On behalf of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Administration, I present the committee's report entitled Report No. 31: Additional estimates 2024-25.

Report made a parliamentary paper.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This week the new National Student Ombudsman opened its doors.

It has the powers similar of a royal commission to investigate complaints made against a university.

This is a national first.

And it has been a long time coming—too long.

For too long students have been let down by their universities and inaction by previous governments.

Advocates have been ignored.

And they shouldn't have been.

The evidence is overwhelming.

One in twenty university students reporting being sexually assaulted on campus.

One in six reporting being sexually harassed.

And one in two reporting that they felt they weren't being heard when they made a complaint.

That's why I acted.

That's why this government has acted, introducing legislation to create the first National Student Ombudsman.

But this is just the first step.

These bills that I introduce today are the next steps.

They provide for the establishment and enforcement of a National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender Based Violence.

The c ode

The code will be made by the minister as a legislative instrument and it will set out best practice requirements that all higher education providers will be required to meet.

It'll hold all higher education providers to consistently high standards to proactively prevent and respond to gender based violence.

These standards will be backed by monitoring and enforcement to ensure that we build a culture of compliance in this critical area.

Under the code, higher education providers will be required to take evidence based steps to prevent gender based violence on their campuses.

This includes requiring vice-chancellors and CEOs to make a whole-of-organisation plan, and report to their governing bodies every six months on the actions they are taking to implement it.

They will be required to provide evidence based prevention education and training to staff and students and consider any history of gender based violence in the recruitment and promotion of staff.

They will be required to consult with students, staff and people with lived experience, and their approach must be informed by evidence of what works.

The code will also ensure that when the worst happens, students and staff have access to the best response possible—a response that's trauma informed and puts people first, a response that ensures people are heard, have agency in what happens next, have access to the support they need and are supported by their institution to achieve their educational outcomes.

Providers will be required to train staff and student leaders on how best to respond to disclosures.

And nondisclosure agreements will be prohibited, unless requested by a victim-survivor.

Providers will also be required to report de-identified data and measure the changes that their policies are securing, informing compliance, ensuring accountability and contributing to the national evidence base to help us build an understanding of what works best.

The code will also include an enforceable requirement that providers implement the recommendations of the National Student Ombudsman.

This gives the findings and recommendations of the ombudsman real teeth and will make sure that they are put in place to improve our universities and other providers.

University is not just a place where people learn. For many students, it's where they live.

That's why the code will also have specific requirements to help ensure that student accommodation is safe for students.

The code will require that, following a disclosure or formal report, measures are immediately put in place to prioritise residents' safety and arrange urgent support services.

And, for accommodation which is affiliated with a university but not controlled by it, the university will be required to seek that accommodation provider's agreement to meet the requirements of the code or lose the benefits of their affiliation with the university.

And universities will have an obligation to investigate formal reports of gender based violence even where they occur at student accommodation which is operated by a third party.

If you want to know why that's important, you just have to look at the accounts of sexual assault and mistreatment at university colleges and other on-campus accommodation.

Universities will not have the option of saying a disclosure of gender based violence is a matter for a private college. Where the discloser or respondent is a student or staff member of the university, the code will require that the university take action, including to provide trauma informed support and to investigate where necessary.

The code has been the subject of broad consultation over the past eight months, including with victim-survivor advocates, students, the higher education sector, gender based violence experts, states and territories and relevant Australian government agencies.

Detailed consultation has taken place through an expert reference group comprising 19 leaders from higher education, gender based violence and the student accommodation sectors and victim-survivor advocates.

I table a copy of the draft code for the information of colleagues.

Monitoring and e nforcement

The code contains critically important standards and requirements which all higher education providers must follow.

That's why these bills also establish a new regulatory framework with robust compliance monitoring backed by strong enforcement powers.

To monitor and enforce the code, a new specialist gender based violence unit will be established within the Department of Education.

The unit will provide guidance, education and advice to support universities and other providers in understanding their legal obligations under the code.

The unit will also be able to exercise a significant range of powers to monitor, investigate and respond to noncompliance with the code and the measures that are in this bill.

These powers include issuing requests for information, compliance notices, infringement notices, and powers to require enforceable undertakings and to seek civil penalties and injunctions through a court.

As I mentioned earlier, vice-chancellors and CEOs will be directly accountable for the compliance of their university with the code, including requirements that they report every six months to their governing body.

The bills provide for significant civil penalties where a provider fails to comply with the national code or a compliance notice from the secretary, or fails to keep records or meet their reporting obligations.

Compliance with the national code will also become a quality and accountability requirement for providers under the Higher Education Support Act 2003.

Transparency is important here too.

That's why the bill provides for annual reporting on the gender based violence unit's operations and performance which will be tabled in both houses of parliament.

The introduction of the code is part of the Action Plan Addressing Gender-based Violence in Higher Education, agreed to by all education ministers in February last year.

That action plan was recommended by a working group of Commonwealth, state and territory governments which my department convened as part of our response to the Australian Universities Accord interim report.

The Universities Accord interim report underlined the importance of moving immediately to address sexual assault and sexual harassment in our universities.

That's what I have done.

The Student Ombudsman is now up and running.

And these bills are the next steps.

I want to thank everyone who has been involved in bringing them to the parliament today, from the Universities Accord panel, to the working group, the expert reference group and the education ministers across the country, to my colleagues and our respective departments and officers who have worked together to make today possible and most importantly to the advocates and the victims-survivors who have fought for this for so long—organisations like End Rape on Campus.

End Rape on Campus was founded in 2016 by Sharna Bremner. She ran it with a small group of committed volunteers, working for free, working to make the lives of students safer—incredibly important work.

When this parliament passed legislation late last year to set up the National Student Ombudsman, they put out this statement:

End Rape on Campus Australia has now permanently closed … Almost 9 years to the day since our founding, we've done the thing that organisations like ours should be aiming to do—we've advocated ourselves out of business. We're incredibly thankful to everyone who has supported us over the years.

End Rape on Campus didn't close because the work to rid our campuses of sexual assault and harassment is complete. It is not.

It was because the government was finally listening—and we were bringing together the resources needed to make a real difference.

That's what the National Student Ombudsman is.

And that's what these bills and the draft national code are.

I commend these bills to the House.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill is part of a package of two bills which together will implement the National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence in universities. This bill makes consequential amendments necessary to implement the measures in the main bill, which I just introduced. Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend this bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

The question before the House is that government amendment (1) on sheet AA101 be agreed to.

I'll now deal with the amendments moved by the member for Wentworth.

Unresolved question—

That amendments (1), (11), (13) and (14) moved by the honourable member for Wentworth be agreed to:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 7), after "genocide,", insert "promoting hatred,".

(11) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 10), after item 19, insert:

19A After Subdivision C of Division 80 of the Criminal Code

Insert:

Subdivision CAA — Promoting hatred

80.2DA Promoting hatred

Offence

(1) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person does an act; and

(b) the person does the act publicly; and

(c) the person does the act with the intention to promote hatred towards, harassment, threats, intimidation or abuse of, another person (the targeted person) or group (the targeted group); and

(d) the targeted person or the targeted group is distinguished by race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, sex characteristics, disability, nationality, national or ethnic origin or personal association (whether as a relative or otherwise) with a person who is distinguished by any of those attributes; and

(e) the act promotes, or is reasonably likely to promote, such hatred, or to harass, threaten, intimidate or abuse that targeted person or some or all of the members of the targeted group.

Penalty: 250 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years, or both.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(d), it is immaterial whether the targeted person actually is so distinguished by the attribute or attributes mentioned in that paragraph or actually is a member of the targeted group.

(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(d), the person may have in mind a combination of attributes mentioned in that paragraph.

(4) The fault element for paragraph (1)(d) is recklessness.

Note: For recklessness, see section 5.4.

(5) Strict liability applies to paragraph (1)(e).

Interim orders

(6) A court may make an interim order on application by the prosecutor or on its own initiative if the court is satisfied that:

(a) both of the following apply:

(i) there is sufficient evidence that the person committed the offence;

(ii) the making of the interim order is reasonably necessary to prevent the person from continuing to commit the offence or committing further offences; or

(b) the making of the interim order is reasonably necessary to preserve or secure any matter or thing that may be or become evidence in any proceedings relating to the charge.

Definitions

(7) In this section:

association with another person includes:

(a) being a near relative of the person; or

(b) living with the person on a genuine domestic basis; or

(c) having a formal business or employment relationship with the person.

hatred includes detestation, enmity, ill-will, revulsion, serious contempt and malevolence.

promoting includes:

(a) publicising, advocating or glorifying; and

(b) eliciting or stirring up (whether effectively or ineffectively) a feeling or feelings in another person, or in or among other persons.

publicly includes:

(a) speaking, writing, displaying notices, playing of recorded material, broadcasting and communicating through social media and other electronic methods, to the public or a section of the public (whether or not the public have access to the communication as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made); and

(b) any conduct, including actions and gestures and the wearing or display of clothing, signs, flags, emblems and insignia, observable by the public; and

(c) the distribution or dissemination of any matter to the public or a section of the public; and

(d) acts done in a public place; or

(e) acts done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place.

Note: For public place, see the definition in the Dictionary.

(8) For the purposes of the definition of publicly in subsection (8), an act may be done publicly even if the act occurs on private land or in a place that is not ordinarily accessed by the public.

(13) Schedule 1, item 21, page 8 (lines 16 and 17), omit "and 80.2BB", substitute ", 80.2BB and 80.2DA".

(14) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 21), at the end of the Schedule, add:

23 After paragraph 80.4(2)(c) of the Criminal Code

Insert:

(da) subsection 80.2DA(1); or

Question negatived.

Unresolved question—

That amendments (2) to (10) and (12) moved by the honourable member for Wentworth be agreed to:

(2) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 12), after item 2, insert:

2A Section 80.1A of the Criminal Code

Insert:

sex characteristics, of a person, means the person's physical features and development related to the person's sex, and includes:

(a) genitalia, gonads and other sexual and reproductive parts of the person's anatomy; and

(b) the person's chromosomes, genes and hormones that are related to the person's sex; and

(c) the person's secondary physical features emerging as a result of puberty.

(3) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 17), omit "intersex status", substitute "sex characteristics".

(4) Schedule 1, item 7, page 3 (line 25), omit "intersex status", substitute "sex characteristics".

(5) Schedule 1, item 12, page 4 (line 15), omit "intersex status", substitute "sex characteristics".

(6) Schedule 1, item 15, page 4 (line 23), omit "intersex status", substitute "sex characteristics".

(7) Schedule 1, item 19, page 5 (line 14), omit "intersex status", substitute "sex characteristics".

(8) Schedule 1, item 19, page 5 (line 26), omit "intersex status", substitute "sex characteristics".

(9) Schedule 1, item 19, page 6 (line 30), omit "intersex status", substitute "sex characteristics".

(10) Schedule 1, item 19, page 7 (line 14), omit "intersex status", substitute "sex characteristics".

(12) Schedule 1, item 20, page 8 (lines 13 and 14), omit "intersex status", substitute "sex characteristics".

Question negatived.

I'll now deal with the amendments moved by the opposition.

Unresolved question—

That opposition amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 3 be agreed to:

(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (before line 3), before item 1, insert:

Crimes Act 1914

1A Section 16AAA (after table item 1)

Insert:

(2) Schedule 1, item 19, page 8 (after line 10), at the end of the item, add:

80.2BE Advocating force or violence through causing damage to property

Offences

(1) A person (the first person) commits an offence if:

(a) the first person intentionally advocates for another person, or a group, to use force or violence against a group (the targeted group); and

(b) the first person does so by causing damage to property; and

(c) the first person does so reckless as to whether the force or violence will occur; and

(d) the targeted group is distinguished by race, religion or ethnic origin; and

(e) the use of force or violence would threaten the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 7 years.

Note: For intention, see section 5.2. For recklessness, see section 5.4.

(2) A person (the first person) commits an offence if:

(a) the first person intentionally advocates for another person, or a group, to use force or violence against a group (the targeted group); and

(b) the first person does so by causing damage to property; and

(c) the first person does so reckless as to whether the force or violence will occur; and

(d) the targeted group is distinguished by race, religion or ethnic origin.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.

Note: For intention, see section 5.2. For recklessness, see section 5.4.

(3) The fault element for paragraphs (1)(d) and (2)(d) is recklessness.

Note: For recklessness, see section 5.4.

(4) For the purposes of paragraphs (1)(d) and (2)(d), the person may have in mind a combination of attributes mentioned in those paragraphs.

Alternative verdict

(5) Subsection (6) applies if, in a prosecution for an offence (the prosecuted offence) against subsection (1), the trier of fact:

(a) is not satisfied that the defendant is guilty of the offence; but

(b) is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of an offence (the alternative offence) against subsection (2).

(6) The trier of fact may find the defendant not guilty of the prosecuted offence but guilty of the alternative offence, so long as the defendant has been accorded procedural fairness in relation to that finding of guilt.

Meaning of damage

(7) In this section:

damage includes minor damage.

Example: An offensive slogan painted on a building (advocating the use of force or violence against Jews) is damage for the purposes of this section.

(3) Schedule 1, item 21, page 8 (line 17), omit ")", substitute "and 80.2BE)".

(4) Schedule 1, item 22, page 8 (after line 21), at the end of the item, add:

(ce) subsection 80.2BE(2); or

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

And I move:

That the question be now put.

The question is that the question be now put.

The question now before the House is that the bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

On behalf of the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I present the committee's report, incorporating dissenting reports, entitled From classroom to community: Civics education and political participation in Australia.

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

by leave—Democracy only works where citizens are able to engage in the democratic process in an informed way. In Australia, we require our citizens to show up to the polls, and that expectation must be matched with the readiness to provide the education and tools to make an informed choice.

Democracy is under pressure in the world today. We have a duty to ensure that we learn from best practice and that we provide within our own institutions and practices examples of democratic functioning that others can learn from.

Trust in government is an issue in modern democracies. We build trust through the way we conduct ourselves, through creating sturdy institutions and by demonstrating respect for them, and through education and providing voters with the tools they need to make the choices and decisions within the political process.

During the inquiry, there were over 130 submissions, 11 public hearings, five site visits and an online survey with almost 1,000 responses. We heard that civics education is crucial and also that the current state of civics education nationally is inadequate.

The 23 recommendations of the report include a nationally mandated civics and citizenship curriculum in the next version of the Australian Curriculum, more resourcing for professional development for civics teachers, finding ways to encourage more remote and regional schools to visit Canberra or access digital learning experiences, providing the better resources needed for regional and remote communities at voting time, working with community organisations to better engage youth and culturally and linguistically diverse communities on voter education and their opportunities, and a greater focus on media and digital literacy to address the growing rise of mis- and disinformation distorting the foundations of our democracy.

In my first speech in this place, I said that our representative institutions must be representative in order to be legitimate and instil confidence. The parliament and the government must always lead in this respect. I am proud of the gender diversity, the cultural diversity and the diversity of the life experiences that this parliament is now increasingly reflecting. But that reflection only endures and increases if the Australian people are able to engage adequately at each election with the democratic process. The Australian people include, without qualification, the young Australian people, the Indigenous Australian people and the Australian people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. We need to make special efforts to ensure their full participation in our democracy so that their voices are heard and their votes are counted.

I am proud of the work done by the committee to further these goals. I thank the committee secretariat, who fulfilled their duties with their usual professionalism, and I make special mention of the leadership of the chair, Senator Brown, and of the former chair, the member for Jagajaga. I thank the many individuals and organisations that gave up their time and effort during the inquiry process. I commend the report to the House and move:

That the House take note of the report.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.

Question agreed to.

I rise to speak on the Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024. This is an imperfect bill and purports to fulfil a Labor election promise that is now three years old on the shelf. It seems quite odd that we should be considering this bill on the eve of the 2025 election and that, yet again, this parliament should be subjected to legislation with which no-one is particularly happy, with so many stakeholder groups expressing concern about the framework contained in the bill. But, as we have heard from so many contributors in this debate before me, Australia is known as a scammers' honey pot, easy for the taking and light on regulation at a time when, as we have vastly digitised our economy through the COVID period, digitally enabled scams have been exploding both in number and impact. This bill, at least, would institute a scams prevention framework, which would require regulated entities to take certain actions in relation to scams, including taking responsible steps to prevent, detect, report, disrupt and respond to scams relating to services which that entity provides.

Almost weekly, I hear from constituents in my electorate who have been scammed or near scammed. It's agony when they raise this issue with me. They tend to come feeling quite embarrassed—ashamed in some instances—and frustrated that there is no emergency button to press when it happens and that no-one seems to be accountable, least of all the scammers themselves, for this fraud and the crime affecting so many in our community. In 2023, the last available figures, almost $3 billion of Australian savings were lost as a result of over 600,000 scams made that year, which was an almost 20 per cent increase on the previous year's figures. That is an astonishing figure, and I can't help but wonder whether, if $3 billion worth of assets had been stolen from people's homes through breaking and entering, we would have doubled the police force. But, because so much of this scamming occurs in the digisphere, and in particular via unregulated internet platforms owned and based offshore, Australia has been slow to react.

For those who have been scammed, let me be clear that it is not your fault. The skills of scammers, their extraordinary customer service, leave our government institutions, our banks and our airlines in the dust. Their customer service is second to none, highly tailored to reassure and guide the elderly or the infirm in particular through a labyrinth of digital manipulation. Their interlocutors on the phone and their systems are much easier to navigate than the ones that the banks or the telco companies or the TV channels or the news websites give us. I know because this happened to my poor old mum 12 months ago. Poor old Mum is getting a bit of a shout-out this week; it's just as well she can't reprimand me for that anymore. She serves as a useful yardstick here because my mum was no dummy. She was a Fulbright scholar; the recipient of endless medical scholarships and fellowships; a trained cardiothoracic surgeon; and a lawyer, barrister and tribunal member—a genius.

A year ago, I flew overseas to South America for a short break, and when I landed I rang Mum to check in. I asked how she slept. 'Not well,' came the answer, 'because I got to bed so late after talking to Telstra.' 'Talking to Telstra?' I said. 'Yes. Apparently the Russians were trying to hack my devices, but it's okay because Telstra rang, and they talked me through the steps I needed to do to protect the system. It did take forever, though, and I only got to bed after 9 o'clock.' 'What time did they ring you, Mum?' 'About 7 pm.' 'Mum, Telstra doesn't ring after five. Did they put anything on your computer?' 'Yes, yes, they put all the things I need to be safe on it and on the iPad and the phone too, and I'm sure it was Telstra because it was an Australian voice'—Mum's from a different generation—'but it's all safe now.' Silence. 'Mum, it wasn't Telstra. I need you to ring the banks right now. You need to ask them to stop all transactions on all accounts, and you need to block your credit cards right now.'

Within minutes of hanging up on Mum, the scammers had set up a Gmail account which mirrored her longstanding Bigpond account so they could intercept all of her emails and fraudulently represent that they were her. Friends who ran to her side that day at dawn could see an overnight web history of people trying to break into bank accounts, iTunes accounts and online retail shopping platforms. By gift of my mother's age, she had never cached a password. The scammers got nothing, but it was a horrendous shock for her, and I had to sit up through many, many nights of that week—from the other side of the planet—talking her through the safety I had put in place around her and what to look out for in coming days in case there was something we had missed. I had friends confiscate and clean all her devices. I had to get her a backup phone. I put holds on all of her bank accounts and had friends walk around to her house with brown paper bags of cash while I digitally reimbursed them from the other side of the planet. At exactly the time she wanted to follow all my travels online, I left Mum in the digital dark. It was both cruel and heartbreaking.

When I expressed my dismay to a digitally clever friend about the timing—Mum had just come out of hospital—I was told, 'That's intentional.' The scammers take a read of which devices are drawing down overnight from the tower above the hospital so they know who's staying there for treatment rather than being there as a doctor or nurse. And then, when that device—that IP address—leaves the remit of the hospital tower, they get in contact with the number. There's nothing like new drugs, poor sleep and perhaps pain management to make you vulnerable to a scammer. I rang the hospital and suggested they advise their patients or their families to be particularly wary of scams when they leave the hospital's care. Even though Mum lost nothing in that scam, what endured for her was a morbid fear of technology—her questioning of herself every single time she was online. She lost all dexterity in internet banking. All trust in emails was gone. At the start, lest some form of spyware had been left on the devices, I banned all internet banking, and we would go into the branches together to manage her affairs. Thank God she still had branches to go into.

My mum's story is one of hundreds I could give you from my electorate. We are an older electorate—the fifth oldest in the country—which makes us prime targets for scammers impersonating trusted brands in particular: Telstra, Qantas, Woolworths, Medicare, Origin Energy and the ATO. In 2024, nearly 60,000 over-65s were scammed out of a total of $100 million, according to Scamwatch. There would be thousands more near misses like my mum with no financial loss but which come with a vast loss of confidence and capability in a rapidly digitising economy.

This is a really important issue for my community of Flinders. A year or so ago, I spoke to a Probus group at Main Ridge, and, while the topic of my conversation was meant to be about parenting and social media, it quickly became a conversation and a realisation for me that we really have failed to equip our senior citizens with the skills they need to do things digitally and the know-how for what they can trust online. While regulatory frameworks, like those contained in this bill, are important, human frameworks—customer-centric design thinking about the age and vulnerability of the customer demography—are just as important.

In May of last year, I hosted a seniors expo in my electorate, and one of the store holders was our community bank in Mount Martha, operated by Bendigo Bank. It is a much loved institution up and down the Mornington Peninsula and one which prides itself on face-to-face customer service for our community, especially in relation to scam recovery services. At the seniors expo, Bendigo Bank brought down its top brass in scamming class, and it shared three steps to mitigate the risk of scamming: stop—don't give money or personal information to anyone if you're in any way unsure; think—ask yourself, 'Could this message or call be a fake?'; and protect—act quickly if something feels wrong. The last step, act quickly, is vital. This is what I had to do through the night—in fact, over many nights—from Santiago in Chile to install protections around my mother's interests and, more importantly, to reassure her she was going to be okay.

Scams thrive because it is human to have inevitable lapses in judgement, and with each day our scammers get more sophisticated, such that even the most paranoid amongst us are at risk of being duped. I remember the first time I got one of those text messages from NAB. It came from NAB, the same NAB title that I got from every other communication from NAB in my iPhone. It told me I needed to ring the bank about a suspicious transaction on a mobile phone number. I thought, 'That's weird,' and I rang the bank on the normal number that I call them on, not the text, and was told: 'No. There are no odd transactions.' I screenshot the text and sent it to them.

The scammers' business model is vulnerability executed to perfection. They know when mums are busy picking up kids or dads might be trying to finish up a day's work on the tools before a long weekend. They text Nan on a public holiday, 'You forgot to pay your Origin bill.' No-one wants to pay the Origin bill late, and so you pay it, but you use the click-through because you're on the run, and it turns out you haven't paid the Origin bill at all.

As part of this debate, we must recognise that older Australians rely on an analogue interface. We used to call it going into the branch. Closing branches has a devastating effect on people's confidence that there will be help if something goes wrong. As I sat with Mum at Westpac or NAB, waiting to make a simple transaction in the few months after her scam exposure, I observed a myriad of people coming in in absolute desperation. They were up at the counter expressing their frustration, their confusion and their panic. They had no idea what happened, but they knew something bad had happened. A branch or a vigilant daughter—for those who don't have the latter, they still need the former.

Bendigo Bank—so loved in our community for their support of community sport, for their support of volunteer groups and, most recently, for their contribution of $600,000 to create a wellness centre at the Bays Hospital in Mornington, which I had the honour to open on Monday—has developed a big emphasis on face-to-face resolution as a way to make people feel more comfortable admitting they have been scammed. Not only does it more effectively help those generations who aren't digital natives, but it gives every human a sense of assurance that the problem can be solved then and there. In 2023, Bendigo Bank launched a face-to-face education approach to help its 2.5 million customers safely navigate digital banking. It's an innovation which other banks could and should follow.

When I have raised the issue of digital and scamming education with the big four banks on behalf of my consumers, they have been keen to tell me that such education is readily available online. I can only stress here as I have stressed in those meetings: you are missing the point, dear banks. Once you have been scammed or near scammed, the online world is one of fear and uncertainty. The way back is face-to-face communication. My community in the electorate of Flinders has benefited greatly from these sessions being run by local branches of the Bendigo Bank, and I really thank them for this and encourage them to keep up their great work.

The coalition has a record of advocating for sensible obligations on companies to stop scams. In his 2023 budget reply speech, our leader, Peter Dutton, committed that a coalition government would impose more onerous obligations on big digital companies to stop scams and financial fraud. The Australian Banking Association has, in the absence of concrete policy from government in this space until now, developed a Scam-Safe Accord, which seems to be the central policy glue committing all types of industries to work together in an ecosystem to mitigate against scams. We are yet to see if it will stem the scamming tide.

It nevertheless aligns with some of the recommendations that the coalition provided in its additional comments to the recent Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society report, namely that a shared responsibility for scams is the only way that customers will be protected through the entire supply chain of a digitally executed or induced fraud. In that report's additional comments, the coalition members argued that social media companies should be held liable for failing to remove and report links, tools and users who, through link-in-bio platforms, facilitate access to class 1 or class 2 material and indeed scam ads. At present, social media companies are making money out of advertising from regulated and restricted industries. They therefore have a vested interest in using data to exploit users for their clients. For these reasons, the coalition committee members in that report recommended that government mandate detailed annual reporting to the eSafety Commissioner on revenue from regulated and restricted industries.

In their evidence to the joint select committee, the International Justice Mission also identified that dating apps and websites play a significant role in romance scams and child sexual exploitation and called for those companies and social media platforms to collaborate closely to stem romance scamming. The coalition members of the social media committee argued in recommendation 13 that we should establish a joint standing committee on online safety, artificial intelligence and technology, tasked with investigating the strengths and weaknesses in Australia's regulatory system, legislative tools, industrial base and technological capabilities. As scammers get better at their craft using different platforms and methodologies, we must be ready to regulate to keep our citizens safe. This bill we're considering today constitutes a start, albeit a slow and unambitious start. It's perhaps one indicative of this entire government's approach to leading Australia but one which hopefully will, if nothing else, rob us of the title of global scams' honey pot.

(Quorum formed)

Scams have been a feature in many of our lives for decades, but in today's digital age they have taken on a new, invasive form that is leading to devastating outcomes for too many people. Like nearly every member in this place, I have heard some terrible stories from constituents in recent years about the scam losses that they or a loved one have experienced.

Top of my mind is an experience of a local resident, Doris. Doris has shared her story with the media to make other people aware of the very creative ways that scammers try to reach out to people, and she is really hoping that sharing her story will stop others from falling victim to similar scams. Doris was trying to set herself up for retirement by investing her savings, $260,000. She was looking online at banks to invest with, looking for a good investment rate, and she came across what looked like a very legitimate Singapore based bank offering what looked like a very good return on that investment. Doris spoke to someone who said they were from the bank. She got sent some very legitimate-looking documents. I've seen those documents myself. I looked at them, and they looked like the kinds of documents that a bank would send you if you were looking to set up an account and invest with them.

Doris thought: 'Great! This is what I'm going to go ahead with. This is a good rate of return. This will secure my retirement.' She went along to her local Commonwealth Bank branch, where her money was, to send the money to this allegedly Singapore based bank. Doris completed an international money transfer at the bank and thought that all seemed well. Six weeks later, Doris went to try to withdraw some of her funds, and she found that there was nothing there. She in fact had been scammed. Her life savings were gone. And, again, Doris is towards the end of her working life, and this has a devastating impact for her and her future. As she said, 'They made it sound so perfect, and I lost the lot.'

Doris is a smart woman, and she has worked hard. Like many people, she's had her share of challenges, but she did what she thought was her due diligence on this investment. She was caught out by a sophisticated scam designed to lull her and others into a false sense of security. Doris took her case to the ombudsman because she was concerned about whether the Commonwealth Bank should have played a bigger role in checking where that money was going. The ombudsman found the bank was deemed to have done all it was required to do in this situation. It is absolutely fair enough that Doris wishes that the Commonwealth Bank could have and would have done more to stop this transaction and that, when she got to that point of transferring the money, there were more warnings to her about the risks before she approved that transfer.

Doris did nothing wrong. She is an intelligent woman, and she has shared her story to try to stop others from being in the same position. But it is absolutely the case that banks, telcos and social media companies must all do more. That's why I'm really pleased to be speaking on the Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024 today and about the work that this government is doing to focus on this insidious problem and to make sure that people like Doris are not at the same level of risk of being scammed in the future.

Of course, Doris's story is not a unique one. In 2023, Australians lost a total of $2.7 billion as a result of scams. That shows the scale of the challenge we face. As I said, banks, telcos and social media companies in particular have a responsibility to do more to stop people from being scammed. People like Doris should not be left without their life savings, particularly if there could have been just a bit more done to advise her of risks, to make sure that the transaction she was taking was legitimate before it was too late. Absolutely, social media companies have a responsibility to stop the absolute flood of ads and scammers that fill our news feeds, local community group pages where people are just trying to talk about what's happening in their neighbourhood, and the friend requests that aren't actually friends or, in most cases, real people. They are absolutely not doing enough, and this isn't a new problem. It has been like this for years. It had been getting worse until this government took the focus that we have now. Scams have been allowed to flourish for too long in this country.

Our government has been and is taking action on an issue that the Liberals and the Nationals put in the too-hard basket for far too long. We have delivered more than $180 million to combat scams and online fraud, and it is making a difference. Scam losses have dropped by 40 per cent. Losses have almost cut in half since we stood up the National Anti-Scam Centre. There is more work to be done, and that's why this bill is going to be so important. The Scams Prevention Framework is the next vital step in our work to stamp out scams. Scamwatch data tells us bank transfer was the most reported payment method used by scammers, with more than $200 million in reported losses in 2023. It was phone calls and social media contact that were the methods associated with the highest value of the losses: $116 million and $93.5 million, respectively, in 2023. With the work we're doing, we will be holding banks, telcos and social media to account to ensure that they are doing their bit to keep people's savings safe from criminals. To get the change that we need, we do need to have an all-in effort. It will obviously take government and the work we are doing here, but it will also take all of these companies and our community.

Certainly, as a government, that's also a message we have been trying to empower people with. I want to echo what others have said in this chamber: if you have been scammed, it is absolutely not your fault. It's not that you have missed something. I think people sometimes feel ashamed and like they are at fault. It is not your fault. It is the fault of these very sophisticated criminals who are targeting you.

It has been great to host in my electorate the Assistant Treasurer and the Minister for Financial Services, who has been leading a lot of this work. He came to Jagajaga last year and spoke to a packed audience and the Bundoora Community Hall for a scams forum. That was a really useful session talking about the types of scams people face, the avenues people can take to protect themselves from scammers and why our government's work to stop scams is so important. At this moment, I would particularly like to thank the Assistant Treasurer for his dedication and work over the past 2½ years as a minister driving this work to stop Australians being scammed, to protect Australians, and also for travelling the country to electorates like mine to make sure that Australians know what protections are out there for them when it comes to scams.

As Assistant Minister for Ageing, I am particularly aware that older Australians often feel that they are particularly vulnerable to scams as people who haven't grown up being digital natives. They feel as though (a) they're probably more likely to be targeted and (b) they're less likely to understand what's going on. Again, I do want to say to those older Australians: if you are scammed, it is absolutely not your fault and there are avenues to support you. That's the work we are doing here.

We are also doing work to make sure that older Australians can feel more confident online. In particular, the Be Connected program, which is run in conjunction with the eSafety Commissioner, is a wonderful program that provides all Australians but, in particular, older Australians with workshops and modules to learn how to get online with confidence and with safety. It's often run in community centres, in libraries or through senior citizens groups. So, if you are an older Australian and you are worried about being scammed and want to feel more confident online, I would absolutely recommend looking up the Be Connected program, finding out about where it's running near you and taking some of the modules under that.

The Minister for Small Business has reminded me that we are also assisting small business to make sure they're set up to be able to deal with the impact of scams. The IDCARE program specifically supports small businesses that have had a cyberattack or a scam. They are the people for small businesses to contact when they've been attacked or fallen victim to scams.

Again, these scams are insidious. They're happening across our economy. They're happening to people across the country. So, as the government, we are really aware that we need to take an all-in approach, putting the scammers on notice that we are onto them. We are looking at banks, telecommunication providers and digital platforms. Under this framework, we are asking them and requiring them to do more than they have done before. We will be making sure that the framework is kept up to date. We'll be looking at other sectors that may be coming under it in the future, such as superannuation, cryptocurrency, online marketplaces and other payment providers.

We will make sure that there are penalties of up to $50 million that may apply if people breach the framework. Obviously, that's intended to incentivise compliance and provide adequate penalties to deter regulated entities who may, in fact, foresee higher possible gains from breaching the framework. We want to make sure that this works. Regulators will also have other compliance tools available: infringement notices, enforceable undertakings, injunctions, public warnings and remedial actions. These are all to ensure the framework is administered as intended to protect consumers.

Consumers will have access to free and transparent dispute resolution processes. Again, this is going to make a big difference in the cases such as the one I outlined. There will be somewhere for a consumer to go to actually resolve their dispute when they feel like an entity has not met its obligations. I think that will be a really important part of this puzzle as well. People will be able to take action in court if they have suffered loss or damage because a regulated entity has not met its obligations under the framework.

I want people in my community to have increased confidence that this is something our government is bringing a huge amount of attention to. With this bill, we are saying that more must be done to combat scams, to keep Australians safe and to make sure that others do not end up in the position of Doris in my community and that others do not fall victim to scams that mean they lose their life savings. This is really important work, and it is, of course, the work that a Labor government does to make sure that our communities are safe and fair for all.

Scams are a huge problem and absolutely need to be addressed in legislation. This bill, the Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024, is a good start, but I don't think it goes far enough in considering the experience of the victim. But, in the spirit of pragmatism, I'll be supporting it.

Some of the first constituent stories I heard after being elected were from people in my community who'd been the victims of scams, and it's such a significant issue for my constituents that I've spoken about the issue of scams a number of times in parliament. In 2023, I told Lisa's story. Lisa lost $750,000 in a scam where she set up an account with the ING Bank, or at least she thought she did, only to discover that the account was fake. I also spoke about John, who lost $2.7 million in an elaborate scam when he relied on a broker for his investments and it turned out that the broker was actually a fake company. Last year, in 2024, I told Tim's story. His mum lost $800,000 in a scam that actually resulted in a capital gains tax liability, even though she'd been scammed out of the assets. Because this issue of scams is so important to my community and to all Australians, I, along with the member for Kooyong, co-founded the Parliamentary Friends of Scams Protection so that MPs and senators from across the floor could meet and try to find some better ways of addressing this growing problem.

The magnitude of scam losses is hard to believe. CHOICE tells us that nine out of 10 people have come across what they suspected to be a scam in the last 12 months. In 2023, Australians lost an astonishing $2.74 billion to scammers. It has dropped a bit recently, but that's nearly three times what it was in 2020. In 2023, Australians lost more than $5,000 per minute, and that's just the scams that were reported. The vast majority of scams are not actually reported.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission says investment scams were the highest loss category, followed by remote-access scams and payment redirection scams. Traditional electronic bank transfers remain one of the most commonly reported means of payments to scammers, but social media scams are apparently the most profitable. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has found that banks only reimburse between two and five per cent of customers affected by scams—so, really, a tiny proportion of the losses that are occurring. Right now, there's no clear obligation on banks, telcos or social media platforms in relation to scams management. That's all to say that the introduction of a scams protection framework in parliament is essential.

I acknowledge the work done to date. The National Anti-Scam Centre was set up in July 2023. It has a mandate to disrupt scams before they reach consumers, and that's starting to make some impact. But, as fast as we work to stop scams, the scammers keep innovating, and the scams evolve even faster, so it can feel impossible to keep up.

That brings me to the bill, which is a welcome addition to the network of scam prevention measures, but it could be better. What does it actually do? It introduces mandatory sector-specific codes to protect Australians against scams. The framework will first apply to banks, telecommunication companies and digital platforms, but the minister could consider adding additional sectors as the framework develops and as scams continue to evolve. This bill attempts to protect the vulnerable by creating obligations on those providers. The bill sets out obligations for businesses that are providing services in one of those three regulated sectors to do a few things: proactively take reasonable steps to detect, prevent and disrupt scams; report to the ACCC about actionable scam intelligence and scam responses; and establish internal dispute resolution processes and join an external dispute resolution scheme to resolve customer complaints for scams. If they don't comply, they may face significant civil penalties. It also sets out the ACCC as the framework regulator, and individual sector regulators can be designated by the minister. The minister can also make codes for each regulated sector.

There are some good things about this approach that I first want to talk about. We absolutely need the regulation. We absolutely need a simple, clear regulatory framework that can be understood by both businesses and consumers. It needs to be as clear as possible for business to implement measures and as simple as possible for consumers to access help. Some of these principles are addressed here and some have some work to be done.

I agree with the government's approach to base the framework on principles. It's such a big problem, and it's evolving over time, so we need a broad set of principles on how entities will work to protect consumers. Under the framework, regulated entities are required to publish policies about how they'll respond to scams in relation to the principles of governance—prevent, detect, report, disrupt and respond. I think it's important to regulate this issue as a progressive problem. It will keep changing. Each entity must take reasonable steps to prevent and protect, and to disrupt scams.

I also appreciate the single-door approach to scams regulation. We need to make scams prevention as accessible as possible for consumers. The Australian Financial Complaints Authority has jurisdiction to deal with all scam disputes involving banks, telcos and digital platforms, which will hopefully reduce red tape and complexity.

I support the safe harbour provisions. The legislation allows for a 28-day safe harbour protection for regulated entities to take proportionate disruptive steps to respond to concerns. This may feel like a long time for consumers, but I support the advice of stakeholders that the objectives of the framework can only be achieved if regulated entities feel empowered to take strong and timely action to block activity that they suspect may be a scam but where they don't have sufficient information to be certain the activity is a scam. The safe harbour provision will help with that.

There are a number of things in the bill that concern me. Prevention is really important, and we absolutely need to do that work, but this legislation should create a really clear path for victims if they're scammed. Scams will never be stamped out completely. It needs to be obvious and clear for victims who have already experienced a loss what they can do to get compensation. I have concerns in three areas: the compliance approach, the onerous dispute resolution mechanism, and the onus being on the victim. As drafted, this legislation is designed for businesses to take a minimum standard compliance approach rather than incentivising innovation to keep up with scammers who are always steps ahead. I think that's a problem. The dispute resolution mechanism is complicated, expensive and onerous for the consumer. It requires the consumer to go through an internal dispute resolution process first with the regulated entity before escalating their complaint to an external dispute resolution mechanism.

The Australian Law Society said in its submission that directing scams to internal dispute resolution processes before they go external would result in a poor and frustrating experience for victims. Perhaps the most concerning part of the legislation in front of us is that the onus of proof is very much on the consumer or the victim of the scam rather than the organisation that allowed the scam to happen. So the person who had the money stolen from them, despite the requirements of the banks or telcos to stop it, is required to show that the bank, telecommunication company or digital platform didn't do enough. The vulnerable victim has to take on the business to prove that the institution didn't meet the requirements.

This seems very challenging for a consumer who has just suffered a loss—which could be considerable—to then have to navigate the legal system to prove the scam is the fault of the bank telco or digital platform. Reversing the onus of proof so that the bank, telco or digital platform must show its reasonable steps would be a more consumer focused approach where there's significant asymmetry of information. The banks and telcos will know a whole lot more about what steps they've taken and what they could take than the consumer, who's looking at it all from the outside.

Where a scam could be avoided by multiple parties—that is, a bank, a telco and a digital platform—the risk of the scam harm should be allocated to the party that can avoid the scam harm at least cost. In almost all circumstances, the parties best placed to eliminate or mitigate scam risk would be banking, telecommunications and digital platform companies. This is because, first and foremost, they have control over the architecture and design of their systems and processes.

