able to negotiate more money for regional Australia. The irony of all of this is that those towns with the smaller facilities have no other option, but the facilities are more expensive to run, so this is a need.

The other thing is that I think we have to have a conversation with the Australian people to make them understand that they're going to have to plan for their old age. Whether they like it or not, they can't just pretend that someone's going to be there. They've got to have a plan because, if they don't have a plan for themselves, they'll end up in someone else's plan and it mightn't be what suits them. I met with the Probus Club in Broken Hill earlier this year, and they were quite upset about the lack of aged-care beds in the town. Basically they were saying, 'We've paid taxes all our lives; the government should look after us in our old age.' Well, the reality is that that's going to change and you are going to have to contribute. If you have an asset you're going to have to contribute in a fair way. This bill has recognised that. It's not an extreme request for more money, but people, particularly younger generations, are going to have to plan. As everyone ages, they are going to have to have a plan so that they know what will happen when they get to a certain point. I've dealt with some tragic cases over the last 17 years when elderly people have not thought about this. Their partner has passed away, or their partner has had a stroke or a dementia diagnosis and all of a sudden they're caring for someone—when they just do not have the capacity to do that and they are without somewhere to go. So you need to know what your options are under various scenarios as you age.

Sometimes, as members of parliament, we don't do very well at this conversation. We tend to say to people, 'Look, we'll go to the minister,' and we say we'll do this and do that. But we need to have a conversation with the Australian people so they can understand this legislation in its final form. We have not seen that yet, but the intent of this legislation is to put a framework in place for the next stage of aged care in this country, and everyone in this country needs to be prepared for that. As someone who will be leaving this place after 17 years, when I'll be at the official age of retirement, I know you need to have plans based on two scenarios—you're going to live to be a hundred or you're going to die tomorrow—and you need those plans in place. That is incredibly important.

I might finish, in the last minute or so, by talking about the wonderful facilities in my electorate. I spoke about Broken Hill just as an example, but that could be replicated right across my electorate. We've got Cooee Lodge in Gilgandra. We've got Cooinda in Coonabarabran. Both are fantastic facilities. In my home town there's Naroo. I can proudly say that my parents were instrumental in that. My father was the chairman of the committee—he was the local mayor—that got Naroo built in the first place. I go to visit those people, and the people I admired as a young person in Warialda, the community leaders of 40 years ago, are now getting cared for by people they know. When you're in aged care in a place like Warialda, Coonabarabran, Gilgandra, Coonamble—any of those towns—you're being cared for by someone who has a connection to you. You are not just an old person in a bed; you are known, respected and loved. We can't let that go. We've got to make sure we maintain those facilities.

We don't talk about this enough. We talk about health care, about education, about child care, but the ability to die in your own town, surrounded by your family and friends, is a basic human need. We can't shuffle people around like a commodity. Hopefully—I've got great faith in this legislation—those things will be addressed. I give support to the concept. I'll make my judgement when I see the final bill, but I think this is a step in the right direction.

I rise to speak on the Aged Care Bill 2024. I'll go into the bill itself, but could I first say that the retiring member for Parkes has been one of the most honourable people who has ever served in this place. He has probably been one of the most connected to his vast community among those who have ever served in this place. If I can conduct myself in this place with the decency of the member for Parkes I'll be a very proud person. I wish him well.

Aged care, as the member for Parkes did say, is so important. Any change to aged-care policy has real consequences, some anticipated and some unintended.

The last tranche of changes, while in line with recommendations of the royal commission, did cause some issues in my electorate. Sadly, a community based nursing home in a place called Nathalia had to close. That was called Barwo, and it closed because it could neither afford the changes that needed to be implemented nor recruit the highly qualified staff required. That result is not a good outcome for the community or the elderly residents of the town who want to live out their days there.

I just want to explain a little bit about this place called Nathalia. It's primarily a dairying town, but there's some cropping around there too. These people live their lives on the land. They work incredibly hard—harder than a lot of Australians, I'd say—getting up at the crack of dawn to milk cows, as the member for Forrest has done through her career. What happens is that one of the couple probably, if I could say, deteriorates faster than the other. The member for Parkes explained this: someone has to go into care first. When you've got a small community place in a small town, like Nathalia, and one of the couple needs to stay out on the farm—or, indeed, in the house that they've bought in town—it means they can be close to each other until the end. That's so important, not only for the couple but also for the children who have taken over the farm and will continue to live in the region. Now, that might not be a big deal in suburban Melbourne, where, if you need to move into a new place, it's still only 10 or 15 minutes down the road. Sometimes, some of these people from Barwo have had to go an hour away. What does that mean to a couple where someone's had to move an hour away? Sometimes the people who are left at home can't drive. The kids are a long way away from those people. It's an example.

I am going to give some credit to the government on elements of what's been agreed here, but I think it's another element of the current government not quite understanding that regional Australia works differently to the metropolitan areas. It needs some exemptions, and it needs to be treated a little bit differently in the legislation. This is just one example of that. If I could bring anything to this place, it's to try to explain that things are a bit different out in regional Australia, as the member for Forrest does, and we've got to have legislation that acknowledges and understands that.

High-quality aged care is the right of every Australian, and the opposition provided a clear offer to work with the government on sensible aged-care policies because we need a system that's strong and sustainable to support future generations. It is important that we recognise that aged care is not merely a sector; it is a reflection of who we are as a society. In response to the royal commission, the former coalition government provided more than $18 billion in funding to support the immediate needs of the sector, and through good-faith negotiations our aim has been to ensure that any reforms provide dignity and clarity for older Australians. We have held the government to account, to finally introduce their package of reform that brings all Australians into this important conversation.