Another way of dealing with it would be a mandatory reimbursement model. Under the UK model, UK banks will be required to reimburse up to a maximum of about $166,000 unless the consumer acted with gross negligence. If you've brought it on yourself and it's entirely because of your action, then there's no mandatory reimbursement. Otherwise, you will get reimbursed. Instead, Australian consumers can obtain compensation via the AFCA or by exercising their private right of action for damages against regulated firms if and when they can establish a breach of those legal requirements.

Australia has the opportunity within this framework to aim far higher and become a world leader in preventing and disrupting scams and responding to innocent people and families whose lives are markedly changed by scams. Having heard so many stories from consumers in my community and considering how hard it can be to navigate the dispute resolution process, I don't think this proposed legislation puts the interests of the victims first and foremost.

In conclusion, I appreciate the minister's engagement with me personally on this issue and with the crossbench on the government's broad response to scamming. I recognise the importance of introducing an overarching framework and proposed industry codes for banks, telcos and digital platforms. It's absolutely a great start, but it doesn't focus on the experience of the victim enough. In the context of a complicated and evolving space, while scammers continue to innovate, the framework still ensures the onus is on consumers to navigate that system and prove that the bank, telco or digital platform failed them. Shifting this onus onto the companies with the information and the scale would create better incentives for companies to continue to innovate on how they prevent scams. But, in the spirit of pragmatism, this framework is better than nothing, and it's definitely an improvement on the existing approach. I won't let the perfect be an enemy of the good, and on that basis I will be supporting this legislation. But there is a clear opportunity there, perhaps in the future, to make this go further to protect Australians better.

The Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024 addresses an issue that's really important to people in my electorate in Darwin and Palmerston, to Territorians generally and, of course, to people around Australia. All members in this place, whether they're in the government with us, in the opposition or on the crossbench, know that Australians are being ripped off by scams every day. I've helped a number of my constituents when they've been scammed. Often, of course, it's too late and they've already suffered great losses, but at least we've been able to show them the new resources, and through legislation like this we are strengthening the ability to protect Australians.

Last year, we launched the Fighting Scams awareness campaign to equip Australians with tools to protect themselves against scammers. There are three simple and memorable steps to empower Australians to identify sophisticated scam tactics. They are to stop and think before you share personal information; to check that you know who you're dealing with, whether it be online or on the phone; and to protect against scams by reporting them to scamwatch.gov.au. In some cases, some of the constituents I've assisted have been able to get some funds back, and that's been appreciated and satisfying. But, as previous speakers have mentioned, that is happening a small percentage of the time. We need to do everything we can to make sure that this education campaign is as widely understood in the Australian population as possible—stop, check and protect—because overwhelmingly it is prevention, rather than work after the fact, that is going to lead to less criminal behaviour that results in Australians being deprived of their hard-earned cash.

After all, our government is about exactly that. We are making sure that Australians both earn more and keep more of what they earn. What scammers try to do is illegally and criminally take money from Australians by deceptive means. So remember to stop and think before sharing your personal information; check that you absolutely know who you are dealing with; and then protect against scams by reporting them to Scamwatch. In doing so, you're preventing other Australians from being scammed as well.

In addition to this awareness campaign, we've got a world-leading Scams Prevention Framework that will help keep Australians' money safe from scammers. This framework is going to ensure that banks, telcos and social media companies are doing their bit to protect Australians from scammers. We are making Australia the toughest target for scammers to operate in. It's all part of our Albanese Labor government ensuring that Australians keep more of what they earn.

As I said, I've spoken to many constituents, and it is absolutely heartbreaking to see Territorians in my electorate lose their hard-earned money because of these scammers. And often these scams take everything. I've seen them take houses—there have been houses mortgaged in order to keep feeding illegal and criminal scamming. It's very sad that it's often our senior citizens that are targeted. They are from a different generation that is more trusting, and unfortunately that goodness of theirs is preyed upon by scammers who are, frankly, evil in their actions to deprive any Australian, but particularly senior Australians, of their hard-earned money.

Often, when people come to my office with their story, they're even still a little bit unsure about whether they've been scammed. I think they know in their heart of hearts that there's something wrong, but they come, unsure of what to do. We have the Little Black Book of Scams that we actually pre-emptively send out to Territorians, but please know that you can get that support through the Little Black Book of Scams from my office and get assistance at any time if you believe that you're being scammed or that someone in your family or a friend is being scammed.

With this legislation and other actions, we're saying enough is enough. We just simply cannot let scammers get away with their criminal activities, which are, as I mentioned, depriving Australians of their hard-earned cash. Losing retirement savings is particularly crushing. We're creating a framework that ensures that companies do their bit to protect Australians, and this world-leading Scams Prevention Framework legislation will put obligations on sectors to prevent, detect, disrupt and respond to scammers.

The obligations will initially apply to banks, telcos and social media companies, where much of the scam activity currently occurs. If businesses fail to meet the tough obligations, they will be subject to penalties of up to $50 million, a significant amount, and will also be required to compensate victims. Under the coalition, those opposite, scam losses were doubling over that decade of inaction. Under our government, scam losses have fallen for the first time since 2016. This legislation will put Australia at the top of the pack when it comes to preventing scammers. It will ensure that the government delivers on its pre-election promise to protect the community from scammers.

Since being elected, our government has committed over $180 million to combat scams and online fraud. There have been positive signs from this government action and industry's effort to combat scams, yet losses remain unacceptably high. A few years ago, in 2023, scammers stole a staggering $2.7 billion—that's with a 'b'—from Australians, and scammers continue to cause significant psychological and emotional harm for victims and their families. Indeed, the whole community suffers. As I mentioned, I see this day in and day out in Darwin and Palmerston, and I know that Territorians, even in remote communities, are also scammed.

That harm is real. It affects those families and it means there's less money to put food on the table and to meet daily costs. Current scam protections have been piecemeal and inconsistent across the economy for too long. Consumers face inconsistent protections and responses across different industries and different providers. This bill will certainly help to address that. The framework being introduced in this bill is a central part of our government's broader consumer protection agenda. The Scams Prevention Framework is an economy-wide reform to protect consumers from scams by requiring the private sector to adhere to consistent, principles based obligations and strong, tailored industry codes which are enforceable.

It will ensure companies do their part to protect Territorians and all Australians. The framework will ensure that all parts of the ecosystem used by scammers are held to account for implementing strong and effective protections that are tailored to that sector's role in the conduct of a scam. This is absolutely essential for the protection of consumers, as it is common for scammers to use multiple platforms and services to deceive and steal from consumers. I sat with a constituent in my electorate office as they interacted with a scammer, and we reported the scammer. They were using her social media and carriage services to try and scam her there and then. When we tried to put a stop to it, they hit her from another carriage service. So all this was happening at the one time, and it was incessant and stressful for the individual. They were being ripped off, literally losing tens of thousands of dollars week by week. It's crushing for the individual and, as I said, has that huge effect on the families as well. It rips families apart in many cases.

We have a responsibility to the consumers that are using these platforms and services, who really are the ones that are ripped off here. That's why we're stepping up as a government to protect those who are being deceived. Often they are some of the most vulnerable people in their community. As I said, often it's retirement savings that have been stolen. Regulated entities will be required to take reasonable steps to help these Australians by preventing, detecting, reporting, disrupting and responding to scams and going on the front foot, doing more to help and stop the criminal behaviour. They also need to have governance arrangements in place relating to how they protect consumers from scams. Mandatory sector-specific codes will provide tailored, prescriptive obligations for each sector which are consistent with those principles. The sector-specific codes do not relieve a business from their obligations to take reasonable steps in all circumstances, recognising that scams are constantly evolving so businesses must evolve their response continually as well.

Banks, telecommunications providers and certain digital platforms offering social media, paid search advertising and direct messaging services will initially be designated under the framework, as they represent key vectors of harm for consumers. Bank transfer was the most reported payment method used by scammers, with $212.9 million in reported losses in 2023. Australians should be able to use a bank transfer to spend their hard-earned money without worrying about scammers or, indeed, to send their hard-earned money to their loved ones or to a service provider—anyone who they intend to send money to in good faith—without these scammers preying on them. Phone calls and social media were the contact methods associated with the highest value of losses, with $116 million and $93.5 million lost, respectively, in 2023.

Australians should be able to go about their day and use their phones in a number of ways on a number of platforms and engage with their friends and family on social media without having to worry about scammers, but, because we know that they are insistent, we're continuing to try and educate people about the dangers at the same time as putting the onus on the carriage providers. This bill will make sure that Australians can have greater confidence while always maintaining vigilance.

The bill will employ resources across our government regulators. We have a multiregulator model involving the ACCC as the regulator for the principles based obligations and ACCC, ASIC and ACMA as regulators for the sector-specific codes, which will capitalise on existing industry knowledge and expertise. This will ensure that no single regulator will be spread too thin as the framework expands to additional sectors, as scam activity will inevitably shift.

Regulators have access to significant civil penalties of up to $50 million for the most egregious breaches of the framework. This is intended to incentivise compliance with the framework and to provide adequate penalties to deter entities who may foresee higher possible gains from breaching the framework. Regulators will also have other compliance tools available, such as infringement notices, enforceable undertakings, injunctions, public warnings and remedial directions to ensure that the framework is administered as intended to protect consumers, to protect Australians. This will allow the regulator to implement this framework to protect Australians from scammers.

Our government has done a lot more than any other previous government and will continue to monitor what needs to be done into the future to provide the highest level of protection to Australians, all the while reminding them that the best way to prevent scammers is to be aware and to be preventive and to stop scammers in their tracks.

Scams can have a devastating impact on people's lives and destroy people's lives in some instances. The Greens will be supporting the Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024 in the House because we have listened to key stakeholders, including many organisations that represent the interests of consumers, who are calling for the bill to be passed in this term of parliament. Australia is lagging behind other countries in our response to scams and, as a result, too many people and their families are harmed by scams each year. In 2023, tens of thousands of people across the country lost over $2.7 billion to scammers.

Scams wreak havoc on so many people's lives. Australia is lucrative for scammers because Labor and the coalition have, up until this point, failed to implement a comprehensive regulatory framework, leaving it largely to industry to undertake voluntary preventive measures. As a result, protections against scams are piecemeal and inadequate, often leaving people with no avenue to recover scam losses. This is reflected in the data as currently people, not businesses, pay for 96 per cent of scam losses. Whilst we are supporting this bill in the House, we strongly urge Labor to improve the bill by including a presumption—

We hear interjections from a Liberal member. Sorry, I can't remember your name. Frankly, it's astounding. You had nine years to fix this, and you have the gall to get up and lecture other people about not doing any work.

Order, the member for Bradfield!

That's his name, sorry. Whilst we are supporting the bill in this House, we strongly urge Labor to improve the bill by including a presumption of reimbursement and ensuring offshore tech companies are held to account. Laws to prevent and respond to scams must support the interests of people, not corporations. Labor's Scams Prevention Framework Bill could have been a much-needed opportunity to crack down on the harm caused by scams. Disappointingly, Labor has chosen to prioritise the interests of major banks and multimillion-dollar profits of those banks over the interests of everyday people. As a result, without significant amendments, the bill will fail to adequately prevent scams from occurring in the first place or support people impacted by scams to quickly seek redress.

In a joint submission on the exposure draft, a broad coalition of consumer groups, including the Consumer Action Law Centre, calculated that, to seek redress for a scam, a typical person would have to go through an almost 30-step process that would take up to two years. Even worse, at the end of this process, there is no guarantee they will get any of their money back. This is because the bill places an onus on the individual to take on their bank, telco and/or social media platforms to prove that each company did not meet the requirements for the overarching principles or sector-specific code. According to the consumer groups, this is a complex, legalistic, time-draining and resource-draining task for an individual. It sets a near-impossible David-and-Goliath battle between people who have been scammed and the potentially massive corporations they have to take on. If a person manages to make it through this convoluted process, a business is only liable to reimburse them if the person can prove the business did not comply with their obligations under the framework. The Law Council of Australia indicated in their submission to the bill inquiry that the proposed laws would primarily result in compensation being denied.

Labor's proposed framework is far from best practice. For years, consumer organisations have consistently called for a model that includes a presumption of reimbursement adapted from the UK's effective approach. Under this model, banks would refund people impacted by scams within 10 days and recover costs from other companies involved in proportion to their liability, including telcos and digital platforms. The Greens support this model because it is evidence based and places the interests of people, not corporations, at the centre. It ensures people who are scammed are quickly reimbursed at the point where they lost their money, and banks, telcos and digital platforms are incentivised to innovate to prevent scams from occurring. The Consumer Action Law Centre indicated in a joint media release that, without reimbursement at its core, Labor's Scams Prevention Framework is simply not going to work.

Instead of listening to consumers, Labor has blatantly caved to the big banks. The big banks don't want a presumption of reimbursement, because it would put them on the hook to take responsibility for scams. Given that the largest four banks raked in almost $30 billion in profits in the last financial year, the Greens believe they can afford to be held to account to protect their customers from scams.

Treasury documents released under freedom of information state, 'Treasury has met regularly with the Australian Banking Association and member banks to align government and industry efforts in relation to the bill.' Even other industry groups were concerned that Labor prioritised the interests of the major banks above all else. DIGI, which represents the tech industry, noted in their submission to the draft bill:

While it appears that there has been intense and ongoing consultation … with the Australian Banking Association … the same level of consultation has not occurred with other regulated industries …

It is clear Labor will do anything to support the profits of their major donors. The latest donations data shows that, in the 2023-24 financial year, NAB, CommBank and Westpac each donated over $60,000 to Labor and over $70,000 to the coalition. It's astounding how much influence just $60,000 will buy from the major parties.

The Greens also want to bring into the Australian jurisdiction the multibillion-dollar tech companies regulated under the bill. Unless steps are taken to bring offshore digital platforms under Australian domestic corporate, criminal and consumer laws, any reform will be difficult if not impossible to enforce. The inquiry of the Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society heard from many witnesses about the barriers to legal accountability and the ability of platforms to avoid legal redress or accountability for harms done on their platforms. Even the basic service of legal documents on Meta to commence a legal action appears to be almost impossible in Australia.

The committee recommended that 'the Australian government consider options for greater enforceability of Australian laws for social media platforms, including amending regulation and legislation to effectively bring digital platforms under Australian jurisdiction'. The Greens supported this recommendation and further recommends herein that the government act urgently to do so. If the government are serious about reining in the power of the tech giants, combating scams and keeping our kids and community safe online, then they will make sure any legislation is enforceable on those they seek to hold to account.

Whilst the Greens are supporting this bill in the House, as we recognise Australia urgently needs regulation to combat scams, we urge Labor to prioritise the interests of people, not multibillion-dollar corporations, by amending the bill to include a presumption of reimbursement and ensuring that offshore tech companies are held to account.

I rise to offer my strenuous support to the Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024. It's a really crucial piece of legislation that will safeguard Australians against the growing threat of scams. It's a bit of a pity the Greens' member for Griffith is leaving the chamber now, because I can tell you that the 120,000 people I represent in the City of Newcastle are extremely thankful to have a government that is taking this seriously and putting forward the world's first and strongest piece of legislation in order to deal with what has been despicable behaviour causing untold pain and suffering for many thousands of Australian people. How do we know this? Because we all talk to our communities. I will come to that in a moment.

The current scam protections are clearly piecemeal, and they are inconsistent across our economy, which means that consumers, the people that we represent, do not have the protections they need and deserve. They are also stymied by the responses across different kinds of industry providers.

Scams, we know, are a pervasive threat in our society. They take on many forms, from an email or phone call that promises a windfall but in fact ends with the loss of your hard-earned life savings to the complex financial schemes that prey on the elderly, those that are in distress—the very people that we know are most vulnerable. Scammers are also becoming increasingly sophisticated in their operations. They're using technology and, indeed, psychological manipulation to exploit their victims. As we know, scammers are becoming increasingly sophisticated in the tactics that they deploy as well. We need to be much better at coordinating our efforts to stop them.

I want to highlight upfront the real human cost of the scamming industry, which has really threatened so many Australians now. Over the last couple of years, I, like all my Labor colleagues, have been hosting scam information forums in my communities. Indeed, the minister has attended some of these in my electorate and in other electorates across Australia, because we know how devastating the impact is, whether it's an investment scam—I've had devastating stories from people in my electorate who have lost their life savings. Imagine how you feel at retirement losing everything you had put aside. We've got people who have fallen prey to romance scams. They are especially vulnerable people in that they are usually too embarrassed to come forward. They're ashamed. They feel like they've fallen for something.

But I say to those people—indeed, all people who feel like they cannot come forward to report these scams—please know that you are one of many. You are not alone. You are not a mug. You haven't been hoodwinked, because these people are highly sophisticated criminals that are now so manipulative and know so much about your personal information and data that you think they are absolutely ridgy-didge when they speak to you on the phone or send you those emails. I say to Novocastrians again and again: there is help. It's not good enough now, but this bill, which I will come back to now, is going to help enormously. That is why this House collectively should support this legislation before the Australian parliament today.

The Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024 being introduced is, as I mentioned, world-leading legislation. It is also central to this government's broader agenda on consumer protections. If I've got time, I will try to come back to that broader agenda as well. It is this framework which is an economy-wide reform to protect consumers from scams by requiring the private sector to adhere to consistent principles-based obligations and strong, tailored industry codes that are enforceable. At its core, this bill seeks to create a national coordinated framework that brings together multiple sectors, including government agencies and financial institutions, the telecommunications providers and the consumer protection groups, to address scams in a unified manner. We're not picking off one sector from another; we understand this requires a whole-of-government, whole-of-community approach. We are bringing people together, not trying to divide them up. It recognises that an ecosystems approach is required to reduce the gaps, which we know are exploited by the scammers. We can't afford to have people splintered off and not on board with this bill. If we're genuine about delivering strong consumer protection to our consumers, the very people we represent in this parliament, then we need everybody on board.

I urge all parties—it doesn't matter if you're sitting on the crossbench or on the opposition bench—to get on board. It's important to understand that this is not just a legal initiative. We are making law here, absolutely, and that is our job, but it is also a comprehensive commitment to protecting individuals and businesses from the devastating impacts of scams. We're not just a bunch of lawmakers here; we are also ensuring that we are part of a comprehensive commitment to the Australian people this is about protecting them and protecting those small businesses that are also caught up in this dreadful scam industry. We know that this is a really big challenge in our digital age. It's an acknowledgement that in today's interconnected world we must work together to prevent and respond to scams effectively.

It's no secret that scams are on the rise in Australia. Any member of parliament would know that from their communications with their constituents. We know that with technological advancements the internet has become an indispensable part of our daily lives. However, as our lives have moved online more and more, so too have the perpetrators of these scams. We know they are absolutely in that space; they are increasingly sophisticated, as I mentioned earlier; they are ruthlessly deceptive; and they are unrelenting in their pursuits. In 2023 alone, Australians lost more than $2.7 billion to scams. That is a terrifying figure. I know it's pretty hard to imagine what billions of dollars looks like or feels like. Perhaps it might be easier to reframe that: Australians are losing an average of $7 million every day to criminal scams. That's the size of the problem we seek to deal with today.

It is more than just an economic expense, as I tried to put forward at the beginning of this discussion. This has profound psychological and emotional impacts for our constituents as well. There is such a significant human cost here that the government's trying to tackle as well. From identity theft to phishing and from fraudulent investment schemes to romance scams, no-one is immune. Scams are not just financial losses, as I said. They result in this profound distress for people, destroying relationships, ripping families apart and leaving long-lasting scars on the lives of individuals and all of their families. It's even more alarming that scams increasingly target the most vulnerable members of our community—the elderly, people who are experiencing financial hardship and even young people who are just less experienced at spotting the threats. This leaves many people, as I mentioned, exposed and vulnerable to manipulation and deception at the hands of what we now know are often organised criminal syndicates. These are not just rogue operators; these are very sophisticated, highly organised criminal syndicates that are out to exploit.

This bill is designed to address head-on the issues that I have mapped out by introducing this comprehensive framework that will prevent, detect and combat scams in our country. I know I'm going to run out of time for a lot of the detail of the bill, and I appreciate many of my colleagues having gone through that previously, but I cannot stress enough the importance of strengthening the regulatory environment. This is a bill that has undergone a lot of consultation, and it is now incumbent on this parliament to provide passage of this legislation so that we can really start swinging into action on this issue. We shouldn't be waiting another single day to get this through this House. We want to be very proactive about consumer protection in Australia, and we want to be proactive about the education that we should be providing to consumers now.

One of the key aspects of this bill is its focus on consumer education, and I really commend the minister and the government for ensuring this is a part of the bill. It recognises that scams cannot be fought through regulation and law-making alone. We need all our citizens to understand the threats and the ways to best protect themselves, and we need a whole-of-government, whole-of-community approach. We must make sure that Australians are informed, aware and equipped to protect themselves from the ever-evolving range of fraudulent activities. This bill mandates the creation of a national public awareness campaign that will run across multiple channels, and that's important because we know people are getting their information through all sorts of different means now. The campaign will educate people on how to recognise the warning signs of scams, how to protect their personal information and what steps to take if they suspect they have been targeted.

Currently the Albanese Labor government is running the 'fighting scams' awareness campaign. That's already out there, trying to equip Australians with tools to protect themselves. The campaign is running on TV and online ads using three very simple but memorable steps to empower Australians to identify these sophisticated scam tactics. I want to briefly put those on the record. The three critical steps are as follows: firstly, stop. Stop right now and think about whether or not you should be sharing your personal information. That's the first question you should ask yourself. Secondly, check. Do you know who you are dealing with? The third step is to protect—protecting yourself against the scams by reporting them to the scamwatch.gov.au body. This public information and awareness campaign complements work being led by the National Anti-Scam Centre, and, under this bill, these types of advertisements will be supported by easy-to-access resources where Australians can report scams and receive guidance on how to handle suspicious activities.

I know, like most members on this side of the House, who have been running our scam information forums in our electorates—I've had the minister at one of mine as well—that trying to make sure we inform our constituencies about ways to best protect them is absolutely critical. We do have information available at our electorate offices. We do have a national anti-scam centre on our side. We'll be enhancing enforcements and penalties through this legislation, which will hopefully be passed in the House today. This is about building a safer, more secure environment for all Australians. It will complement a lot of work that Labor has already done to try and improve our privacy laws and our consumer protection laws to really make Australians as safe and protected from this evil scam industry as possible.

As we've just heard from the member for Newcastle on the Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024, I think we're just so inundated with scam messages daily on our phones, on our emails and even on social media as well. You get messages such as, 'Click this link to track your parcel,' pretending to be from Australia Post, or, 'Check your tax return status,' from a so-called ATO email that actually ends in gov.faithweb.com. For those who are tech savvy, these scams are pretty obvious. We delete them, block them and then move on, or also report them. But what about those who don't recognise the scam? A gentleman called my office recently after receiving one of these fake ATO messages. He wasn't fooled, but he was worried, not for himself but for those who might fall for it. He told me: 'What about older Australians? What about those with limited English or people who aren't familiar with digital scams? They wouldn't know what to do.' He's right to be concerned.

My office has helped countless constituents who have been scammed through text messages, emails and fake social media messages. Some have lost thousands—hundreds of thousands—of dollars. Others have had their personal data stolen, leading to identity fraud and long-term financial distress. Let's be clear: these scams target everyday Australians. The pensioner who gets a fake Telstra call and hands over his or her bank details, the small-business owner tricked into transferring their money to what looks like a supplier—these aren't just numbers; these are real people in our communities who are losing their savings, their security and their trust in our financial and digital systems. In 2023 alone, Australians lost $2.7 billion in scams. That's $2.7 billion that could have been used for mortgages, groceries, education or medical bills. That's why we need stronger protections—not just words and not just promises, but real action.

The Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024 is a good step forward. It places clear responsibilities on businesses, banks, telcos and digital platforms to detect, prevent and report scams. It introduces civil penalties of up to $50 million for companies that fail to protect their customers. This is important, because we know that the private sector plays a huge role in preventing scams. When financial institutions fail to detect fraud, scammers win. When social media platforms fail to shut down fake accounts, scammers win. When telcos allow scam calls and messages to flood our phones, scammers win. This bill sends a clear message. It is no longer enough to say, 'It's not our responsibility.' Businesses must be part of the solution.

But is this bill enough? No. Consumer education must be a priority. The best defence against scams is awareness. Right now, most scam prevention resources are in English, and that's simply not good enough. I'm glad for Scamwatch and that—as the member for Newcastle said—there is a big education campaign being held to educate our community regarding the number of scams that are impacting them. In an area like Fowler, we have a diverse, multicultural community, many of whom speak a language other than English at home. Yet when they receive a scam message, where can they turn?

A simple government pamphlet like The Little Black Book of Scams from the ACCC is a great step forward, and we're very grateful that, in working with the ACCC, they have been able to provide my office with this Little Black Book of Scams in languages, and I have them available in Vietnamese, in Chinese and in Arabic. They're the top three languages in my electorate of Fowler. We definitely need multicultural education campaigns. We need easy-to-access materials. We need community workshops that teach people how to recognise, report and prevent scams. I urge the Albanese Labor government to invest properly in outreach efforts. Education saves lives. In this case, it saves bank accounts, savings and financial futures.

Getting scammed is not just about losing money. It's about the mental, emotional and financial stress that follows. It follows on for not just months but years. Many victims, especially seniors and non-English speakers don't know where to turn. They feel embarrassed, ashamed and helpless. We need a dedicated scam-victim support service, easier reporting processes so people don't have to jump through bureaucratic hoops and more funding for agencies like AFCA, the Australian Financial Complaint Authority, which helps Australians recover lost funds. My office has worked closely with AFCA, and I thank them for their commitment. But I know that they need more resources to help more people.

I support holding businesses accountable for scam prevention, but we must acknowledge the challenges faced by small businesses, especially those already struggling with rising energy costs, increased insurance premiums and regulatory burdens. Many of our small businesses are already drowning in red tape. Now, with the push for net zero emissions, they're also dealing with green tape—more compliance costs, more paperwork and more hoops to jump through. If we expect them to invest in scam prevention, we must also ensure they have the resources to do so. That means clear guidelines on compliance, government support for cybersecurity upgrades and no unnecessary regulatory burden that forces them to close their doors. We need a balanced approach, one that protects consumers without crushing small businesses. As we know, small business is the backbone of our economy.

Why are scammers so successful in Australia? It's because our Privacy Act is outdated. Scammers thrive because they can buy, sell and trade our data too easily. Reset Australia, a leading digital rights group, has warned that our privacy laws are too weak. So I ask the Anthony Albanese Labor government: When will we see real reforms to stop companies from selling our data? When will we strengthen privacy protections to keep Australians safe? We cannot fight scams effectively if our own laws make us vulnerable.

This bill is a step forward, but it must be more than just a box-ticking exercise. We need stronger education campaigns in multiple languages. I hear that we've got a scam campaign going on, which is fantastic. We need it in multiple languages. We need better victim support services so people aren't left helpless. Again, I can speak for my multicultural community. We really need victim support services to also be in languages. We need real support for small businesses so they can protect their customers without going under. In my electorate of Fowler and in many others in the Western Sydney area, lots of migrant families run their small businesses. We really need to do an outreach program to ensure that they're also protected. In that way, they can actually contribute to helping us prevent scams. We also need urgent privacy law reforms to stop scammers at the source.

We owe it to Australians to make real changes, not just more bureaucracy. Scams don't just steal money; they steal trust. They leave people fearful of technology, worried about security and disillusioned with the system. We must act now, before more Australians lose their savings, their security and their confidence in our financial system. Let's not wait for another billion dollars to be stolen before we take real action. Let's fix this properly, because every Australian deserves to feel safe online.

Scams destroy lives. You hear the figure $2.7 billion, which is what Australians lost in 2023 due to scam activity. Despite that amount of money being nearly impossible to imagine on a table in front of you and despite the astronomical physical cost of scams, which merits attention in itself, that figure of $2.7 billion still doesn't do justice to the human cost of scams and the livelihoods that are affected as a result.

I had a constituent from Elizabeth North come to my office about six months ago. She initially had a conversation with my staff about the government's National Rent Affordability Scheme, the NRAS. She wanted to know more about it, so she had this conversation and pointed out that she had found a representative of NRAS on Facebook via an advertisement hosted on the site and had had a chat with that representative over Messenger. My staff looked up this supposed NRAS Facebook page and found the one she had been speaking to, along with a series of others. In fact, you can look up the phrase 'national rent affordability scheme' on Facebook right now and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. There are about half a dozen pages, all claiming to be the NRAS, all with the same teal-coloured background and coat of arms on the profile picture, each as dodgy as the other.

The constituent who attended my office had provided her drivers licence number, her bank details, her myGov login and her tax file number to this entity pretending to be NRAS, and she did so because she trusted the NRAS name. She couldn't fathom that a criminal would abuse the trust that people have in it and rob vulnerable Australians looking for help. Upon relaying that to my staff, this constituent burst into tears. She had already known what had happened before she'd walked in; she just needed a way to get the words out. It hit this constituent that the income support that she, as a pensioner, relies on, her control over her finances and much of her livelihood had been compromised by a person or a group of people who wanted to take it away from her. Fortunately, my staff gave this constituent advice to secure her information and protect herself.

In the end, no financial or identity based harm came of this, but there was certainly an emotional toll, especially in the rush with which this 80-year-old woman had to protect her livelihood. She was forced to travel back and forth to her bank to lock her account, to Service SA at Elizabeth to change her driver's licence and to the police station to report the crime, as well as to sign statutory declarations to prove that it happened.

While she was under all that stress, her car ran out of fuel and was stuck on the side of the road, and she couldn't access funds that had just been compromised to fill it up again. She was fortunate that a man in the community who was passing by pushed her car to a service station up the road and put $20 of fuel in her tank so she could do what was needed to protect herself. I don't know who this man is, but I cannot commend his gesture enough. This is a genuinely inspiring act. It's how we do things in the north, and it's the kind of thing that will always triumph over the scum that put this woman in the situation she was in.

Regardless, this constituent found herself crying in the car, worried about her rent, her dinner that night and her very identity. She says the ordeal took such a toll on her that she lost kilos of weight under the trauma of it all. I'll remind everyone that this is a scenario that worked out in the end! There are scores of people around this country who haven't been so lucky, from whom billions have been collectively stolen and from whom livelihoods have been taken. It could have been worse for this constituent, but, even without that happening, this woman had an ordeal that profoundly affected her mental health as well as her self-esteem. She still calls herself stupid and gullible for falling for a scam in the first place.

We in this place know through our engagement with our communities and our exposure to the severe impact of scams in this country that Australians should never feel that way in this situation. They are the victims of heinous crimes which were reported to Scamwatch nearly 250,000 times last year. There is no shame to be had. But Australians do feel this way. They do feel humiliated by what's occurred. That adds up to the human toll which the scams ecosystem has in this country. While the economic figure I began with is significant, the cost to the individual, psychologically, socially and, of course, physically is absolutely devastating. This constituent's experience is just one of the many that I have so far heard since beginning this term. I'm confident that every member in this place has had someone in their own community come to them for assistance to deal with a scam.

In my role, I've seen websites trying to impersonate the federal government's GrantConnect, trying to make people pay hundreds for advice that is freely available. I've seen emails attempting to convince pensioners that they are from Centrelink or Australia Post—and these are pensioners who rely on information from these services to live. The member for Mallee was quite right in her remarks on this bill that these scammers are the scum of the earth for committing acts like that. Worse still, they are widespread in our country. That's why government needs to take action, and I am proud to be part of a Labor government which is doing just that through the bill now before the House to establish the Scams Prevention Framework.

One of the reasons I opened my contribution with an individual's story is that this legislation is people-centric. It protects Australians by making entities relevant to scam prevention, such as banks, telecommunications providers and digital platforms, accountable to customers. It does that because consumers are reliant on those parties to take the steps needed to protect Australians from scams. It enforces that protection by legislating that the regulated entities take responsible steps in all circumstances across the economy to develop and maintain ways of shielding Australians from scammers. While there have been voluntary efforts by private entities that have been implemented, such as two-factor authentication for logins, or systems to notify users when their information is at risk, more action is needed.

The government's engagement with regulators, law enforcement and industry has shown that businesses aren't always prioritising scam prevention or systems to mitigate it, which leaves people at risk. That engagement also found that the mechanisms for reporting these scams and getting the urgent assistance needed if an Australian feels they are at risk are inadequate and often toothless. This is especially true on digital platforms, like social media and search engines, which are largely unregulated at this point. This has become more of an issue as scams have rapidly become more sophisticated and more dangerous.

There was a pretty commonly held perception, which started over 20 years ago, that a scam online consisted of a person from a long-forgotten royal family, located halfway across the world, sending you an email to tell you he owes you millions of dollars and you should give him your bank card details because he really wants to give you that money. There were more sophisticated scams than that at the time, but this was widespread and became what people thought of in public discourse on the subject. It meant that scams online weren't taken as seriously then as they are now. At that point, when a scam came in, say, via email, we would deal with it using a spam folder or a delete button. While these mechanisms worked for that kind of thing then and continue to do so now, scams have progressed long beyond those emails. Criminals are deceiving people in a convincing matter that they are large organisations and government agencies and through technologies that are much more advanced than they were previously, in a heavily digitised and vulnerable world. As a result, these regulated entities, as the bill describes, need to directly engage with Aussies and work with them to mitigate the damage of a scam. This needs to occur firstly to ensure scams are reported quickly to those private entities so they can work with individual cases more effectively and warn the wider community and, secondly, to ensure swift action can be taken to protect the user and their information or data that has been compromised should a scam succeed.

This brings me to another facet of the people-centric approach in this bill, which is a requirement for regulated entities to have a dispute resolution process in place to deal with consumer complaints. This will address the present shortfall in ensuring that regulated entities communicate quickly and effectively with Australians who need help with a scam related issue. It will also further ensure that these parties can be held accountable for the steps they're taking to make sure their customers and users are protected adequately.

The accountability from the complaints process that the Scams Prevention Framework will enforce is beneficial in two particularly notable ways. The first is in its reinforcement of community expectations—that is, Australians can give feedback on the measures these regulated entities are taking, which will, in turn, better inform the government on whether that entity is meeting its obligation to protect Australians from scams and serve to enhance the enforcement of scam protection to a greater effect across the economy. This public scrutiny will also work in tandem with the penalty of up to $50 million for egregious breaches of the Scams Prevention Framework, which is another significant strength of the bill.

The second highly beneficial aspect of the complaints process implemented as part of this bill, which cannot be understated in its importance, is that it helps keep the legislation robust as it combats an ever-evolving and changing threat. As I pointed out earlier, scams change. As sophisticated as they are now, with phone calls that sound and act like your bank, from phone numbers that look like your bank, in reality, they are criminals who definitely aren't your bank. These elaborate scams will continue to evolve at a rapid pace as technology continues to progress at the same rapid speed. You only have to look at AI's current capabilities, whether in deepfake, in producing lifelike text to speech or in generating highly accurate imagery from next to nothing, to see how a criminal will deceive people into sharing sensitive information online or over the phone. Their efforts will become more and more dangerous as those technologies become more and more advanced.

Relevant legislation needs to allow room for approaches to combat scams to advance at the same level of sophistication of scammers and to set in stone the right of Australians to report scams to regulated entities as part of the whole-of-economy approach this bill takes and have those reports taken seriously, underpinned by the obligations that those banks, telcos and digital platforms will have through this bill. This will mean that the moment a scam goes a different direction, the moment a new tactic is deployed that could potentially ruin the lives of thousands, those regulated entities will know about it and, bound by the steps they will have to take through this bill, be able to mitigate these threats more efficiently. Communities will also be better informed about new threats, not just by reporting them but also by the provision that regulated entities take action to inform their collective users about scams and warn the community of threats present around their respective services and platforms.

Through the bill, we are mandating that Australians have direct access to these regulated entities to report scams so that their efforts to minimise the impact of a scam are updated constantly through community feedback that must be taken on board and actioned in a transparent manner. That is a large part of the Scams Prevention Framework: to be able to scale to the threat of the scams present at a given time and stay one step ahead of the criminals looking to exploit Australians. Even then, should those measures I've mentioned fail and an Australian fall victim to a scam, that complaint mechanism also provides for free and open dispute resolution processes should Australians feel a regulated entity could have done more to protect them, which can potentially lead to compensation or other action.

Again, our approach to fighting the scourge of scams is people-centric. It's to ensure people like the everyday Aussie I referred to earlier and the other thousands upon thousands of Australians who fall victim to these criminals each year are at the heart of the legislation before us today. That's not to say industry bodies are pushed aside either. I'll finish on that aspect of the bill.

The Scams Prevention Framework has been forged in consultation with industry, with the regulated entities that I have referred to. It's not the intention of this bill to scapegoat or target regulated entities through obligations provided to them. This can't happen, because, as a government, we know that these entities are essential to winning the fight against scammers. That's why the obligations that will be applied to banks, telcos, digital platforms and other regulated entities to combat scams will be tailored to the sector they're in to both match the operations of a regulated entity and better suit the scams these obligations are trying to mitigate. I commend this bill to the House.

Today I welcome the Scams Protection Framework Bill 2024. It's not perfect, but it certainly goes a fair way to helping Australians fight against the growing threat of scams, because so far we are failing. Consumer groups have been raising the alarm for years in relation to this, and governments have been deaf to their concerns. There has been a lack of action from industry, banks, social media companies, telecommunication sectors and, realistically, the previous government and government to date in relation to fighting back against scams, protecting Australians and helping them actually recoup some of the losses.

In 2023, despite the banking sector implementing a voluntary code on scams, consumers were still wearing the cost of scams. Australia is amongst the top five most-scammed countries in the world. Australians were scammed more than $2.7 billion in 2023 alone. In 2022 it was more than $3 billion. We need to remember that these are not just numbers; these represent real people, real families, who are financially and emotionally devastated. The reality is that it's probably also the tip of the iceberg, because often people simply do not report scams; they're too embarrassed about having been duped. Sometimes it is a lifetime of savings that has been lost.

In my electorate of Warringah, we hear from many constituents about their experiences and feel the emotional distress that being caught up in a scam causes. It can come from young people and older people. It really does not discriminate. All feel a sense of shame and embarrassment that they have been duped. So my message to everyone is: please report it. Do not feel that shame, because it happens to so many people in our community.

Last year, an email came in from one of my own electoral officers, whose email was hacked, resulting in phishing scam emails being sent out to members of parliament in this chamber and having to be recalled. So we know we need greater protections. I welcome this Scams Prevention Framework legislation. It is a crucial step towards safeguarding Australian consumers from increasingly deceptive and harmful practices.

This bill does provide for the protection of Australian consumers from fraud, encourages corporate accountability and brings Australia further in line with comparable jurisdictions, like the UK and Singapore, but we haven't gone as far as some have. The power of the legislation will be in how consumers continue to report scams and how entities, banks and telcos act on those reports and do what is needed. Through reporting scams quickly to Scamwatch for consumers, consumers can disrupt a scamming activity and prevent it being effective for future victims. No matter what, when you get those spam SMSs and scam emails, reporting them to Scamwatch is incredibly important. It is part of that process of pre-bunking and protecting consumers. It ensures the scheme is robust by providing valuable intelligence to the industry to act.

I support the intent of the bill. However, I'll be moving an important amendment to strengthen the integrity of the framework and ensure that vulnerable customers will be able to have equal access in receiving compensation from regulated entities. There is a remaining concern that there is an information gap and a power gap, but there's also the concern that those that generally are able to recoup or to assist with recompense to victims are ultimately those that have access to the information and the data. There is a huge disadvantage when it comes to victims compared to entities.

The proposed bill places the onus on already vulnerable consumers to take on their bank, telco or social media platform, and it essentially is asking a victim to prove that the institution did not meet the requirements of the Scams Prevention Framework. That is a simply ridiculous proposition—that somehow a victim will be able to establish whether or not a Meta has generally met the requirements to ensure the Scams Prevention Framework is working. The onus introduces a significant barrier to getting any compensation for victims from these companies. It's a legalistic, resource-draining, time-wasting and complex task for the victim. Victims without the assistance of advocates will fall through the gaps. They're set up to fail under the current set-up of the proposed bill.

The amendment I have proposed and discussed and negotiated with the government places an obligation on businesses through an increased detailed certification requirement to show that they have met their obligations under the Scams Prevention Framework Bill, rules and sector-specific codes. The onus falls on them to show that they have complied. This amendment will be necessary, and I'll monitor the implementation of the amendment through the rules and the codes to make sure that regulated entities provide customers with the specificity that is required to prove that they have met their obligations. It can't just be that a Meta or a bank ticks and flicks whether or not they have complied. We have to make sure that this works and that they genuinely have assessed their processes and implemented the precautions and the Scams Prevention Framework. That means that if they haven't then they should be liable and victims should be able to get compensation.

This should help to bring greater transparency to the framework and empower consumers to have a fair go in getting dispute resolution and ultimately, hopefully, get compensation for their losses. The amendment has already been flagged by Treasury in the explanatory memorandum of the bill, and my amendment will make it law. Similarly, greater transparency means that companies will also have a clearer understanding of what is required of them under this legislation, providing them with regulatory certainty.

Consumer groups have consistently raised concerns about the slow response from industry and government. We already have strong frameworks in place for other areas of consumer protection, so why is it taking so long for scams? It has for too long been put off. Nevertheless, consumer groups are concerned that more can be done. This legislation should only be viewed as a start. During the period of review, it will be important to assess how well it is working.

There are a couple of other concerns that I'd like to raise. While I support the bill, I think it's necessary to raise for future consideration the codes and the rules. The government has removed the provisions relating to identification and special treatment for vulnerable customers from the exposure draft, so there is no direct oversight over these particularly at-risk customers. Further, the bill doesn't provide any obligations or support for ongoing education and awareness programs from the government. As I've mentioned previously in this chamber, due to the lack of government initiatives in my electorate and around Australia, our communities have taken education and digital literacy into their own hands, but more can be done by the government. For example, locally we have an organisation called Manly Computer Pals, and at Christmas last year they ran tutorials for seniors to help them avoid possible scams and raise their own levels of digital literacy.

We need to follow communities' leads and provide more information and education to make sure we arm consumers with the information and the tools to better protect themselves against scams, because the reality is that, as I said, scams happen to everyone—all age groups. Young people—in particular, the young professionals—get scammed in relation to funds they simply can't afford to lose. For example, a young constituent of mine wrote to me about losing a house deposit of some $100,000, as he was scammed when someone impersonated his lawyer. As, in this era, bank cheques are a thing of the past and many transactions are done electronically, that deposit was lost.

The real question then falls on who should be responsible for that compensation. Obviously, the financial institution has access to the data, right? They can see who the money is being transferred to. One of the calls is that we should have greater friction to ensure that financial institutions go through that step of checking with the customer, 'Is this really who you want to be sending this money to? Is this the right person?' Of course, there might be frustration for the customer from that increased friction and delay, but I think that is better than seeing money being scammed and going to the wrong providers.

That friction is within the power of the banks. At the moment the debate as well is that, if the banks were made solely liable for compensating victims of scams, that would incentivise them to put better friction in place because their money would be on the hook. Instead, the government is going for a model that's not an automatic compensation model, where there's a shared liability between platforms and banks and consumers to enable that compensation prospect. I think we need to monitor this carefully. Other jurisdictions have gone towards more of an automatic liability and compensation process.

It's important to make financial institutions more responsible through greater accountability, forcing them to take greater actions on scams. We know they say, 'We're working on it,' but they're not always doing enough. At the same time, I do hear their complaint that we can't just completely let consumers off the hook for that responsibility of due diligence. We all bear a responsibility when we are actioning or authorising a transaction to take a moment to verify that transaction, to make sure we are in fact not being scammed, but also to verify who we are authorising a transaction to. I do accept that there has to be joint responsibility from all in preventing scams.

Of course, there's also the role that social media platforms and online platforms play in publishing and enabling scams to happen because they give them the platform. For example, a scam is brought to a person via a Meta platform like Facebook; a transaction occurs, and the bank proceeds with the transaction. Should the bank be liable for the loss because they've enabled the money to be transferred? Should Facebook be liable because they have given a platform for the scammer to reach the consumer? Or is the victim responsible because they haven't taken due care and diligence? So where we allocate responsibility is important, but at the moment the onus falls too much, too heavily, on the victims, and there is not enough responsibility put on the big institutions, who have access to the means, the capacity and the resources to put in place greater protections.

This legislation is a step towards introducing that, but it is still being criticised as not being strong enough. We see New Zealand and Singapore moving in the direction of the UK by introducing measures for greater liability of the financial institutions, the argument being that the banks can see who the money is being transferred to. They can see what's happening. They have the capacity to prevent it. They then also have the means to recoup money from a Meta or a Facebook, for example—the next step of recovery—if the responsibility lies with them.

I hear the concerns of consumer groups that there is still too much onus on victims, and I'll monitor closely whether or not we have an improvement in the amount of money victims are able to be compensated—whether this legislation goes far enough. The UK has gone out the furthest. As I said, New Zealand and Singapore are moving in the direction of the UK. I think Australia and the government need to be mindful of whether or not this legislation works. Hopefully, this is about more than just providing an avenue to recoup money for victims. It has to be about protecting the integrity of our systems to build a greater sense of security in an increasingly complex digital world.

Scammers are evolving, as many in this place have noted. So too must our response to them. Whether it's through fake investment schemes, identity theft or fake job advertisers, Australians are being targeted with alarming frequency. As I said, in my office I receive regular phone calls from constituents who have been scammed. They get in contact with the office because they are distressed and have little to no way to seek redress or to get their money back. We really need to make sure we are doing more. For example, one constituent called with an online jobs scam which resulted in a loss of $40,000. She was out of work and struggling to find new work to support two young children, she had an unexpected large repair bill with her house, and she was lured into a scam mimicking a big employer. As a result, she lost significant money, which really made a difference. These are sophisticated scams. They're set up with group chats and staffs and terms of employment. It's really important that that be reported and that we have the resources to crack down on it.

Individual stories tell us a lot. They tell us about the sophistication. We need to make sure we do more. I would like to thank CHOICE and the Consumer Action Law Centre, who have relentlessly advocated on behalf of scam victims. We know we can do more. I will support this legislation—as amended, when I do so in the consideration in detail stage—but I urge the government and the opposition to keep a vigilant eye to make sure compensation for victims improves in Australia.

It gives me great pride to belong to a government that's bringing this type of legislation into the House. I think the Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024 is something that both sides of the House are very supportive of. All of us value receiving text messages, emails and phone calls from friends, family, colleagues, business associates and companies that provide us with information, the products that we need for our work and the services that we need to go about our daily lives. Whether it's a quick hello on the phone, news of a particular sale that's taking place or a gentle reminder about an upcoming appointment, these messages keep us connected and informed.

There's also another type of message and text message and email that none of us want to receive, and that's the one that leads to financial loss. We've heard many examples here today from both sides of the House of thousands and thousands of dollars of financial loss, of hardworking Australians' cash lost through text messages, emails, the internet and the whole range of tools and mechanisms that these scammers use. Unfortunately, these scams are all too common nowadays. Each and every one of us in this House has seen constituents that have been scammed and have come to see us seeking retribution or seeking to recover their money.

The scammers target individuals with these deceitful messages, pretending that they're legitimate communications from a bank, a government agency, telecommunications companies or even Australia Post. I get one regularly—a text message every night at about midnight from 'Australia Post' saying that my parcel is being delivered and to put in some numbers and names. They're gathering information. I know that it's not Australia Post because I've got nothing to be delivered at this point, nor have I ordered anything. You can report them. As you delete that message, we now have a system that comes up automatically and says, 'Would you like to report this as a scam message?' You press the button, and off it goes. I did report it, and I've never received another one since. But they're very elaborate. They will morph and form into a different type of message. That's just one example.

You see, the Australia Post logo is very well respected. It's something that has been part of our lives all our lives. You see it, you trust it, you believe it. The reality is that we should be very careful with what we click on. We should be very careful when we respond to text messages from entities that perhaps are not our family, our friends or people that we know. Sometimes we're all too eager to click and see where it takes us to. The one bit of advice that I can give and that most people have heard today is to take a short breath. If you're not sure, don't click on it. If there's something that you feel unsure about, speak to someone else about it, and if it seems too good to be true it most probably is too good to be true. That's an old saying that goes way back. I think our gut instincts sometimes tell us that things are not quite right.

Recently, in Adelaide I've had a couple of forums. We had a seniors forum where one of the sessions was on scams and protecting people. And the other forum was one I held in my electorate of Adelaide with the Assistant Treasurer and a very good friend of mine, Stephen Jones. I'll take this opportunity to wish him all the very best after his announcement. He's done an absolutely outstanding job as Assistant Treasurer. One of his targets has been scammers, and, as I said, he's done an exceptional job with the legislation and with weeding these scammers out.

At that second forum we had approximately 100 people in the room, and we spoke to the residents of Adelaide about how these scams affect individuals and the community. It was striking that, when the Assistant Treasurer asked the audience if they had ever received a scam phone call, text or email, every single person in the room put their hand up. And each and every person had a story to tell. What was even more astounding was when we asked the question of everyone in the room, 'Who has been directly affected by a scam or knows someone that has, whether they're a part of your family or someone very close to you?' and two-thirds of the hands in the room went up, approximately 70-odd people out of 100. That was astonishing. It goes to show that every single person either has been touched by it or knows someone that has been scammed. That's why the Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024 is very important. It amends the Competition and Consumer Act to establish the Scams Prevention Framework to prevent and respond to scams that impact on the Australian community.

At our seniors forum in Adelaide we had over 200 people attend, and we did a special session on scams. Again, the same questions were asked, and it was approximately the same ratio. Pretty well everyone in the room put their hand up to say that they knew of someone that had been impacted or that they themselves had received text messages or emails.

There were some great examples that day of how elaborate these scammers are, and there was one which they spoke to us about. It was a billing scam. A gentleman who was there spoke about his son, who was a tradie. His son would buy equipment from different suppliers to conduct his trade in the building industry, and every month they would send him an account, and he would pay that account directly into the BSB and bank account of the supplier of the goods. One month he got the account with the same letterhead and everything. He looked up the BSB number, and he'd been told it had been changed. So he sent off the payment to this particular bank account, only to receive the following month a reminder bill from his normal supplier saying, 'You haven't paid the bill.' He was up in arms, obviously, as you can just imagine. He pulled out his records, sent them the details and said: 'This is where I've paid it. Here's the BSB number'. It was the wrong BSB number.

It was not because he made a mistake but because someone, though an elaborate phishing system, had been able to get the supplier's details and letterheads and change the bank account and the BSB numbers. So that money went into a scammer's account. By the time they got on to the police, the police were investigating it, but the scammers had taken the money and disappeared, and they would have done this to hundreds of other people. So, again, be very careful. When you're paying your bills and you just get a BSB number, check with the supplier, check with the person you're paying, to make sure that it is correct. This was another elaborate way of siphoning money from people. This poor chap, his father was telling us, not only lost thousands of dollars to scammers but also still needed to pay the bill to the correct suppliers, another added cost that was about to take him under. Because of that extra burden, he may not have been able to survive the following month. That's one example.

Another one that appeared recently, certainly in South Australia, in my home state—it was reported in the Advertiser, the local paper in Adelaide—was the scanning codes. I'm sure it's happening all over the country. When I read about it, I sent the article immediately to the Assistant Treasurer. This is where you walk into a restaurant and you view your menu or, perhaps, you're paying your parking meter and you scan the code and these scammers create their own codes and go and put them on top of the code in that premises or on the parking meter or wherever it may be. Therefore, when you scan, you're scanning into their website, which then tells you where to send money et cetera or to pay the bill. This then goes into the scammer's pocket.

We know that they're getting more and more elaborate and we know that overseas there are such things as scam factories. We would have all seen on 60 Minutes late last year the investigation that they did into an Asian country where up to 120 people were working in what's called a scam factory. This is where people are on the phones, calling internationally, all over the world, trying to find people that they can scam. It was a very elaborate set-up. Many of these people were brought in from Third World countries, were basically working like slaves and were beaten et cetera in these factories.

I would suggest to anyone who hasn't seen this episode of 60 Minutes to watch it. It would have been around October of last year, where they did extremely good investigative reporting and traced back money that had been scammed through these factories here in Australia, in the US and in the UK. It was everything from dating services and love stories to elaborate money-making schemes. What these people would do is ring and ring and gain the confidence of the other person on the phone until they were able to extract the money out of them. We're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars in some cases. In one case, a woman from the UK had been scammed out of her entire life savings of over 100,000 pounds. It's very elaborate. Again, it's about being cautious. If there is something that is too good to be true, it usually is.

Recently, I was contacted by constituents who were having a big family wedding. They had an extended family. Part of their family lived in the US, and they wanted these particular family members to come over to Australia for the wedding. They applied for the visa and they were knocked back. This was for an Australian visa through the home affairs department website. They could not work out why they had been knocked back. They were an elderly couple. They had their own retirement plan and pension, and they were fairly well off in the US. They were coming over for a wedding, for a two-week stay, and then going back.

We looked into it, and they told us about the responses they got from the application on the Home Affairs page. When we contacted Home Affairs on their behalf and gave them the details—the emails they had received—we were informed by Home Affairs that it was a scam site that they were using. They paid about US$190 to apply for the visa—this amount does not exist; I think the fee for a visa is miniscule—and they had been scammed. When they kept on going back into this website, it would send them a scam email saying, 'Your visa application for an e-visitor visa is being considered.' So it was all about delay. Every email they got was about delay. These would have been done on AI—very robotic and very elaborate. We were finally informed by Home Affairs that this was a scam website that many people had fallen for in the US. Apparently it has disappeared. We finally did get the visa for the visitors to come to Australia to enjoy the wedding with their family—after they'd lost US$190 for three different family members, which is a very sad case.

These laws are very welcome. They are welcome because we need to put laws in place to be able to make it difficult for scammers. We know that we'll never get rid of them completely because they are very elaborate and, with the intricate computer systems et cetera, we know that they will just keep on morphing into something new. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be vigilant and on top of it. We should be chasing them and hunting them down to ensure that money is not scammed from innocent Australians. We've seen far too much—far too many scams. This Scams Prevention Framework Bill will go a long way in assisting, and I suspect that, in years to come, we'll have to continue looking at this bill, amending it and making it even tougher and harder for those scammers.

The bill introduces principles based obligations that require regulated entities also to take certain actions in relation to scams. We're talking about the financial institutions: the banks and insurance companies. They have a responsibility as well to prevent, detect and, very importantly, report—we found that many scams were going unreported—and to disrupt and respond to scams relating to services that that particular entity provides. Contraventions of their obligations may result in civil penalties, as well. It's important to get that message through.

According to the explanatory memorandum for the Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024, four per cent of Australians were impacted by scams last year—that's nearly one-in-25 people. When you talk to members of the community, it feels like many more. The combined total of the losses we know about reached $2.7 billion—enough money to fund the government's changes to HECS and HELP indexation this year.

These numbers are so hard to grapple with because they're so large—until it becomes personal. A young man recently contacted my electorate office, having fallen victim to an investment scam that cost him nearly $200,000. He's a bright, young guy, trying to build a future, who had worked hard and saved—and just like that, it was gone. Now he is under unimaginable stress, navigating regulators, local police and Interpol and receiving mental health support. This is the experience of a growing number of Australians.

They are no longer those obvious scams that I used to warn my mum about, I'll be honest. It is a case of everyday Australians, savvy Australians, people who know what they are doing and who are really thoughtful about trying to guard against scams, losing vast sums of money—home deposits, their life saving—through complex and sophisticated, organised crimes. It's not simple; this is organised crime. It is incredibly sophisticated. The things that people are trying to guard against in their normal, everyday life, the things that we've been warned against—those basic checks that we can make are just not cutting it anymore. These are not just my words to describe it, these are the words of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Deputy Chair, Sarah Court, in testimony to the House Economics Committee last year.

Currently, there is nowhere to turn. Internal dispute resolution within organisations is patchy and varied, and there's an obvious and problematic information asymmetry that prevents its consumers accessing information that might prove an organisation has been negligent. These companies are not incentivised or obligated to disclose information that might support my constituent that I was just talking about. Instead, they play hardball, disclosing information only under the threat of legal action.

Testimony from consumer action groups include anecdotes of corporations dumping pages of legal documents on scam victims, days before the hearing, with the intention to overwhelm and befuddle. Meanwhile, the concurrent framework of external dispute resolution is a hodgepodge of interconnected regulators with large holes in their remits that ultimately serve to confuse, rather than help, victims of scams. It is through this lens that I review this bill. It may be that this bill has good intentions, that it assigns responsibility fairly across a scam ecosystem comprising banks, social media companies and telcos and that it creates rules and standards that are better than the status quo. But I want to know how it will work for people like my constituents. Does it offer them real opportunities for redress? Does it remove the information asymmetry that would be able to demonstrate corporate negligence? Does it incentivise corporations to do their utmost to protect their customers against criminals trying to access the money, or does it create minimum standards that absolve companies of their responsibilities to their customers?

While I am pleased that this bill will address the problems with external dispute resolution, I still believe there are significant weaknesses in the legislation that will undermine its effectiveness. We are operating on an article of faith in these codes that would take nearly two years to implement. It is just not good enough. I cannot vote against a bill that creates a better framework for external dispute resolution in place, but I hold serious doubts about the impact this bill will have on scam losses, prevention and detection without amendment. That's because the bill focuses on inputs rather than outputs. This bill will enable the Treasurer to designate economic sectors to be subject to legislation and make enforceable scam prevention codes. It will require regulated entities to take reasonable steps to put in place governance arrangements that will help detect, prevent, report and disrupt scams. It will also introduce a substantial civil penalties regime to be enforced by the ACCC for regulated entities that do not meet these codes. This bill will create greater precautions on the telcos and, particularly, social media companies.

While this bill falls short in key areas, I do agree that it will support a substantially better external dispute resolution approach than exists currently. Having gone through this with my constituent, I found it extremely difficult to understand what avenues are open, and I am pleased to see that this bill will create a single front door for scams. I acknowledge that this bill will provide clear guidance for how AFCA will be able to deal with and assess scam cases.

But the bill is not enough, because, ultimately, I think it fails to create incentive schemes that will force those with most visibility and resources to tackle these problems at their source. This legislation, as the government seeks to pass it, will not fundamentally address the information asymmetry that exists between banks and their consumers. There are measures that we can put in place to create a race-to-the-top approach, which is actually required, instead of implementing a floor. The evidence of this is buried in the impact analysis by the explanatory memorandum. This analysis states that the legislation will have minimum impact on the organisations above what is already being achieved under industry-specific policies, such as the Safe Scams Accord.

The Safe Scams Accord was implemented in 2023, with the greatest contribution being the inclusion of the Australian Financial Crimes Exchange, the AFCX, which allows organisations to share the details of scam activity and pay verification accounts. The pay verification will be rolled out through 2024 and 2025. This is fantastic, except that this technology has been in place in Europe since 2017. That's eight years now that people in Europe have been protected against these scams, while Australian banks have been dragging their feet. This is the concern that I have—that this bill does not sufficiently drive at the incentives in the banks and in the different actors to really stamp out the scams. It just brings them up to a minimum standard, which they can constantly try and pull back on.

However, the impact statement of the explanatory memorandum states that the regulatory cost between the SPF and the status quo is an initial investment of $100 million and an ongoing investment of $31 million. However, the impact analysis estimates that 70 per cent of this cost is accounted for by non-affiliated banks, with the four major banks expected to increase their funding by only $6.2 million in initial investments. That's just six per cent. Ongoing costs would be a measly $1 million and just one additional FTE, according to the EM. This is despite ASIC finding that the scam strategy and the governance of the four major banks was less mature than expected.

Let's come back to the first point that I raised. Australians are losing $2.7 billion every year on scams, and that is the stuff that we know about. Under this bill, banks will be expected to make a net contribution of $100 million in implementing the scams framework. While $100 million is a lot of money, $2.7 billion lost every single year is a vast amount of money for Australian consumers.

The point that I continually hear and I continually want to make is that this isn't about consumers being negligent. This isn't about consumers being silly or consumers falling for really silly tricks—for which, frankly, we all need to have 'buyer beware'. This is about organised crime targeting Australian consumers, using the most effective and sophisticated technology, constantly evolving and constantly getting better at targeting and getting money out of Australian consumers through scams, and the banks are not doing enough to fight this. Australia is one of the countries with the highest amount of per capita losses from scams. The banks here are not doing enough, and I am just not convinced that this bill creates that incentive strongly enough for the banks, where almost all the money has to go through, to be really racing to the top.

It's important to come back to the point that I raised before. If the banks were doing such a great job of this already, why has the account payee verification technology, which was being introduced last year and will be introduced this year, been in Europe since 2017? Why have Australians been so slow to get the benefit of that technology? Because the banks have not had enough incentive to do something about it. This code is a great thing, but the truth is that the banks know more about how to improve their technology to fight scams than the regulators know, and the banks need very strong incentives to really be imaginative, be innovative and fight scams. I do not believe that this bill has enough incentives in there; I think this bill is just another catch-up bill.

I know that the bill and the government have been clear in saying: 'Look, it's great. We're bringing in the social media companies, and we're bringing the telcos in. This is great.' I accept that, and I support that. But, again, let's look at the impact of this work. On page 153 of the explanatory memorandum, it states:

Under Option 2—

that is, the Scams Prevention Framework—

there are unlikely to be significant additional costs for telecommunications providers who are compliant with current obligations.

So it's basically saying that they're not going to have to do anything really different if they're compliant with current obligations. In that case, what is the bill actually going to do? The EM acknowledges that self-regulation has not yet worked, yet this bill will introduce minimal additional provisions on top of what these industries are already proposing to implement. Australian corporations, particularly banks, are investing a lot in relation to scams. I acknowledge this, but it is clearly inadequate. Instead, this bill will give corporations a basic set of minimum standards, which will be quickly surpassed by scam innovation, to allow them to demonstrate to consumers that they have met their obligations. So banks will say they've met their obligations, and consumers are still going to get scammed.

The impact analysis of this legislation is also missing any consideration of a UK style reimbursement model. While I hold reasonable reservations about a complete reimbursement model, I think that this bill has completely failed to even consider stronger options and compromises, such as those brought forward by a coalition of consumer groups, including a presumption of reimbursement. The evidence emerging from the UK, despite the arguments over data, is that the scheme is working. I would have liked to have seen a stronger option modelled in the explanatory memorandum.

Given that, this bill, in its current form, needs to be substantially strengthened. Principally, it needs to explicitly address the information asymmetry that exists between regulated entities and consumers and incentivise regulated entities to innovate and combat scams above and beyond what is simply required. I acknowledge the minister's offers and assurances that some of these requirements will be included in the codes, but I'm not entirely convinced by the reasoning for why these cannot exist in the primary legislation. I believe that this bill leaves too much to the regulations and operates too much on faith. Australians have given up faith on this. That is why I will be moving an amendment to this bill that will seek the publication of scam data—including information about scams detected, responded to and reported—from all regulated entities on a quarterly basis. This model is currently used by the Payment Systems Regulator in the United Kingdom, where institution-level data on banks is published, and there is no suggestion that publishing this data has had unintended consequences.

The explanatory memorandum outlines that industry self-regulation is occurring in some sectors, but not at a pace consistent with growth in scam activity. Let's let Australian consumers make informed decisions about who is best placed to look after their money and who is actually protecting them best against scams. Let's make scam prevention a point of competitive tension in the system, rather than a tick-box exercise. While I will trust the regulation to appropriately determine exactly what metrics are reported by each sector, I believe that this can be explicitly included in the regulation.

I want to come back to this: what can the country do to fight against scams? One thing that the country and this parliament can do to fight against scams is make sure that consumers are armed with the best information they can possibly have when choosing where to put their money. It's about knowing which banks are doing a good job to fight scams and which banks need to pull up their socks. That allows consumers to make informed choices when they are faced with organised crime that is driving scams and making it so hard for consumers themselves to detect scams. The government should include this in the primary legislation. That is something that the government can do right now to protect our consumers. I'm still flabbergasted that, at this stage, they haven't.

I also welcome the amendments made by the member for Warringah, which will go some way toward reducing the information asymmetry that currently exists. Under this amendment, which the government has agreed to implement, regulated entities will need to provide certification of obligations within a set timeframe of scam complaint or face civil penalties. I will be closely scrutinising the certification process as it emerges through the regulation to ensure that it is robust and meaningful. These amendments should be minimum requirements.

In conclusion, this bill will substantially improve the external dispute resolution processes from a virtually non-existent baseline, so I will support it on that basis. But the assertion that this will make a really significant difference in terms of reducing scams and scam losses, drive meaningful levels of investment and, ultimately, better protect consumers is, in my mind, highly questionable. This legislation ignores the calls from a consortium of consumer groups, instead taking a pragmatic and, ultimately, soft approach to implement a modest improvement over what we already have.

I rise to support the bill before the House today, the Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024, a bill put forward by the member for Whitlam, who has worked tirelessly to inform the public by attending forums across the country about scams. He's gone from town to town and from shopping centre to shopping centre, making sure that Australians understand how intense the attacks on Australian consumers by scammers, people who want to illegally take funds from Australians, have become.

In preparing to speak on this bill, I, like many others, was flabbergasted by the amounts that we've been seeing. I heard the previous speaker say that one in 25 Australians have been scammed. That sounds like a high number. My litmus test for these things is often to revert to a visit to classrooms. When I'm in a classroom talking about civics and citizenship, it's astounding the number of primary school children who have questions about which levels of government are responsible for protecting Australians from scams, and it's astounding the number of children who know stories about their parents having been scammed.

First of all, I want to make sure that those listening understand that it is the case that absolutely no-one is exempt from being targeted by these scams. I received a text message this week supposedly from one of my sons saying that their phone had been dropped in the sink and that they could be contacted on this number, obviously wanting me to ring this number and set up that connection with the phone that I had in my hand. From my personal experience, I've also had amounts of money repeatedly taken from my personal accounts using systems. My advice to people is to keep an eye on those accounts. On the one hand, electronic transfer of funds makes us vulnerable to this. On the other hand, having your phone in your hand and the capacity to check what's going on in your bank accounts often is also a handy way to ensure that you are on top of these things if somebody has access to your account details and is therefore making withdrawals or putting costs against them. I have been victim to that as well.

I want to share with the House that just this week I received an email from a constituent who was telling a story that I've heard from many businesspeople in my community. Often, when businesses are purchasing something large or perhaps purchasing another business, in those conveyancing processes or transfer-of-funds processes, you hear from businesses that they have been hacked in that process. I received an email this week from a constituent who had lost the deposit on their house. The old story is now a well-known story where the conveyancing company is hacked. The constituent received an email to say, 'Transfer the funds to this bank account now,' and in faith they did that only to find that there'd been a hack at the other end; the conveyancing company's emails had been hacked. They've secured $90,000 from a constituent of mine, and that constituent is now in the processes, outlined by the previous speaker, of trying to recover those funds.

It is an enormous thing to think you have saved so hard for a deposit for a house and you can lose it in the blink of an eye and then find yourself with nowhere to go and, in a very circuitous way, be both the victim and the person who has to try to recover those funds from various places. So it's great to see that this piece of legislation will give consumers more access to a single front door where they can report the loss and be supported in the process of trying to recover those funds. I think that's really important. I think the framework is really important. I think it sends a really strong message to those involved: to the banks, to the telcos and to the social media businesses. Often those three things are involved in the scam processes that people are using.

We know and we've heard time and time again that this has been set up by organised crime and it requires a government response. I'm pleased to be here today to support this government's response, the Albanese Labor government's response, at this stage, which will set up a framework where those businesses that are being used in those processes will be asked to meet standards and face civil penalties of up to $50 million for breaches where they have not been up to scratch in following the Scams Prevention Framework. This incentivises these businesses, whether they be banks, telcos or social media companies, to make sure that they are up to speed and have the protections in place that Australian consumers would expect them to have and certainly that government wants them to have. Staying on top of the ever-evolving tricks and processes being used by these criminal gangs in targeting Australians is something that we want to encourage all businesses to do, and this framework is designed to do exactly that.

Furthermore, once this legislation is in place, I think we will be sending a strong message to those criminal organisations that Australia will no longer be defenceless in its fight against scams, that Australian businesses will be working together and working with government so that the scammers will leave our shores or find it more difficult to scam consumers in this country and will therefore turn their minds to perhaps making a living doing something legitimate. That would be the hope.

I don't think there's a family that I know that hasn't been touched in some way, whether it be thinking they'd had an emergency call from a child in need and then transferring $500 to support that child because their wallet had been stolen or whatever the scammer's message was. I don't think there's a family I know that hasn't been touched by scams, so I know that across the country there will be people who will appreciate the work that has been done by the minister in bringing forward this piece of legislation—and not just work by the minister but by government, the banking sector, the telcos and all of those who've given information and who have sought to help find a way forward in this space to protect Australian consumers.

I would add that I don't believe that this will be the final time that we're in the federal parliament talking about this or introducing legislation to protect consumers as this evolves further. But I do want to congratulate the minister and those who've been involved in the consultation processes and design of this piece of legislation that will establish the Scams Prevention Framework and penalties for those businesses who don't keep up in this war against criminal organisations wanting to steal from Australian consumers.

I'll start by thanking all honourable members for their participation in this debate. Everyone's joined the debate with great passion and, I think, a genuineness, and I commend them for that. There wouldn't be a member of this place or the other place who hasn't had direct representation from their constituents on the scourge of scams, so I believe everybody is coming to this issue with a genuineness about wanting to fix the problem.

Through the debate we've heard stories of the unimaginable harm that scams have caused too many Australians. I have no doubt that these are the results of members reflecting in good faith on the issues that have been raised with them in their electorates. It's a big problem. If we don't get it right, people won't have faith in the rails of modern commerce. Whether we care about it because of the social consequences or because it has devastating economic consequences, we need to act on this. We need to act on this as a parliament and we need to act on it quickly. At $7 million a day, we can't go into recess without this issue having been dealt with, because the consequence is that $7 million a day is going to be lost and the failure of us to act to put this preventative legislation into action will be on all our heads.

When we came into government in late 2022, Australians were losing $3 billion a year. It had been doubling every year. It had been doubling every year because the approach up till then was that this was a private problem that was the responsibility of individual consumers and individual Australians to meet. We don't say that there isn't a role for individuals to deal with this challenge, but it's actually a government problem. It's a problem of business. It's a problem of consumers. It's a problem that we have to work on right across the economy and right across government, and that's what we're doing through this legislation here today.

It's not the first step; it won't be the last. As the member for Lalor has already said in her contribution, the government has stood up the National Anti-Scam Centre to be the focus of coordination and education activities for the government, including those foreshadowed in this bill. We have provided the Australian Securities and Investment Commission with the funding and the capacity to go after the fake investment websites. We're working with the ACCC to enable them to do the same thing inside their jurisdiction, and thousands and thousands of fake websites are being taken down as a result of this. We've been working with the private sector to ensure that, on a voluntary basis, ahead of legislation that we're introducing, new voluntary accords and codes are introduced. There will be a significant uplift as a result of this legislation.

We've all heard through the debate lots of stories. In the last few days, I've heard reports of manipulated video footage of prominent Australians, including the Prime Minister. I'll be surprised if the Leader of the Opposition hasn't had the same. Manipulated video footage is being used to promote fraudulent schemes online via advertisements on social media platforms. These cases have been picked up by the National Anti-Scam Centre and reported to Meta, but I understand that many of these ads are still visible on platforms. This goes to the very heart of why our approach is different to that which has been taken in other countries. In other countries, they've just said: 'Let's go for the banks. We'll make them compulsorily liable for any losses.' That's akin to saying: 'We don't care how the scam reached the victim. In fact, we're not that interested in prevention. All we want to do is deal with something after the fact.' We take a different view. We want compensation, absolutely, but we want prevention to be the first line of defence.

Why are we so focused on social media platforms? Telcos are already introducing message filtering and message blocking. Around a million calls and messages are being blocked a day. More needs to be done. Banks have got voluntary stuff going on. We welcome that. Social media platforms are late to the party but they're slow to be implementing some things. Any member could pick up their phone while they're in the chamber, go to their Facebook app and type in the words 'sell my Australian bank account'. And they'll come up with screens and screens and screens of Facebook sites advising them how to sell or rent their Australian bank account. It's illegal to do. Why is it being done? Because that's how the scammers get the money out of a victim's bank account and then out of the country. They transfer it into a mule account, and that mule account is then used to remove the money beyond the reach of law or recovery and out of the country. Before standing up today, I've done exactly that. I've typed in the words 'sell my Australian bank account'. The first result on my Facebook account is an account that has had eight new posts today, with 10,000 members in total. All of this is illegal, and it's known to the operators of the site. Time and time and time again, they've been told, 'You are a key vector of this criminal activity, and you are not doing enough to stop it.'

This law addresses the problem. It imposes tough new obligations on banks, telecommunications companies and social media companies, all working together. It has tough new standards to prevent, detect and disrupt scams and ensure that they are keeping their customers safe from the criminals that are preying upon Australians. We have looked at other options that are available around the world. Frankly, there is no country in the world that has got this nailed, and there will be no country that has a tougher regime in place than Australia once this law passes through the parliament. This is something that every member of this place and the other place can be proud of, and it's something that we absolutely have to do.

I have heard through the course of the debate members saying that, under the current arrangements, reimbursement of scam losses is woefully inadequate and low. I agree. You know why? The problem is that there is no current standard against which a bank, a telco or a social media company is held accountable to, so our regulators are flying blind. Our courts and law enforcement are flying blind. They have no standard against which to hold one of these businesses accountable and say, 'You have breached this, and therefore you are liable to compensate and make good your customers.' As a result of these laws, that will change. The principal obligations will have fines and penalties attached to them of up to $50 million. Consumer redress will absolutely be part of it.

I've listened to consumer groups and members of the crossbench and others on this. I've listened to the members of the coalition. I've read carefully the comments that they've made in the Senate inquiry on this. I make the offer to the shadow minister, who is in the chamber, to have good-faith discussions with you to ensure that any legitimate issues can be dealt with. We need this bill passed. Every day, $7 million is lost. Nobody wants that hanging over their head. Over the months ahead, Australians will not thank any of us for it.

Lots of things have been said in the course of this debate, and, as is often the case in this place, sometimes people are partially informed—I'm sure they speak in good faith, but they are sometimes partially informed. Because I'm promising to get this bill through the House, I don't intend to address all of the statements that have been made, but what I can tell members of this place with great confidence is that the measures that we have put in place are already working and that the voluntary measures that some institutions have already put in place are making a difference but that much more needs to be done.

I use the figure of $3 billion, which was being lost each year before we came into government. I'm in a happy position to report to members that that number has reduced by 33 per cent over the last year because of the actions that have been put in place by this government. Whilst we could all give ourselves a pat on the back and say a 33 per cent reduction off $3 billion is a great achievement—and it is; we're one of the only countries in the world that can make that claim—when Australians are losing billions of dollars a year, we cannot rest on our laurels. We have to do the things that are anticipated within this bill to improve our protections and we will.

As the member for Lalor and others have said, it won't be the last word on this. I'm sure, as new vectors, new threats and new challenges arise, there will be new propositions that come before this parliament or before a government to ensure that we can continue to lift our standards. But make no mistake: the introduction of these laws will be a significant uplift across the entire economy and will make Australia the toughest country in the world for those criminal gangs to make a dollar in.

I note that there are members from the Treasury team who have been working on this over the last year and a half who are in the chamber today. I want to thank them for their tireless work on this. They are fine public servants who have been thrown an important public policy challenge and they've risen to it. I thank them for their work and I thank all members of the House for their participation in the debate. I commend the bill to the House.

The question before the House is that the amendment be agreed to.

I rise to speak in consideration in detail. The coalition supports the actions of the government when it comes to preventing scams. We feel that it is very important legislation, so I have some questions for the minister regarding the Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024. I know that this is an important bill for the minister, and I want to acknowledge the work that the minister and his staff have done. With his recent announcement about finishing up at the next election, I would—through you, Mr Speaker—just say to the minister: well done; we wish you well, and thank you for the work that you've done for Australians. We'll give you more time to speak on this, because we know that you love it and that you want lots of questions, so we've got a fair few questions to ask you.

There are some concerns that have been raised about whether the bill will achieve its objectives for consumers. It has been described by some as a bit rushed, complex and unclear, and stacked against consumers. Through you, Mr Speaker: Minister, this framework relies heavily on leaving matters to be determined in future delegated legislation, which has not been made available or consulted upon alongside this bill. These include sector designation instruments, mandatory sector codes and other operational rules and guidelines.

First, given that significant matters, including the prescriptive obligations in the codes, will be in this delegated legislation, why has it not been made publicly available alongside the bill? Second, have these instruments been developed or drafted already? Third, if not, why has this work, which is the substance and scope of the framework, not been done after 31 months of the Albanese government? Fourth, is this work being actively progressed by your department, and when will it be consulted on? I note that this policy work can be progressed and consulted on before the bill passes. Fifth, why are stakeholders and the parliament being expected to pass the bill through this enabling legislation when so much of the detail is not yet available?

They're the initial questions. I also have some questions on regulation. The regulation impact analysis for this bill, which was tabled as part of the explanatory memorandum, uses costing assumptions that appear to significantly understate the regulatory compliance costs. For example, it makes assumptions, including 1.1 full-time equivalent staff required for a major bank to uplift anti-scam activity and governments' improvements; a $40,000 initial technology investment required for a major bank to comply with the info-sharing and reporting obligations and $20,000 ongoing; a $40,000 initial investment in staff for a COBA member bank to administer anti-scam activity and governments' improvements and $10,000 ongoing; and a $100,000 initial investment for a major telco to uplift anti-scam activity in governments and $50,000 ongoing.

Minister, you have said this framework will not be the bare minimum. Can you explain how that statement is compatible with the costing assumptions? Do you stand by the findings of the regulation impact analysis conducted? And has this regulation impact analysis been signed off as compliant by the Office of Impact Analysis? Minister, if you agree that the costings require correction, will you ask the department to do further consultation to get it right and then table a replacement explanatory memorandum?

I thank the member for Petrie and the shadow minister for what I took to be his qualified good wishes, and I thank him for the indication of broad support for the legislation. I'll address some of the issues that he's raised. It's not uncommon in matters such as this and, in fact, not uncommon in the structure of Australian competition and consumer law, where broad principles with penalties and obligations are established in the primary law and subsidiary instruments fill out some of the details, and that's the way we have approached this task in this legislation. There will be an obligation, a principal obligation to prevent, detect, disrupt and ensure that consumers are protected and that scam threats across the infrastructure of banks, telecommunications companies and social media companies are lifted up to ensure it protects their consumers.

We are asked why so much of the force of those principles will be filled out in industry codes. The answer is simple. There are two reasons. The first is that the things that will be required of a social media company will be different from those required of a telecommunications company and different from what we'll require of a bank. There will be commonality—there's no doubt about that—but there will be different obligations based on the technology inherent in the platforms we are approaching. That is the first reason. The second reason is the need to move and change and to change rapidly over time. As threats across those vectors change, and change rapidly, with the best will in the world, two houses of parliament are not necessarily going to be the way to enable us to nimbly respond to those sorts of threats, which is why a subsidiary delegated legislation, the mandatory codes, is the best means on which to deal with that—to give us flexibility to move quickly as and when we need. Of course, there is still the regular parliamentary scrutiny available to all members and, in particular, senators in relation to disallowable instruments.

I am asked by the honourable member if work has started on the code. Of course, there have been initial discussions with industry both between my office and Treasury officials. That's not the same as drafting the codes, but that doesn't mean no work has been done. For example, as members have alluded to in this debate, the banking sector is well advanced. They have the Scam-Safe Accord, which has been in operation for close to 18 months. The telecommunications industry has a statutory code of practice in place. The social media platforms are not currently brought within an enforceable code framework, but this bill will change that.