The challenges of aged care are clear and undeniable. They don't just exist in this country but all around the world. More than half of the aged-care homes across Australia are operating at a loss. We have an ageing population, and their future care is a source of stress for elderly Australians and their children and grandchildren. There's a desire for people to age at home, and the way aged care is delivered and supported needs to change. We all acknowledge that.

The Aged Care Bill 2024 represents a significant package of reforms, which is why we have sought immediate referral to the Community Affairs and Legislation Committee for inquiry. Aged care is so important, and the changes to it impact so many. We need to really engage and have a proper conversation. I'd like to acknowledge that this is one of those times when I think the coalition and the government have worked pretty well together. I'm always keen to try and explain that it's not all about us yelling at each other in question time, but there are times when all people of good faith try to negotiate an outcome that's right. It might not be perfect for everyone—and I've indicated some of the concerns I still have—but in good-faith negotiations, the coalition has achieved significant changes to the government's proposed legislation that will protect the interests of older Australians. The coalition fought for the inclusion of grandfathering arrangements to ensure that every Australian who has already commenced their journey of ageing within the Commonwealth system will not be impacted by these changes. That means that all older Australians currently in the system, including those on a home-care package waiting list, will not pay one cent more for their aged-care journey.

As a fairer deal for hardworking Australians, the coalition fought for the inclusion of a much lower taper rate to ensure equitable contributions for Australians who have worked hard all their lives to save for their retirement and an assurance that the federal government, not the consumer, will remain the majority funder of aged care, although the consumer will contribute.

The coalition fought for the maintenance of a lifetime cap on care contributions across both residential care and home care to provide certainty to families who may have loved ones in care for many years, as well as the inclusion of a time limited cap for residential aged care to ensure that older Australians and their families will only be required to contribute to care costs for four years. The government's original proposal saw no cap on home care and a $184,000 cap on residential aged care only. We've gained the concession that no older Australian will pay more than $130,000 for non-clinical care in home care and residential care combined.

The really important one that the retiring member for Forrest and the equally distinguished retiring member for Grey, who've both been wonderful members of this place, have fought for because they understand regional and rural Australia is the coalition's securing of $300 million dollars in additional capital funding through the Aged Care Capital Assistance Program for regional, rural and remote aged-care providers to upgrade their facilities, as well as additional care funding, particularly for regional, rural and remote aged-care homes. I've explained how important it is to keep some of these places in smaller communities open and taking people. Targeted support for rural, regional and remote aged-care homes was not included in the initial proposal. It's there now.

There is the removal of criminal penalties. We strongly pushed for the removal of the criminal penalties from the bill following serious concerns that their inclusion would force the exit of highly capable staff from the sector in fear of being criminally punished to a level not seen in other industries. The Albanese government wanted aged-care workers, and even volunteers, to be criminally liable, and we thought that was inappropriate.

We don't need unionism in every aged-care home. In fact, we can't have it when we're trying to understand the needs of regional and rural Australia. Labor wanted a workers representative to be able to come into every single aged-care home and demand an explanation on any aspect of its operations. Now, we support aged-care providers working consultatively with their staff, but we don't want unions to march into aged-care homes and tell them how to do their jobs, and we successfully fought to remove that provision.

This bill aims to ensure that Commonwealth aged-care services remain accessible to those who require them today and into the future, and it aims to promote dignity, independence and a meaningful life for older Australians, which the coalition remains committed to. We want to consult with older Australians and the sector. As a regional member—I've explained this previously—I understand that we do face unique challenges. The fact that they will get significantly increased funding for people in their care is really important. I'm really proud that we were able to fight for that, and I want to give some credit to Minister Wells for listening. The best policy in this place happens when we all collaborate and say, 'This is what I'm hearing from my people. This is what you're hearing from your people. This is what is doable. This is what we can't do.' Even though I still have some concerns, there's a bit of that in this, and I think that Australians will be pleased with the way we've done that.

Aged care is very personal. We've all been there, or we're all going to be there, in that situation with a loved one. In my case, it was my maternal grandmother, Molly Dunham. She'd had a fall. We put her in the hospital and we knew she wasn't going to go back home. In the town of Shepparton, in which she'd lived her whole life, she was able to go into a facility that looked after her and treated her with dignity. The last time I ever saw her alive was when I went into that place and saw the staff making sure she was okay. She had a cup of tea and was enjoying her time.

If I can, I will just share that, during the campaign—this is how small some of our communities are—I went doorknocking around an area of Shepparton and I banged on a door with my leaflet and I said, 'Hello. I'm Sam Birrell. I'm your Nationals candidate for Nicholls,' and she said, 'I remember you. You're Molly's grandson. I worked at Mercy care and I looked after Molly.' That was a pretty emotional moment for both of us because I'd been in there all the time visiting Nanna, and this person, who I was now asking for her vote, had looked after her in her final months.

Shepparton Villages is another aged-care provider in my electorate, and that had a new facility built recently. It probably opened about five or six years ago. It was opened by a member of this place, the then Minister for Aged Care, Ken Wyatt. Former minister Wyatt came in and gave a beautiful speech to the residents of Shepparton Villages saying: 'You deserve this place because your efforts, your risk, your work, the investment of your capital built Shepparton. You deserve the most relaxing, enjoyable—

Dignified.

and dignified'—thank you, Member for Forrest, 'end to your life because you build this place.' We can say that about Australia. They built Australia, that generation. They built in Australia. They built my community. They built Shepparton. They built farms—dairy farms. They built places like SPC. And there were some federal government contributions. For them to have the minister, a Western Australian, come in—and I'll never forget what he said—and say, 'You deserve this because you build this town, and now is the time for you to sit back in comfort and look around at the society you've built.' It was very moving.