The other point—and it's a matter of great frustration as a minister in this place—is that there is fierce competition for the resources of the Public Service. Because there are scarce resources and unlimited demands upon them, the department won't start work on drafting the codes until they know there's going to be a bill through the parliament to ensure that they are enforceable.

In terms of the regulatory compliance costs, I've got to say to the honourable member that I've had this raised with me a lot of times. The simple answer to, 'How was this data put together?' is that there was a consultation process from Treasury with all those sectors that are likely to be designated. The question put to them was, 'What is the uplift cost likely to be?' The numbers in the regulatory impact statement reflect what was told to us by the banks, the telcos and the social media platforms. Can I say in relation to that that it's about the additionality—what additional resources are any of these institutions going to have to put in place to comply with the measures within this code? That might raise suspicions in the minds of some, but can I simply make this point: any one of the major banks has probably got more resources dedicated to this particular task today than the entirety of the Commonwealth government. Any one of the banks will have, in their criminal fraud and financial crimes protection sections, more resources dedicated to this task. And so they should, because it's customers' money at stake. Hopefully, that explains some of that. I'm advised, and on the basis of that information I inform the House, that the regulatory impact statement, through the Office of Impact Analysis, complies with all the obligations.

I have just a few more questions for the minister, and I thank him for his answers. Feedback from both industry and consumer advocates on the draft bill pointed to the complexity arising from the lack of clear liability rules and an apportionment mechanism for situations where multiple entities across different sectors are involved in a scam. How have these concerns been addressed in the final bill? Will AFCA have carte blanche to make decisions on apportionment of liability for each regulated entity? If regulated entities disagree with an apportionment decision, will they be able to litigate to overturn that decision? Do you anticipate these disputes will delay consumer redress? Have you estimated the potential costs and delays arising from litigation relating to these disputes, including for scam victims?

In addition, I note that the Competition and Consumer Act, at section 51AE, already has a regulation-making power for the minister to prescribe enforceable mandatory codes to provide a set of rules or minimum standards for an industry, including the relationship between industry participants and their customers. Was it open to the government to use this existing power to make codes without having to enact new primary legislation? Could using the existing code-making power have meant mandatory codes were developed and made earlier than the 31 months and counting of the Albanese government that we have been waiting for the Scams Prevention Code? If it was open to the minister, why did you choose to delay action on scams by coming up with a much more complex approach? This is an approach which has been criticised by most stakeholders, who have asked for this framework to be focused on the codes. Did you choose this approach so that you could draw this out and have another announcement?

You have previously mentioned that you had difficulty getting legislation drafted. We are still waiting for these industry codes. When would we see these draft codes now? I do note you just addressed that—you're saying the department wouldn't start until this legislation was done—but how long would you expect the draft codes to take from here?

I have some questions about concerns raised about the draft bill and how they've been addressed in this final bill. I make the point again that the government took a long time to come up with this and then ran a shortened three-week consultation period on the draft legislation. This bill was then turned around for introduction just four weeks later, with little of the consultation feedback incorporated as a result. It is important legislation that will impact all Australians. These aren't minor amendments that should be rammed through without scrutiny and without the bare minimum of consultation. Most regulated sector stakeholders, including the ABA and the Communications Alliance, have raised concerns about the double liability issues that arise as a result of the private right of action set out in section 58 of the bill.

Given the whole-of-ecosystem external dispute resolution and the substantial civil penalties, is this additional private right of action necessary? Does the minister anticipate it will be useful or accessible for individual consumers? Many stakeholders, including the Customer Owned Banking Association, have raised concerns about the breadth of actual scam intelligence that might need to be reported and the regulatory burden that this would create. COBA have said: 'The sheer volume of data and information being contemplated by this definition means that what is expected from the obligations may not be reasonably achievable.' So have any changes been made to the final bill to address these concerns? If so, what are these? How will the burden of this data reporting be minimised?

I note that the questions that have been asked by the shadow minister are in almost identical form to the issues that have been raised in the Senate legislative inquiry and have been answered in the report on that inquiry, and I refer the minister to the answers contained there within.

WILKIE () (): Can the minister please explain to my community and the thousands of Australians across the country who are targeted by scammers each year exactly why the government won't rebalance the power in scam compensation and is choosing instead not to impose a UK style presumption of reimbursement by banks and other responsible parties?

I thank the member for his question, and I addressed some of the issues related to this in my address-in-reply. Can I simply say this: we believe in attaching liability to fault. It's a fairly rudimentary process, known well to any lawyer in this place. If you're at fault, then you should be liable for the damages or other harm associated with that fault. The problem we have at the moment is there is no standard to which people are held accountable. There's no standard for banks, no standard for telcos and no standard for social media platforms. That changes when this bill is enacted.

I'm asked why we haven't gone down the UK approach. The answer, quite simply, is we do not think it will work, because it is not focused on preventing scams and it has nothing to say about the major vector of scams, which is social media platforms. It beggars belief—I gave some examples here in my address-in-reply—that we should hold the Broken Hill building society, a mutual bank, accountable for a Facebook puppy scam that the members of that bank and the owners of that bank could have no knowledge of or no control over. We would hold the members of that bank accountable for the losses of that Facebook puppy scam, yet the biggest company in the world—or one of the biggest companies in the world—which actually made money out of advertising that scam, is not held liable. That just beggars belief in my mind. I understand why there is a simple attraction to it, but when you dig down into what we are trying to do here—that is, to prevent the scam in the first place—we believe that our approach is the better approach. I think the proof in the pudding of this is that our scam losses are dropping quicker than those in the UK, and there is intense interest from the United Kingdom and other countries around the world in the approach that the Australian government is taking because they think it is a stronger framework.

Following up on my earlier question, I simply asked the minister: does he concede that, in recent years, it has not been uncommon for that fault to have been attributed quite reasonably to different financial institutions who have not taken reasonable steps to protect customers and have failed to intervene when transactions have been patently out of order?

I can think of one example where that was the case at scale, and that was the UBS scam. It affected members of my electorate; I assume it affected his as well. There was an agreement between the bank in that instance and the plaintiffs before the Australian Financial Complaints Authority that those were unauthorised transactions. Therefore, the rights and responsibilities that are available under the ePayments Code were enacted, and compensation under the ePayments Code was available. The problem with the vast majority of scams is that they are authorised transactions, so the ePayments Code is not enlivened. It's why we need the new obligations that will be established by these laws to hold banks and others accountable to a standard and liable when they don't meet it.

I have a few final questions. This is the minister's bill, so I'm giving him plenty of opportunity to talk on it, and I appreciate what he's done. Stakeholders have raised concerns about the significant civil penalties that apply in relation to the framework. Can the minister outline how the penalty regime will operate? What are tier 1 and tier 2 penalties? What are the maximum penalties? How will a civil penalty be determined using the various calculation methods? Does the minister think the maximum civil penalties are proportionate? Has the minister considered stakeholder recommendations that civil penalties only apply to serious or systematic breaches? What are the other consequences for a breach? What other enforcement tools are available to the ACCC? How will the Scams Prevention Framework and external dispute resolution interact with the existing ePayments Code rules in relation to unauthorised payments? Which code will have priority? What will the transitional period be for compliance and being subject to a civil penalty once a sector designation is made? Will there be a time limit for making a complaint to AFCA?

I again refer the member to the details within the explanatory memorandum, which answers many of these questions, together with the government response to the Senate legislative inquiry. The regulator will have the powers that the regulator has under the competition and consumer laws. It is not the role of parliament to determine what the penalty will be—that's the role of a court. It's the role of parliament to determine what the maximum penalty may be for a breach under these laws, and that is the normal course of events in these things.

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 28 (before line 4), before the paragraph beginning "When undertaking such internal dispute resolution" in section 58BZB, insert:

When undertaking such internal dispute resolution about a complaint, the entity must give a statement, relevant to the complaint, about whether it has complied with its obligations.

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 29 (after line 16), after section 58BZD, insert:

58BZDA Giving a statement of compliance — civil penalty provision

(1) A regulated entity contravenes this subsection if the entity:

(a) is undertaking internal dispute resolution in dealing with a person's complaint of a kind described in paragraph 58BZD(1)(a) or (b); and

(b) does not give the person a statement of compliance in accordance with subsection (2).

Note: This subsection only applies to the entity when the SPF rules prescribe matters for paragraphs (2)(b), (d) and (e) that are relevant to the complaint.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), the statement of compliance must:

(a) include a statement by the regulated entity about whether, based on information reasonably available to the entity at the time of making the statement, it has complied with its obligations under the SPF provisions that are relevant to the complaint; and

(b) contain the kinds of information prescribed by the SPF rules that are relevant to the complaint; and

(c) not contain the kinds of information (if any) prescribed by the SPF rules that are relevant to the complaint; and

(d) be in writing and signed by a person who is an authorised representative of the entity of a kind prescribed by the SPF rules; and

(e) be given in accordance with the timeframes, and in the manner and form, prescribed by the SPF rules.

(3) Subsection (1) is a civil penalty provision.

Note: This means subsection (1) is a civil penalty provision of an SPF principle for the purposes of section 58FJ (about civil penalties).

(4) A statement of compliance given by the entity under this section is admissible, in any proceeding that:

(a) relates to the complaint; and

(b) is under or relates to an SPF EDR scheme;

as prima facie evidence of the entity's position, at the time of making the statement, on the matters in the statement.

(5) Nothing in this section limits or affects the admissibility in a proceeding of any other statement or evidence.

As many have discussed in relation to this legislation, there is a David and Goliath battle when it comes to victims and banks, financial institutions and the large telcos and social media platforms, which are all too often part of scams reaching consumers. Under the current proposed legislation, to bring forward a claim for compensation, a victim will need to gather information from companies—the banks and the telcos—to establish whether or not the companies have complied with the code. That is simply not realistic. I've raised this with the minister. Understanding that David and Goliath battle is important. The information is not readily available, and there is no requirement for the companies to hand it over willingly. I think it's fair to assume that getting to that information, with the scale of these organisations, would just be impossible for the victims of scams. It's a David and Goliath battle.

My amendments go some way to bringing power back to consumers by at least reversing the onus of proof when it comes to accessing dispute resolution. They require the companies and the banks, financial institutions and telcos involved in a scam, as a party to the scam, to provide the victims with a statement of compliance with the Scams Prevention Framework to then access that internal dispute resolution. Associated with that needs to be what that Scams Prevention Framework ultimately looks like, I appreciate, and I have some questions in that respect.

What this means is that it's not just for the victim to have to establish the case from scratch that they are entitled to dispute resolution and thus compensation. There is a reversal of onus, which is important. It strengthens the integrity of the framework and will ensure that vulnerable customers will be able to have a better chance of access at dispute resolution and, ultimately, compensation from the regulated entities.

These amendments improve the internal dispute resolution process to require businesses to provide this statement of certification that they have complied with their obligation under the bill, and there will be a civil penalty provision that carries with this, and these certificates will be admissible in later proceedings. I ask the minister to make sure, though, that the explanatory memorandum includes details relating to the specificity requirements that will be placed in the rules, to ensure customers have enough details to satisfy their compliance with their obligations. It might be by providing details that at a specific time the customer confirmed the name of the account to receive the funds through a confirmation of payee mechanism. Another example might be a social media platform providing specific details of when they became aware of the scam activity and what steps they took to respond. It's important that everyone involved in this matrix takes some responsibility.

We've had discussions around whether it should be, for example, an automatic presumption of compensation against the financial institutions. I accept that there are often three elements to scams. We have the victim, who has unwittingly consented to authorising a payment. We have financial institutions that have access to who that payment is ultimately going to, so they bear a responsibility in introducing friction and in ensuring people are generally aware of what they are authorising. Then we have the telcos. I accept this. The telcos are a major player, especially when I look at social media and Facebook and Meta entities, in assisting in delivering scams to the victims. They are facilitating that, so they also bear that responsibility. But, of course, getting behind the wall of information in those kinds of organisations is simply impossible for victims.

I do thank the government, I understand, for accepting that this reversal of onus is necessary, when it comes to that compilation of information and that certificate of compliance, so that access to dispute resolution can operate. I think it's important, though, for the government to continue being vigilant, to make sure fair compensation is occurring. I urge all consumers and victims out there to absolutely report scams. They profit and thrive with secrecy, with shame or anxiety about reporting. So reporting and exposing scams is the most important thing that people can do.

I thank the member. The government will be agreeing to the amendments, which we agree improve the bill, and I can inform the member that an amended explanatory memorandum will be tabled.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4) as revised, as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 10 (after line 1), after section 58AH, insert:

58AHA Meaning of vulnerable consumer

A vulnerable consumer, of a regulated service, is an SPF consumer who is at risk, or is likely to be at risk, of being targeted by a scam.

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 13 (after line 14), after paragraph (d), insert:

(da) whether the consumers of those services include vulnerable consumers; and

(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 17 (lines 14 to 18), omit all the words from and including "sector to:" to the end of paragraph (2)(b), substitute "sector to identify its vulnerable consumers; or".

(4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 17 (line 21), omit "an SPF consumer described in subparagraph (b)(i) or (ii)", substitute "those vulnerable consumers".

The amendments I'm introducing today are an attempt to provide vulnerable customers with a higher level of protection from scams than this bill currently affords them. They are simple amendments, easy to implement and, in circumstances where this bill is weighted in the favour of banks, telcos and social media companies instead of consumers, very necessary. Let me explain what I mean by the assertion that this bill is weighted in favour of those firms.

As I set out in detail in my speech in the second reading debate, it is unfortunate that the government has missed the opportunity to introduce a consumer-centric reimbursement model of scams prevention, a model where consumers are quickly reimbursed—except, of course, in cases of gross negligence on the part of the consumer—and limited up to a capped amount. Under the reimbursement model, such as that in the UK, the burden moves to firms to work out how the liability should be apportioned between financial institutions, telcos and social media platforms. Instead, the government has chosen to put the burden of fighting to get their money back on the consumer, and, in doing so, has protected the banks, telcos and social media companies over individual customers.

It is a heavy burden. In circumstances where a person may have lost their entire life savings, having to fight perhaps several institutions, including financial, telco and social media, at the one time is possibly the most uneven playing field imaginable. Given that, I consider that perhaps the government might have some appetite to better protect at least the most vulnerable of consumers. My amendments define a vulnerable customer as one who is at risk or is likely to be at risk of being targeted by a scam. This might include elderly people, people with hearing difficulties or people in financial distress. Data shows that scammers are targeting elderly people, who are likely to have large savings and are looking to protect or invest this large nest egg.

The bill requires regulated entities to take reasonable steps to prevent, detect, report, disrupt and respond to scams. In determining whether the firms are taking reasonable steps to do those things, my amendments would (a) require them to identify vulnerable customers, (b) consider whether the consumers of the particular services in question are vulnerable customers and (c) give vulnerable customers more information about scams that the firms have already identified—not too difficult.

Unfortunately, the government has indicated that it's not inclined to make the bill more consumer friendly, even in this small way. Nevertheless, I commend the amendments to the House.

Question negatived.

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 13 (after line 24), after the paragraph beginning "The entity must keep" in section 58BC, insert:

The entity must publish information about scams detected, reported and responded to.

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 16 (after line 4), after section 58BG, insert:

58BGA Publishing information about scams detected, reported and responded to — civil penalty provision

(1) A regulated entity for a regulated sector contravenes this subsection if the entity fails to publish the following information on a publicly available website:

(a) the prevention, detection and disruption of scams over the last 3 month period (the reporting period);

(b) the response to scams over the last 3 month period (the reporting period);

(c) reports relating to scams over the last 3 month period (the reporting period);

within the period provided under subsection (2) and in accordance with the requirements under subsection (3).

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the period is within 30 days of the end of the reporting period.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), the information must:

(a) be in the form required by the SPF rules; and

(b) contain the details required by the SPF rules.

(4) Subsection (1) is a civil penalty provision.

Note: This means subsection (1) is a civil penalty provision of an SPF principle for the purposes of section 58FJ (about civil penalties).

As I mentioned in my speech in the second reading debate, I'm extremely doubtful that the Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024 will be enough to incentivise businesses, including banks, telcos and social media companies, to properly address scams. I believe they will do as they have done, trusting the process to be delayed and slowed down and requiring individuals to pursue these actions in lengthy procedures over months and years. They can win the war by attrition.

I acknowledge that the companies are investing. I acknowledge that the companies hate to see these scams as well. There's no sense of bad faith, but I think the truth is that they have not done enough and I don't believe this bill drives them to do enough yet. The impact statement of the explanatory memorandum states that the regulatory cost between the SPF and the status quo is an initial investment of $100 million and ongoing investments of $31 million. However, the impact analysis estimates that 70 per cent of this cost is already accounted for by non-affiliated banks, with the four major banks expected to increase their funding by only $6.2 million on initial investments. This is despite ASIC finding that the scam strategy and governance of the four major banks is less mature than expected. Similar admissions are present in the sections covering telcos and social media companies.

Page 153 of the explanatory memorandum states that, under the SPF, 'there are unlikely to be significant additional costs for telecommunications providers who are compliant with current obligations'. The EM acknowledges that self-regulation has not worked, yet this bill will introduce minimal additional provisions on top of what these industries are already promising to implement. In perhaps the most overused quote, attributed to Charlie Munger, 'Show me the incentive and I'll show you the outcome.' This bill will not change the outcome, because it does not change the incentive. My amendments are pretty simple. I've spoken to bank CEOs on this topic, and they don't have a problem with it either. They say: 'Publish scam data. Publish the number of scams that different banks are dealing with.' We should publish the numbers—scams detected, reported and responded to, as well as the amounts lost and the amounts reimbursed—for all regulated entities quarterly, not when the regulator publishes aggregated information once a year, buried in the back of a financial model. The fundamental point I'm trying to make here is that without this separation of details, without this information at different levels, the banks will not have the strongest incentive to invest in scam prevention.

The only way to protect Australian consumers is to strongly incentivise banks to do it. A code can do this, but codes are always playing catch-up with the technology in place. I don't believe, honestly, that the federal government or the regulators are innovating at the pace required to understand where the technology can go. I think the private sector needs strong incentives to make the innovation that is required in this space. You can do that through reimbursement models or you can do it through publishing, at a bank level, data saying, 'It's this many scams; this is the percentage of losses; this is the reimbursement,' so consumers can make the right choices. And consumers can show, via their wallet, whether they want to support a bank that is protecting them from scams or whether they don't.

This is about putting the power to protect themselves from scams back in the hands of Australian consumers. We know that scams are so sophisticated these days. We know that these scams are run by organised international criminal cartels. It is incredibly hard for individuals to protect themselves from these scams, even savvy consumers who are doing a really good job of protecting themselves. They can't do it alone. If the Deputy Chair of ASIC can be scammed, anyone in this country can be scammed, whatever personal protections they are putting in place. So the question then goes to how they can protect themselves. This legislation is helpful, but the best way for people to protect themselves is for us to make sure that banks, telcos and social media companies are innovating—that they're putting their best minds to work on how to protect their consumers—and the best way to drive that investment in innovation isn't just regulation; it's actually transparency.

Shine a light on who's doing a good job and who's doing a bad job, and then you might get change. It's then that we might see real change in the Australian market, which is what we haven't seen. Since 2017, Europe has had some of the innovations that are just coming into place in Australia. Why haven't we had them? Because the incentives haven't been there. Let's stop playing catch-up.

The question before the House is that the amendments standing in the name of the member for Wentworth be agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

The question before the House is that the bill be now read a second time.

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate will be resumed at a later hour.

More than 140,000 Australians have lodged, on the TGA database, adverse reactions to the not-so-safe and ineffective COVID vaccines. But thousands of these Australians have been unable to access compensation due to the scheme's overly onerous requirements and very narrow eligibility criteria—people like Tracey, who came to my office today, and Bernice, Dirk, Jason, Jerry, Joel, Kara, Karen, Linn, Margaret, Michelle, Naomi, Orida, Rado and Sandra. But Chris, a 51-year-old father of two, was more fortunate; at least, he thought he was.

With the help of a lawyer, Chris navigated his way to securing compensation after suffering horrific life-altering injuries from the COVID vaccine. This process included 12 months of compiling more than a thousand pages of documents and then a further 500 days for the claim to be assessed and settled. Chris's financial settlement is in the millions of dollars, compensating him not just for the short-term impacts of his injury but also for lost income, given he's unable to return to his career of 30 years.

But Chris's horrific story doesn't end here. It turns out his compensation will be subject to full taxation in the year the payment is received. This means that around one-third of his compensation will be lost in tax and returned to the very government that mandated these unsafe and untrialled vaccines. In my opinion this is cruel, callous and unconscionable behaviour by government and completely at odds with the intent of the compensation scheme. These compensation payments should be tax free.

I would like to celebrate an extraordinary individual whose unwavering commitment to service and compassion has transformed the lives of countless children globally. It is my honour to recognise Brother Thomas Oliver Pickett, affectionately known as Olly, who has been awarded 2025 Senior Australian of the Year.

Olly's journey is inspiring. The co-founder of Wheelchairs For Kids, which is based in my electorate of Pearce, he has dedicated nearly three decades to ensuring that children with disabilities get mobility and independence. His incredible efforts have provided over 61,000 custom-built wheelchairs to children in more than 80 countries—a remarkable achievement that reflects his vision and determination. Olly's work transcends wheelchair provision. It empowers children to access education, engage with their communities and experience the joy of childhood. In ensuring that each wheelchair is functional and adaptable to meet young users' growing needs, he understands that mobility is a fundamental right.

What truly sets Olly apart is his ability to inspire others. Leading a team of 250 volunteers, he has created a community united by purpose. His humility shone through in his acceptance speech, in which he dedicated his award to his volunteers. Congratulations, Olly Pickett. Thank you for being a beacon of hope and for showing us what it means to serve with heart and with passion.

This Friday, 7 February, marks the 16th anniversary of the Black Saturday bushfires. It's a day I remember all too well, as do many residents in my community. Today is a day we remember not only the 173 lives lost but also the many lives lost in the years following as a direct impact of the disaster. On that day, we tragically lost 35 children, and 16 were left orphaned. Today and always, we thank the volunteer firefighters and emergency services crews who showed tremendous courage and saved countless lives while risking their own.

While the burnt trees have new growth and townships have been rebuilt, the hidden scars of Black Saturday are still very raw and take a toll on the mental health of many in my community. In an instant, we can go right back there to 7 February 2009 and replay it in our minds. Hot days, strong winds, the smell of smoke and the sound of sirens all take us right back to that fateful day.

To all those with memories of that day, please reach out to friends and loved ones. Know that you are not alone as we reflect and remember a traumatic and tragic day for so many lives. It is a day when, as a survivor, I recommit to living my life in honour of those who passed on that tragic day.

As we approach the 83rd anniversary of the bombing of Darwin, I want to remind people that it was the largest single attack ever mounted by a foreign power on Australia during the Second World War, hitting our home of Darwin. The Japanese mounted two air attacks that day. The first attack focused on the town centre and the harbour. Many buildings and ships were destroyed. Of the 47 ships in Darwin Harbour that day, eight were sunk, one was beached and lost, and 11 were damaged. One bomb fell through the several decks of the hospital ship Manunda. On that ship was the heroic Sister Margaret de Mestre, who, unfortunately, died from her injuries sustained during that bombing. Before she passed, Sister de Mestre was absolutely adamant that others be treated before her.

In 2018 I started an award in Margaret's memory at the Manunda Terrace Primary School in my electorate. Given the special legacy of the name that the school is connected to, the award is for the student who shows courage. I was delighted to attend the school to award Yasmia Belten the Margaret de Mestre award for 2024. She was stoked to receive it, and her mum, Elyce, was super proud.

The Victorian government's North East Link project was supposed to cost $10 billion. It's now up to $26 billion. It's possibly the most expensive road project in the world per kilometre. It's had significant and worrying environmental impacts on tree canopy and on habitat destruction in areas like Koonung Creek. Constituents regularly contact my office about the noise, light and dust from the 24-hour drilling, demolition and roadworks. Residents tell me that project managers and the state government are slow to engage with them and are often dismissive of their concerns. The local governments are effectively sidelined. The Victorian government has signed at least 7,000 nondisclosure agreements for more than $1 billion of compensation. For what? We do not know.

Last year, the federal government committed $3.2 billion to help complete the North East Link. Knowing what we know, or what we don't know, the infrastructure minister should withhold that federal funding until we get better public engagement and until we get some transparency from the Allan state government and from the building authority over its dealings with the public. We are all entitled to know where, why and how taxpayers' money is being used on state projects.

This year I was lucky enough to attend Singleton Council's Australia Day ceremony, where they announced their 2025 citizens of the year. This year paramedic Nigel Korff was named the 2025 citizen of the year. Nigel is a deserving recipient of this award after clocking up 40 years as a volunteer for the NSW Rural Fire Service. This award also recognised his role as a crew member for the record number of helicopter rescues in a single day that they performed in the 2022 Lismore floods.

The ceremony also saw Dr Jared Lawrence honoured for young achiever of the year. A Singleton High School alumni, Dr Lawrence received his award for his impact on improving the health and wellbeing of the Singleton community and executing an exceptional vision for the future of rural health care as he undertook his training as a doctor. Jared proves that it doesn't matter what school you go to. You can achieve anything when you live in the Hunter by going to one of our amazing local public high schools. He's a shining example of the potential of young people in the Hunter and shows that you should never feel limited in what you can achieve because of where you came from or what school you went to.

Congratulations, Nigel and Dr Lawrence. Thank you for all you have done for our community. Just as a little side note, Dr Jared Lawrence was taught by the good member for Robertson, Dr Gordon Reid. He took him through his time in that hospital. Thank you for what you do, Dr Gordon Reid, the member for Robertson, as well in helping our young people achieve their future.

Over decades, well-funded far-right groups in the United States have been on a mission to destroy progressive politics and reshape the Republican Party to be one of division, destruction and delusion. Now we have a second Trump presidency that promises to be even worse than the first.

Hear, hear!

That tells you all you need to know about the Liberals—that they cheer at that. Trump and these backers want to reshape the United States and now the world into a place where the only thing that matters is profit and the bottom line. Now similar groups have appeared in Australia. Groups like Advance and Australians for Prosperity want to do to this country what their counterparts have done to the United States—divide us, carve us up and sell our society to the highest bidder. They will not be happy until our country is a hollowed-out shell, where everything is pay-to-play. Now we see the LNP begin to back them in and follow down the same path as the Republicans—making cuts that we will only find the details of after the election, slashing the Public Service and banning investment in renewables. What will help this country to stave off far-right groups and the undue influence of giant corporations in politics? It's policies that actually improve people's lives and protect the environmental—dental into Medicare, mental health into Medicare, 100 per cent renewable energy, tripling the bulk-billing incentive for everyone so everyone can see the GP for free again and making these giant multinationals and fossil fuel companies finally pay their fair share of tax. That is what I'm in this place fighting for, and that is how we stave off the far-right and corporate takeover of our democracy.

I rise today to acknowledge Pamela Lemoine, who this year has been recognised and awarded the Jean Arnot Award for her consistent work on behalf of Graduate Women NSW. Pamela is 90 years young and has received this award because she is a beacon of unwavering commitment to her community. The Jean Arnot Award is facilitated by the National Council of Women New South Wales and in 2024 was awarded to 23 extraordinary women aged 90 and over, and Pamela was included in that. The award is a continuous reminder of the exceptional advocacy Jean Arnot involved herself with throughout her professional life—fighting for women's rights and campaigning on behalf of women across all areas of society to be valued. Pamela received this award to recognise her dedication to Graduate Women NSW, which is an association of women graduates from universities and institutions of higher education throughout the world.

The association supports all women to strive for success and provides recognition and support to women to enable them to reach their goals. This support is provided through scholarships, awards and bursaries. I'd like to take this opportunity today to provide my heartfelt congratulations to Pamela on her award and thank Pamela for her service to our community on the Central Coast.

Australians are living through a cost-of-living crisis that is induced by this Labor government. Because Labor can't manage their budget, it's impacting the family budget. The cost of everything has gone up—groceries, insurance and power bills. Families in suburbs like Labrador, Parkwood and Pacific Pines are struggling to make ends meet. Don't be fooled by the rhetoric and the hand gestures from the Prime Minister playing the piano. The cost of living is up, and the standard of living is down. The damage is done, and it has been done by this Prime Minister.

The Treasurer has been playing chicken with the Reserve Bank for almost three years, and Australians are paying the price. A family in Pimpama with a mortgage of $700,000 and an interest rate of 6.34 per cent are paying $4,352 a month. If the interest rate were just 5.34 per cent, that family would be paying $477 less per month in repayments—a total saving of $5,364 a year—which is true cost-of-living relief that's being denied by this Treasurer. Under Labor, interest rates have stayed too high for too long. Last year, we were one of the few developed economies where interest rates did not come down. We are paying the price for Labor's bad decisions and wrong priorities.

There's nothing better than sitting down on a hot summer's day with a cold drink in hand and watching the cricket. What a summer of cricket it has been. From Australia's dominant Boxing Day Test win over India to another fantastic victory just last week in Sri Lanka, it has been a season to remember.

While we have been cheering for the debut of Sam Konstas and celebrating our national success, I want to take a moment to acknowledge our local cricket teams, who have been giving it their all this summer. On Australia Day, I had the pleasure of attending the Casey Cardinia Cricket Association's Kookaburra Cup final, hosted by Devon Meadows. It was a great match, with Tooradin Cricket Club reclaiming its T20 championship title over Koo Wee Rup. I want to thank the Devon Meadows club president Mick for inviting me along. Congratulations to all the players and teams in my electorate on an incredible season. I look forward to catching a few more games before the season wraps up in March.

After two years and nine months, this Labor government, led by Prime Minister Albanese, has totally failed on infrastructure in New South Wales, particularly in south-western Sydney. Western Sydney airport is opening next year. It is to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It's to service the whole new city of Bradfield. It's supposed to be supported by an aerotropolis of 100,000 jobs and 10,000 homes. Instead, the Ingleburn Business Chamber and Campbelltown City Council are left doing the advocacy for south-western Sydney. It is now time that Campbelltown be prioritised. It needs a north-south rail link which will open from St Marys to the aerotropolis via Western Sydney airport. It needs rapid bus services linking Liverpool, Penrith and Campbelltown with the aerotropolis by the opening of the airport.

Where has the federal minister for infrastructure been on this? She has been nowhere. Has she even been out to Campbelltown? Has she been out there and even started to consider delivering on some of the priorities that the former federal government and the former state coalition government put into place? Has she looked, for example, at the metro routes or at a rapid bus service? I put it to you that she has not done any of this. This government has failed in infrastructure in Campbelltown, and so too has the infrastructure minister.

Last Friday, the Minister for the Environment and Water and I announced that the Victorian Goldfields have been added to Australia's Tentative World Heritage List. This is the first and foremost step for World Heritage status. From the open-cut mines of Castlemaine to the Victorian-era buildings of Bendigo, the region is considered one of the most extensive and best-surviving gold rush landscapes in the world. A successful World Heritage bid is great for many local businesses and our hospitality and tourism industry, but what puts this at risk is the Liberal and National parties. The National Party hate anything to do with heritage—they call it red tape—and they call the World Heritage List woke. It is not. The Victorian Goldfields gaining World Heritage status is expected to boost tourism in the area, with an additional 2.2 million visitors annually within the first 10 years of being listed. That's good for business. That is not woke.

For decades this project of World Heritage listing the Victorian Goldfields has been talked about, but it's only now happened, because of a federal Labor government. We get heritage. We get that it is an opportunity to share our stories with the world and give people who travel to World Heritage sites another place to go on their bucket list.

I rise again today to speak on a critical issue, and that is the intersection on the Oxley Highway at Wrights Road and Lake Road. In 2022 this project was fully funded with $5 million secured: $4 million from the federal coalition government and $1 million from the state coalition government. This funding was vital for stage 2 upgrades to address congestion, improve road safety and support our rapidly growing population. But what did the Labor government do? They ripped it away in their so-called 90-day infrastructure review, which, by the way, was 200 days. They put this critical project on the scrap pile, with the New South Wales Labor government, shockingly, approving the decision.

This isn't about traffic congestion. It's about public safety. Delays at the intersection affect emergency response times to the Port Macquarie Base Hospital, putting lives at risk every single day. It is unacceptable. Since this disgraceful decision, I've been working with the local council and the state MP as a united front to get this funding reinstated. This isn't about politics; this is about protecting our community. Our lives matter, Labor. To my community: I need your support. Visit my website and sign the petition demanding that the funding be restored. Together, let's get this vital project done.

The Albanese Labor government is delivering real investment into our public hospitals, because every Australian deserves high-quality health care no matter where they live or what they earn. This week the Prime Minister and Minister for Health and Aged Care announced an additional $1.7 billion for public hospitals and health services nationwide next year. Here in the ACT we'll receive an extra $51 million, a 16 per cent increase in Commonwealth funding. This is funding that will help cut waiting lists and take pressure off our emergency departments.

How does that contrast with the record of the Leader of the Opposition? Well, he cut $50 billion from hospitals and was voted the worst ever health minister by Australian doctors. The Liberal Party's record on health is nothing but cuts, neglect and a system left on its knees.

Under our new agreement, total Commonwealth funding for public hospitals will hit a record $33.9 billion next year. We're not stopping there. We're making record investments in bulk-billing and opening urgent care clinics around the country to take pressure off our emergency departments.

Labor created Medicare, and we will always protect it. The choice at the next election is clear: more investment under Labor or more cuts under the coalition. We will always stand up for our public hospitals, for Medicare and for the Australians that rely on it. Under the Liberals it is that simple. You cannot trust them with Medicare.

The Labor Party has a real problem at the moment. They've just worked out that on the slim chance that they win the next election they'll have nothing to do because they've spent the last 2½ years opening projects funded by the previous government, full time. So what are their junior ministers and nondescript senators going to do in the next term? I've got a few suggestions.

How about a sod-filling ceremony for the section of Inland Rail that didn't get started? We could have a bushwalk in the area that Narrabri Shire bought for their inland port. Maybe a game of cricket on the parched cotton fields where water was taken to give to South Australia to get votes in the Senate down there? For the real thrillseekers, I've got a beauty: crossing the Newell Highway with a road train full of grain at the site where $44 million for the overpass that was to make access to the Moree grain terminals safe was removed. That would be a great thing to do.

This government has spent an entire session opening projects from funding that has been removed. Roads of Strategic Importance is no longer there. Building Better Regions—no longer there. For the ones that they have funded, they gave the money to the state government, who haven't handed it on yet. Growing Regions—not one cent has flown through to where it's needed.

Labor created Medicare, and we will protect it. We are delivering $1.7 billion more for public hospitals and health services next year. Stronger Medicare, better hospitals—a better Australia. This is unlike the Leader of the Opposition, who gutted our hospitals and gutted Medicare. Why? Cuts, cuts, cuts, obsessed with cuts—that's the Liberal way, and he will not say what he will cut next year.

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

I inform the House of the death on 24 January 2025 of the Hon. Grant Ernest John Tambling AM, a member of the House for the division of Northern Territory from 1980 to 1983 and a senator for the Northern Territory from 1987 to 2001. As a mark of respect to the memory of the Hon. Grant Tambling, I invite all present to rise in their places.

Honourable members having stood in their places—

I thank the House.

I declare that the resumption of debate on the Acting Prime Minister's motion of condolence in connection with the death of the Hon. John Colinton Moore is referred to the Federation Chamber.

I inform the House that the Prime Minister will be absent from question time today as he is in North Queensland visiting severely flood affected communities with the Queensland Premier. I'll answer questions on behalf of the Prime Minister.

My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer tell Australians by what percentage the cost of food has gone up during Labor's cost-of-living crisis since the election of the Albanese Labor government?

The nerve of these characters asking about the cost of living—after they opposed all of our efforts to help Australians with the cost of living. If you'd been there for Australians when we wanted to give them tax cuts, energy bill relief, cheaper early childhood education, cheaper medicines, better wages and help with rent, then that would warrant you coming up and asking about the cost of living. As the Prime Minister said in response to this question when you last asked it, if you look at the last year of food inflation, it's 3.0 per cent. If you look at the last year under those opposite, it was 5.9 per cent. I appreciate the shadow Treasurer, in his usually comically incompetent way, asking me to remind the House that food inflation over the last year is almost precisely half of food inflation under those opposite in their last year.

On this side of the House, our primary focus is the cost of living. That's why we're rolling out our cost-of-living help. If you look at the cost-of-living index that was released the other day, you would see lower growth in living costs across every household type compared to the time of the election. That is another reminder that, although inflation is still too high, although Australians are still under too much pressure, we have made some welcome and encouraging progress in the fight against inflation, and we saw that in the numbers last Wednesday.

Now, there are two things that make the shadow Treasurer really angry: first, when inflation goes down, as it did Wednesday; and, second, when the public finds out the cost of his policies.

A point of order on relevance: the Treasurer is not even attempting to answer the question. The question was very tight.

Government members interjecting—

Order! Members on my right, that is not how we roll. The manager is entitled to raise a point of order just as the Leader of the House is or any member is. It's not a free-for-all commentary. He's going to be given the respect of the House, and I want to hear what he has to say.

The question was very tight. The question asked the Treasurer how much food prices are up since the election of the government—not the last 12 months, since the election of the government. If the Treasurer doesn't know the answer, it's 12 per cent.

That may be a fair point, and you may have wanted to make it, but it's not the time to make that kind of commentary, so I ask the manager not to abuse the lenience that I showed him. The Treasurer was asked a question. He's read figures into the Hansard. You may dispute those figures. That's for another time, but you may question those. But, whilst he is reading data into the Hansard, answering the question as he sees fit—maybe not how you see fit—he's entitled to do so under the standing orders. Now he is providing information regarding the question he was asked, so I just ask the manager or any member not to add extra comments to their points of order. In light of what I said before, I just ask the Treasurer to remain directly relevance to the question he was asked.

I was asked about food inflation and am pointing out that food inflation is currently half what it was when we came to office. That is another reminder that, although Australians are still under pressure, the inflation numbers have been substantially lower and now are in a sustained way. I know they don't like to hear that. I don't think I've ever seen anyone as unhappy as the shadow Treasurer on the day last week when inflation came down again in the bottom half of the Reserve Bank's target band. If they are unhappy about the levels of inflation right now, as we are—and we're working to get inflation down—then they must be absolutely furious at their own performance in office, which delivered inflation multiples of what it is right now.

So this question is another welcome opportunity to remind people that, when cost-of-living help was being provided by this side of the House, those opposite opposed it. That means that Australians would have been thousands of dollars worse off if this opposition leader had his way and they'll be even more worse off if he wins.

The member for Braddon is warned.

My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, representing the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government making progress in prioritising the cost of living for all Australians? What approaches will leave people worse off?

Governing is about priorities, and the priority of the Albanese government from the moment that we took office has been tackling cost of living. We've done this from day one because of global inflation but also because of the low-wage, high-inflation mess we inherited from the Liberals. So we've made medicines cheaper; we've made child care more affordable; we've provided energy bill relief to every Australian; we've got wages going again, beginning with the lowest paid, such that on this day there is now real wage growth in Australia; and we've provided a tax cut to every income earner. We understood that we needed to get inflation down, so we delivered two budget surpluses, something those opposite never did. And having inherited a number of 6.1, inflation is now at 2.4 per cent.

We get that the last few years have been difficult and that many Australians are still doing it tough. While there is light at the end of the tunnel, there's a lot more work that needs to be done, and we are committed to that, but the Liberals represent a material risk to finishing this job because they have a very different set of priorities. There is no culture war that they will not fight. They literally seek to politicise everything. They've made it totally clear that their priority is to cut government services to the tune of $350 billion, and they will need to find another $600 billion to pay for their nuclear plan. You can't do that unless you start hacking into Medicare, just as the Leader of the Opposition did when he was the Minister for Health. If the Liberals are allowed to take Australia back to flatlining wages, to a decimated Medicare scheme right there, the household budgets of middle Australians will be absolutely smashed. But don't worry: they do have one cost-of-living measure. They want all Australians to pay for businesses to provide free lunches—a policy that could cost up to $10 billion. That is the same amount of money as the Medicare payments to the entirety of our GP workforce. How on earth can that be the right priority?

As Australia faces a very big decision in the coming months, we know that the Liberals will be focused on themselves and on their own political fortunes. On this side of the House, we make a pledge. It is the focus—it is the priority—of Anthony Albanese and his government to provide for the security and the prosperity of every Australian.

My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer confirm that housing rents have risen 17 per cent during Labor's cost-of-living crisis since the election of the Albanese Labor government?

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! Members on my left don't need to add commentary during question time, and members on my right don't need to give me a running commentary on what you think of the question either. I'm just going to ask all members that, when a question is asked, everyone is heard in silence, and once someone begins saying something—obviously that might spark a reaction; I understand that—just allow everything to follow its natural course.

I can confirm that rents would be higher were it not for our Commonwealth rent assistance. And I would remind the House once again that, when this side of the House was there for Australian renters, those opposite described two permanent increases in Commonwealth rent assistance as a 'sugar hit' and 'wasteful spending'. It's another welcome opportunity to remind the House and the people at home that, when those opposite talk about $350 billion in wasteful spending, included in that is investment in housing and two consecutive increases in Commonwealth rent assistance. So rent in the December quarter went up 0.6 per cent through the year to 6.4 per cent, but it would have been higher were it not for the Commonwealth rent assistance we have been providing and they have been opposing.

In every question we've had so far, there's a hint. The hint is this. When they talk about the $350 billion, when they talk about our cost-of-living help, they will come after it if they win the election later this year. They will come after all of it. The worst thing about that—that's bad enough as it is—is that they won't tell Australians all about it until after the election. They have already made it clear that they don't support our Commonwealth rent assistance—two rounds of Commonwealth rent assistance, taking some of the edge out of these rental pressures that do exist in our economy and that we do acknowledge are making life harder for people who are in the rental market. That's why we're putting so much effort into building more homes. That's why, when you oppose building more homes, you are standing in the way of renters getting more affordable rents.

So we're proud of what we've done to provide cost-of-living help. We remind people, once again, that, if those opposite had their way, inflation would be higher when it comes to rents and Australians would be thousands of dollars worse off, and they'd be even worse off still if they win the election.

My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government prioritising help for Australians with the cost of living? Are there alternative approaches that would leave people worse off?

Thanks to the member for Gilmore not just for her question but for maintaining her focus in her community on the cost of living. That's the focus that we all share on this side of the House. It's a key part of our economic strategy, which is all about relief, repair and reform. Because of that strategy, we're getting inflation down and wages up and keeping unemployment low. The progress that we've seen on inflation has been substantial, it has been sustained, and we saw that in the numbers I referred to earlier. But people are still under pressure. That's why this cost-of-living relief is so important. In our cost-of-living relief, you see the priorities of this government—tax cuts and better pay for working people, energy bill relief, cheaper medicines, cheaper early childhood education, free TAFE and help with rent, as I said a moment ago. When those opposite opposed all of that, they made their priorities clear as well. They are for lower wages and longer lunches, and they're against cost-of-living help. So Australians would be worse off by thousands of dollars if they had their way and they would be worse off still if those opposite were elected in to government.

It has been almost three years that they've been in opposition now. After three years, they still have no costed, no credible and no coherent economic policies. All they've got are secret costs and secret cuts. They've got a slogan that says that they want to go back—they want to take Australia backwards. The truth of that is, if he gets back, Australians go backwards. The only way that he can find $350 billion in cuts, the only way that they can find $600 billion to pay for this nuclear insanity, is to come after Medicare again, to come after hospitals again, to come after housing again, to come after wages and pensions again. And they won't stop there.

So I think it says it all in this week. It says it all. In the same week that this health minister and this government invested $1.7 billion more in public hospitals in a single year, we learned that they want to spend $1.6 billion a year on taxpayer funded long lunches. So Australians this year will be asked to choose between two very different sets of priorities—that coalition, of cuts and conflict and culture wars, coming after Medicare and wages, making people worse off and taking Australia backwards, or this Labor government, making progress on inflation, helping with the cost of living, strengthening Medicare and building Australia's future.

My question is for the Minister for the Environment and Water. On 21 May 2022, in his victory speech, the Prime Minister said, 'Together we can end the climate wars.' Yesterday, your government moved to drop the environmental protection agency off the Senate bill. I ask you, Minister: is this how the climate wars end?

Thank you very much to the member for Kooyong for her question and also to those other members that are on the crossbench today that actually supported our nature-positive laws when they passed through the House of Representatives. I think everybody agrees that our nature laws need reform. Unfortunately, the Liberals and the Nationals teamed up with the Greens political party to block that in the Senate, just as they teamed up to block the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, and that led to 80 million extra tonnes of carbon dioxide pollution entering our atmosphere.

I think Greens political party voters would be surprised to learn that the political party that purports to stand up for the environment wasn't prepared to vote for a strong new cop on the beat, an environmental protection agency with strong new powers and penalties. They weren't prepared to vote for better data, more transparency and a world-first definition of nature positive. And I think Liberal and Nationals voters would be surprised to know that those opposite voted against faster approvals for projects based on better data and more regional planning.

What is clear is that if people want real progress on nature law reform, then they have to vote Labor in the House of Representatives—and in the Senate as well. We know, on this side, that Australians love camping, they love fishing, they love bushwalking, they love boating and they love going for a swim. We need to preserve nature for the future. We want our kids and our grandkids to be able to see a koala in the wild. That's why we've got to act now.

The difference could not be starker. This side has added more ocean, an area larger than the size of Germany and Italy combined, to the waters under protection. Those opposite cut marine parks. We saved the Great Barrier Reef from an endangered listing. Those opposite have climate policies that put it in danger. We have doubled funding to national parks. Those opposite let our national parks fall into disrepair, to the extent that there were crocodile warning signs falling onto the ground and going missing—because those opposite let our national parks decline.

We've invested more than half a billion dollars to better protect our threatened species. Those opposite cut funding to the environment department by 40 per cent. We're increasing recycling by 1.3 million tonnes a year. Those opposite voted with the Greens to make it easier to export our garbage overseas. I really want to thank the member for her question, because she has shown that by working cooperatively we can make progress, instead of just blocking. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education. How is the Albanese Labor government reforming the early childhood education and care sector to support families? Is there anything that could put this at risk and leave Australians worse off?

I thank the wonderful member for Boothby for her question but also because she understands that investment in early childhood education is an investment in our future.

When we came into government it was clear that this was a sector that was in dire need of reform after a decade of neglect. Our reform agenda has three key pillars: tackling affordability, supply and accessibility, and workforce.

We've made significant progress across those three pillars. Over one million Australian families have saved thousands in out-of-pocket costs for early childhood education. We continue to build on that by capping fee increases as part of our wage increase for early childhood workers. Around 200,000 early childhood workers are eligible for a 15 per cent wage increase, and that's had a significant impact on workforce retention. Advertisements for vacancy rates are now down by 22 per cent. Early childhood workers are now earning more and, with our tax cuts, keeping more of what they earn.

Since we came into office, there are now over 97,000 more children in early childhood education, 41,900 more educators in the sector and an increase in supply of more than 1,000 services. Our fee-free TAFE is helping to train more educators, and our workforce package has supported them to access professional development and complete their practicums. We're investing $1 billion to help build the early learning services in the regions and in the suburbs, where children are currently missing out. Our three-day guarantee, which I introduced into parliament yesterday, ensures that every child has access to 72 hours a fortnight of early learning, regardless of their parent's activity.

As I said, we have made significant progress on our reforms—progress working towards our vision of a universal early learning system for every child, for every family and for every community.

I'm also asked about what could put this at risk. The risk is that the coalition threatened to leave families worse off and take us back to the days of higher out-of-pocket expenses—back to the days of low wages and an unsustainable workforce in early childhood education. The coalition does not have a policy, a plan or a vision for families or early childhood education. But, they do have one for CEOs. We'll invest $1 billion in building early learning; they'll spend billions on free lunches for bosses.

Before I call the member for Hume, the member for Moncrieff has had a pretty good go with those interjections—around 13 during that answer—so she is now warned.

My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer confirm that the cost of gas has risen 34 per cent during Labor's cost-of-living crisis since the election of the Albanese Labor government?

Imagine asking about gas prices when they came in here, at the end of the first year we were in government, and voted against our gas caps. Imagine being so slow on the uptake that he comes in here and asks about gas prices. When Australians needed them to act on gas prices, they were nowhere to be found. The reason that's top of mind is that, in the same legislation, they also voted against electricity bill relief.

At the end of 2022, when we were dealing with the fallout of the last energy minister—now the shadow Treasurer—we came in here and asked the whole parliament to side with the Australian people, to put caps on gas prices and help with electricity bills, and they were nowhere to be found. And they've got form on that front.

It wasn't just gas prices where they abandoned middle Australia. They abandoned middle Australia on tax cuts. They abandoned middle Australia on cheaper early childhood education, as my ministerial colleague was telling you about a moment ago. They abandoned middle Australia on rent assistance. Right across the board, when it comes to the cost of living, they have been nowhere to be found.

The Treasurer will pause. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.

The point of order is on relevance. It was a very tight question. It didn't invite the Treasurer to critique other aspects of policy. He's straying a long way from the question, and I'd ask you to invite him back to the question or, if he can't add anything further, to be seated.

Even though the question invited, I guess, a yes/no response, the Treasurer needs to make his answer directly relevant and not stray into too much alternative policy because he wasn't asked anything about alternative policy. I'll need to direct him back to the question, to make sure he is on topic, if he has the ability to do so. Otherwise, he'll have to resume his seat.

Across all of the components of inflation, what we've seen in the aggregate measures is that inflation is lower under our government than it was when we came to office—what we inherited from those opposite. That is a fact. It's an inconvenient fact for the shadow Treasurer, who was very unhappy when inflation went down again last Wednesday, and he's expressing his unhinged unhappiness in the chamber today.

Now, the point that I'm making is: the whole parliament acknowledges that there are price pressures in our economy, but only this side of the parliament's doing something about it. We invited you, in good faith, at the end of 2022, to work with us and vote with us to do something about gas prices, and to do something about electricity prices. You voted against it. Worse, from memory, you went on with David Speers in an interview—not that long after—and pretended you voted for it. You told him that you voted for it. You were wrong about that as well.

Inflation was higher and rising when we came to office; it's lower and falling now. We're making progress in the fight against inflation, and we're helping with the cost of living. We know that you don't want any part of that. We know that you'd rather prices go up. We know that you'd rather inflation go up because it helps you politically. We've got a different set of interests and a different set of priorities. We've been there for Australians during these cost-of-living challenges. We will continue to be there for Australians. They would have been worse off if you had your way, and they'll be worse off still if you win the election.

I remind the Treasurer to direct his comments through the chair.

My question is to the education minister. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to cut student debt? Are there any approaches that would leave Australians worse off?

I thank my friend the absolutely sensational member for Swan for her question. If Labor win the election, we'll cut student debt by 20 per cent.

Government members: Hear, hear!

That will help three million Australians right across the country, including 21,000 Australians in the member for Swan's electorate. The average student debt there is $28,000. That means, if we win the election, on average they'll get more than 5,600 bucks wiped off their debt. Incidentally, it also includes more than 20,000 Australians in the Leader of the Opposition's electorate. The average debt there is almost 26 grand. If we win, they'll have more than five grand wiped off their debt. It also includes more than 25,000 Australians in the electorate of Sturt. There, the average debt is almost 30 grand. That means if Labor wins they'll get almost six grand wiped off their debt. It also includes 31,000 people in the electorate of Griffith. There, the average debt is more than 30 grand. If Labor wins, more than six grand will be wiped off their student debt.

We think that's good. We think that's a good idea. The Liberals think it's terrible. They've described this as a terrible idea. We want to cut your student debt. What do they want to do instead? They want to cut the cost of lunches for bosses. We're looking to the future; they can't see past lunchtime. If we win, five grand comes off your debt. If they win, 20 grand comes off the boss's lunch. That's it, and that's a lot of croquembouche. That's $1.6 billion each and every year. That's a lot of croquembouche. That's a lot of caviar. That's a lot of deductible degustation. When the opposition leader was asked about this just two weeks ago at a press conference in Goulburn, he said this about this $1.6 billion a year: 'It's quite an efficient use of taxpayers' money.'

Government members interjecting—

Order! Members on my right will cease interjecting immediately so the Manager of Opposition Business can make his point of order.

On relevance: the path that the minister's going down cannot be relevant to a question on education, particularly with pre-prepared answers before question time. So I'd ask you—

Resume your seat. I'm going to ask the minister to return to the question. He wasn't asked about alternative approaches, but he was asked about any approaches that would leave Australians worse off. I'll ask him to get back to the question and not to stray too far, to assist the House.

If we win the election, we'll cut student debt by 20 per cent. That will leave three million Australians better off. If those opposite win the election, Australians won't get that. They'll be worse off. Instead, that money will be spent on bosses' lunches. That's the difference. The opposition leader says that he thinks $1.6 billion on bosses' lunches is an efficient use of taxpayers' money. He doesn't say that about Medicare. He doesn't say that about child care, but, apparently, cut-price croquembouche for bosses—that's chef's kiss. I think most Australians will think it's a crock of something else. (Time expired)

My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer confirm that the cost of insurance has risen 19 per cent during Labor's cost-of-living crisis since the election of the Albanese Labor government?

Order! The Minister for Climate Change and Energy is warned.

Insurance has been one of the big drivers of the inflation challenge in our economy. Even as we've made some really quite substantial progress in a lot of the other categories—and insurance, I think, from memory, came off a little bit in the most recent data—it is still a big and prominent part of the CPI. The shadow Treasurer has raised this as a challenge; I think my colleagues and I have already acknowledged, in a number of different ways, the challenge of higher insurance premiums. I think we're seeing, with more and more frequent natural disasters—including the one that we're seeing play out right now in North Queensland and Far North Queensland—that that's having an impact on premiums.

The shadow Treasurer keeps chirping away as I try and give him an answer to his question. I assume then that he has some kind of policy to deal with higher insurance premiums. If he doesn't, then he should say so. The only policy those opposite have when it comes to natural disasters is to include them in the $350 billion of what they describe as 'wasteful spending'. In the mid-year budget update that I released with Minister Gallagher, one of the pressures on the budget which they describe as wasteful is another couple of billion dollars for natural disaster recovery. He asked me, 'What do natural disasters have to do with insurance?' He asked me, 'What's insurance got to do with natural disasters?' Doesn't that just say it all about the poor quality of those opposite! We're funding natural disaster relief and response. We're getting inflation down at the same time as we acknowledge that insurance is a big part of the CPI basket. If he's got any ideas or alternatives for how to get those premiums down, he should tell the House.

My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to improve safety and productivity on Queensland roads, and are there any other approaches to infrastructure that would leave Australians worse off?

I thank the member for Blair for that question. He is a magnificent advocate for the people of Ipswich. Whether it's road funding or community infrastructure funding, he is the best representative the people of Blair could have. Earlier in the year, I was very proud to be able to stand alongside the Prime Minister and the Treasurer in Gympie to announce the single largest investment ever, by any government, into the Bruce Highway: an additional $7.2 billion to bring the entire length of the highway up to a three-star safety rating. This is historic funding that will fast-track critical projects along the entire length of the corridor, particularly concentrating on the worst areas first.

Of course, we've seen this week the incredible importance of the Bruce Highway when it comes to the national supply chain. It's been highlighted this week with the floods up in the north. I want to assure the House that the Albanese government is working closely with the Queensland government to ensure that we get that freight route up as soon as possible and that we have a long-term, resilient solution for that stretch of road, and we've seen the Prime Minister is there today. The significant increases in infrastructure investment that this government has made are all possible because of the hard work that we have done—work to drive down inflation, to increase wages and to keep unemployment low but also to ensure that we get the economy moving after a decade, frankly, of neglect when it came to infrastructure. We've worked to drive inflation down and increase wages, and all of that has been important for the economy.

But much of this investment is, of course, at risk if those opposite have their way, because their maths simply just does not add up. You can't, on the one hand, say that you'll be making $350 billion worth of cuts without, on the other hand, cutting funding to projects like the Bruce Highway. And you can't fund $600 billion worth of publicly owned nuclear reactors without cutting road and rail infrastructure spending. And you can't forgo $1.6 billion to $10 billion a year in taxpayer-funded long lunches without substantially cutting infrastructure spending.

The Leader of the Opposition, of course, let the cat out of the bag on Sunday when he confirmed that he would be making huge cuts if he were to get his way. But what we do know is that he's refusing to tell anybody before the election what those cuts are going to be. No matter what way you'll look at it, you'll be worse off under those opposite if this bloke has his way, and that includes when it comes to the significant investments this government has made in infrastructure funding.

My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. Does the minister still support the introduction of a federal environmental protection agency, including in Western Australia?

I am so delighted to get this question from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. She is one of the strongest advocates for environmental law reform. She in fact was—

An opposition member interjecting

Well, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, as I said at the beginning—

As I said at the beginning, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—

Opposition members interjecting—

There's a difference between 'strong' and 'aggro'. The aggro is constantly on display.

Order! We're going to cease interjections on the left and the minister is going to return to the question.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was the environment minister for a time. Many people don't remember that, but she was, and when Professor Graeme Samuel presented the previous government with his review of John Howard's broken environmental laws it was the Deputy Leader of the Opposition who made a strong case that our laws did indeed need reforming.

The minister was answering the question, giving context around—I guess what she's talking about—the EPBC, but I'll hear from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

I raise a point of order on relevance. I respectfully submit that the minister was going nowhere near the question, which was quite straightforward and quite simple: does she still support the introduction of a federal EPA, including in Western Australia?

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! We just don't need the commentary when people are on their feet with their entitlement to raise a point of order. The minister's had one minute. She is being directly relevant; she's giving some historical context. But I'll ask her to return to the question she was asked to make sure she is being directly relevant so she can answer the deputy leader's question.

I will. I'll just go to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's exact quote in 2021:

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 is 20 years old and needs modernising to ensure Australia can meet current and future environment and heritage protection challenges.

We made it very clear through our Nature Positive Plan and through our laws that we wanted to see progress—progress to deliver stronger protection for nature and progress to provide faster, clearer decisions for business. There's no business in the country that believes the environment laws are working to progress projects quickly, nor is there any environmental organisation or anyone with any common sense that thinks that our laws are working to protect nature effectively.

Now, we took a very balanced package through the House of Representatives. We took it to the Senate. Unfortunately, the Liberals and the Nationals once again teamed up with the Greens political party to delay and to obfuscate and to refuse to make progress on our environmental law reforms, which would have delivered a strong, independent EPA with strong new powers and penalties, but would also have delivered faster, clearer decisions for business, based on greater regional planning, more transparency, more data and clearer decision-making processes. Sadly, the Senate we have at the moment doesn't allow us to progress every piece of legislation that we put to it. We've taken the legislation off the Notice Paper because we see that the deliberate delays and denial of those opposite, teamed up with the Greens political party, mean that there was no path through in this parliament. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Industry and Science. How is the Albanese Labor government helping deliver greater job security for regional communities that make aluminium? What approaches would leave these families worse off?

Thanks to the member for Paterson, who is a big backer of regional manufacturing and, in particular, knows that making aluminium in the Hunter happened for decades. It's been a big deal for the region. As the member for Paterson says, the products that are made there end up everywhere. There are so many jobs in smelters across regional Australia, from Gladstone in Queensland, Tomago in New South Wales, Portland in Victoria and Bell Bay in Tasmania.

The Albanese government wants those blue-collar jobs to last for decades further, providing a secure future for blue-collar workers. We worked with industry, unions and others to come up with a pathway to make aluminium well into the future, investing $2 billion in production credits to not only help make aluminium with lower emissions but open up stronger exports in the future, because metals produced in this way could open up exports to the tune of $122 billion a year. So it's a big deal. It's an incredible opportunity. We've got the resources, people and smelters, and we've got the ability to add value across the breadth of the supply chain.

The Australian Aluminium Council says our investment is globally significant. Kellie Parker, the CEO of Rio Tinto, put it this way:

This is a belief in manufacturing, it's a belief in jobs and it's a belief in aluminium industry.

When you talk to industry, they get it. The workers get it—workers like those at Alcoa in Portland in the member for Wannon's electorate, who, remarkably, described our announcement as 'all sizzle, no sausage'. It's always about lunch with these folks! He says our investment won't work. This is the same member for Wannon who four years ago was boasting about the then Morrison government's support for Portland to transition to low-carbon electricity. So it was good then; it's not good now.

We backed it. This is the big difference. We back manufacturing because it's in the national interest. They only back it when it's in their political interests. And we have the self-styled tough guy of Australian politics, the Leader of the Opposition, who turns up and instantly bags it out. We know that this is instantly under threat by the Leader of the Opposition and the cuts that he needs to make to fund a $600 billion taxpayer funded nuclear power plant scheme. It's not on. On top of that, it's not good enough that they will not tell Australians where they will make the cuts until after the election. It's not just gutless; it lacks respect, and it cannot be backed.

My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Last week I met with Holly Morton-Bowles's father, Shaun. Holly and her friend Bianca died after consuming bootleg alcohol in Laos last year. Their families are desperate for information about the investigation into what happened and whether anyone will be held responsible. They're also concerned about protecting other young travellers like their precious girls. Can you please advise the House what progress has been made on this important matter?

I thank the member for her question. I also thank her for her advocacy in giving voice to the families of Holly Morton-Bowles and Bianca Jones. What happened to Holly and Bianca struck at the heart of the nation. All of us stand in the embrace of their families. It is unimaginable to think about what they are going through in facing the loss of their beautiful daughters. What is understandable is a desire on their part, as you have raised here, not only to find out more information but ultimately to find out who did this terrible act and to see the perpetrators of this crime brought to justice and held to account.

This is an investigation which is being undertaken by the authorities in Laos. The Australian Federal Police have made an offer to the authorities in Laos to provide their assistance in the investigation, and there is a whole lot of capability that the Australian Federal Police could bring to bear in terms of this investigation. Sadly I have to report to the House that, at this point, the Laos authorities have not taken up that offer on the part of the Australian Federal Police. But I want to assure the families of Bianca and Holly that we remain in contact with the Laos authorities and that the offer of assistance is being consistently raised with the Laos authorities.

Beyond that I want to make this point as well. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has spoken to her counterpart in Laos and made clear that it is the expectation of the Australian government that there be a thorough investigation into these events—into this crime—and that the perpetrators be found and made it clear that it is the expectation in the context of our relationship with Laos that that happen. That has been directly related by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to her counterpart, and we will continue to press Laos to pursue this investigation, as we will continue to offer the assistance of the Australian government, through the Australian Federal Police, in this investigation.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade have been in contact with Bianca's and Holly's families, and they will continue to do so. Obviously any information that we have, we want to share with them. But I really do want to finish by thanking and acknowledging you, Member for Goldstein, for your advocacy on their behalf. I know it means a lot to them, but it means a lot to this House and it means a lot to this nation.

My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel. How has the Albanese Labor government improved the lives of Australian veterans? Is the minister aware of proposals that would leave veterans worse off?

I thank the hardworking member for Hasluck for her question and for her advocacy and engagement in the veteran community in her part of Perth and Western Australia. The Leader of the Opposition has been saying, 'Workers who provide government services are government waste.' He has been saying that he wants to cut 36,000 Public Service roles. But, when the Liberals left office, DVA was underresourced and there were some 42,000 veteran claims that were not even being looked at by the Department of Veterans' Affairs, which meant that veterans were waiting for years to have their claims processed.

The Albanese Labor government have engaged some additional 500 claims-processing staff in the Department of Veterans' Affairs. That's allowed us to make sure that veterans and families are able to get the entitlements that not only they need but they deserve and were not getting under the previous Liberal government. By properly resourcing the Department of Veterans' Affairs, veterans are receiving some $13 billion in benefits that they deserved but were not receiving under the previous government. Now new veteran claims are with DVA and being looked at by somebody within 14 days. Over the last 12 months, initial liability claims have been processed, on average, within just a few months. Back in the last financial year of the previous government, 2021-22, there were some 53,508 veteran claims determined. Compare that to the last financial year, 2023-24, where there were over 100,000 claims determined for veterans.

The Leader of the Opposition says that we need to look after our veterans but then also says that he wants to cut the vital staff that process their DVA claims, calling them 'waste'. Our priority is delivering services and support for those that have served our nation, not serving bosses long lunches at taxpayer expense. If the Leader of the Opposition thinks that DVA staff are waste, what then does he also think of our veterans? Under the Leader of the Opposition, Australian veterans will be worse off.

My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. I refer the minister to her previous answer. Will the minister rule out the future introduction of the federal environmental protection bill?

I thank the Leader of the Nationals for his question. It's pretty clear what our plan was. The legislation passed through the House of Representatives with the support of many of those on the crossbench and Labor. We introduced it into the Senate. We couldn't get it through the Senate. That's a shame. Many of us are very disappointed about that, but it hasn't gone through the Senate. It won't go through the Senate in this parliament. We have withdrawn it from the Notice Paper.

I think many Australians watching this debate would be very disappointed that this parliament couldn't do what everybody in this parliament acknowledges is necessary, which is sensible environmental law reform based on the report of Professor Graeme Samuel to the previous government. Professor Graeme Samuel was selected by the previous government to report on our environmental laws, and what did he find? He found that those laws are not working for business and they're not working for nature.

My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. What has the Albanese Labor government done to get rid of dodgy visa programs, and are there any proposals that would undermine the system?

The member for Barker is not to interject. There's no point pointing to someone else; I heard you interjecting. You may sit further away, but I can still hear you. Trust me. We're going to remain silent for this answer, because I want to hear what the Leader of the House has to say.

I want to thank the member for McEwen for raising what is an important issue. Soon after we came to office, my predecessor had commissioned the Nixon review. The Nixon review was presented to this government and found serious problems with the integrity of the visa system which we had inherited. It found that the visa system, as it had been administered by previous ministers, including the now Leader of the Opposition, had overseen mass exploitation of vulnerable individuals, as well as syndicates running brothels and engaging in sexual exploitation and even human trafficking. When you ask, 'Well, what was happening with compliance? We're hearing that some of the services that are provided by Australian workers need to be cut,' there's form there. You can guess which part of the workforce the cuts were made to in immigration. From 360 down to 203—that was in the compliance division.

There are different visas where you qualify in different ways. The fact that you are married might qualify you for a partner visa. The fact that you have particular skills might qualify you for a work visa. The way you qualify for a significant investor visa is that you have cash. That is how you qualify for that visa. So, when I use the term, I am not using the term in the sense of the Howard government scandals—a government the Leader of the Opposition was part of. The significant investor visa is a visa designed to be cash for visa.

We have seen the comments, some of which I read out the other day, from Magnitsky act founder Sir Bill Browder. Those opposite didn't like some of the comments that I read from him, so I'll read some different comments from him. He said, 'The Albanese government should hold firm on good policies that are in place for good reasons,' referring specifically to our abolition of the visa that the Leader of the Opposition wants to bring back. He went on to say:

The Magnitsky Act is designed to prevent kleptocrats and human rights violators from coming into the country, and now you have somebody who wants to propose a fast track for potential kleptocrats to come into the country—it makes no sense …

He went on to say:

As the rest of the world closes down these loopholes, Australia is going to get more of these people because they're not welcome elsewhere.

This level of reckless arrogance shows the twisted priorities we have seen just today. Today in an interview the Leader of the Opposition doubled down on wanting to bring back a discredited visa; he wanted today to divert police resources from an active investigation; and Senator Hughes has criticised for the first time a prime minister for being on the ground during a natural disaster. (Time expired)

This is a question for the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Small businesses in Wentworth are really struggling, and one of the main reasons is complex regulation that has gotten worse this term. Members of the crossbench wrote to the government about raising the threshold of the definition of 'small business' from 15 to 25 workers. Now, this isn't expected to cost $125 million, $1.6 billion or even $10 billion a year. Will the government support the implementation of this reasonable and measurable, practical policy that would support small business?

I thank the member for Wentworth for the question and acknowledge that the member for Wentworth has been relentless in advocating for small business, which has often caused us to have different views on my legislation. Some of the legislation that I introduced when I was the minister did not have a large number of small-business exemptions when it was introduced; by the time it went through the parliament, it did.

The question that the member for Wentworth goes to is whether the threshold as to how you define 'small business' in workplace relations legislation should be changed. There are a series of different definitions of 'small business' in different pieces of legislation, as most members are aware. What needs to be remembered when people have their own commonsense view of what a small business is is that, under workplace relations legislation, overwhelmingly, casuals are not counted in those figures. So, when you consider a workplace that has 16 employees, that may in fact represent a much larger workplace, and, if you were to take that to 25, there are a good number of workplaces—a very good number—particularly highly casualised workplaces, which no reasonable person would consider to be small businesses which would suddenly find the workforce there exempt from a whole lot of rights that this parliament has decided workers should have.

We want to make sure that we get the balance right in providing the distinction between acknowledging the different pressures that small businesses are under, particularly with paperwork, and making sure that the definitions are realistic, because every exemption carries two consequences. It does mean that those businesses have an easier compliance burden; that's true. But it does also mean that the workers who work there have fewer rights than they would have in another business. Making the change in definition is a very big step, and given the way many businesses are structured with respect to casuals—that's why we have not been supporting a change in that number.

My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. What action has the Albanese Labor government taken to tackle the public-health menace of vaping? Are there any other approaches to regulating tobacco and vaping that would leave Australians worse off, and how has the tobacco industry responded?

Thanks to my friend the member for Lalor for that question. She remembers that vaping was presented to our community and others around the world as a therapeutic device that would help hardened smokers kick the habit, but, years on, we now know that was all a lie. What big tobacco really wanted was to recruit a new generation to nicotine addiction and then to cigarettes, and the tragedy is that it has been working.

Over recent years the number of teenagers and young people in Australia vaping has absolutely exploded. They are ingesting hundreds of dangerous chemicals into their young lungs. We now know that a high school student who vapes is five times as likely to take up cigarettes. A 12-year-old who vapes, and there are a number of them, is 29 times as likely to take up cigarettes.

While the former government sat on their hands while this exploded around them, we were determined to act. Since then, we have seized millions of disposable vapes at the border, taking them out of the hands of young Australians. Vape stores have closed around the country, and we've conducted hundreds of joint operations with state governments to target those retailers who are still determined to breach the law.

But I know people are asking: what does this mean for vaping rates?

As our kids return to school, I'm pleased to report to Australia's parents, if not to this member, that we've turned the corner on vaping in this country. Last month, Sydney university reported the highest number of high-school students who have never vaped and never smoked that they'd ever seen in all of their research. Last week, a large yearly survey found that the number of young people in Australia vaping dropped by 30 per cent over the last 12 months. The number of people over 30 years old vaping has dropped by 50 per cent, and, amazingly, the number of kids suspended from school for vaping has plummeted by half.

It begs the question: why is the coalition so determined to roll back our laws and bring back the vapes? Well, at the same time we announced our determination to crack down on vaping, you wouldn't guess who emerged from the shadows and fired up their donations to the coalition again: British American Tobacco. Deirdre Chambers, what a coincidence! They have donated $360,000 over the last two years to the coalition, more than they donated in the past 18 years combined.

I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition can explain what all of this means to Australia's parents and Australia's school leavers. But I tell you this: in the meantime we'll be fighting big tobacco, not inviting them to dinner.

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

I present the Auditor-General's Audit report No. 22 of 2024-25, entitled Audits of the financial statements of Australian government entities for the period ended 30 June 2024.

Document made a parliamentary paper.

I present a letter regarding the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council annual report for 2023-24.

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

This Government's inaction and policy failure creating a housing crisis for Australians.

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 we've seen this week, there is a litany of failures from this government. All you need to do to know that is listen to some of the questions from earlier today on the increased costs, whether it's food, whether it's gas, whether it's electricity—indeed, every form of energy—or whether it's insurance. And we highlighted today, though the Treasurer seemed a bit hazy on the numbers, that rents are up significantly, by 17 per cent. You wonder what on earth has occurred over the last couple of years, or indeed what hasn't happened over the last three years of this Labor government, to lead us to this position.

I think the most stark statistic, the most stark data point, to highlight just how hopeless this government has been on housing is the question: how many homes have been built in this country as a direct result of an Albanese government policy or program? They've been in government for 990 days. They're onto their second minister, who ruined the Home Affairs portfolio and has continued that form in the Housing portfolio. It's been 990 days. We hear in question time and in press conferences, with hard hats and hi-vis, that the Albanese government wants to build more homes. How many homes is that after 990 days? To put it into some context: Australia needs to build a home every few minutes just to keep up with the more than one million migrants that have come into Australia as a result of this government jacking up our immigration program to levels we've never seen before. We need to build homes every few minutes. So, 990 days later, what would you think? How many thousands have been built? There must be tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands. After 990 days, this government is responsible for zero homes being built in this country. Not one home has been built in Australia as a result of a policy implemented or put forward by this government.

The days of the Labor Party and their flowery words—'We want to build more homes. We want to get rents down'—mean nothing when the outcome is what it is. We've seen rents up by 17 per cent. Again—surprise, surprise—when you bring in more than half a million migrants each year, competing for a dwindling supply of stock, what's that going to do? It's going to jack up prices. That's what we saw: rents up by 17 per cent. We've seen the Labor Party commit to 1.2 million homes over five years. I thought Utopia put an end to these sorts of things, to the very Rudd-esque grand proclamations of ambition, but, on the ambition of building 1.2 million homes, how are they tracking? Where are they on the journey to 1.2 million homes? I think most fair-minded people would say, if you're around the mark, you might be 20,000, 30,000 or 40,000 homes short. That's okay. We will give you points for trying. At least you're getting close to the so-called target of 1.2 million homes. A startling piece of information was released recently which shows that, according to the Master Builders Association, the Labor Party is not going to miss their target of 1.2 million homes by a smidge. They're not going to miss by a few thousand homes or tens of thousands of homes. They're going to miss it by 375,000 homes. They're going to be lucky to build 800,000 homes in five years.

To put that into some context, in the last five years of the coalition government, more than a million homes were built. In fact, Australia has regularly built more than a million homes in a five-year period. Not only does this government have the audacity to have the worst record on homebuilding, pushing into the ground of 800,000 homes, but they still are going along and perpetuating this idea that their 1.2 million homes guarantee or promise is alive. It's not alive; it's dead in the water. They're going to miss it by nearly 400,000 homes, with rents up, with fewer homes being built and with immigration at levels we have not seen at any time in Australia's history in raw terms—and I say that as the product of migrants; I come from a migrant family. We in the coalition are the stewards of a planned migration program in this country. But you cannot bring in more than 500,000 migrants with absolutely no idea of where they're going to live. That is what has happened under this government.

Now we see no discussion from the government on first home buyers at all. They have completely waved the white flag on homeownership. They are utterly unconcerned with a generation of Australians who quite rightly expect that they will have the same opportunities for homeownership that their parents had, that their grandparents had and so on and so forth.

We hear nothing out of the government on homeownership, although we do see something from the government on support for first home buyers. We see on a regular basis the Minister for Housing spruiking this little program called the Home Guarantee Scheme, which allows first home buyers to get into their first home with a deposit of as little as five per cent. It's a fantastic policy, because, without a policy like that, first home buyers would be required to save a full 20 per cent deposit before they are able to get into a home. We are massive supporters of that policy, because—guess what? It's our policy; we legislated it. The only policy the Minister for Housing is running around the country spruiking is a policy we took to the 2019 election that those opposite called 'socialism', which was an interesting critique coming from them! They were critical of the Home Guarantee Scheme to start with and now are running around the country trying to own it as their own. We're very flattered that the government is enthusiastically adopting the Home Guarantee Scheme, which I was very proud to legislate, implement and put together as housing minister. Success does have many fathers and mothers!

Every time the housing minister spruiks that program, it's a proud coalition achievement, because the coalition is the party of homeownership in this country. She is accepting that, quite frankly, if Australians want support for first home buyers, the coalition is the only place to go. We will continue to be the place to go, including by allowing first home buyers to get access to apportion up to $50,000 of their own superannuation to put towards that deposit. We know the deposit hurdle is one of the hardest things any prospective first home buyer faces. There's nothing that kills them more when they're struggling to pay their rent and bills, live through this cost-of-living crisis from the Labor Party and save a bit of money for that deposit than looking at their super balance and seeing that a portion of it could be put towards their deposit. We'll continue to support first home buyers, whether by allowing them access to a portion of their super—which then has to go back into their super at the end to protect their retirement savings—or whether it includes our housing infrastructure program, which will build 500,000 homes around Australia by investing in enabling infrastructure.

Of course, we reaffirm our commitment that, in the end, on this side of the House, we believe every single Australian should have an opportunity for homeownership. This government has betrayed those young Australians. This government has given up on those Australians, and I can assure young Australians who want to get into their own home: we have your back, and we'll be supporting you every day between now and the election.

For far too many Australians, especially younger Australians, the prospect of homeownership feels far away, and being a renter has never felt more insecure. I know that, if I'm driving around the suburbs any weekend in Melbourne, even in my electorate of Cooper, I'll see lines of young people queueing up to inspect a rental property. Much of the housing isn't adequate, either. Housing is mould infested, riddled with mice and doesn't have proper amenities like water and insulation. The rental market is so bad that you'll see tenants put up with those things. Looking at the faces of those queueing, it's apparent that the demographics of renters has changed. It's not just uni students; it's young professionals, middle-income earners and young families. Unless you've got the bank of mum and dad, you might be renting for your whole life.

Right now we've got a whole generation of Australians who are stuck in rent traps. They feel anger and despair that homeownership may never happen for them. Secure housing isn't just important for comfort and financial security. It's also important for your health. Poor housing is associated with a wide range of health conditions, including respiratory diseases like asthma, cardiovascular diseases, injuries and infectious disease, including TB, influenza and diarrhoea. It's also associated with poor mental health, which can cause physical stress to your body, especially to your nervous, cardiovascular, digestive, immune and respiratory systems.

The member who preceded me in this debate spoke very passionately about this, but the reality is the member and, indeed, those opposite ignore some pretty big facts. We know that a housing crisis doesn't just happen overnight. It creeps in like a home left to the elements. At first the cracks seem small: a loose tile here and there, a splintered floorboard and a creaky door. Then the roof begins to sag, the windows cloud with dust, and the rain seeps through, warping the very foundations of the house. Clothes are left to mould; forgotten photos lie shattered on the floor. The people who once occupied these houses are forgotten, and just as a house that is left to the elements fall apart from years of inaction, so, too, does a country's housing market that is left to rot by policies that fail to keep up with demand and that fail to support those who need it.

The coalition wax lyrical about their record. What a joke! For almost a decade, the coalition saw housing as an afterthought or really not their responsibility but rather that of the free market. They didn't have a housing minister for most of their time in office, and, even when they did, they didn't use their power to drive any sort of reform, failing to even hold a meeting of state and territory housing ministers in their last five years. To make things worse, the last coalition government left Labor with twin crises: building approvals at an almost-decade low and a skills deficit throughout the entire construction industry. They couldn't be bothered to build homes for the most vulnerable across our community, with social housing increasing by less than 10,000 homes over nine years, compared to 30,000 social homes over five years under the last Labor government.

Fundamentally, the coalition didn't think the Commonwealth government should invest in housing. 'Just let the market rip.' Impressively, this manufactured a new class divide, one between those who were able to get into the market early and those with some generational wealth, and everyone else, be it the poor, the middle-class, young professionals and young families or those fleeing domestic violence and women who have to restart after divorce. They, on that side of the House, voted against every one of our housing policies. The faux rage coming from that side is reprehensible. They don't care. They believe, if you can't afford to buy a house, it's your fault and it's not their problem to fix.