While I've a minute or so left, I do want to go through how personal it is. I hope everyone indulges me in sharing these personal anecdotes, but aged care is so personal for us. I knew earlier this year that my father had to go into aged care at some point and I took him to a place called Moyola Lodge in Tatura. We were hoping to get him in; Dad hadn't been that organised. Moyola is in a small town called Tatura, and my dad moved to Tatura in 1971 as a young lawyer. I wanted to show Dad around Moyola and make sure that he was not scared by what he was seeing and that he would be welcomed. Polly Devine, the CEO of Moyola, said to my dad: 'Brian, you were a great footballer for Tatura. I've heard legendary stories about what you did, the law firm you created in this town and the number of people you've helped.' And he knew that he was going to be looked after and would be okay there. Sadly, he died the next week and never got to see that.

Aged care and what we do in this place are really important for our families, and I'm really pleased with the bill we've been able to negotiate and come to an agreement on.

I thank the member for Nicholls that very powerful contribution.

I also recognise what the member for Nicholls just put on the line there to share with Australia, and I thank him for it.

Reforming the aged-care sector is necessary; it's a fair call, and it is time for reform, with the Aged Care Bill 2024. We have co-operated with the government on the royal commission recommendations, at least part of the response, and we've reached broad agreement with the government on the financial arrangements, which will be a penalty on some Australians, and it took some work to achieve some amendments, which we believe are right and proper. The fact the bill is now in this form I suggest means the government agrees with us. That's a good thing. The member for Nicholls just detailed the fact that we negotiated the grandfathering clause. I think this is basic good governance at any level, whether reforming tax systems or assistance programs. Anyone who has invested in an existing government policy should not be disadvantaged retrospectively by a change of government policy. I think, pretty much with everything governments do, it should be grandfathered and always looking to the future. That is the right and proper thing to do.

Better taper rates that are a little more generous—in fact, I think we halved the taper rate that the government first suggested for obvious reasons. And the fixed timeline—I think the fixed lifetime cap is an assurance for people. I'm working on getting old, Mr Deputy Speaker! I intend to be working on it for some time yet! It is my view that, as people get older, they're a little more careful with the money they have managed to accumulate through their life. They think, 'This is mine,' and, in many cases, they want to pass it onto their children. I'm not sure that they should be of that opinion. I think maybe that's causing as many problems as it helps. But you can understand that, regarding that fixed lifetime cap.

Of course, one that is extremely important to me and that maybe we haven't pushed hard enough is the $300 million spend for infrastructure. It is that area that I want to spend the bulk of my speech talking about—that is, the disadvantage of rural and regional electorates in trying to provide aged care, what amount we will sit on and how much tougher it is to manage there than elsewhere. Aged care in the country is extra expensive—higher costs, food supplies, transport—particularly for staff. That seems a little illogical, but the problem is, because we can't fill our staffing rosters, aged-care facilities frequently have to resort to agency staff, which is around two to three times the cost of regular staff. They just have no choice. They've got to keep their doors open.

Legislation was passed in this place I think last year—it may have been earlier this year—by the government to enforce every aged-care facility to have a 24/7 registered nurse on call. For smaller facilities, it's just a bar that is too high and it's more expensive staffing. That has led them to using agency staff as well or breaking the regulations and running the risk of being curtailed. In my electorate, I've already lost one nursing home, one that my aunty lived in, incidentally, for some years. It was a very nice place down at Stansbury on Yorke Peninsula called Elanora. Four years ago it closed. It was a community run organisation, but they hit hard times, and so it was taken over by Eldercare, who did their best, but, in the end, they too were beaten by the staffing issues.

I could take you there, Mr Deputy Speaker, to Stansbury. It's like heaven on a stick. It's a beautiful Yorke Peninsula little seaside coastal town. You'd think, 'Why wouldn't people want to go there and work?' But it's around about 2½ or three hours from Adelaide, and they don't want to go there to work. They don't want to go there and live. People want to come there for holidays. They fill up the shacks all the time—not a problem. But we just can't get the staff there. I've got another one on Yorke Peninsula that is seriously under pressure at the moment, at a time when actually the demand for aged care is increasing. It's not as if we haven't had the warning. It was in 2002 that Peter Costello released the first Intergenerational report and identified exactly this issue—that the ageing of Australia was going to present an ongoing and increasing challenge for younger Australians as they were asked to fund the retired people of this nation—and asked how we would deal with that.

So one of the problems we have in this ageing Australia is people like me. I think I'm a baby boomer. I'm never too sure about where those margins fit in, but I'll settle for that. We all want better. We want better facilities than our parents aged in and our grandparents aged in. We want better rooms. We want independent baths and showering facilities, and for good reason. We've just been through a pandemic, and you can justify that on medical and health grounds alone. So we want better. But better costs more. Better means knocking down old facilities that actually can do the job, but nobody wants to use them anymore.

I'm very grateful for this: in Whyalla, we have a community-run organisation that really hit hard times and got to the point of having to close their doors. Helping Hand, which is a Catholic, Uniting Church associated aged-care facility stepped in and took over management, and it was running until the last election. I managed to secure a commitment from the government at the time of a $10 million grant to help them rebuild and refurbish, to get rid of the shared bathrooms and to build some extra facilities. We did not win the election, and the Labor party did not make the same commitment. But I'm very grateful that they did come to the party. Eventually, prices went up, as they have everywhere, but $17.2 million has come from the current federal government to Helping Hand in Whyalla, and I'm very grateful for that investment. I think we can see the pathway forward there now, with management from a bigger organisation having some advantages and providing some economic gains.