But after a house is neglected and left out in the elements to decay for the years, rendering itself uninhabitable, it can actually be returned to its former glory. It can again become a safe environment for those who need it—a please to live, a place to share with family, a place with security: a home. Just as a house can be saved, so, too, can a crisis be solved, but it takes more than a quick coat of paint. It means reinforcing the foundations with real investment in affordable and social housing, patching up broken policies that left people out in the cold and rebuilding trust that a home is more than a just an asset for wealthy investors. Piece by piece, brick by brick, a house can be made whole again, and, unlike those opposite who sat there doing nothing and let this crisis unfold, Labor is doing the long, hard work to rebuild. We're looking both short and long term and for every type of person, renter and homebuyer. We want to revive the Australian dream—the Australian dream that those opposite left to rot.

So what is Labor doing? Led by our fabulous Minister for Housing, Clare O'Neil, we're delivering smaller deposits with our five per cent deposit program and smaller mortgages under our Help to Buy shared equity scheme, which, I want to point out again, those on that side voted against. We're working with states and territories to take stress out of renting with longer five-year leases, stronger tenant protections and the power to make your place your own with pets and your own pictures on the walls. We've halved the inflation rate with two budget surpluses to help bring interest rates down and take pressure off mortgage holders. But we know the long-term fix to housing is to build more homes in our cities, our suburbs and our regions. That's why we've started our big housing build—the largest in 70 years—with our $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund. We're building social housing, including for victims of domestic violence. We're training more tradies, building more infrastructure and directly investing in homes ourselves, as governments should do in a crisis. We're making sure there are affordable rentals for frontline workers and making repairs for maintenance and improvements to remote Indigenous housing. We're making sure that there is crisis and transitional housing for families fleeing domestic violence and housing for specialist services for our veterans at risk of homelessness.

I know that not everyone can feel it yet, but these changes are big. I think they paint a very stark picture between the coalition and us in this election, and Australians know it. They know that we do not want to go backwards to where only those with rich parents can afford to avoid living in a mould-infested apartment. We want prosperity and housing for all. We want the best things that come with having a house over your head and somewhere to call home, such as security and all those things that a house can provide. One of the best things this government is doing to make sure that Australians can get into a house and call it their own for their families is to see wages in this country go up for every single worker. It's because of our policies and because we have a fabulous Treasurer that we are seeing inflation going down. And, incredibly importantly, we are seeing unemployment dropping. Unemployment is low. If you think of these three things together—people getting jobs, people with decent wages and inflation going down—it's a recipe to ensure that people in this country can absolutely afford to buy a home and live in peace and security.

Homeownership is one of those issues that speaks to the very heart of the Australian dream—the dream of having a place to call your own. It's a source of pride. It provides safety and security for individuals and families and acts as the primary asset for family wealth creation. Under the Albanese government, that dream has now slipped out of reach. The minister gave us lots of poetry but not much policy. Labor's inaction and policy failures have created a housing crisis that's punishing young Australians. It's punishing low- and middle-income families, and it's punishing hardworking Australians who are striving to get ahead.

The statistics speak for themselves. Analysis from CoreLogic reveals that under the Albanese government, in my home city of Sydney, it now takes a year longer to save for a first home deposit than under the former coalition government. New dwelling numbers have also gone backwards under this government. In 2018, over 210,000 new dwellings were built in a single year. To reach that level again, we need to increase construction by 20 per cent. Labor's target of 1.2 million homes in five years has been criticised by housing experts, who agree with the coalition's predictions of a shortfall of at least 400,000 homes, and by Labor Premier Chris Minns, who says they just won't get there. This number highlights the complete failure of the Albanese government.

Under the former coalition government, there were more than one million commencements during the last five calendar years, from 2017 to 2021. At the same time, Labor's reckless policies on migration have further strained our already struggling housing market. Over the past two years, we've seen a net increase of almost one million new arrivals, with 446,000 additional migrants arriving in Australia in the 2023-24 financial year alone. Now, I'm for migration. We all know that migrants have enriched Australia and enriched our culture, but we can't keep bringing people into this country that we can't house. Labor has overshot its migration target, this time by an additional 50,600 migrants, and it has failed to keep the housing supply up. Not only does the Prime Minister have to explain where these people will live; the migration increase has significantly driven up the cost of housing and rent, further increasing inflation as Australians endure cost-of-living pain.

This government has no real plan to support homeownership, no real plan to help renters and no real plan to build the homes Australia desperately needs. But the housing crisis shouldn't just be viewed as statistics or an abstract policy failure. For millions of Australians who find themselves locked out of homeownership or trapped in rental stress, it's a daily struggle. That's why the coalition will act immediately to fix the housing crisis.

Over the past two years the coalition has been consulting with hundreds of local councils across Australia on the current housing constraints and practical ways to overcome these challenges. We know that one of the major obstacles for housing projects is the lack of funding for critical enabling infrastructure. Therefore we will, on a time limited basis, unlock necessary new housing supply and keep the Australian dream alive. We'll do this by investing in shovel-ready infrastructure, committing $5 billion to get these projects moving, and unlocking more than half a million homes delivered through a mixture of concessional loans and grants. We'll further rebalance the migration scheme in Australia by reducing the permanent migration program by 25 per cent over this period and implementing a two-year ban on foreign investors and temporary residents purchasing existing homes. Migration and foreign ownership outpacing the construction of new homes can no longer continue if we want to give Australians a chance of owning their own home.

The coalition has recommitted to assisting first home buyers, allowing them to access up to $50,000 of their superannuation through the Super Home Buyer Scheme. This would allow a first home buyer's super to work for them, achieving the best of both worlds—homeownership and retirement security. It's real solutions like this that have the ability to give Australians back the dream of homeownership.

In my electorate of Berowra, the coalition's policy will provide individuals with the opportunity to purchase a $515,000 unit in Epping or a $540,000 apartment in Hornsby that otherwise may be out of reach as they try to juggle the increasing rents and energy prices seen under this government. Countless times I've heard from families in my community who are worried about homeownership, including parents watching their children moving out of the area and, in some cases, out of Sydney due to being locked out of the housing market. This isn't acceptable. As I've said, only the coalition has a plan to bring the Australian dream back into reach. It's only the coalition that will stand up for families in Berowra and across Australia who dream of homeownership but feel like it's slipping out of reach, and it's only the coalition who will take action where Labor has failed. Only the coalition government will allow people to realise their dreams of homeownership.

There are some problems that this place deals with that are complex and require special, concerted effort, and housing is one of those. It's a problem with supply-and-demand issues. It's a problem with workforce challenges. It's a problem which requires action at all levels of government and in the private sector. There are some problems that this place deals with that are long lasting and that evolve over long periods of time, as the first speaker on this side pointed out. And, again, housing is one of those.

Housing has characteristics that have evolved over decades—decades of inaction at various levels of government, decades of underinvestment and decades of supply-side challenges. When we deal with problems of this nature, the Australian public expects serious responses from this chamber, serious responses from the national parliament and bipartisan approaches. What I'm going to argue is that, when one looks at the two sides of this chamber and at the two offerings that are going to be put forward at the next election, one of them is a serious, genuine policy offering which we've seen evolve over the last three years, and the other is cynical politics. One is based on serious policy development, and the other is based on non-serious, populist offerings that no serious commentators support.

Let me first look at the issue of those that are most challenged in the current market—first home buyers. This government has put forward targeted schemes like Help to Buy and the Home Guarantee Scheme, which help first home buyers pull together a house purchase even when they're struggling to pull together the deposit and which put first home buyers in a better position even when they don't have enough equity to put the transaction together. These are policy offerings which will assist hundreds of thousands of households over the next three years. What we have from those opposite is cynical politics, having voted against every single program that this government has put forward.

In addition to that, what we have been offered from those opposite are non-serious, cynical, populist politics which are not supported by any serious commentators. The early release of superannuation, which is their central offering to help first home buyers, isn't supported by a single serious macroeconomist. It will not do a single thing to build an extra home, and it will only bid up the price of existing homes in a way that will not help first home buyers at all. In addition to that, it will undermine one of the key policy rationales of our superannuation system, preservation, in a way that will make it all the more difficult to satisfy our long-term attempts to deal with the ageing of our society. Those opposite don't have a serious offering and, in a cynical, political way, have stood in the way of everything that this government has put forward.

Let's look at other key supply-side measures, such as the Housing Australia Future Fund. We have invested $32 billion of funds in a range of measures, such as the Social Housing Accelerator and all of the investments in the last mile. All of these measures are opposed by those opposite, who are delaying the implementation of critical schemes which have been absolutely important to increasing supply of housing in this country. At the same time, those opposite are intimating that they're going to be cutting public sector resources all over the place, but in an incredibly dishonest and cynical way. They're not saying where they're going to cut. They're intimating that the Housing Australia Future Fund is going to be hollowed out and intimating that all sorts of other schemes to support housing supply are going to be cut, but without giving any details. So they've blocked the passage of our legislation and now, at the next election, are strongly intimating that they're going to be cutting further funds.

Another critical supply-side measure from this side has been free TAFE for those wanting to enter the trades. Thirty-five thousand people entering the trades is a key supply-side measure, with all of the key players in this sector agreeing that workforce issues over the last few decades have been a key hindrance. Those opposite, again, reject that measure and attack any measure to help reduce the barriers to participation in TAFE by saying, 'If you don't pay for something, you don't value it.' Those opposite, with this complex issue, have offered nothing. (Time expired)

I was present in the chamber just now when I heard the member for Fraser say a number of, frankly, quite outrageous statements. He has described our housing policies, which we have released well and truly before the next election, as 'populist politics'. I say that—and I'm going to talk about our policies—this is a very interesting statement, coming from a member of a government that has completely failed on housing policy. If nothing else, the failure on housing policy completely demonstrates that the Albanese Labor government stands for nothing and has not addressed any of the crucial elements that really affect and matter in the lives of Australians. Homeownership is one of those. If, over on that side, they were serious about really addressing housing affordability, they would have looked at our policies and agreed to them, or at least had a bipartisan approach, as the member for Fraser has just said.

I know that there are many members of this government—and I have been in this chamber when they've said it—particularly the female members, who have said how important it is that we get housing for older women, for women who are fleeing domestic violence or for women who, for example, are going through a grey divorce. These are women who have never earnt a lot of money in their lives. They get divorced, often in their 50s or 60s, and end up in a divorce settlement, often with a matrimonial home and a large mortgage and a very small superannuation pool, but their former partner walks away with significantly more superannuation. We know that because there are many members—and I'm one of them—in this place who have spoken, over and over again, about the complete gender inequity in superannuation. So I know that this is an area of real interest and real concern to those on the other side. It really is.

I also note that the Prime Minister has been very proud of the fact that he grew up in social housing with a single mother. He has now risen to be the leader of our country and, as a result, has been able to afford his own home. I commend that. That is the exact example of what he, as the Prime Minister, should be aspiring to for all Australians. That is certainly what we on this side of the House aspire to—superannuation being released to assist with first home buyers. We've made it very clear that it will be capped at $50,000 and that, if the house is sold, it is then repaid into superannuation. We are committed to superannuation; since it was introduced by a Labor government back in the late eighties or early nineties, we on this side of the House have always been committed to compulsory superannuation. However, at the end of the day, that superannuation is still our money; it's not the government's money.

Women who are fleeing domestic violence and women who have ended up in divorces where they have significantly smaller assets than their husbands—we all know those women; those women are our friends, those women live in our electorates and those women have been talking to me when I've been out doorknocking—will be able to access some superannuation. They will be able to access up to $300,000, if they have it. Remember that most Australian women don't have $300,000 in their superannuation accounts, but they will be able to access that money to purchase a home, even if it is not the first home that they've ever purchased in their lives. In that way, we are demonstrating that we are absolutely committed in relation to the inequity that is there for women, particularly older women, with those lower superannuation bases. And I'll just say this, very quickly, on that issue: with superannuation today, self-managed funds can invest in commercial property and they can invest in retail property. Why can't we use our own money to invest in a house to live in?

Having been in this House for just over 2½ years now, I know that much of the work that happens here is really important and very serious but also that much of it is performative. And that is what we have had here in this debate. Housing affordability is certainly a matter of public importance, but this debate is purely performative. We know that. Those opposite not only failed to help with housing affordability when they were in government for nine years but also failed to back key measures that we've introduced to help with housing affordability. If you take that as a whole—they failed to act when they were in government and failed to back bills that we've introduced to help with housing affordability—then what can we surmise about this debate? It is purely performative. They are not here to have a serious discussion about what we should be doing to help with housing and affordability.

Let's look at the two policies that they are bringing forward: one is to assist in providing additional funding for supporting infrastructure—no additional funds to build the homes, mind you—and the other is to get people to raid their super funds, their retirement incomes. These are the two policies that they've brought forward. As with all other things from those opposite, they always sit on their hands when there's an opportunity to actually do something. With the cost of living, did they back a tax cut for all Australian taxpayers? No. Did they back cheaper energy bills? No. What have they backed? Lunches for bosses. And we are reminded of the mantra that they use over and over again: if you don't pay for it, you don't value it. They've demonstrated, with their actions when they were in government for nine years and their actions now, that they also don't value housing affordability—helping Australians to get into homes. They didn't back our $10 billion housing affordability future fund.

I note that the previous member talked about homelessness for women, particularly older women. I'll tell you what will help those older women into homes. It's the Housing Australia Future Fund. That fund will be building 30,000 homes, and 4,000 of those homes are going to be set aside for vulnerable women. That is the practical help you can provide as a government—actually building homes for vulnerable older women.

We know that there is a housing affordability crisis. I know it acutely because I live in Sydney. Sydney is considered the second-least affordable housing market in the world, behind Hong Kong. It's a challenge for Sydneysiders. I hear about in my electorate. But it hasn't always been this way, so we have to ask the question: how did we get here? We got here not because of the actions of this government; we got here because there has been a failure by coalition governments at the federal and state levels to take this problem seriously. Housing unaffordability does not spring up overnight. It brews and brews for years and years. Part of the problem is supply. Part of the problem is getting more people to build those homes. Part of the problem is getting appropriate infrastructure. But it is, unfortunately, a perfect storm that has been brewing for a really long time.

We have, unfortunately, had a coalition government that has been completely uninterested in trying to solve it. I'm glad that I'm now part of an Albanese Labor government that is addressing it head-on. While the coalition has spent this entire parliament blocking the Labor government's plan to get thousands of Australians into their own homes, Labor has a simple belief, and that is that ordinary Australians should be able to own their own homes. We're helping more people buy their first homes with smaller deposits through the Home Guarantee Scheme and with smaller mortgages under our Help To Buy Scheme. These programs will help thousands of people get into their own homes sooner. The key part of this is to build more homes. As I said, that is our No. 1 priority—to build more homes.

I've just heard members opposite pledge that they want to build more homes in Australia. Talk is cheap. You can have the best policy in the world, but unless you provide the money and the approvals, you'll never build a house. I will give you three examples of how committed Labor really is to building homes, particularly in the regions.

The first one is the Valla Urban Growth Area. The overview is that 700 residential dwellings, 150 industrial lots and 100 business premises are planned. A school and a retirement village are included in the plans. It's ready to go. It's expected to support up to 1,500 jobs and boost local employment opportunities. There's $17 million allocated by Nambucca Valley Council. There's $10 million that has been allocated by previous federal and state coalition governments. There will be the creation of a self-sufficient community with residential, commercial and industrial zones; the development of a new town centre and shop services; employment opportunities; and provision of recreational spaces, both passive and active, with a natural environment. How do you think it went under Labor's Regional Precincts and Partnership Program? It was rejected. That's 700 homes rejected. Availability of rentals in this area is less than one per cent, and Labor say, 'We want to build homes.' Sorry—rejected.

The second example is in Coffs Harbour, and I'm sure Labor will support this because it goes towards social and affordable housing. The Argyll estate was initially designed to provide affordable housing options in Coffs Harbour, addressing housing shortages and supporting community growth. The redevelopment aimed to transform the estate into a mixed-use residential community, integrating social and private housing to meet diverse housing demands. The estate was included under housing programs jointly funded by the federal and state governments, aimed at boosting social housing stock. There was $40 million allocated for the redevelopment of the Argyll estate, focusing on increasing social housing units while integrating modern infrastructure. The redevelopment plans initially targeted the creation of nearly 500 homes. What do you think happened when Labor got into federal government and state government? What do you think happened to that $40 million funding? It got swept. The project was canned.

They are two projects in my electorate that have been canned by Labor—1,200 homes. That is Labor's commitment to building homes in the regions. How's that for commitment? You can have as much policy as you like, and words are cheap if you don't follow through.

The third one—and I find this the most offensive one—is Watson Place, Bellingen. There was $5 million committed by the coalition state government and $5 million committed by the coalition federal government. An old rundown aged-care facility was committed by the Royal Freemasons Benevolent Institution. They planned 40 one-bedroom and two-bedroom units for women over 55 suffering domestic violence or homelessness. Because of COVID and costs going up, because of the increases, they needed an additional $6 million to build those 40 one-bedroom and two-bedroom units. We asked. What was the response?

Surely yes.

Well, you'd think surely yes. It was: 'No. We will not give you a measly $6 million to go towards providing a roof over the heads of women over 55 facing homelessness and domestic violence.' So what happened? They had to reduce it from 40 to 23. There are 17 women over the age of 55 out there at the moment who don't have a roof over their heads because of Labor's policy.

Everyone should have access to a house. That is true, and I think that that's something everyone on both sides of this House recognises. One of the things you have to also have a look at is megatrends, the way that things happen over a period of time, and how long it takes to change some megatrends. The truth is the coalition government weren't really interested in housing. In fact, I think it was the Abbott government who got rid of the housing minister, because the fundamental thing is they don't really care about housing.

The thing I would say is that when the Albanese government took over we stepped into, I'm going to say, multiple crises happening at once. We have a plan, and the plan will take time, but this is something that we're actively working on. This is something that will actually work. This is something the federal government should be looking at.

There are so many reasons why we are in this situation at the moment. If we have a look at the policy details that have been released by the coalition, I think the member for Reid was saying not one single dollar will go from the coalition to actually build a house. I'm sorry, but Australians are pretty clever, and they know if a federal government is serious about housing they're actually going to put dollars into bricks and mortar, as opposed to this other made-up stuff where you've got to do it out of your retirement funds, which is—

Crazy talk!

Exactly—crazy talk. Last year, I remember, the member for Deakin said that if he were the federal housing minister he would 'cut out state governments where possible within the constraints of the Constitution'. Cut them out, not work with them to find a solution—that's his plan. Let's not forget what else he said. In 2021, when he was actually the housing minister, he said it was not up to him to fix the housing crisis.

A government member: Oh! What was he doing?

Oh! It sounds like a theme: 'not my job, not my job'. Instead, he placed the responsibility on the state governments. So which is it? Are the states in or out? Is it his job, is it not his job—who knows? His position is muddled, just like this motion. What is clear, however, is that we have a federal shadow housing minister who's more interested in creating obstacles than in building homes—a blocker, not a builder. Do you know what? I do like blocks, but I don't like blockers. Because of the Liberals' failed policies, too many Australians are now facing serious housing challenges. What's his response? He wants to cut the states out of the solution. Let's not forget that those opposite didn't even have a dedicated housing minister for most of their time in office.

Labor are different. We have built a strong partnership with the states. We have convened eight ministerial councils with the state and territory housing ministers. We have delivered real, tangible solutions. We are investing in 55,000 social and affordable homes, more than the previous government built during their entire time in office. In Western Australia, 1,800 new homes will be built in communities in my electorate of Swan—in Redcliffe, Rivervale and Cannington. We're taking action because we know we achieve more by working together. We are doing what we were elected to do: build homes and build them quickly. We are building them in more parts of the country so that more Australians can achieve their dream of homeownership.

We're working in partnership with the states and territories, not fostering division and blame—although I know that those opposite are totally addicted to division—because what actually matters is building more homes, not political pointscoring. The member for Deakin may be an expert in the blame game, but he's shown that he's not an expert in housing policy. In contrast, we are fixing the mess. We have increased Commonwealth rent assistance and we have an ambitious and historic reform plan—the most significant changes to housing policy in a generation. Right now, Australia needs Labor. We back battlers.

The member for Swan said Labor has a plan and also talked about accountability. Well, right now we've got a Labor federal government and almost wall-to-wall Labor governments across our states, and, sadly, a plan is not good enough for everyday Australians. Australians are sick of plans. They want and need action.

I'm reminded of what Mike Tyson said: 'Everyone's got a plan until they're punched in the face.' The Australian economy has punched this government squarely in the face. Why? Once, more than half of all adults under 29 owned homes in Australia—half, 50 per cent. That number has now plummeted to less than 30 per cent. This government's inaction now has Australians fearing for their future. It has Australians fearing for their children's future. We have a crisis that has stolen hope from Australians, a crisis that's leading Australians to skip meals.

Of course Aussies want to own their homes—even renters. Even though we're addicted to the build-to-rent scheme, 94 per cent of renters aspire to owning their own home. So why aren't we delivering what these people want? Instead of delivering them hopeless build-to-rent schemes, why don't we give them pathways to actually purchasing their own homes?

So what's gone wrong? House prices have not kept up with wages. In Cook I hear heartbreaking stories all the time. Just last month I heard a story of two teachers who could no longer afford to live in my electorate and so were packing up and moving their family. They're moving away from their parents. It's not funny. I see people smiling over there. This is not funny. They were not laughing when they came to see me about having to move away from their parents and their jobs because they couldn't afford their home loan.

The member for Hasluck!

No-one in my electorate is laughing about that, and I'd encourage the member for Hasluck not to laugh either.

This problem has only got worse under your government. Since Anthony Albanese came to power, the average cost of a mortgage—

Member for Cook, just a moment. If you direct your comments through me and the member for Hasluck stops the interjections, we might actually get this debate going.

I'd love for the interjections to stop. The problem has got worse since Mr Albanese came to government. The average mortgage has increased $50,000 a year. Rents are 17 per cent up. They're paying 17 per cent more, yet they want to own their own home. House prices are up by double digits as well, and the inflationary spending of this government is keeping interest rates high, piling on the pain to everyday Aussies. Housing is up 13.5 per cent, but what has happened to real disposable income? That family that came to see me about moving to WA because they could no longer afford their mortgage—well, their disposable income is down nine per cent. That means they've got nine per cent less to spend on groceries, nine per cent less to spend on food, nine per cent less to spend on insurance. They've got nine per cent less to spend, yet food is up 12 per cent, insurance is up 17 per cent and gas is up 34 per cent.

In the middle of a housing crisis, when not enough Aussies can get to own homes, what has happened? We have abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission. And what's happened to construction costs? They are sky high. We've let 1.6 million people into Australia in the middle of a housing crisis. We have the fastest growth in immigration since 1952. According to the Master Builders Association, there are 3,605 small construction businesses in my electorate who are struggling, many hitting the wall. In the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, in the middle of a housing crisis, when we should be building more, these construction companies are going broke.

The coalition has a plan to address this national crisis, and it will: super for housing. We will let first home buyers put $50,000 of their money towards their own home. Yes, it's their money. I know it's news to those across the floor, but super is their money, and we'll let them put it towards their homes. We'll put a ban on foreign investors and temporary residents purchasing homes in Australia. We will reduce the permanent migration program by 25 per cent because we know that will reduce demand for housing. Do those on the other side want to keep that going up? Do you want those people to outcompete Australians for homes? I assume that's a yes. Not only will we do that; we will also ensure we have enough temporary skilled visas and workers to come in and build these homes. Lastly, we will invest $5 billion to unlock 500,000 new homes to get this country moving again.

The member for Deakin, the member for Dickson and the member for Cook must all think Australian voters were born yesterday. They come into this place and expect Australians to completely forget their complicity in the creation of all the policy mess that this Albanese Labor government has been working steadfastly to fix. In housing there was a decade of lost opportunity. If Labor had been in office in those lost years, we might not have any housing crisis today. In 2013 we had a housing and homelessness minister—a full minister in cabinet. Then the Liberals and Nationals came into the office and, unfortunately, demonstrated their absolute, utter lack of commitment to housing and their lack of commitment to addressing homelessness. They demonstrated how little they actually cared by not even having a minister—not even an assistant minister, not even an envoy. No-one held on to housing in the Liberal and National parties while they were in government from 2013. They did not even in 2014. In 2015, no, they still didn't think it was important. They didn't even in 2016. Not even in 2017 did they think we needed to have regard to housing and homelessness. They didn't even in 2018.

Only towards the end did they actually start having regard to it, because the research was confronting. But they still didn't care. Had the coalition thought, in 2019, when the member for Deakin assumed that portfolio, that something akin to having a housing Australia future fund, a help-to-buy scheme or efforts to train more tradies would actually help to address the construction workflows to build more houses—perhaps if he had actually thought about it then and done something—we wouldn't be in the position that we are today. But he didn't. They didn't give it any regard or thought. Consequently, they ripped out $3 billion from TAFE, from the educational institutions that actually create the skill pathways to housing—the trades and skills needed to ensure people have a roof over their head. They ripped $3 billion from TAFE. Imagine how long it takes to build a house today because of the lack of skilled workers in the workplace.

Labor recognised that, and we acted on it very early on. We have yet again passed more legislation to put that investment into TAFE to ensure that we have the trades that are needed to build our homes for the future. Already 32,000 people have signed up for the free TAFE places, and there has been a 32 per cent increase in people working to complete their apprenticeships. But houses take time. I don't know where the member for Cook or the member for Deakin lives, but I know that where I live, in Hasluck, it can take three years to build a home.

We passed the Housing Australia Future Fund Act in the middle of 2023. Unfortunately, the Liberals cared so little about this matter that they continued to block it, but we finally got it passed. I don't think we're going to get a house built in six months, sadly, but investments are coming through from that. We have $32 billion locked away in order to make sure there's a housing future for all. There's $19 billion specifically for housing in the middle of a housing crisis. We've helped 140,000 people with lower mortgage deposits, double what the former government was ever able to achieve. We are investing in 55,000 social and affordable homes, including in an area of Bassendean right opposite the train station. It's going to be super accessible, mixed-residential housing.

These are the kinds of investments and opportunities that we see for everyone, not just the few that are focused on investment portfolios. I note that the member for Dixon is quickly selling off his private portfolio and shoving it into a trust instead, so he can avoid scrutiny. He's not about first home buyers. That's why they're telling people to call on their super. Young people taking $50,000 out of their super? You show me a 20-year-old who's got $50,000 in superannuation, and then we can start talking about what a serious policy looks like. It's absolute nonsense to ask young people to pinch from Peter to pay Paul, robbing their future prospects to be able to get a roof over their heads today.

We're not about that. This party is about fairness. We're about accessibility and affordability in these areas of policy, working to ensure housing is available to all Australians, not just a few. To this end, because of the importance of building homes, we are granting visas for construction workers. Unlike the member for Cook, we know that this is going to take a collaborative effort, thanks to the mess that they left this country with.

The time for this discussion has now concluded.

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

The question before the House is that the bill be read a second time.

I present an addendum to the explanatory memorandum.

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

All Australians, regardless of their occupation or how they're engaged, have a right to healthy and safe work. The rapid emergence of new cases of accelerated silicosis, particularly amongst those working with engineered stone, is of deep concern.

The coalition has been aware of this for some time. The previous government took action. Back in 2019, it established the National Dust Disease Taskforce, as part of a $5 million election commitment, to investigate the growing number of silicosis cases in individuals working in the engineered stone industry and develop a national approach for the prevention, early identification, control and management of occupational dust diseases in Australia.

In establishing the taskforce, we committed $5.1 million to support the work of the taskforce, including funding for new research to better understand, prevent and treat preventable occupational lung diseases. This is a really serious concern affecting many workers, and that's why we support this Customs Amendment (Expedited Seizure and Disposal of Engineered Stone) Bill 2024.

The purpose of the amendment is to amend the Customs Act of 1901, to allow for the expedited seizure and disposal of prohibited engineered stone benchtops, panels and slabs, because of the engineered stone products that are imported into Australia. To support the domestic use prohibition, a ban on the importation of engineered stone came into effect this year, through changes to the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956. To support the proposed amendments of the prohibited imports regulations this bill contains amendments to the Customs Act that will enhance seizure and disposal powers and support the Australian Border Force to effectively administer and manage engineered stone goods at the border, once the import prohibition commences.

This is important legislation because it will protect Australian workers. One of the most important things for people is their health. All workers should be able to go and earn a day's wage, doing their job, vocation, profession or whatever it may be, and not be concerned about incurring serious injury or health challenges as a result of the work. That's why we support this bill. That's why we're keen to see it through. The purpose of it is to protect Australian workers.

I'm proud to continue to speak and advocate for the end of the use of engineered stone in this country. This legislation is another step to protect Australian workers. The Albanese Labor government believes that every Australian should have the right to go to work and return home safely. A big part of this is making sure Australian workers are protected from the risks of life-threatening diseases.

This government has taken massive steps to protect Australian workers from the harms of working with engineered stone and the resulting silicosis and silica related diseases. We have seen the dangers and long-lasting consequences workers can have from working with this product and, while we have made domestic changes, this Customs Amendment (Expedited Seizure and Disposal of Engineered Stone) Bill 2024 gives the Australian government methods to dispose of engineered stone effectively.

It prevents a gap that businesses who don't care much for their workers could exploit by importing these materials into this country, leaving the average working Australian and their loved ones vulnerable to the effects of the associated dangerous diseases. Along with my colleagues, I have met people who have been impacted directly by this dreadful disease, throughout this and the last term of parliament. I have listened to workers who have seen friends and families impacted by this insidious disease firsthand. I have also met and listened to workers who are suffering with the disease that affects their lungs.

I'm passionate for this essential change because, when the delegation from the Australian Council of Trade Unions came into my office to share their stories, it became pretty clear that this epidemic of work related diseases was having a devastating impact across Australian communities. The story that I remember very strongly was one from Joanna. After returning from maternity leave, Joanna was asked to undergo a fit-for-work test. The test result changed her life, and not in a good way. The 34-year-old mother of two girls was diagnosed with silicosis. When she talked about it in my office, she explained how the unknown was the terrifying part. There is no cure and there are no clear steps to show how the illness will progress. How could she be fine for the rest of her life and have a rapid decline in her standard of living? She said: 'At the moment I feel healthy, but I don't know if that will be the case in one year, let alone five years or 10 years. For a young mum of two kids, that terrifies me.'

Debate interrupted.

It's story time. Do you want an example of the blatant power exerted by giant mining corporations over our political system? Labor gets elected in 2022, promising to fix Australia's broken environmental laws. The Greens are in the balance of power in the Senate. There's a lot of negotiation, and, by late last year, a positive agreement was struck between the Greens and the environment minister. It's not perfect, but there is give and take on both sides, and it's a step forward. The mining corporations and their staunch ally, the WA Labor Premier, catch wind of this agreement. They lobby—hard—literally calling the Prime Minister to tell him to drop it. At the eleventh hour, the Prime Minister overrides his own environment minister and rips up the agreement she struck. This week, Labor officially withdrew the bill, and environment law is dead for this term of parliament. Meanwhile, Townsville and Ingham flood catastrophically just five years after their last once-in-a-century floods. This is climate change. Meanwhile, we're destroying natural habitats at record rates, threatening more species' extinction every year. When the Leader of the Opposition is all in with Trump's 'drill baby drill' attitude, what hope is there if Labor isn't willing to stand up to mining corporations? That's why the Greens are here.

Let's dig into the donations data a bit more. Santos, a massive gas corporation—$71,000 to the Labor Party and $37,500 to the Liberals in donations; $6.3 billion income and no tax paid. Mineral Resources, a huge mining company—$76,000 to the Liberals and $55,000 to the ALP; $5.6 billion in income and no tax paid. Adani Mining, a multinational coal corporation—$66,000 to a Nationals associated entity in donations, previously donated to Labor and the LNP directly; 115 million in income and no tax paid. Do you see a pattern here? Thirty-one per cent of corporations in Australia pay no tax. It's not just mining. Star Entertainment has donated almost $100,000 since 2020 to the ALP national and Queensland branches—no tax paid. Transurban, the toll-road operator, paid no tax in the last financial year. They donated almost the exact amount, around $30,000, to both major parties in 2021-22 and 2022-23. These companies, all ripping Australians off, are topping the charts for donations to Labor and the LNP, and the political system is serving their interests. They pay no tax while families are sleeping in their cars and tents, while 60 per cent of Australians put off seeing the dentist due to cost and while our next generation is saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in student debt. We need more Greens in parliament to stop the big corporations and billionaires buying our democracy.

This might be the last fortnight of parliament this term. I want to speak about something I've addressed many times before. Brisbane residents suffer some of the worst flight noise in the country. It's not an annoyance; it's a serious health issue with serious impacts. Interrupted sleep is a nightly occurrence for thousands of people in Brisbane. Flight noise has been inflicted directly by the shared policies of the major parties: refusing to legislate a curfew, prioritising aviation industry profits above all else, and privatising airlines and airports.

Labor and the LNP have refused to support my private member's bill that would extend the protections that Sydney Airport currently enjoys, a curfew, a cap on flights and a long-term operating plan to Brisbane. Labor and the LNP have voted against even considering a curfew at Brisbane Airport. Labor and the LNP also voted against transparency for Brisbane Airport's anti-curfew lobbying efforts. People affected by flight noise deserve so much better than Labor and the LNP—both so beholden to the aviation industry. The Greens got a Senate inquiry up that made 21 recommendations, got more flights over the water and brought this issue to the national stage. We're on the community's side, and we'll keep fighting for real, long-term solutions to aircraft noise.

My speech in the debate tonight is on a very special birthday that just passed: the 41st birthday of Medicare, an extraordinary social program that has changed the lives of millions of Australians. Since its introduction in 1984 by the Hawke Labor government, Medicare has transformed the lives of millions, ensuring that access to quality health care is not a privilege reserved for the wealthy but a fundamental right of all Australians. Medicare's journey began with a vision that no Australian should have to choose between their health and financial security. When the system was introduced under the Hawke government, it faced significant political and ideological opposition, yet the idea behind it was simple—that health care should be available to all, regardless of income, social status or geographic location.

Prior to Medicare, access to health care in Australia was largely dependent on private insurance or personal financial means. A lengthy hospital stay before Medicare could cause significant financial distress for people on low or no income. If you could afford private insurance, depending on how long you paid for it, it could run out during your hospital stay. The establishment of Medicare was a bold and necessary step towards eliminating these disparities, and change the healthcare system it certainly did. It ensured every Australian and permanent resident had access to essential healthcare services and necessary treatments without the financial burden.

One of the greatest strengths of Medicare is bulk-billing for GPs. This has made primary health care more accessible, particularly for vulnerable populations such as the elderly, students, and low-income families. Medicare also plays a crucial role in funding Australia's public hospitals, ensuring that emergency and essential medical services are available to all. Public hospitals provide world-class care, from life-saving surgeries to chronic disease management, without the financial stress that often accompanies private health care in other nations.

Alongside Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme ensures that Australians have affordable access to necessary medications. For many people in my country living with chronic conditions, life-saving drugs available on the PBS at a fraction of their actual cost are literally crucial for their survival, preventing financial hardship for those with chronic illness and other serious health conditions.

This is a government that values Medicare and the health of all Australians. The Albanese Labor government is continuing to improve our health system, strengthening Medicare, easing cost-of-living pressures with cheaper medicines and embedding new mental health services in Medicare. Just yesterday there was a phenomenal announcement of the delivery of an additional $1.7 billion to fund public hospitals and health services next year. This funding will be delivered to states and territories to help cut waiting lists, reducing waiting times in emergency rooms and managing ramping. We have built 87 Medicare urgent care clinics, relieving pressure on emergency rooms and helping people seeking care when their GPs are closed. These clinics are open from 8 am until 10 pm, Monday through to Sunday, providing access to medical support that doesn't clog up the hospital system—and all you need is your Medicare card.

My community is fortunate. We have the Frankston Medicare Urgent Care Clinic, which I've been working hard to promote to make sure local people in Dunkley are aware of it. There have been nearly 27,000 visits to this clinic in Frankston as of 13 January 2024. We have invested record amounts into bulk-billing and created an additional 103,000 bulk-billed visits to the GP every week, on average, or 5.4 million additional bulk-billed visits since November 2023. This means there have been an additional 36,000 bulk-billed visits to GPs in Dunkley as a result of our tripling of the bulk-billing incentive.

Before I begin, Speaker, let me tell you how excited the people of Mallee are that you will be joining us in the wonderful north-west of Victoria, visiting our schools and encouraging everyone to engage in our incredible democracy. Regardless of which chapter it might be in your storied career as Speaker, we cannot wait for you to join us in tropical north Victoria. Time won't permit us to take you to all four corners of the wonderful Mallee electorate, but I am sure that, in Sunraysia, you will put on quite a show.

Speaker, it may disappoint you to learn that there is a little grumbling about the Albanese Labor government in Mallee, not least from some of its mayors—you won't meet any of those, so it's okay! It's shocking, I know, but it's true. The Labor government recently announced the successful recipients of the Housing Support Program, and guess how much support Mallee got? None—not a cracker. Yarriambiack Shire mayor Kylie Zanker was gutted, telling the local media:

As a Mayor to say our council is disappointed is an understatement. We work restlessly on funding applications and to miss out again is just heartbreaking. We submit quality applications investing time and money on consultants to assist to ensure our applications are of the highest standard and to be unsuccessful is devastating. Four quality projects across Yarriambiack and not one funded. Our communities deserve so much more than the zero that is being delivered.

I have to underline that money was invested in applications. I have 12 shires in my Mallee electorate, when many metropolitan electorates have just one or two. Our councils have very low rate bases. They make a judgement call to invest in the resources to make an application, and a key factor in that decision is how critical it is for their residents. Yarriambiack Shire made four housing applications and got zip, zilch, nada.

It may horrify you, Speaker, to hear that, comparing the last three years under a coalition government to these three years of the Albanese Labor government, the difference in federal spending in my electorate is a factor of 20 to one. In my first three years, $2 billion was delivered in the electorate of Mallee. Since Labor have been in, there has been just $100 million across 12 shires. It's appalling—so much so that the Mildura Rural City Council in my home town also hit out about missing out again under Labor's Growing Regions Program. If we get the chance, Speaker, I might take you out to the Mildura Sporting Precinct for a kick of the footy or perhaps to shoot some hoops—you can do that! The coalition put $17.5 million into the Mildura region in that project alone from the Building Better Regions Fund. It was amazing. Do you want to guess what they've had under Labor's replacement, the Growing Regions Program? Diddly squat.

New mayor Helen Healy told Wade Stephens of the SunraysiaDaily newspaper:

The application we submitted would have realised a whole host of major additional improvements to our riverfront precinct, and is certainly in line with the purpose of this program, so we're not only disappointed, but a little surprised.

The chief executive, Martin Hawson, added:

We'd also committed to a significant level of matching funding as part of our application, as this project would have provided numerous benefits for our community, particularly families. While this is obviously a setback, we're still committed to these improvements and will look at how much we can do with Council funding.

I have to say that that is very difficult in country electorates and country shires. They are really scrambling to find dollars to even fix roads. This is the can-do regional spirit at work. We crack on, getting the job done, but to say the Mallee electorate is looking longingly to a return of a coalition government would be an understatement.

I thank the member for Mallee and look forward to joining her in her electorate.

Services Australia employees deliver a raft of vital services to Australians, including so many across the communities in my electorate of Bean. Services Australia currently employs over 4,000 people in the ACT, with several workplaces in the electorate of Bean, including the Reed Street offices, the Caroline Chisholm Centre, the Louisa Lawson Building and the Bowes Street and Anketell Street service centres. All my Labor colleagues and I understand and value the contribution they are making to this nation every day.

For these reasons, I pay close attention to what those opposite have to say about this vital service delivery agency and the source of thousands of jobs in my community. We all know that during the coalition era of office, the staff resources of Services Australia were depleted, and under the Liberals it simply did not have the staff numbers to do its important role. It was left to Labor in office to provide Services Australia with the resources to do its job and for people across Australia to benefit from appropriate staff numbers and the enhanced outcomes that they deliver.

Needless to say, rebuilding the staff numbers to what they needed to be could not be done overnight. First, staff needed to be recruited and training undertaken. I am pleased that this Labor government has done this and that Australians are now in a position to reap the benefits of properly staffed Services Australia offices here and around the country. But the opposition leader has a plan to axe 36,000 Public Service jobs if he wins the next election. So far, the LNP has refused to identify which jobs they would target. But yesterday in the House of Representatives the member for Bradfield and the former Minister for Families and Social Services made it very clear that Services Australia jobs are at the top of the Liberals' hit list. In his speech to the House of Representatives, the member made a host of false claims about Services Australia and made it very clear the Liberals believe it's overstaffed and numbers need to be axed, harking back to the headcount that was in place when the Liberals were last in office.

In his speech, the member for Bradfield, of the staff increases this government has put in place, said:

Productivity has collapsed. Services Australia has more staff doing less work, processing fewer … claims. Service delivery outcomes have become worse.

Throughout his speech, the member for Bradfield condemns the increase in staffing numbers that have been put in place by the government and suggests that the extra hands have not only improved Services Australia but, in the Liberals' view, have made things worse. The Liberal view is:

Services Australia has more staff doing less work.

This is from the party of robodebt. This is from the party that puts algorithms before people. The motivation behind the Liberals' baseless political attack on Services Australia, its staff and the increases in the staff numbers this government has put in place is clear. By demonising Services Australia's increase in staff numbers, the Liberals are setting the scene to wield the axe on the jobs that Labor has put back into Services Australia.

This is bad news for all the Australians who rely on Services Australia—everyday Australians right across the nation and across my electorate of Bean and those Australians who count on those services being delivered in a professional and timely way. They will lose out when the Liberals axe jobs if they get their dream granted. The Liberals targeting Services Australia jobs is also bad for the Services Australia staff throughout Australia and for the 4,300 workers who are based in the electorate of Bean. Who will be next—employees in the Department of Veterans' Affairs, employees in the Department of Health and Aged Care and employees in Defence? Who will be next in the queue?

Come later this year, the choice will be clear. Australians can either support a conga line of Sir Lunchalots that will rip billions from critical public services or support a Labor government that values public sector workers and the services they deliver to support communities right across the nation—and so much of that work is led from my electorate of Bean.

I stand here as grateful today to be Bonner's representative in Canberra as I was in my first term. Bonner has changed a lot since the last election, and I have delivered 79 important upgrades for local community organisations, including 67 for volunteers. The notorious Lindum level rail crossing will be transformed by the $85 million that I secured to save lives and bring much-needed safety upgrades to this dangerous intersection. Whether it be through events like my youth mental health forum and my seniors expo or aiding vulnerable people who call my office, standing up for all members of our community at all times is always my priority.

A personal highlight of my year is attending the Indian food festival kindly hosted by the St George Indian Orthodox Church in Mackenzie. With over 100 volunteers, the local church fosters community and belonging in Bonner, particularly for those in Mackenzie, Rochedale, Wishart, Mansfield and Eight Mile Plains. The Indian orthodox church is just one of the 67 volunteer groups I was able to deliver for. They now have their very own ride-on mower to maintain their property grounds.

We also have a very active and lively Chinese community in Bonner. They are a large population in our electorate, and I want to acknowledge their valuable contribution to our community. Happy lunar new year to all who celebrate.

The last three years in particular have not come without challenges. As a community we rallied and overcame devastating floods in 2022 and brutal storms last Christmas, and we continue to fight natural disasters. But one of these stories is that of the Wynnum Wolves. In 2022 I stood knee high in water with president Rabieh Krayem, looking at an unrecognisable Carmichael Park. Having secured $4 million to assist in their rebuild earlier this year, again I stood shoulder to shoulder with Rabieh as he unveiled plans for their new state-of-the-art football facility.

The trust the community has placed in me is a privilege, and I'm determined to continue fighting for the values, aspirations and priorities that matter most to locals. That means easing the cost of living, reducing crime, improving housing affordability and delivering safer roads. And I'm fighting to unlock the potential of the groups who are already doing so much for our southern Brisbane and bayside areas.

Take Josh and Nic from AC Carina. They told me, 'The current lighting system at the AC Carina football field is in desperate need of an upgrade.' I'm proud to say that I share their vision to grow and provide new and improved facilities to meet the needs of our community. With increasing registrations, particularly from young women and girls, it's simply not safe nor efficient for the club to continue underutilising their grounds due to dark spots. I'm fighting for a $1.3 million upgrade to deliver a safe and more usable, functional facility for local parents, players and supporters at AC Carina.

I have a plan for the Mansfield State High School community. Mansfield is not only Queensland's largest state secondary school but also one of the state's highest performing schools. Principal Tanks cares deeply for every student and family represented at the school, and she is doing an outstanding job. It matters to me that all Bonner students have access to opportunities to excel in their passions now and for years to come. This $4½ million multipurpose facility will equip Mansfield State High School, the P&C and the wider community with much-needed facilities, and a coalition government will deliver.

Bonner wouldn't be the same without our mighty men's sheds. A coalition government will commit the funding necessary to grow and expand both the Mount Gravatt and Wynnum Manly sheds. In a country where men over 60 are amongst the loneliest, our sheds provide the companionship, purpose and belonging needed. President Peter of Mount Gravatt and president David of Wynnum Manly both work tirelessly across Bonner, whether it be through mentorship, serving local events or cooking up a delicious sausage sizzle. They are our community leaders.

Before flying down to Canberra, I visited the Nursery Road State Special School to see for myself the incredible work of the leadership, teachers and staff, who are part of the community. Something that my colleagues from around the country may not understand is how brutal the Queensland summer can be. At this time of the year, school days are hot and humid, with temperatures consistently hitting over 30 degrees. Nursery Road State Special School is in desperate need of better infrastructure for sun safety. Having been on my own skin cancer journey, I consider it incredibly important that Nursery Road gets the funds needed for their new— (Time expired)

On Tuesday morning, at the ecumenical prayer service for the opening of the 2025 parliamentary year held at St Christopher's Cathedral in Forrest, the Right Reverend Vanessa Bennett delivered an inspiring sermon entitled 'Hope in an uncertain world'. I emphasise the words 'hope' and 'uncertain' because right now the world is facing grave uncertainty. For billions of people throughout the world, hope is what keeps them going.

On a similar theme, the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference statement of 2024-25, entitled Truth and peace: a gospel word in a violent world, quotes the following statement from Pope Francis:

A global ceasefire is urgent: either we do not realise it or we are pretending not to see that we are on the brink of the abyss.

It then states:

The last century was the most violent in human history, with the piles of corpses of Auschwitz and Hiroshima its demonic emblem. At the dawn of the new century and the third millennium there were hopes for a time of peace. But that was not to be. In 2022, it was reported that there were 55 state-based conflicts around the world and 82 non-state conflicts. According to the United Nations, this is the highest number of violent conflicts the world has faced since the Second World War. Two billion people live in countries wracked by such conflicts.

According to the UNHCR, as of June 2024, there were an estimated 122.6 million people around the world who had been forced to flee their homes. Of them, 43.7 million were refugees. Whilst most Australians live in relative peace and comfort far from rocket fire and bombs, throughout the world billions of others live in deep poverty, enslaved, oppressed, persecuted or in the midst of armed conflict.

In his message for the 58th World Day of Peace, marked on 1 January, Pope Francis spoke of the inhuman treatment inflicted on migrants, environmental degradation, the refusal to engage in any form of dialogue, the immense resources spent on the industry of war and how each of us must feel in some way responsible for the devastation to which the earth has been subjected. He went on to talk about true and lasting peace, foreign debt as a means of control by richer nations, and the abolition of the death penalty, and he calls for less money for weapons and more for development. I note that in 2023, according to one report, an estimated US$2.4 trillion was spent on arms globally. That is US$2.4 trillion that could otherwise have done so much good for so many people.

Our world is in economic turmoil. Our environment is being degraded, and every day billions of people struggle through life. So many people I speak with are both anxious and fearful of the world's future. They see a world driven by greed and power. There is no light on the hill or at the end of the tunnel, but they have hope—hope that the future will be better and that peace will prevail.

In my community, it is the Christian and other faith leaders who have become the loudest voices of reason, compassion, social justice and lasting peace. Their voices need to be heard by the global political leaders. Hope can become reality when global leaders act. Hope is driven by faith—faith in our leaders, faith in humanity and faith that good will prevail over evil.

So, in the spirit of Reverend Bennett's sermon, we can have hope when government policies unite rather than divide people; when compassion and tolerance are at the centre of administration; when we all strive for lasting peace; when our environment is valued and protected; when injustice, discrimination and inequality are not acceptable; and when human life is sacrosanct. The ecumenical prayer service was a reminder to us all of these values. In the uncertain world we live in, where the truth has been eroded and misinformation and disinformation flourishes, it is our commitment to these values that will raise our hope for a better future.

House adjourned at 17:00

Billionaires have too much power over politics, and it's clear they would love nothing more than to export the same destructive US style politics and Trumpism into Australia. It was on full display at Trump's inauguration: front row seats for Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg. They're the richest people in the world. If any of these guys lost 99 per cent of their wealth overnight they'd still wake up billionaires tomorrow. Even if you saved $1,000 a day and you started from the earliest record of first humans—that was 315,000 years ago—you still wouldn't have as much money as any of them right now. If that sounds incomprehensible it's because it's exactly that: incomprehensible.

There are 159 billionaires in Australia—the most there's ever been. According to Oxfam, a single average one is earning $67,000 every single hour. Just one is earning $67,000. That's the median salary, meaning that every hour these billionaires are earning what half of the workers across the country earn over an entire year. Many of these workers can barely afford their rent, mortgage, groceries or even to go to the dentist. Is this the sort of country we want to live in—one where billionaires like Clive Palmer can take home 1,300 times the typical wage while over three million people live in poverty? If your answer is 'of course not' then the next question is: how could this happen? You've just got to follow the money.

Billionaires donated over $2 million to the major parties last financial year alone. That's a pretty good deal for access and influence. In fact, the opposition leader flew across the country to party with Australia's richest billionaire, Gina Rinehart, who's donated millions to the Liberal Party through the Cormack Foundation. The Liberals' track record shows exactly who they're working for: cutting penalty rates, attacking workers rights and slashing funding for public services like hospitals and public schools all while dishing out tax breaks to big corporations and their billionaire mates. There's no-one they won't scapegoat to do it—refugees, migrants, First Nations people, the queer community, people on income support. This is the opposition leader's playbook: stoke fear and division while his billionaire mates get richer. But we will not let him win.

If you're worried about the future, the antidote is fighting for a bold, positive plan to tackle the cost-of-living and housing crises, and the Greens have one. Right now, one in three big corporations pays no tax, but, if we make those corporations and billionaires pay their fair share, we can fund the services everyone needs, like getting dental and mental health into Medicare, ensuring you can see a GP for free, wiping all student debt, 50c public transport fares, making price gouging illegal by the big supermarkets, stopping the tax handouts to wealthy property investors and capping rent increases, all while powering the country with renewables, not new coal and gas.

This election we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity. The last time the Greens were in minority government we got dental for kids into Medicare and world-leading climate legislation. This time we can stop Dutton and push Labor to act.

On Christmas morning in Darwin—in fact, across Australia—everyone came together as a community to remember and commemorate, in small ways and big, the 50th anniversary of Cyclone Tracy. I thank the Prime Minister, the Governor-General and the Chief of the Defence Force—who is himself a survivor of Cyclone Tracy—for joining us in Darwin. The stories of survivors left a long-lasting mark on everyone. As the Prime Minister has said, even only last week, one of the best things he's done in his life was to be there at that anniversary. It was a very moving experience. It was a significant shame that no-one from the federal coalition could put politics aside and turn up for the 50th anniversary of Cyclone Tracy, but there you go.

I take this opportunity to recognise Major General Alan Stretton, a significant Australian, for his leadership in the aftermath of Cyclone Tracy. While his decision-making and assertiveness during the crisis were not universally admired by Territorians and those in Darwin at that time, I think it is true that he was a leader who took charge and made swift decisions that ultimately benefited everyone and provided the people of Darwin with the direction they needed during that devastating crisis. His great-nephew, who is a mate of mine, reflected this on social media recently; I agree with Max, who is a fine Australian as well.

Next week we'll commemorate another terrible national event in Darwin's history, but one that we're proud of—when we defended the bombing of Darwin on 19 February 1942. It was the single largest attack ever mounted on Australia by a foreign power, and it hit our home of Darwin. We will continue to be nationally significant into the future, with our place at the fulcrum of the Indo-Pacific oceans, and that is being more recognised by our allies and partners. The Japanese announced at the end of last year that their Ground Self-Defense Force will rotate for training through Darwin, as the US Marines do. Their Amphibious Rapid Deployment Brigade will train with our 1st Brigade and others in the north.

I'm proud to represent the people of Darwin and Palmerston, and all Territorians, and I look forward to being in Central Australia again soon with my friend Marion Scrymgour, the member for Lingiari, who is doing a fantastic job representing Territorians as well.

The upcoming state and federal elections are an opportunity to deliver major infrastructure for the residents of Perth's northern suburbs. I acknowledge the bipartisan efforts of my state counterparts the member for Kingsley, Jessica Stojkovski MLA; the member for Hillarys, Caitlin Collins MLA; and the member for Joondalup, Emily Hamilton MLA in working cooperatively with all three levels of government to successfully secure unprecedented record levels of funding to develop our northern suburbs community.

I welcome the commitment of $225 million by the WA state government for the grade separation of the Reid Highway, with traffic bridges at the busy intersections of Erindale Road and Balcatta Road. It is an important infrastructure project which will connect the residential suburbs of Moore with the economic development areas of Balcatta, Malaga and beyond, including Perth Airport, which will make the commute much easier for the thousands of FIFO workers living in my electorate. It is a major road upgrade for which I have been campaigning for many years. I'm pleased that the state government has expanded the scope of the project design to include multiple intersections at Erindale Road and Balcatta Road in the upgrade. However, this congestion-busting project is dependent on the Commonwealth government matching the state contribution on a fifty-fifty basis by providing $225 million in federal funding. I call upon the federal Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to make a funding commitment in the lead-up to the upcoming election, as this project will benefit many communities in the three adjoining federal electorates, namely Cowan, Moore and Pearce.

I also welcome the commitment of $16 million by the WA state government towards the $26 million redevelopment of Warwick Stadium to expand the basketball facilities and bring the Perth Wildcats to our northern suburbs. The proposed redevelopment includes three new basketball courts, new physiotherapy facilities, a new gym, a wellness centre, upgraded change rooms, amenities and community spaces. This project is dependent on securing a further $10 million in funding from the federal government, local government and private sources.

I look forward to working cooperatively with the stakeholders to source the remainder of the funding necessary to make these projects a reality. The Prime Minister has declared Moore to be a key seat in the upcoming election, so federal funding for these projects is a high priority.

Last week the opposition leader, in his shambles of a show—I say 'shambles' because I can't say the other S-word that goes with 'show' here—reached a new low of disrespect not only to the people that I represent in south-east Melbourne but to every Australian. He announced his official policy where he literally will not tell the Australian people before the election what he's going to cut. His official policy now is—they're his words—he's not going to tell you about the $315 billion of secret cuts. He's asking people to vote for him but he won't tell them what he's going to cut. Literally, these are massive, secret cuts. You know what he's for: secret cuts. As Niki Savva rightly said in her column this morning, he doesn't have a single, costed, credible policy to put forward. There's nothing that he's really for except for secret cuts, but there are some clues on what he wants to cut; you've got to follow the breadcrumb trail. He said that free TAFE is wasteful spending. He's opposed cheaper child care. He doesn't like those cheaper medicines that are helping with the cost of living. He's called for an election on Labor's tax cuts; he's been against the tax cuts, but who knows what he's for.

You can also look at his record. If you're following the trail, he's against Medicare and the universal health system. When he was the health minister in that horror show period under Tony Abbott, $50 billion was cut from public hospitals. That's his record. They're the facts and numbers. He tried to introduce a GP tax to literally destroy bulk billing and charge every Australian to go to the doctor, because, according to the Liberal Party, if you don't pay for it you don't value it. He even floated introducing a charge to go to the emergency department of public hospitals. That's actually his record.

When we say this, when we remind Australians of what he's actually like and what he actually is, the Liberals say, 'You're running a scare campaign'. I tell you what's scary: the idea that the Leader of the Opposition is in charge of anything and is able to implement his $315 billion horror show of cuts to public services. Never before in the history of our Westminster democracy, in 120 years, have we had an opposition leader, the pretend, alternative Prime Minister, who is so arrogant, so divisive and so reckless that he's saying to Australians: 'I'm not going to tell you what I'm going to do.' Well, he should get the response that he deserves from people for that kind of arrogance. He's like a cheap complaints line. He wanders around the country like a Harry Potter styled dementor spreading negative energy, fear, hate and division with not a single costed credible policy. But the $315 billion of cuts are just the start, because he needs to cut a lot more than that to fund $600 billion of risky nuclear reactors that'll push up your power bills by $1,200—and goodness knows how much he needs to cut for the $10 billion bosses' long lunches giant tax loopholes. Peter Dutton is worse than Scott Morrison, and that's a big call.

We're at a crossroads over in Western Australia, and, after nearly eight years of Labor, what do we have to show for it? A health system in crisis, rising crime and a cost-of-living crisis making life harder for Australians. That's why I'm proud to support five outstanding local Liberal candidates for the state election on 8 March who will fight for their communities and bring good governance back to Western Australia.

Owen Mulder, the Liberal candidate for Dawesville, is a neighbour of mine in Halls Head. Owen knows what matters most: fixing Peel Health Campus and improving community safety. Labor promised hospital upgrades and more police, but they haven't delivered. Instead, they wasted time and money on the disastrous Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act and multibillion-dollar blowouts on Perth train lines. Owen will fight for the Peel Health Campus and a stronger police presence in our community as well as for a new high school in Dawesville. 'Your vote matters in Dawesville,' is what I'll say to my constituents, and Owen Mulder is the local champion we need to deliver for us.

Kaye Seeber is the Liberal for Mandurah. Kaye is a respected community leader with a heart for service, running WA Mums Cottage to support local families in need. Kaye understands the real challenges people face and will be a strong voice for Mandurah, fighting to fix our hospital, restore proper policing and ensure that services keep up with our growing city.

Mark Jones is the Liberal for Secret Harbour. Secret Harbour is growing, but Labor isn't keeping up. It needs real infrastructure: widening the Kwinana Freeway and finally delivering the long-awaited Karnup train station. Labor has been talking about the station for years but keeps kicking the can down the road. It's time for them to get it done. Mark knows that we need better health care and more police. He's running because he's sick of watching his community get ignored while billions are wasted elsewhere.

Paul Mansfield is the Liberal for Darling Range. As a father and a specialist teacher, Paul understands the pressures families face. He's focused on real improvements: unlocking affordable housing in Mundijong, upgrading local sports facilities and delivering better support for volunteer emergency services, particularly our volunteer firefighters. I know Paul will be a tireless advocate for Darling Range.

Finally, David Bolt is the Liberal for Murray-Wellington. Murray-Wellington is growing fast, but Labor has failed to plan for that growth. Towns like Pinjarra, Dwellingup and Waroona have been left behind. David will fight to upgrade the Peel Health Campus and push for a new public hospital to serve the 450,000 people moving into our region. David's committed to major road upgrades, including the Pinjarra Heavy Haulage Deviation, and opening up new housing opportunities.

This election is our chance to send a message to Roger Cook and WA Labor. They've taken our vote for granted for far too long. WA Liberals Owen Mulder, Kaye Seeber, Mark Jones, Paul Mansfield and David Bolt are ready to serve, and I ask that you support them.

I think a lot of us know that no-one ever leads a perfect life. Everyone has challenges from time to time. Some people have them more than others. It's not always the case that there'll be people there, necessarily, in your immediate circle of family and friends that can help. The great thing about my community in Chifley is that I get to see a lot of people step up to help those who, in a time of need, just need a bit of guidance.

Two of those people in my area are Sally and Marten Wynd. Back in the late nineties, with only 50 bucks, they started a mob called Eagles RAPS in Doonside. This has helped people, particularly young people, who just need a hand and someone to talk to and learn new skills from. Sometimes they've had trouble in school and problems in being able to get along. They receive that support through Eagles RAPS and, in particular, learn new skills that they can put to work to get a job and open up new opportunity to get a better life. In December, I got to see the graduation of a number of students from Eagles RAPS and the work that they've done with Amazon Web Services to learn digital skills that are in high demand. It's a great partnership between Eagles RAPS and Amazon.

I mention this because it was terrific to see Sally and Marten be recognised through the awarding of Order of Australia medals reflecting their community service. It is a just and fitting tribute to a pair that have done tremendous work in our area. The biggest thing I want to say to them is: thank you for believing in the young people of Doonside and the western suburbs and for making sure that they have the opportunity to pursue their dreams.

During the Australia Day ceremonies that occurred in our area, particularly in Blacktown City Council's area, a number of people were recognised. In particular, in the awards that were celebrated, the Mount Druitt Family Science Fun Day, organised by MECA, took out the prize for community event of the year. I saw it firsthand, and it is a fantastic way to encourage science participation. Paul Wynne from Prospect, who helped create Grace's Place in Doonside, a first-of-its-kind centre that helps kids who've lost family members, won citizen of the year. The young citizen of the year was Marion Coles, who started Pay It Forward Angels, which has grown into a network of 1,400 volunteers. Over Christmas, they gave out more than 400 gifts to people doing it tough. That's the type of community spirit we love. Thank you to all those people who do tremendous work in our area to build better and stronger neighbourhoods.

I fully support the Queensland government's adult crime, adult time laws. It's early days yet, and there is much work to do, but, like most Queenslanders, I know that this is the right approach and that this is what our state needs. For far too long in our state, the balance between early intervention and appropriate detention has weighed in favour of the offenders and not the victims. Sadly this lopsided approach has hurt Queenslanders. It has particularly hurt my hometown of Toowoomba, where we saw an escalating youth crime crisis cause so much havoc in our city. I support the Premier's policy 100 per cent.

Crime is not an issue that I'll be walking away from, because I genuinely believe that all levels of government have a role to play. Local councils often focus on lighting, CCTV cameras and local advocacy. Toowoomba Regional Council's leadership on Safer Toowoomba Regional Partnerships is a great example of this. State governments of course have a prominent role with the police and the magistrates, but the federal government has a strong role to play too. Initiatives like the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation and the safer communities funding program are two examples of things the coalition did whilst last government.

We also have a very important role to play in addressing drug trafficking and importation. Most illegal drugs moving around Australia are brought across our borders, and most of the offenders caught in Queensland's youth crime crisis were involved in drugs in some way. Criminologists, Queensland's youth justice department, the Queensland Police Service and the Queensland Family and Child Commission all identify drug use and dependence as a significant motivator that drove young people to offend and reoffend. Their message is clear: take the drugs off the streets and you will see a reduction in youth crime.

Given the clear link between illicit drugs and youth crime, Australia expects its federal government to be doing everything they can to keep those drugs out of our country and out of the hands of our children. Sadly this hasn't been the case. Australian Border Force has confirmed there's been a decrease in both air and sea patrols since Labor came to power. Aerial flying hours have decreased by 20.7 per cent, and maritime patrol days have decreased by 12.2 per cent. This is the very front line of Australia's efforts to keep illicit drugs out of our country, and it is being weakened and will be made weaker, with further cuts of $600 million coming to Australia's border security over the forward estimates.

When we say that Labor is soft on crime, this is exactly what we're talking about. The efforts that could be made to keep these drugs out of our country are being weakened and relaxed. Drugs from overseas are driving youth crime in towns and cities like Toowoomba, and Labor is reducing our ability to keep these drugs out. Queensland needs a federal government that is willing to do everything it can to support our state's effort to end the youth crime crisis. I certainly don't want to see more kids in detention; no-one does. I want to see fewer kids committing the sorts of heinous crimes that have plagued our state.

To end, I want to thank, from the bottom of my heart, our police force, which has done such a magnificent job during this youth crime crisis to keep Queenslanders safe.

I recently had the great privilege of attending a last post ceremony at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra to honour Private Dudley Lucas and his brother Private Basil Albert Lucas. The Lucas brothers were from Brogo in the Bega Valley, and in 1941 they answered the call and enlisted in the Army. Incredibly, nine of the 10 Lucas brothers served in the Second World War, often enlisting multiple times until they were accepted for service. Basil and Dudley gave their lives in service, with Dudley's body sadly never being found. Basil died on 25 November 1942 aged just 18, and Dudley was presumed dead on 15 January 1942.

I first heard about the story of the brothers when I was mayor of the Bega Valley. In 2017, I was fortunate enough to work with the Lucas family to have a plaque installed outside the Bega Commemorative Civic Centre. This one family gave so much, and it's important and right that we acknowledge them and honour them. We are eternally grateful for the contribution this family has made, and I thank the Lucas family for letting me join them at the commemoration.

It was a huge day, and a huge congratulations to everyone on Australia Day who received awards across the Eden-Monaro. I was fortunate enough to attend citizenship ceremonies and Australia Day services in Goulburn, Captain's Flat and Queanbeyan to welcome new citizens to the community and to celebrate local award winners. Congratulations to all the Australia Day award winners and nominees. Thank you so much for your commitment and service to our communities. There are a lot of local recipients, so I'm going to table all of these names for the Hansard and for all of our major towns, which are incredibly important.

I also acknowledge and congratulate those who have been awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia, the Public Service Medal, the Australian Fire Service Medal and a range of defence service medals. I am going to table all those names. A quick shout-out to local champion Nikki Ayers, who was the first Paralympic gold medallist from Dalmeny who received an OAM for her service to the sport. Well done to Robyn Reynolds, who received the Australian Fire Service Medal and who has contributed so much to the Pambula Rural Fire Brigade.

I want to give a shout-out to a very special person in our community turning 100 on 1 April this year. Pasha Jacyshyn, with her husband, contributed enormously to the Queanbeyan community. She should be acknowledged for her upcoming milestone, considering the hardships she encountered earlier in her life. Pasha and her husband were taken from Ukraine in their late teens and used as forced labour during World War II in Germany. However, post war they were given the opportunity for a better life. Hence, they came to Australia in 1949 seeking a better future. While they came with nothing, they both worked extremely hard and managed to build their forever home in Queanbeyan. Pasha forged a career in catering and worked at the Queanbeyan hospital and then at the National Library, while her husband was a carpenter and worked here on the construction of this building. Congratulations to Pasha and her family at this special time. It's a privilege to share this story. (Time expired)

I rise today to congratulate my community of Mitchell on a wonderful Australia Day celebration of our contemporary Australian nation and our shared history. I had the opportunity to attend events both in my electorate throughout the Hills District and in Greater Western Sydney. In Parramatta I always speak of the great harmony in Parramatta—an ancient Aboriginal meeting place, a seat of colonial government power throughout the whole of Australia, and a modern, thriving, multicultural city. The ceremony at Parramatta in particular is a seamless example to all of us here in the federal parliament of unity around our shared history and our shared journey together between those three very important themes of modern Australia.

I also want to take a moment to congratulate the Australia Day Honours recipients in my electorate. Lauretta Claus AM was recognised for her significant service to education and to national and international basketball. She began teaching in 1988 and held senior roles as principal and director of educational leadership and many roles within the Department of Education. We've also seen her work internationally in basketball. She was inducted into the basketball hall of fame and became the lead statistics reviewer for the men's and women's basketball world cups.

Bill Henderson OAM was honoured for his outstanding service to football. He was a member of the Socceroos from 1954 to 1956, including during the Olympic Games in Melbourne. This is something that Bill's family have great pride in, and it reflects his induction into the football hall of fame in 1999.

The late Ronald Lord OAM was another Socceroo, from 1951 to 1954. He was goalkeeper for Australia at the Melbourne Olympics in 1956. It was a posthumous award. His family are very proud of Ronald and his service for Australia at this level.

Rob Katz OAM is a very special member of the Hills community, together with his wife. He has a passion for judo and has trained so many young people in judo in our community. He continues to serve in that role. He has competed internationally and has led Olympic teams for Australia to Seoul, Athens, Paris and Hong Kong. He is a two-time silver medallist and four-time bronze medallist at the Australian championships. He has devoted his life to this sport, but he is an integral part of the Mitchell community, well respected, regarded and loved.

Chief Inspector Jenkins APM was awarded the Australian Police Medal for exceptional service. He is an exceptional police officer and continues to ensure the wellbeing of officers in the Hills District and elsewhere in the state.

Sharon Smith PSM was awarded the Public Service Medal for her outstanding service to NSW Health, especially during the COVID pandemic. With 36 years of industry experience as a chief data officer in systems information and analytics at NSW Health, we can't underestimate Sharon's contribution in what is the biggest health crisis of our time, interpreting health data in an era of data driven solutions. I thank Sharon Smith PSM for her great service to health in Australia.

I commend all Australia Day award recipients in my electorate and around the country for their immense service and their ongoing commitment to our nation's cohesion.

I'm pleased to inform this chamber of an important step that will save lives and help Australians make informed choices about their health care. It was community advocates, parents and patients here in Australia, my electorate of Cooper and indeed around the world that raised awareness of the neuropsychiatric side effects of taking montelukast, a prescription asthma and allergy medication. These advocates experienced trauma, confusion and, sadly, even the death of their children. Last month the TGA issued a safety alert to better highlight these side effects, including a new warning at the start of the consumer medication information sheets on montelukast products and additional information for doctors and patients on what to do if serious behaviour and mood related changes happen. I thank everyone who has raised this issue with me and fought so hard. This will help doctors and families across the country be better informed. It won't bring back young people we've lost but it will help save future lives, so thank you.

I also wanted to express my pride about the Albanese Labor government's commitment to women's health. As assistant health minister, I often meet with women to hear their stories and to inform our policy. I heard one such story only last week from Carmen Lahiff-Jenkins, a social justice advocate in my community of Reservoir. At the age of just 13, Carmen suffered from undiagnosed adenomyosis and diverticulitis, and was told by a doctor that 'women just have pain'. Throughout her life, her pain is constantly dismissed. At times, Carmen lost her vision or the use of her hands and arms. Over the course of two years, she constantly asked the doctor if this could be MS. What did her doctor do? He ordered a blood test for MS just to placate Carmen, but Carmen later discovered that there's no such thing as a blood test for MS; he was merely mollifying her. Carmen went to another doctor who ordered proper tests, and what showed up was deeply troubling. With concerning neurological symptoms and bilateral changes in her brain, it appeared that Carmen may have had up to 11 strokes. Carmen was later diagnosed with Antiphospholipid syndrome, or APS. This is shocking, I know. But, working with Carmen, I'm pleased to bring attention to APS today, because I share Carmen's grave concern for the underdiagnosis of stroke and other autoimmune diseases such as APS in women. The vast majority of people who suffer with autoimmune diseases are, in fact, women.

No woman, and no person, should go through what Carmen went through. This government has made a lot of progress addressing medical misogyny, but as I stand in this place and reflect on Carmen's story I am reminded of just how much more there is to do.

In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.

What I have to explain to people today is that if you have an issue with the cost of living then you have to understand how energy prices work. This is a remarkable swindle, a scam, that is played on the Australian people. Let's go through it, just briefly.

The first part of the scam, obviously, is you have the Capacity Investment Scheme, where the government underwrites the return on the construction of intermittent power precincts in secret agreements. They're not renewable; they're intermittent power precincts—solar panels, wind turbines that are littered all over the country. I noted one from Vestas fell flat on its face the other day, but let's not worry about that. Even if they don't provide power, you pay. The taxpayer pays. They underwrite a return on them. Not bad; I wish I could get a return on a property that I bought even if I didn't produce cattle, even if I didn't produce grain—the taxpayer just forks out and pays me for it. Then we have the next thing; they provide a product that, apparently, you have to buy. Using the cattle analogy, you have to buy my cattle—my belted galloways or speckle parks. Whether you want them or not, you have to buy them; that is what is demanded.

But I think one of the best things to understand is how the pricing stack works. In a pricing stack, they don't bid. Even though your fridge works 24 hours, and even though you expect your lights to be on for 24 hours, you only have to bid to provide electricity for five minutes. People can pick that. 'The breeze is blowing. The sun is out. Five minutes? I can do that.' So they bid into the stack. The stack is like this pencil. In the intermittent periods, when the sun is shining, they bid in. It might even be negative. And they say, 'We're the cheapest,' but they're only providing for five minutes. Then others bid into the stack. After wind, coal will come in, then gas and even diesel electricity. Even though these people might be negative, they don't get paid in the negative. They actually get paid the highest price that is determined by AEMO. If AEMO says, 'We need that much of the stack'—that much of the pencil—then the price right there is what all these people get paid. Isn't that marvellous. Once more, it's like going to the saleyards. I get paid the same price for my poddy calves as someone with fat steers. That's a great deal. It's almost like a bazaar set up by someone to make a bucketload of money.

Though these people are negative, let's have a look at what the price has gotten you. I've gone to the official site of AEMO. It's says the forecast spot price per megawatt hour is $57 a megawatt hour. That's not bad. It's pretty reasonable. So you'd think you'd be getting it at $57. But listen to this: this was the price it went to on 5 February. Have a guess, have a punt as to what you think that $57 might have gone to. Maybe you believe it went to $70 or $80. Maybe you're right out there and think it went to $100. Oh, no. It went to about $17,000 dollars. That's for something that has a spot price of $57.

Now, you're worried about your cost of living. You're worried about why you're poor. You're worried about why you cannot pay for your power bill. Well, you're just bundling this money up, and it's heading overseas to multinational corporations—Chinese corporations, Dutch corporations, French corporations. It's bundling it up. This is great! This is a rolled gold annuity. You've got taxpayers on the hook at the start with the passive investment schemes. And the poor old pensioner? She's on the hook at the end. She pays for it through that power point. She can't live with power for just five minutes. She has to live with power for 24 hours. If you made a stack where they had to provide for 24 hours, all the intermittent power disappears. It's a trick. How do you keep these people on the hook?

I'm a little old accountant. I used to be a costs accountant. My job was to try to make sure we made money. You keep them on the hook through guilt. The first thing is to change it. Rather than call it intermittent power, which is what it is—it intermittently works—you call it renewables. It's a wonder it isn't called angel power. It would work even better if you called it angel power. Then there are these lines of wind towers that just litter the landscape and are connected by transmission lines. When they're finished their lives, guess who's responsible for pulling them down? It's the farmer. And guess what? Andrew Dyer was the ombudsman appointed by the Labor Party. Guess how much he said in his report it would cost to decommission one? It was between $400,000 and $600,000, and up to $1 million if there's a structural imperfection. There's one that fell over the other day. It certainly had a structural imperfection. What farmer will have a million dollars a tower in eight to 10 years time with which to pull these down? There will be none. What you will have is negative value on land. The land will have no value. The impairment, the contingent liability that will rest on that land, will be worth more than the land, so these things are just going to fall over.

This is creating a bit of a problem. Imagine they had to provide power for 24 hours, like how your fridge works for 24 hours. If you had to bid for 24-hour slots, then it would be only baseload people who'd be able to do it—coal-fired power stations, nuclear, hydro—because they actually can provide power all the way through. We have to come to grips with this because, if we don't sort this out, we are not going to have manufacturing. Don't worry about 'made in Australia'; there'll be nothing made in Australia because the cost will be through the roof. If there was any prospect that we were going to have globally cheap power prices, then the very smart people at Mitsubishi, Hyundai, Skoda, Boeing, Rolls-Royce and Microsoft would all move here to take advantage of what they believe will be the cheapest power in the world. But, of course, none of them are moving here, because they understand our power market better than us.

The next part of this great swindle is, of course, green hydrogen. Remember when everybody was saying: 'This is going to work so well. The whole world's going to be run on green hydrogen. It's great.' It's all falling over. They talk about how much the cost of the lunch policy is, where you can get tax deductibility for lunch. I think we want to know what the cost of these energy policies is. How many billions of dollars were borrowed for these policies? Why don't we know that? Why is the Capacity Investment Scheme a secret? Surely you can just take the names out of the documents. Surely we should be able to know what sort of return these companies overseas are getting, like the Chinese real estate companies.

In our area, we had a Nigerian billionaire, and good luck to him. He had very smart accountants. A Nigerian billionaire was terribly worried about the environment in Australia, so he was in there bidding on this. Obviously he had some very good accountants who said: 'Mate, this is incredible. We have the Australians—wonderful, beautiful people, but they're kind of crazy—offering to pay you a return even if nothing is produced. Then you have to buy their product, and then they're able to sell it in five-minute blocks.' This will be really good when the batteries come in, because batteries will probably be able to provide for five minutes. So they'll jump into the stack at the low end, knowing they'll get paid the price at the high end.

We can muse about the cost of living. We can say the wonderful things that we're all going to do about it, but, until we properly address power prices—in fact, until most people actually understand how power pricing works—we're not going to fix very much at all. It's just not possible, when the AEMO site itself says it's going to $16,000-plus a megawatt hour, to put that back on the power bill of the pensioner and somehow make their life better. You're going to make their life worse.

Why I'm so worked up about this is because, in regional areas, we live with the poorest people. In my area, one of the local schools is one of the poorest in New South Wales. It's probably one of the poorest in Australia. There are no police in the town and no hospital in the town. There's no public sewerage—no facilities really at all. People roll down the hill in life and keep rolling down and down, and where they finally end up when they're right out of luck is in little villages in the hills with no services whatsoever. But the one dignity that we should be able to provide them is electricity.

It gets cold, especially in Woolbrook. Woolbrook gets pretty cold. Once it got down to minus 17 degrees. Minus 10 degrees happens quite a few times a year. That means, if you leave your window open and you're maybe intoxicated, you're dead. It's quite a simple outcome.

So they've got to have power, and we do have people in our areas where they can no longer afford the rent because the money is chewed up because they used the power—poor people have bad electrical appliances. They use the appliances that use the most power, the worst heaters and the worst fridges, just like how their cars are the most inefficient cars because they don't have money. But when you can't afford the rent because the power price is through the roof and you can't afford the fuel, you go out to live in your car. That becomes your house. You live in a car. And this really happens. When you meet these people, you get angry because you think: 'What am I doing? Why is this person living like this in Australia?' They're not on drugs. They're not alcoholics. They're decent people.

When we're being assuaged in this sort of moral turmoil of climate policy and told that we're going to do marvellous things and that it's all so important, premise that feeling on exactly where you are coming from. Do you have a house? Do you have a wage? Are you comfortable? Do you have to live with the privations of going without? If you are living like that, just in a little corner of your mind start balancing up on your moral scales what is important: the dignity of this human being or my feelings? Because that's what it is.

There is nothing that's going to happen in this nation that—I'm not going to even enter the debate of what's happening to the climate because it's not relevant to this. What is relevant is what's happening to that person. That is very relevant. That is so relevant, and that is what I feel we've lost sight of. We're trying to help billionaires, we're trying to help multinational corporations who have created this marvellous scam, and we're trotting along with it.

Sooner or later, the epiphany is going to happen. If power prices don't come down, if people remain poor, then, snap, overnight the political dynamic will change. When enough of these people are living in their cars, when enough people have had enough of their power prices, when they realise that power prices go into the price of food and go into the price of everything—can you name one thing in your life that you buy that doesn't have electricity involved with it somewhere?—and once people realise that unless you fix the power problem, unless you are a realist and unless you are honest and decide who is most in need then you have Buckley's and none of fixing the cost-of-living crisis.

I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Energy Regulator Separation) Bill 2024. The bill seeks to establish a legally separate Australian Energy Regulator, the AER, as distinct from the ACCC to provide greater management and financial autonomy for our energy regulator, enhancing its ability to manage resources and set its strategic direction. This will allow the AER to respond with agility to changing energy consumer needs and to focus with greater clarity on energy security, reliability and affordability for energy consumers.

It's a reform that was supported by three separate ministerial council processes or inquiries during the time of the previous three-term, nine-year coalition government. It's an utterly sensible reform that the previous government didn't manage to deliver. As I say, what it will mean is that the AER can do an even better job when it comes to delivering energy security, reliability and affordability for energy consumers.