But we need investment similar to that and in fact even more in Port Augusta at the moment. We've got facilities that are in the 1970s style, and they need to be upgraded. There's demand there. We have a private operator there. To give you some idea, the private operator came into possession of facilities that were owned by the council and sold to the private operator for $1. That will give you some indication of how much money it was not making—how much money it was losing. We've had someone be prepared to stick their hand up and take the risk. I understand that they are breaking even, but there is no way in the world we can find the kind of investment dollar they need to refurbish, rebuild and expand. The $300 million is very important. I make the point that there are 150 electorates around Australia, so $300 million won't go all that far. That's the answer.

This is a reform. It will help fund the health system. It will ask people who have more to contribute more. I'm not against that. I think the fact that we've come together means it will be accepted a little more than if it were a politically difficult decision. In government, in nine years, things get forgotten quickly, I might say. In government, in nine years, we tripled the number of home-care packages. We went from somewhere around 60,000 to over 200,000. We're still being criticised—quite rightly, I guess, because there weren't enough, and there are still not enough. But it's worth remembering that, in nine years, we tripled the number of home-care packages. We invested a further $18 billion a year into aged care.

It raises serious issues for Australia, with ever-increasing demand on government services everywhere. Our stalled and indeed falling per capita productivity is a huge concern. If we want more and better health care, aged care, child care, education and NDIS and we don't want to pay more taxes—and clearly a majority of Australians don't want to—some way or another, we've got to increase productivity. We cannot have a backwards slip in productivity. The only way Australia will be able to afford the future it wants is if we are more productive. That means we have to take the bull by the horns here in this place and talk about how we get more for the same, if you like. How do we get the work of the nation to make sure we have a better outcome for our efforts? If you ask any individual worker, 'Can you work harder,' they'll say, 'No.' But we are not keeping up with the rest of the world. One way or another, we need to re-examine what we do.

This goes to fundamental issues. We now have a 37.5-hour working week in Australia. I think it's 37. We've got people who only want to work four days a week, not come to work and do everything else that goes with that. I think we all, as Australians, need to put our shoulders a little harder to the wheel. I don't think I will win a lot of votes advocating for a 40-hour week. But maybe that's what we need. Maybe Australia needs to go back to having all of us going just a little bit harder. For me, a 40-hour week looks like taking most of it off. There are other people out there running delis and small businesses that are exactly the same as the people that work in this place. That is not a magic answer, but it's one option. I just think we all need to do a bit more.

The proposals of an ever-expanding holiday, workplace benefits, restrictions on workplace practices, working from home, and leave entitlements forever expanding—we just need to think about what it is we do here in this place. When I hear in South Australia that the government walks in one day and decides it would be a good idea if we had an extra public holiday on Easter Sunday—that's fine for them, apart from the hospitals. No-one was working for the government on Sunday but everybody out there running a deli on that day, everybody trying to cater for public services now has to pay double time and a half on Sunday when it would have been a regular weekend rate before. Those are the decisions that are made in Parliament House that have effect on the ground and that, in the end, affect things like the way that we deliver aged care. In aged care: higher wages—good, give it a tick. Better quality care? Absolutely, we're all in favour of that. Better facilities? Absolutely, we're in favour of it. But they all cost, and so do staffing ratios.

It's arguable, particularly with smaller facilities, that the staffing ratios should be different, and there should be far greater recognition. There was a little move in the last budget, for far greater recognition given the role of enrolled nurses in aged care. Now, I don't want to belittle anyone in the industry—a lot of aged care, though, is not rocket science. It's about having the right attitude—the aptitude, if you like. When people say, 'Why can't we get more people working in aged care?', I often say, 'Aged care, disability care or any other kind of care—it's not as if we are all adaptable to it or suitable.' I think you need to have vocation. Some people are just not good with other people. Maybe it's intentional or maybe it's genetic. I'm not sure they are the people that I want in aged care; I want people who are, by nature, treated by kindness, care and the capacity to take less than optimal—I don't mean in the sense of wages; I mean in the sense that they might have different customers but they need to rise above that. I think they do something very special.

One of the downsides of the royal commission that I lament was the focus on some bad facilities and some bad workers that I think, in a way, degraded care workers in the eyes of the public across the board. People were saying, 'I don't enjoy the job anymore because they all think that we're abusing these oldies in here.' I know from the facilities I walked into, the people I talked to and the people I know who work within them that it is not the case. It is not anything but a very tiny minority, but that minority gained a lot of airplay in that space. It had to be exposed—I'm not saying it doesn't—but there is collateral damage that sits within the industry. So we need to pay them better. We need to provide better facilities. This bill will help with all those things. But we also need to continue to recognise the contribution that those workers in the industry make, and generally what a wonderful job they do for caring for the people in this nation, for what it is.

As I start, I pay tribute to the member for Nicholls and his contribution. I was honoured to be in the room for that contribution and I have no doubt that his father, Brian, was very and is very proud of him and everything he has achieved for his community before being elected and since being elected. What the member for Nicholls shared in his story—his courage—is that idea that aged care is something that we all have a stake in.

Whether you're already living in aged care, you have a family member or a grandparent in aged care, or you're thinking about your own future, it is in the interests of all Australians that we have a strong and dignified aged-care system. It's something that we are all touched by at some point in our lives, and in many ways we as a society will be defined by how we treat those in aged care and how we treat young people as well.

I am very lucky to have a lot of great facilities and aged care facilities in my community, and I want to pay tribute to two that I was able to visit in the last two weeks. I was able to present Australian flags to Monda Lodge in Healesville and AdventCare in Warburton. This gave me a great opportunity to talk to the residents, to hear their stories and to hear in a really positive way about how they are enjoying their time at those facilities, and that is what we need to do. As the member for Grey, the member for Nicholls and so many have said, we need to look after those who have built our communities and our country.

The coalition wants to see a thriving aged-care sector. That's why we called for the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. We've remained resolute in advocating for the dignity and clarity that older Australians deserve, and that is why, while looking to work in a bipartisan and collaborative way with the government, we will reserve our position until the committee delivers its final report.

This bill delivers on the first recommendation of the royal commission, which is to implement a new rights-based aged-care act. The Aged Care Bill 2024 will replace the Aged Care Act and the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Act. The issues for our aged-care system are undeniable. More than half of the aged-care homes across the nation are operating at a loss. We have an ageing population. Australians have a desire to stay at home for as long as possible. These things combined show us that we must change the way that aged care is delivered. We also need to recognise and acknowledge what the Intergenerational report and many other reports show: aged care is one of the top five costs, spends or investments in the federal budget. But we need to make sure that that is sustainable going forward, because we know projections are for deficits as far as the eye can see.

In my electorate of Casey, many older residents have a strong desire to stay at home and to remain a part of the community that they have spent their lives in, given the regional and rural nature of some parts. Many are able to do this with some help here and there from family. But the system is letting others down, and this is something I have spoken of previously. I know the member for Mayo, who is in the chamber, has also spoken about these challenges. I'm contacted regularly by elderly residents and their families about issues with accessing care at home through the My Aged Care system. Each and every week, my office assists constituents who are having difficulties accessing services that have been approved under their package.

In 20 October 2023, I wrote to the minister on behalf of a number of constituents who were unable to access services that had been approved through My Aged Care. One of these constituents—he is now 93 and his wife is 91—was not even able to get on a waiting list for mowing services. I was contacted by his daughter-in-law, who has been a fantastic advocate for her in-laws. She managed to get an assessor to come out to assess the mother, but the assessor couldn't assess the father in the same visit. Having received no notification of the outcome, she followed up with My Aged Care and was told that the mother's package had been approved back in May, but they were not notified. On the same call she was advised that her father's referral had 'got stuck in the system'. When seeking further information, she was informed that her mother's package had, in fact, no funding attached and there would be at least a 12-month wait for this service. These are two people in their 90s who just want some help getting their lawns mown. The toll this has taken not only on my elderly constituents but on their daughter-in-law, who has had no choice but to constantly follow this up, is unacceptable.

All this happened despite the minister being aware of the situation and replying in December last year to my correspondence. I wrote again to the minister and I received a response on 16 October. It states:

The government is working on reducing wait times.

The minister then goes on to say:

Support at Home will better support older people to remain independent at home through an increase in places, with an additional 300,000 places supported by 2034-35.

The minister 's solution for my 90-year-old constituents is that there will be support available in 10 years! It goes to show how out of touch the Labor government are with the needs of older Australians. They show no regard for their quality of life.

But these residents are not the only ones. I was contacted by the daughter of another community member, who said the following:

I have spent many hours advocating for mum, being her carer and getting her to and from medical appointments. But I would much rather she was able to benefit from the care designed to be delivered by her home care package and for me to have shared those same hours with her as her daughter, providing social care and creating memories. Instead, I have been "functional", doing jobs that needed doing but not enjoying all the mother daughter moments we should have. The system does not support that.

Through good-faith negotiations with the government, the coalition have achieved significant changes to the government's proposed legislation that will protect the interests of older Australians and future generations. We have worked tirelessly to ensure the government's reforms are fairer, particularly for Australians who have worked hard all their lives to save for their retirement. That's why we pushed the government to include grandfathering arrangements for those already in the system or on waiting lists, lifetime caps, a much lower taper rate and an assurance that the federal government will remain the majority funder of aged care, not residents and those using the system.

One of the most critical outcomes of our efforts was the introduction of the grandfathering arrangements. These arrangements guarantee that Australians who are already in residential aged care, on a home-care package or assessed as waiting for their allocated home-care package will not see any changes to their existing arrangements. In effect, it means that all Australians currently in the aged-care system will not pay one cent more for their aged care.

We also advocated for a lower taper rate towards care contributions, to ensure those who have worked hard and saved for their retirement are dealt a fairer deal. The taper rates we demanded mean that funding contributions increase at a much slower rate than the government wanted.

We also fought for the maintenance of a lifetime cap on care contributions. These caps we demanded mean that Australians will always know that the maximum they can ever be required to contribute is fixed, to give them certainty. Importantly, the maintenance of a lifetime cap will provide families with peace of mind when it comes to the associated costs of caring for their loved ones.

In addition to these financial safeguards, the coalition secured an additional investment of $300 million in capital funding for regional, rural and remote aged-care providers, who are struggling to remain open under the Albanese government. The coalition has always recognised that rural and regional aged-care homes face unique challenges and need more support from the government. This funding is critical for upgrading facilities that often struggle to meet the necessary standards due to financial constraints.

We also worked hard to remove criminal penalties from this bill, following serious concerns that they would force the exit of highly capable staff from the sector in fear of being criminally punished to a level not seen in any other industry. Let's be very clear: by removing criminal penalties from this bill, the coalition has not given a free ticket to providers in the wrong. Existing workplace health and safety laws, banning orders and criminal codes provide the necessary regulatory framework to hold people to account, without driving people away from the industry with fear and scare tactics, to make sure that our older Australians can get the care they need and deserve. We already know worker shortages, particularly in regional and rural facilities, but also in all facilities, are an ongoing challenge.

We also squashed Labor's outrageous attempt to force unionism into every aged-care home. Labor wanted a workers representative to be able to come into every single aged-care home and demand an explanation on any aspect of its operations. We support aged-care providers working consultatively with their staff, but we will not let unions march into aged-care homes and tell them how to do their jobs.

While there have been significant achievements made by the coalition during our negotiations with the government, the government has failed to address critical issues such as workforce shortages, regulatory impacts and implementation timelines in this bill. These details are so crucial. As we've seen time and time again, creating the policy and announcing the policy are in some ways the easy part. The implementation and the detail of how we get this right are so crucial, particularly when we are talking about aged care and any care sector where we're looking after our most vulnerable. As we see with the examples of my community members that I talked about previously, if rollouts are going to take 10 years, we need to understand the human cost of that delay.

The coalition is seeking to ensure the introduction of this bill will not force the closure of more homes but instead result in the commencement of critical new builds across the sector. We are disappointed by the lack of transparency the government has shown to the Australian public throughout the entire process of these reforms, with the conversations forced to occur behind closed doors, which caused anxiety for many in our community. It is clear from the two inquiry hearings held thus far that there is notable frustration from older Australians and the sector. The frustration is that many of the changes proposed by the government were not consulted upon.

The bill, however, aims to ensure that the Commonwealth aged-care services remain accessible to those who require them today and into the future. It seeks to promote dignity, independence and a meaningful life for older Australians, which the coalition and I remain committed to. We will continue to consult with older Australians and the sector through the ongoing inquiry process and work through the issues that are raised as we seek to achieve dignity and clarity for all older Australians. We will continue to seek to do that in a bipartisan way. Despite the rhetoric of the Prime Minister and many others, when it comes to two of the biggest costs to the budget—the NDIS and aged care—the coalition has worked in a constructive, collaborative and bipartisan way to deliver results for all Australians to improve the outcomes while always continuing to hold the government to account.

The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety found in 2021 that the treatment of older Australians in the aged-care system was characterised by neglect. It shocked the sector, the community and governments into action. This bill was borne out of that royal commission. So it's somewhat disappointing to know that the majority of the debate on this bill has actually occurred in the Federation Chamber. This isn't an amendment; this is an entirely new act. And I feel incredibly disappointed that this bill has not been debated or heard in the main chamber.

This bill, if passed, will implement 58 of the 148 royal commission recommendations handed down in 2021. It will provide more tailored support for older people, with eight ongoing levels of funding of around $78,000 per year and short-term support for palliative care, which I think is critical and which is something that I've raised directly with the minister in months and years gone by. So I'm pleased to say that that will be in there, and that will allow people in that palliative stage of life to hopefully stay at home for as much as possible. It will provide for home modifications and access to assistive technology, including a new equipment loan scheme.

While organisations which deliver aged-care services will now also be allowed to deliver assessment services, I have received assurances that monitoring will occur to prevent conflicts of interest so that a provider can't use assessments as a make-work scheme for their own business. We have seen that in other sectors.

I'm pleased the bill provisions aim to address serious delays in obtaining aged-care assessments, but I believe it should set out a statutory timeframe for the delivery of assessments and the allocation of packages, as we have seen these blow out so much, depending entirely on how much is allocated in the federal budget, year on year. Waiting lists are now so long that it takes 13 months after assessment for a high-level package to be delivered, and that is utterly shameful.

We don't even know exactly how many people are on the waiting list. The government's own website hasn't updated its figures since the March quarter, which is disgraceful in itself. But it's believed—from questions in the parliament—that there are around 76,000 older Australian that are waiting for care at home. People are dying while waiting for a package, and some people are seeing no other option but to take their own life, with voluntary assisted dying, because they're deteriorating while they're waiting for that elusive package. It's almost like it's a mirage on the horizon.

I thank the Council on the Ageing, National Seniors Australia, the Older Persons Advocacy Network, the Aged & Community Care Providers Association and other advocates for their efforts to improve the experiences of older Australians in the aged-care system.

While I support this bill in principle, I do believe that it misses the mark in some respects. I am disappointed the bill will not create an independent complaints commissioner. An independent complaints commissioner with teeth and a transparent complaints process are needed in order to best protect consumers' rights.

I have funding concerns. I'm concerned about the funding model for the system, going forward. Older Australians will be carrying the burden for the sector's funding shortfall and to deliver savings to the government. The increased user-pays approach to aged care will make life incredibly difficult for many. Even if only one partner needs high-level care, many couples with a family home will likely need to sell the home to cover the significantly increased contributions towards ongoing care fees and higher refundable deposits for residential aged care.

Providers will now be able to charge a maximum refundable deposit of $750,000 that will be indexed over time—that's up from $550,000—without seeking regulatory approval. With compound interest calculated at a conservative six per cent and retaining two per cent per annum of the $750,000 refundable deposit, a provider will be able to obtain up to $328,699 over five years or more, per resident. It is not clear how the government will ensure that the additional funds are spent, as intended, on improving facilities and constructing new aged-care beds as our ageing population continues to grow. Further, the bill provides the operation of the deposits will not be reviewed until 2029. We cannot provide a blank cheque to aged-care providers at the expense of older Australians.

I would like to point out that, in addition to the significantly increased refundable deposits for aged care, residents will also be liable to pay for the following charges, and these, I understand, are not capped over a lifetime: basic daily care fees of tens of thousands of dollars per year; and daily extra services, now 'higher everyday living fees', of thousands of dollars per year, set at the discretion of the provider. I receive feedback that my constituents are often charged these fees even if they don't or are unable to use the services, such as wine and television. There are daily accommodation payments for those who are unable to repay the refundable deposit. These fees will combine to leave some older people, particularly if partnered, with an incredibly high level of cost, and it's my view that this will likely impact women in particular, given that they have a longer life expectancy than men.

Other social schemes, such as Medicare, child care or the NDIS, do not require contributions of this magnitude. After listening to concerns raised, I've asked the minister for more information on how the 'no worse off' principle will apply in practice. There is a grey area with respect to grandfathering and whether that also applies to how people use their current package. Many have raised concerns with me about the limitation of their package regarding cleaning and gardening. If you live in a regional area, you generally have a bigger garden, and many tell me that it is having the garden cared for, having support in the garden, which allows them to stay home. That helps them manage the bushfire risk. What we are saying to people accessing NDIS is, 'You have a choice and control.' What we say to older Australians is: 'We will be prescriptive. We will tell you what you need, and we're going to try to extract from you the very maximum that we possibly think is politically palatable for the privilege.'

National Seniors Australia have shared their view that the bill and the explanatory memorandum contain insufficient detail regarding the Support at Home means test and thresholds to allow people to calculate means testing for all incomes. They posit that the means test regime—with 14 steps, 10 threshold areas and various contributions and supplements—is neither clear nor simplified enough for all consumers to understand. Furthermore, I'm extremely disappointed that the bill doesn't deliver on recommendation 72—that is, that older people on disability support should receive equitable treatment in comparison to those on the NDIS. I've raised this issue many times with ministers of both this government and the previous government, as well as in the media. It is age discrimination, and it should be addressed. The system as it is now means that if you are 65 you can't go on the age pension, but you certainly can't go on NDIS either; it's a great inequity. We need to make sure that we address that.

I've also heard from key stakeholders that the statutory review of the act five years after it commences operation is too late. I'm seeking an amendment to require a review of the operation of the act three years after the commencement of the act with key terms of reference for the review to be set out in the bill.

Much of the detail of the new aged-care regime is devolved into the rules and other instruments, such as service lists, which will not be subject to sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. This includes rules in relation to the list of services for the purpose of means testing to establish consumer contributions. Some peak bodies and several constituents have raised concerns regarding the inclusion of independence services, rather than clinical care services, such as showering, feeding and dispensing medication. Such services are likely to be clinically required and are not optional extras or nice to have. How on earth can we think that being assisted into the shower is a 'nice to have'? That is clinical care. It is ridiculous. They are often essential for older people's health, and I'm concerned that requiring significant contributions for independence versus clinical care services could lead to adverse outcomes if this discourages people from obtaining such essential services with personal care—as I said, showering, feeding and medication. This will have dire consequences for the physical health of people.

My constituent Betty, whose husband is living at home with dementia, shared a common problem with me:

The contribution for personal care is a concern as it makes it sound like a choice. I'm worried that carers may try cutting down on the service, which is essential. My husband, a large man, has collapsed in the shower twice. Fortunately, last time a carer was there to help, and I could call the ambulance while she held him. Showering a person with dementia is surely an essential service. The carer, just by luck, was an experienced nurse the last time my husband collapsed, and she was wonderful. The previous time I was on my own, and it was traumatic.

Current delays in home-care packages and CHSP must be addressed. The promises of support at home in this piece of legislation is purely academic for those who are currently waiting for a home-care package. One hundred per cent of providers who responded to Anglicare Australia's 2024 Life on the waitlist report said they could not meet the demand for CHSP—Commonwealth Home Support Program—in their community due to funding restrictions, workforce issues and regional challenges.

It often takes not months but years to find a CHSP provider in my electorate of Mayo. In those circumstances, giving regional and rural people a CHSP code is just a cruel fiction. I'm heartily disappointed that the government has ignored opportunities to commit sufficient resources to address this in the last two budgets.

The Aged and Community Care Providers Association has advised that 55,000 additional home-care packages are needed to address the now 76,000-strong waitlist in the federal budget. Seventy-three per cent of their members said they could deliver additional home care. While this would come at an approximate cost of $1.8 billion, that does not take into account the anticipated savings to government from increased contributions from people receiving funded services under the new Support at Home program, and nor does it reflect the savings due to the delay in people taking up more costly residential aged-care places because they're able to be supported at home for longer. Also, of course, that does not even address the fact that many people are ending up hospitalised because they're not getting any support at home.

Older Australians can't wait for Support at Home to commence before these egregious wait times of 12 to 15 months are addressed by the government. Support at Home can only be as good as the funding that's committed; otherwise, existing delays will simply be inherited. I again call on the government to urgently address this chronic underfunding of CHSP and home-care packages, and to properly resource Support at Home in the future.

Now, we're talking about numbers here—76,000; a 15-month waiting list—but we are really talking about real people, and I would like to share the story of one of those real people. Cyril is 86 years of age. He weighed 80 kilos when he was assessed as needing a level 4 package in January this year. Cyril is six feet tall; he's a tall man. Nine months later, Cyril was down to 42 kilos. He was then told that the wait for care would be some months more, and he lost hope.

In October, Cyril had yet another fall and he was hospitalised again. He then felt that he was too far gone.

Cyril's a carpenter, a musician, a husband who cared for his wife until she died, and then, at that point, embarked on another career, as a carer. Cyril didn't retire until he was 81 himself. But, when it was time for someone to care for him, he was abandoned.

I met Cyril a few weeks ago. He wants to be remembered as someone who has spoken out about home-care packages. He very much wanted to go to the media and talk about this abominable situation—that is, that a gentleman who lives alone and was assessed in January this year as needing a level 4, by September was still told his package would be months away. He has gone through the process of obtaining the medication to have voluntary assisted dying because, at 42 kilos of weight—again, he started at 80 kilos of weight in January—he doesn't see how he can come back from that. And he is now bedbound after a fall. If he had had the support at home, if he had had a chair in his shower, if he had had aids to better help him, if he'd had someone to come and help him wash, someone to come and help him prepare meals, the story for Cyril would have been very, very different. I'm very sorry that Cyril has had this experience. And we must do so much better.

We talk about this bill, but, until we address home care, it really does mean nothing.

Not many issues have had bipartisan support in the 47th Parliament, but I'm glad that this essential reform to our failing aged-care system has support from both sides of the floor and the crossbench. Ageing is a privilege but can also be a burden. Our older Australians deserve to be treated with respect, dignity and clarity, which is why the royal commission into aged care made it so clear that the new aged care act should have a rights based approach, with a focus on people.

An effective aged-care system will not only give older people improved quality of life, with access to medical care, social opportunities and community engagement; it will also help families manage the added challenges of an ageing loved one and provide peace of mind that their family member is supported and safe. The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety was established in 2018 in response to damning incidents of neglect, abuse and negligence in nursing homes across the country. The final report, with 148 recommendations, was handed down in February 2021 and looked at whether aged-care services were meeting the needs of the community. The royal commission found the community expected certain central themes from the aged-care system: dignity and respect, control and choice, the importance of relationships and connections to communities, and the desire for a good quality of life and ageing at home.

A key recommendation of the commission was the development of a new act, and I'm glad to see the government delivering on that recommendation. A simplified aged-care system is beneficial for all, and it's a welcome change to have one piece of legislation and a single set of subordinate legislation called the rules. I note that the rules are currently in consultation phase and haven't been finalised, and this means that we don't yet have a confirmed outline of how the Aged Care Bill 2024 will actually be implemented. Given there are more than 600 references to the new rules in this bill, which means there are more than 600 times that we're being asked to assume the consultation draft will be adequate, the passing of the rules is a very big part of this legislation. It includes important parts of the system change, like the Aged Care Code of Conduct and the Aged Care Quality Standards, audit requirements, dealing with complaints, and conditions of registration. There were a number of changes made after consultation on the draft that have made it easier to support this bill—for example, the statement of rights was made stronger with the inclusion of 'must', the independence of the complaints commission was strengthened, and criminal penalties for service provider boards were removed.

My office receives a large number of emails in relation to aged-care services, both as case work and in response to policy announcements. In fact, given the volume of queries we have from constituents about the supports available to them or their parents, we put out a Curtin seniors guide to help people navigate the aged-care system and Centrelink. This has been a very popular resource, with more than 1,500 distributed to people across Curtin. If constituents would like one, they can pick up a hard copy from my office or download it from the website.

After the exposure draft of the new Aged Care Bill was released last year, I held a community forum and invited participants to come and discuss what they thought was important to include in a new aged care act. We had a room full of interested people. First we heard from Mark Kinsela from the Council on the Ageing WA about aspects of the act such as the statement of rights, the complaints process, the new access pathway and the enhanced choice and control for consumers. And then we ran a workshop so people could share their concerns and what they liked about the new approach. I want to thank everyone who participated in that workshop and contributed their views, which were captured in our Curtin community submission on the Aged Care Bill exposure draft. I found that people in my electorate were chiefly concerned with the humanity of the system. They wanted people to be treated as individuals with connections to their communities which continue into later life. They also wanted to have self-direction as they got older, with the ability to choose their preferred living arrangements and the manner of their death. That is why I'm happy to support this bill, with a few caveats.

At the outset, I want to state what may be seen as the obvious: people are worried about how these changes to the aged-care system will affect them personally. We get so many calls and emails from constituents who are struggling to navigate the current aged-care system, and they're really worried that they'll be expected to navigate something new. That is why this reform must be simple, accessible and user-friendly, and it must be responsive to need. The current system is not supplying support when it's required—for example, one constituent, 93-year-old Mabel, was assessed and granted a level 3 home-care package in July last year and waited until this July for her service to begin. It's hard to comprehend how support for a 93-year-old is not urgent.

I know that the Minister for Aged Care has the best of intentions that this new aged-care scheme will streamline a broken system, and I want to emphasise the importance of clearly communicating the changes to all older Australians and their loved ones. I appreciate a recent speech where the minister said, 'I hear your feedback that reform cannot just happen to you, and that you need to be brought along the journey.' I will be representing my community to make sure this promise is enacted.

I think the definition of clinical care, which will be paid for by the government, and independent care and everyday living, which the client will pay part of, depending on assets, is an important distinction that may not be clearly understood. Change is difficult at the best of times, and, when it's changing how people are planning to age or care for their ageing family members, individuals really need to know how they will be affected. I appreciate the comprehensive website explainers about the new legislation and hope there'll be ongoing community engagement as the new reforms roll out.

It being 7.30, the debate is interrupted and resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member for Curtin will have leave to continue her remarks on a future date.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:30