To pick up on the contribution to the debate made by the member for New England, the member took the opportunity to range widely on a whole series of aspects of—I don't really know what, to be honest—energy, perhaps, to some degree, the economy more broadly and various other things. It is hard to hear someone talk about the dignity of human beings when they were a member of a government that inflicted robodebt on the poorest and most vulnerable Australians and when they were part of a government that led to the share of income for ordinary working Australians falling to the lowest level in Australian history, and they now propose to inflict the most expensive form of energy on all Australians, paid for entirely by taxpayers, in a way that will put serious imposts on precisely the people that the member for New England claims to represent. It is a bit hard to hear that lecture.

The reform we're making with this bill, which was recommended, as I said, by three separate ministerial council processes to the previous government, will enhance Australia's energy market governance arrangements, allowing the AER to be responsible for its own resources and administrative arrangements and contributing to a strong and independent energy regulator that will ensure energy consumers across Australia are better off for many years to come. It will literally make sure that Australian energy consumers have cheaper, more reliable and more affordable energy. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

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.

I support the member for Petrie's well-considered amendment. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives and Integrity) Bill 2024 is a four-schedule omnibus bill. It contains disparate tax administration and incentives measures. It goes to the core of small business. Small business, as we've heard so often, is the heart of the Australian economy. Bruce Billson was a former small-business minister in a coalition government, and he is now the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman. The ASBFEO website holds some very good information. Anybody contemplating starting a small business and anybody running a small business ought to go to the ASBFEO website and see what that portal has to offer them to help them wade through the mire of legislation and industrial relations; there are some helpful tips. I admire Mr Billson for his passionate enthusiasm about small business; there has never been a better small-business minister than him.

I did indeed have that portfolio, but the former minister, the now ASBFEO, was next level. Interestingly, I think the figure of those small businesses which fail because of cashflow problems is somewhere in the order of 82 per cent. There is not enough cash coming through the door and they are not able to retain customers. There are myriad reasons as to why small businesses fail. There are record numbers of small businesses failing now because of the policies of the Albanese Labor government. It's tough enough to run a small business—and I know; I've run one.

Me too.

I hear the Greens member saying, 'Me too.' I know she's an architect, and I know she's run a small business. I say congratulations to her. We need people in this place who understand small business more than ever before. I don't agree with the Greens on just about anything, but, if they've run a small business, well, good on them. I appreciate that they have.

With small business we need to look at some of the figures. I'll get back to the other failure rate, which is extraordinary at the moment. Look at the employment: small business is 42 per cent; medium-sized is 24 per cent; and large is 34 per cent. But for the number of businesses as percentages of overall businesses, small businesses make up 97.2 per cent. So 97.2 per cent of businesses in Australia are small. Medium businesses make up 2.6 per cent; large businesses make up 0.2 per cent. These figures are from the ASBFEO website, so they would certainly be accurate. What you also need to remember is that $500 billion worth of economic activity is being generated by small businesses. They directly employ 5.2 million Australians and they're giving many others the opportunity besides that. They're keeping the wheels of the economy turning—they certainly are. Then you look through at how the Australian economy is operating and you see that, according to the GDP—gross domestic product—services account for 62.7 per cent; construction accounts for 7.4 per cent—I'll come back to that; mining accounts for 5.8 per cent; manufacturing accounts for the same—5.8 per cent; and agriculture accounts for 2.8 per cent.

Now, we once rode on the sheep's back, and our farmers are still critically important because they grow the food and fibre of the nation. They've been cruelled every step of the way by this government and the Greens, who don't even believe in farmers. They like to eat three times a day but they do not believe in farmers.

An honourable member interjecting—

It is true. If you think it's not true, please support and help them with policies that are going to help and support them, because the Greens don't at the moment. So $500 billion of economic activity comes from small businesses. That is just so important.

There are many different methods of determining what a small business is: for taxation purposes, the Australian Taxation Office says that a small business is one that has an aggregated turnover of under $10 million; the ABS says it's one with fewer than 20 workers; and Fair Work Australia says it's one with fewer than 15 employees. But we know, understand and grasp what a small business is. It's a small, often family-run enterprise that's employing people and having a go. Family businesses always put their workers, their entitlements and their superannuation before any consideration of their own. Often, their workers are taking home more money than what the owners of the business are. I see the Greens member nodding—thank you. It's true. Often, those small-business owners don't take a holiday. It's tough. It is so tough to run a small business.

When it comes to construction, it is so tough at the moment. We've got state governments that want to shut down the timber industry. We've got any number of compliance measures that the construction sector has to meet. Then we've got the cop on the beat: the ABCC has been stopped by this government, so we've got unions running rampant on worksites—we do—and it is just so tough. We've got a housing crisis because of all number of reasons. There's record migration. State governments and the Albanese government are stymieing construction every step of the way. We've got a housing crisis—you can't find a house to buy and, if you could, they're that expensive, and then you can't get into the market. We've got mortgage rates going up and up. It'll be interesting to see what the Reserve Bank does on Tuesday week as far as that's concerned.

And then we have rental properties—you cannot get a rental property to save yourself if you are in need of one—and the construction sector is in freefall. Of the 27,000 businesses that have gone bust under this government, the number of construction firms is alarming. It truly is. The December 2024 quarter was the worst quarter for business insolvencies on record—3,852 businesses went to the wall. Let me repeat that: 3,852 businesses went insolvent, went bust, went broke, went bankrupt, call it what you like, in the December 2024 quarter. That was the month before last. That is disgraceful. That is alarming. And if that isn't ringing some warning bells in Treasury, in cabinet, in the Lodge, then I don't know what will.

Staff in Australia have the highest minimum wage in the world. That is a good thing, but it places pressure on people trying to keep the doors of their businesses open. They have overhead expenses and less foot traffic which are making it so hard. There's only so much you can charge for a cup of coffee if you're a little cafe. There's only so much you can charge for a pint or a middy of beer if you're a hotel.

There is a better way. The coalition has got a plan to get the nation back on track. Hopefully we can form government after the next election and be able to do just that. But in that December 2024 quarter and the statistics that come from that, which are on the record for all to see, 57 per cent of business owners reported feeling stressed due to financial pressures. Those financial pressures include the cost of power, the cost of just doing business. But power is a big thing, so we need to have an energy grid and we need to have a power market that is going to enable businesses to feel much more confident than they are now about turning the lights on and opening their doors and trying to do business. At the moment it's overwhelming for them and that figure, nearly 4,000 businesses going to wall in the last quarter of last year, shows that.

Schedule 1 to the bill amends the luxury car tax act by tightening the definition. The bill will change the definition of a fuel-efficient car by reducing the maximum fuel consumption to be considered fuel efficient from seven litres per 100 kilometres to 3½ per 100. I do hope that the off-road fuel standards fuel rebate at the moment is not altered because what we can't do is whack our farmers and our miners anymore. Our farmers and our miners were what kept this country going during COVID. When all the city types, the people in this place who represent city electorates, went home, pulled a doona up over their heads and thought, 'Woe is me,' it was the people in regional Australia who kept this country going. They kept the lights on, kept the balance of payments, kept the exports going, kept food on the table, kept the wheels of the economy turning. Those people in regional Australia, and in your electorate, Deputy Speaker Archer, are the ones who we should praise. We should thank them three times a day every day because they're the ones who put the food on our tables. Our farmers were the champions during COVID and they are always do the right thing by our nation. That is why any fuel rebate, anything they can get as far as being able to ease the cost of living, ease the job of doing business is welcomed and should be continued.

Schedule 2 of the bill denies deductions for ATO interest charges, the general interest charge—GIC—and the shortfall interest charge—SIC. Deductions for interest rates just hark back to the 27,000 businesses that have gone bust under this government. We need to make it easy. We need to cut the red and the green tape that is just enveloping our business owners at the moment. They need encouragement; they need incentives; they need praise; they need to have bureaucracy eased. And yet what we get with this government is they just want to foist more work, more compliance, more paperwork on to them. It's making it more difficult for them to do business, those brave small-business owners.

Schedule 3 of the bill extends from a fortnight to 30 days the period within which the tax commissioner must notify a taxpayer of their decision to retain a refund amount arising from a business activity statement. Keep records, as Mr Billson would say. Keep your tax records and have a good accountant, and you'll get through your BAS. One thing that I always thought about with running a business was that having a busier BAS shows that you're busier running your business. If you're paying tax, you're helping to fund state schools and state hospitals, helping to keep the economy going, playing your part and doing the right thing. It means that you're getting foot traffic through your business and hopefully making a profit. The purpose of extending this period is to combat fraud and reduce the number of fraudulent refunds issued by giving the ATO more time to assess and verify potentially fraudulent BASs.

I'm going to give a little plug here to the member for Whitlam. I know he's a Labor member, but he and I ran a very good scams forum at Wagga Wagga, and I thank him for coming to my electorate. We were very bipartisan. At the end of the day, if it's preventing scams, particularly for elderly people and certainly for businesses, then it has to be seen as a good thing. I thank him again for coming to my electorate and doing that.

Schedule 4 of the bill extends the $20,000 instant asset write-off by 12 months until 30 June 2025. Labor's proposal would limit the instant asset write-off to $20,000 and only provide an initial 12-month extension. Why don't they just put it into perpetuity? I know it's rolled out every budget just to make the government of the day look good, but we had an unlimited instant asset write-off when we were in government. It got more business happening. It was an incentive to businesses. This mob just want to limit it to $20,000—miserable creatures that they are!

I rise to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives and Integrity) Bill 2024. The Greens are supporting this bill, as it does two important things. Firstly, Schedule 1 of the bill lowers the fuel efficiency requirements for cars to be eligible for a higher luxury car tax threshold so that only EVs and plug-in hybrids are eligible for the more generous LCT threshold.

In 2008, the Greens and Labor negotiated the higher vehicle efficiency threshold as a design element within the luxury car tax in order to send a price signal to consumers choosing between higher and lower emitting vehicles. That standard was set at seven litres per 100 kays, but, given the natural technological improvements and emissions standards in major global car markets that oblige increasingly efficient vehicles, the current standard has been eroded over time and needs realigning now. The change proposed in this bill will remove internal combustion vehicles and their hybrids from the more generous threshold and refresh the intent of the original 2008 agreement.

Secondly, schedule 2 of the bill will deny deductions on interest payments from ATO debts and, as a result, will correct a deeply regressive element of our income tax system whereby the Australian public effectively subsidises high income earners' debt repayments to the tax office. Currently, people with incomes over $190,000 who have an ATO debt are able to deduct 45c in every dollar paid back on a debt, while a worker earning $45,000 a year can only receive a 16c discount on every dollar of interest paid to the ATO. Someone with a tax debt earning below $18,200 would have to pay the full amount back with no tax deductibility.

The current system is deeply regressive. The current system is open to manipulation by financially literate high-income earners, who can intentionally run up a debt to cover other life costs knowing the Australian public will pick up almost half their tab—almost half of their interest charges. These two changes make the rest of the bill worth supporting because these are not measures that any coalition government, with their affection for higher pollution and economic inequality, would ever pursue.

As I rise to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives and Integrity) Bill 2024, I can't help but be struck by the thought that, yet again, here is another Frankensteinian monster of a bill, one that combines changes to the way fuel-efficient vehicles are treated under the luxury car tax system, provisions that would make the penalties attached to general interest charges and shortfall interest charges non-tax-deductible, an extension of the ATO's notification period for retaining funds from 14 to 30 days and, finally, the long-promised extension of the instant asset write-off for small businesses, which is being moved as an amendment to this bill by the government. Again, there's no logic in this legislation. It couples some pretty ordinary reforms in a way that makes it hard to vote against them, as the overall potential upside probably outweighs the potential downside. But it's still ugly.

Let me explain. If we start at the beginning, in principle, the changes to the luxury car tax are welcome, not the least because these are way overdue. Yet, the changes to the tax deductibility of the ATO penalties are problematic, as they're likely to be yet another measure that will disproportionately affect small businesses who are already struggling. Rather, the reform offered here does nothing to meaningfully assist small businesses to reduce their debts, but it will impact their cash flow. The ATO time extension is probably neither here nor there, although it does seem to prioritise the needs of an agency over all others, while the extension of the instant asset write-off is quite simply something that can't come soon enough and, potentially, hasn't gone far enough in this iteration. In this scenario, the question I have to answer as the member for North Sydney is, 'Which side of the median line does the needle finally land on?'

Speaking firstly to the reform of the luxury car tax, schedule 1 of this bill redefines fuel-efficient vehicles as those with fuel consumption not exceeding 3½ litres per 100 kilometres, which is down from seven litres per 100 kilometres and aligns the indexation rates that apply to the fuel-efficient and other luxury car tax thresholds. While these changes are sensible, they're actually long overdue and not nearly ambitious enough to, in the Assistant Treasurer's words, 'foster a cleaner and more sustainable future'. The introduction of the luxury car tax followed hot on the heels of the GST, and was eventually designed to try to encourage people to consider local cars over high-end imports and opt for the most fuel-efficient models. To encourage the latter, the tax is based on two thresholds in the 2024 financial year: a higher threshold of $91,387 for fuel-efficient vehicles, which are currently defined as vehicles with fuel consumption not exceeding seven litres per 100 kilometres, and a lower threshold of $80,567 for all other vehicles. What this means is that businesses and individuals that sell or import a car pay 33 per cent of the value of the car that exceeds the relevant threshold of the luxury car tax. However, this tax is now largely out of date and no longer incentivises the purchase of the most efficient vehicles possible.

The introduction of the vehicle efficiency standards this year means car manufacturers are finally prioritising the importation of the most efficient vehicles they have in their line. Given this, the current definition allows many models that actually aren't the most efficient vehicles on the market at the moment to take advantage of the tax break. It is time we close this loophole, in my opinion. Additionally, different indexing arrangements for the two thresholds have eroded the price advantage of the so-called fuel-efficient vehicles. These changes are sensible, but the government could have gone further if they were truly committed to driving change. The first thing they could have done was to change the definition of fuel-efficient vehicles under the luxury car tax to 'zero emissions vehicles' rather than the proposed definition of '3½ litres per 100 kilometres'. While that would have been bold, it's a change that would have ensured only the most fuel-efficient models—that is, those without an internal combustion engine—would benefit from the higher concessional threshold. This would have also made the luxury car tax consistent with other federal legislation designed to encourage the uptake of more efficient vehicles, such as the fringe benefit tax exemption—which as of April of this year is available only to zero emissions vehicles.

In making this suggestion, though, I recognise that people living in regional and rural areas often have no choice but to purchase fossil-fuelled or hybrid vehicles, and I would not want to see them disadvantaged by legislative reform. Having grown up in north-west New South Wales in the town of Coonabarabran, I'm incredibly aware that the charging infrastructure for zero emissions vehicles is just not up to scratch in regional areas. So, while being supportive of the introduction of targeted policies to increase clean vehicle uptake, I would argue we need targeted assistance to ensure the transition is equitable and that regional and rural Australians aren't left behind.

The second way to amend the luxury car tax would be to remove the broad exemption for all utility vehicles. As it currently stands, this exemption is offered regardless of the reasons these vehicles are being purchased. Commercial vehicles are defined by the ATO as 'those designed for the principal purpose of carrying goods used for business or trade' and they are not subject to luxury car tax. Yet there's no requirement for someone who either owns or is choosing to buy one of these vehicles to demonstrate that the car is being purchased or used primarily for commercial purposes.

Rather, the accepted test to determine the principal purpose of a utility vehicle rests on whether the passenger-carrying capacity is less than 50 per cent of the load-carrying capacity. According to the Australia Institute, this definition meant that every dual-cab ute on the market in 2024 was exempt from the luxury car tax. With the number of light commercial vehicle sales well outweighing the number of people who are registered as tradespeople nationwide, it's clear that not all purchases are for commercial reasons. While I doubt that what I'm about to say is going to make me popular, I would argue that this loophole should be closed or replaced with a narrower definition of a commercial vehicle. There are simply far too many of these cars on the road in my electorate of North Sydney.

I stress that this is something the Labor government should care deeply about as, under their watch, emissions have flatlined. To June 2024, emissions decreased by a measly 0.7 per cent compared to the previous year. And while emissions reductions were recorded in the stationary energy, agriculture, electricity and industrial process sectors, transport emissions continue to increase. All the modelling supports the supposition that this is due in no small part to the trend towards the purchasing of SUVs, light commercial vehicles and heavy vehicles, which is something that our current tax system encourages. If the government want to get serious about emissions reduction in our transport sector, they need to push for bolder reforms to decarbonise transport. Fixing an inefficient tax that encourages the use of heavier, higher-emitting vehicles for personal use is, I would suggest, a good place to start.

Ultimately, the changes contained in this bill are pretty pedestrian in their ambition, with similar changes originally proposed as far back as 2019 by Independent senator Tim Storer when he was chair of the Senate select committee on EVs, and members of this crossbench have continued to advocate for them during this term. An ambitious transport agender would have included: removing the luxury car tax ute loophole; reforming the heavy vehicle road user charge or the fuel tax credit system; shifting to an equitable, transparent user-pays road charge system; or encouraging active transport through tax deductible ride-to-work allowances for employees. Yet none of these things are currently being pursued by this government. Instead, the changes being proposed here should and could have been made years ago, so it's a bit hard to get too excited by them.

Turning to schedule 2 of the bill, these changes will remove the ability of taxpayers to claim the general interest charge, also known as the GIC, and the shortfall interest charge, known as the SIC, as tax deductions. While this proposal may seem innocuous, I have real concerns about the impacts these changes will have, particularly on small, family-run businesses in Australia. Without transitional or accompanying safeguards, this measure risks being the straw that breaks the camel's back, and I ask the government to think very carefully before they make yet another bureaucratic change without fully thinking through the impact on the end user. In context, the ATO imposes these penalties either on taxpayers who have not paid their taxes on time or where a tax liability has been incorrectly self-assessed, resulting in a shortfall of tax paid. At the moment, if incurred, both the penalties are tax deductible, and some businesses and individuals may actually choose to cop them. Having spoken to people likely to be affected by this change, I know they don't do that lightly but often have no choice as they are struggling with cash flow.

In making these changes, the government argues that penalties for noncompliance should not be tax deductible, and on the surface that seems reasonable. But the reality is far more complex, and whether it is intended to or not, this measure will disproportionally impact small, family-run businesses, who currently owe about two-thirds of the collectible tax debt. As I think everyone in this place knows, these people are already struggling. Recent research from the Commonwealth Bank found that more than half of the small- to medium-size businesses in Australia are feeling the stress of navigating the cost-of-living crisis, with one in two business owners reporting feeling stress owing to financial pressure.

As the member for the third-largest business sector in the country, I hear about their stress every day. Small businesses tell me about the unhelpful and often stressful interactions they have with the ATO or external debt collection agencies. I can't help but feel that, while this change might seem like nothing much to the government, it sends yet another message to small and medium businesses that this government does not understand what they are facing or how they operate. Increasing the cost of tax debt will not help these businesses self-assess their tax liability more effectively. Rather, it risks accelerating the accumulation of tax liabilities on small businesses to unsustainable levels, forcing them to increase their reliance on accountants and financial advisers, which in turn drives up the cost of operating their businesses. While I acknowledge the tax commissioner will retain the discretion to remit the interest charges where they consider it is fair and reasonable to do so—say, in the instance of financial distress, as I've outlined—I don't think that offers adequate protections, particularly in the current uncertain economic environment. To rely entirely on a commissioner's discretion is to leave many Australian families and businesses at the whim of one decision.

With all of that said, I would encourage the government to delay this measure and instead work with the small business community to find a solution that ultimately reduces outstanding debt without accelerating current debts to unsustainable levels. For instance, rather than penalising generally compliant small businesses by denying them a deduction for GIC or SIC, the government could choose to invest more in an organisation such as the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, who in turn could deliver better education and other services to help family-run businesses correctly self-assess their income tax liability. The government could choose a carrot rather than a stick. At the same time, the ATO could implement targeted debt collection measures that focus on high-debt accounts.

Sensible recommendations have been made by submitters to the Senate Standing Committee on Economics inquiry into this bill, and they do warrant further consideration by the government. They include clarifying whether the proposal applies to amended assessments issued on or after 1 July 2025 that are referrable to income years beginning prior to 1 July 2025. As many of us know, many people run their tax accumulation 12 months behind. This would create a more level playing field for over- and underpayment of tax and encourage the accuracy and accountability of the ATO, excluding disputed debts subject to a fifty-fifty arrangement made before the announcement of this measure and at the very least retaining the deductibility of the SIC.

Finally, I want to turn to the government amendment that we expect to see as this bill progresses through the House. It's an amendment that would finally legislate an extension of the instant asset write-off for small businesses through to 30 June 2025. While I will certainly be supporting this amendment, the deferral of this measure, including the fact that it was removed from a bill which passed at the end of last year, has left small businesses in an uncertain position yet again. As the CEO of the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia, Luke Achterstraat, has said, many will feel like this is groundhog day—a painful reminder of the last financial year, when the legislation was only passed a matter of days before the window for applications was due to expire.

Ultimately, this government continues to seem to fail to understand that, for this measure to work and be effective for small businesses, they need certainty. It needs to be legislated, not just announced. The fact that the government does not seem to get this point just shows how out of touch they really are with how small businesses operate. I reiterate my previous calls for a permanent, ongoing instant asset tax write-off for small and family businesses with an increased threshold to at least $30,000. For this reason, I will be supporting the member for Warringah's amendment to that effect.

There seems to be no absence of voices in this place for big business. As such, I would suggest many of them currently enjoy favourable operating environments. But if this government genuinely wants small businesses to thrive, making the instant asset write-off permanent and lifting the threshold would be a good place to start. Generally speaking, I would encourage them to stop talking and start listening to this sector so we can get reform that makes it possible to have a successful small-business environment in this country.

Today I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Incentive and Integrity) Bill 2024. For many, this is essentially an omnibus bill that brings together a number of schedules covering the very different areas it touches on. The omnibus bill tries to close loopholes and encourage transition to electric vehicles in one of its schedules. It has three key parts. First, it tightens up the luxury car tax rules, but it really does not go far enough. It introduces that only electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles qualify for tax breaks. I will say more on that in a minute, because there is an issue around this remaining area of plug-in hybrids. The second part of the bill removes the ability to deduct interest charges on tax liability. The third schedule extends the ATO's notification period for retaining BAS funds from 14 to 30 days. Some of these changes are necessary and overdue; however, there are concerns regarding unintended impacts, in particular in relation to the second schedule and the impacts on small business.

First of all, on the luxury car tax changes. We know, from a decarbonisation point of view, transport is a low-hanging fruit. It is an area where we can and must accelerate our decarbonisation. The world is transitioning; we do not have a local car manufacturing industry, so we have to, as a matter of urgency, move towards electric vehicles.

There is a lot of misinformation as to the safety and the range of electric vehicles. Much of that comes from those trying to hold back, trying to hold onto fossil fuels and old combustion engines. The reality is a number of players in the field are improving the issue when it comes to access to charging facilities in our regional and urban areas. I know that the NRMA and others are installing a lot of fast-charging facilities.

The reality is most average users do not do a huge number of kilometres, and the range of electric cars is absolutely sufficient. I have, for example, travelled by electric car from my electorate down to Canberra. I've gone to Jindabyne and to the Snowy Mountains. I've done a number of long journeys and there is a really good network out there. This constant misinformation seeks to drive doubt around range and encourages people to think that they have to hold onto the past when it comes to combustion vehicles and needing ongoing reliance on fossil fuels.

We know the Sector Pathways Review and the Climate Change Authority put out sector pathway recommendations, but they're really not sufficient. They're not driving enough ambition yet. We know, when it comes to our transport sector, that we need to get to net zero. We have the ability to do that. The first and easiest way is around passenger vehicles. That fleet needs to get to net zero. I've been on a number of inquiries, and the amount of misinformation that still gets peddled out there is quite staggering really. The reality is the faster we transition to fully electric vehicles, the sooner we cut emissions, and we reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. We really cannot afford to delay.

There is a silver lining to this as well, which is noise pollution. Anyone who has travelled in an electric vehicle will know that respiratory illnesses, noise and all those aspects are improved so significantly. We are developing more solutions when it comes to electrification of heavy transport as well. But this legislation, whilst it is closing a little bit of the loophole around the tax incentives and definitions around electric and plug-in hybrid—as I said, it's keeping this loophole for plug-in hybrids. I know there are regional members of government that have been lobbying to keep plug-in hybrids in this legislation. To me, it stems from that misunderstanding and the lack of experience of driving electric vehicles to understand that they deliver. For example, when it comes to the utes, I met with an Australian company—ironically in the electorate of the opposition leader, in Dickson. The AUSEV company are transitioning and making sure that we have fully electric, heavy-duty utes that can work on mines and other sites. This is an incredibly positive move, but I don't believe they receive support from their local member.

The reality is we still have too many loopholes. There are still too many people using passenger vehicles and utes that aren't always for commercial or trade use. These are heavy, dangerous vehicles on our roads, and are high-emitting vehicles. This loophole for utes that remains in the legislation is bad and needs to be addressed. I urge the government to address this. Stand up and put forward some serious plans to enable the transition to happen and close that loophole, when it comes to that.

The next schedule addresses the extension of the ATO's notification period for retaining refunds relating to the BAS statements in an important measure to combat fraud. With scams becoming more sophisticated, especially through social media, it's even more critical. As I understand it from the minister, the measure will provide the Australian Taxation Office with the breathing room they need to investigate and crack down on fraudulent statements. I support this. This measure appears to be fairly well founded, especially if it supports efforts to uphold tax integrity.

I am concerned, though, around protecting small business. Many in this place talk a big game in terms of small business, but the reality is, both for the major parties in opposition and in government, big business has their ear and all too often small business is mentioned—there's a lot of talk—but very little action occurs when it actually comes to putting detailed proposals that will help small business. With the question around the removal of interest deductibility on tax liabilities, I support improvements to tax integrity, but we must ensure, when we're closing loopholes, we're not in fact making it even harder for small businesses to survive. Through this change, there is a risk of disproportionately impacting small businesses who are already struggling with cash flow. While under this proposal the ATO will retain flexibility to remit in cases of financial hardships, it will require discretion from the ATO, and the feedback I get from small businesses in Warringah is they are not seeing any discretion or flexibility from the ATO. In fact, they are seeing a crackdown that makes it incredibly hard for them to remain operating.

To ensure that we do actually have sensible things that help small business, I have an amendment to suggest to this legislation to improve it. The government circulated an amendment to extend the instant asset write-off until 30 June 2025. We've been having a debate about this instant asset write-off for some two years now, and it's really unacceptable that the delay has meant that small businesses can't rely on it. They have no certainty, and they cannot make investment decisions for their business knowing that this is going to be available because it simply hasn't been. It's on the table and it's been announced, but then the legislation to give it effect isn't there. So a small business struggling with their cash flow cannot legitimately commit to an investment or to spending on the assumption that they may be able to write off that asset, because they might not be able to because the government and the opposition have not come together to pass the legislation necessary. It's really important that businesses get that certainty. This is a measure that was announced a number of years ago, and I have been trying to amend it for a number of years to give businesses more certainty—not last-minute slapdash amendments, especially now when we're looking at it in possibly the last sitting weeks before an election.

I again support the government introducing it, but I think we need to think about the quantum. In terms of investing in their new machinery and things that will actually make a difference, $20,000 does not really support small businesses. They need that asset write-off threshold, and that's why I will be moving an amendment during the consideration in detail stage to increase that from $20,000 to $50,000. That is what they're asking for. They are saying that, for meaningful investment in infrastructure or anything that will genuinely assist with the efficiencies of their businesses, that is where the threshold needs to be. It also needs to be made permanent. They need certainty.

Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. In Warringah alone, we have over 8,000 small business and 12,000 sole traders. They're driving innovation and creating jobs, strengthening our local economy. Last week I met with a group of small businesses and the chambers of commerce, and they are quite desperate. I can't convey that to the government clearly enough. They spoke of the impact these issues and other changes are having on their operations. They're feeling, with the increasing amount of regulation coming through, that the government is making it impossible to run a small business. They don't feel like they are cared for by the major parties or by the government at the moment. There is no assistance provided to help them wrestle with increasing pressures from an unstable economy. Their issues include the cost of compliance, the IR changes—the amount of changes in the last few years has made it impossible for them to keep up—the ATO being tough, the staffing shortages and the changes that have happened around immigration and visas, for example, which have also made it harder for them to sponsor visas. The cost of sponsoring staff to come and fill vacancies to be able to operate is huge. These are all areas that chip away at the viability of small businesses.

The numbers don't lie. In the last financial year, ASIC reported that small businesses in construction, retail and hospitality made up the majority of insolvencies. There have been many discussions, as I said, in this place about small business, but we need to actually get on to action. The Productivity Commission, in their Advancing prosperity report, as well as, increasingly, business groups, have argued that greater productivity measures are needed to help our economy and get small to medium-sized businesses moving. That can be paired with deregulation measures that favour small businesses, such as meaningful taxation reform and simplification on compliance reporting.

Small businesses have also continued to advocate for an increase to the limit of the instant asset write-off. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry have said that a $20,000 threshold does not provide the necessary economic stimulus needed for small business. The National Electrical and Communications Association has argued that the cost of essential technical equipment far exceeds this limit and that an increase of the threshold to $50,000 is necessary. Whilst $20,000 may enable a small business to purchase small, short-lived assets, such as computers for an office, a fridge for the kitchen and those kinds of items, it's not sufficient for meaningful investment into equipment, plant and machinery, which will provide substantial productivity benefits.

Ultimately, we have growing economic uncertainty and we need to get rid of that risk element by making sure there is certainty. That is why making the instant asset write-off permanent is essential. It's so we don't get into political argy-bargy that means it's on again, off again. We know that that is so damaging. Whilst overall I support this legislation, I will be moving amendments to support small businesses in consideration in detail, and I urge the government to close the loopholes in the luxury car tax and get on with incentivising clean, net zero transport. Don't keep room for dirty combustion engines that do nothing to decarbonise Australia.

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives and Integrity) Bill 2024. Last year, there were a record number of small business closures in this nation—over 13,000. There have been over 27,000 since this government was elected. That's more than at any other time, including the pandemic, which is hard to believe. At this most difficult of times for small businesses, this government's response is to impose more pain on businesses, many of which are on the brink of closure. Schedule 2 of this bill proposes the removal of the tax deductibility of interest paid on late tax debts. I've got news for this government: they're late paying the tax bill because they're struggling and their cash flow is tight. Taking away this tax deductibility is like kicking someone when they're down. The other people it affects are the workers in these small businesses. The extra financial burden by removing this tax deductibility from small business means they'll have to take the money from the only controllable cost you have in business: wages. So much for being the party of the worker.

This proposed measure is seen as such a threat to the small-business community that Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand, the Institute of Public Accountants, the National Tax and Accountants Association and the SMSF Association made a joint submission calling for schedule 2 to be removed from the bill entirely. Their submission found:

… it is unlikely that increasing the cost of SIC—

special interest charges—

will impact an entity's ability to correctly self-assess their tax liability and the current cost of GIC—

general interest charges—

means that many taxpayers already have a strong incentive to pay tax on time. Making SIC and GIC non-deductible will inappropriately increase compliance costs of honest taxpayers.

… There are already a wide range of targeted measures that the Australian Taxation Office can undertake to improve the collection of tax debt, and the latest annual report indicates that such measures are beginning to make an impact.

Certified Practising Accountants Australia made a similar submission urging the government to reconsider its proposal. CPA Australia says that denying these deductions will create undue financial hardship for small businesses and individuals, exacerbating existing challenges in the current economic climate.

This is an indiscriminate measure that fails to address situations where taxpayers have historically done the right thing or have, through no fault of their own, accrued these charges due to legitimate tax disputes or administrative delays. In the explanatory memorandum, the government points to the ability of a taxpayer to apply for remission of an interest charge—that is, to ask for it to be waived. But stakeholders report the measure comes at a time of long delays in ATO service delivery and inconsistent outcomes on remission requests. Disputing decisions is already time consuming and costly and will become more costly with the risk of non-deductibility if a remission request is denied. These delays from the ATO will now cost taxpayers even more. This government's decision to introduce this measure despite widespread criticism shows that the business community should have no confidence that this government can consult and no confidence this government listens.

The second hit to small business, and to all Australians, is to those who choose not to purchase an EV because there is no EV option to tow their caravan or load up their tools, no charging stations where they live or not enough range. In schedule 1 of this bill, the luxury car tax threshold will be increased to $91,387 only if the vehicle achieves under 3.5 litres per 100 kilometres. This means LandCruisers, Patrols and the like will not qualify for the new luxury car tax threshold—surprise, surprise. Only EVs will qualify—another example of this government trying to force their ideologies on the Australian people, whether those ideologies suit their lifestyles or not. The coalition will move amendments so that Australians who choose to purchase a vehicle that suits their lifestyle will not be discriminated against for making this choice.

When I talk to everyday Australians in Longman, they tell me that if people choose to buy an EV they respect their right to do that if that's what suits their lifestyle. All they expect is that they be shown the same respect when they make a choice to purchase a vehicle that suits their lifestyle. This latest proposed measure, coupled with the first tranche of the much-hated ute tax that came in on 1 January, is simply hitting hardworking Australians when many of them are doing it tougher than they ever have before.

Schedule 3 again punishes small businesses through cash flow. Currently if there is an error in the amount of tax paid through the BAS system, the refund is issued within 14 days. This bill proposes that that be extended to 30 days. The measure is in response to a recent and new practice of fraud through social media. However, as is a practice of Labor governments, the innocent are punished along with the guilty rather than Labor managing by exception and more severely punishing the offenders with stiffer penalties. If we must go down this path, at a minimum, interest should be paid on moneys owed to the entity after 14 days.

Although schedule 4 of the bill, which reinstates the $20,000 instant asset write-off for small business for the 2024-25 financial year, will be welcomed by the small-business community, small-business owners see it for what it is: pure politics leading up to an election. Instead of legislating this earlier in the term because it was the right thing to do to help small businesses, this Labor government will bring this in with the alleged financial impacts to be felt after the election—again, thinking purely of the politics and not of the actual impact this has on small businesses and their workers.

The coalition will move amendments that increase the threshold to $30,000 and make it permanent to give businesses certainty, which they certainly need more of in uncertain times. It's like this government meets every day to try and find ways to punish small businesses and their workers. In contrast, we see them rubbishing the coalition's recent announcement allowing small businesses to claim up to $20,000 for business related meal and entertainment expenses. Labor keep pooh-poohing this, saying that it's free lunches for bosses—what rubbish! The people that will benefit most from this measure are, in fact, some of the lowest-paid workers. It will mean that cafes and others in the hospitality industry that are currently struggling under this homegrown cost-of-living crisis we are currently in will need to increase hours for employees to meet the extra demand. If they can claim the expense, which will be exempt from the fringe benefit tax, it will be the difference for some small businesses between having a Christmas party and not having one. This will boost morale, leading to increased productivity, benefiting the entire country.

I've never seen a government more antibusiness than this one. A recent study by MYOB reports that one-third of small business owners cannot pay themselves due to cash flow issues and a quarter have resorted to their personal savings just to stay afloat. Only the coalition understands what small businesses need, and, if elected, we will ensure that small businesses and their employees will flourish and prosper. It's time to get Australia back on track.

I, and other crossbenchers, am getting pretty sick of this kind of behaviour from this government. We're repeatedly presented with these omnibus Treasury bills which package controversial reforms in with policies that are undoubtedly positive. This, we can only infer, is to prevent proper discussion of the issues. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives and Integrity) Bill 2024 has four provisions, three of which are good and one of which is terrible.

The first part of the bill introduces a luxury car tax, which I and many others have been advocating for a long time and is a complete no-brainer. It updates the definition of a fuel-efficient car to 3.5 litres per 100 kilometres from seven litres per 100 kilometres. It also indexes the luxury car threshold in line with regular vehicles, so this amendment to the current luxury car tax is welcome.

The third part extends the ATO notification period for retaining refunds for further investigation and, again, is sensible. The fourth extends the instant asset write-off for small businesses until June 2025—an election commitment and, again, a no-brainer.

But it is the second part of this bill, the chapter that removes deductions for interest charges on GIC and SIC, that is highly problematic. I see this as an unnecessary change that will remove the ability of businesses to deduct their general interest charge and their shortfall interest charge. By Treasury's own admission, this will overwhelmingly impact small businesses that are already doing it tough. This chapter of the bill has been panned by accountant groups and small businesses alike.

Now, I understand that, on the face of this, this measure seems sensible. It creates an incentive to tax on time, which I support. But the timing of this legislation is extremely poor, given the rapid growth of small business insolvencies in recent years, with cash flow described as the No. 1 cause of these insolvencies according to ASIC. There just isn't the evidence that these systems are being exploited by small businesses as a cheap form of credit. The government knows this is an unpopular move, and that is why it has packaged this legislation in with a handful of other measures that are difficult for this parliament not to pass. The government should be focusing on measures that actually make it easier for small businesses to flourish right now.

Last year, I and other crossbenchers wrote to the government and said that IR complexity and regulatory complexity more broadly are some of the biggest barriers to the growth of small businesses. It's one of the biggest reasons that small businesses are not hiring people and in some cases are shutting down. We wrote to the government and argued that they should increase the threshold of the definition of 'small business' in the Fair Work Act from its arbitrary 15 employees to 25 employees at least. If you're a small business and you have, in particular, mainly part-time or casual workers, 15 employees are not very many. You're not going to have all the HR support to be able to make sure that you can still manage all the complexities of the IR legislation. This is what the government should do. This is something that would make a difference to small businesses right now, and the government should be trying to support small businesses, rather than punish them.

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Petrie has moved an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

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.

I am pleased to speak on the Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2024. It mimics similar legislation in my home state of Queensland—for example the Peace and Good Behaviour Act 1982, which gives people the right to peace and quiet and to be undisturbed by threats to their quality of life and wellbeing. Orders can be made in a Magistrates Court keeping peace and good behaviour on application—a person can be a complainant there—and for a duration of years. The second piece of legislation that's not dissimilar to this particular legislation is the Queensland Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012, which protects a person against violence committed or threatened by someone else if there's a relevant relationship existing between the parties. There's similar legislation in the various states and territories. This legislation that's before the Chamber is the kind of legislation that will protect Commonwealth workers but also allow judges and magistrates to have access to similar jurisprudence and look at the kinds of orders and judgements that have been dealt with in similar circumstances.

I want to say at the very beginning that every Australian deserves to be safe at work. In recent times, we've seen Commonwealth workers increasingly subjected to acts of violence and aggression from members of the public. It's simply unacceptable, and that's why the Albanese Labor government's introducing this bill. We want to make those workplaces safer for our Commonwealth public servants, the workers that serve the Australian community. The legislation strengthens the Commonwealth's ability to protect Commonwealth employees, particularly those on the front line who are the very people that are often dealing with some really difficult circumstances with someone that may not be getting what they want and may be frustrated with the particular circumstances in which they're living. Violence and aggression can have a devastating impact on frontline workers and their families as well on the broader safety and operation of Commonwealth workplaces. We're acting on advice here, and the bill builds on extensive work that we've undertaken.

There was a horrific stabbing attack on an Airport West Services Australia officer in May 2023, and that was a devastating reminder that we need to do more to protect workers. In response, the former minister for government services and the NDIS commissioned a review into the safety of frontline public service workers—the Services Australia Security Risk Management Review—which was conducted in 2023 by the former Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police Graham Ashton. This comprehensive review recommended 44 changes, and they are to deter acts of aggression against workers and increase safety in workplaces. As a government, we have committed to implementing every one of those recommendations of the Ashton review.

Commonwealth frontline workers help the Australian community, and there are a whole range of areas we can think of: Centrelink, the Australian Taxation Office, passport offices, airports and the Australian Electoral Commission. They staff service centres and call centres across the country for the Australian government, and they're the first persons that a member of the community can interact with. They often deal with emergencies and natural disasters. Unfortunately, Commonwealth workers and workplaces continue to face an increasing risk of violence. Between July 2023 and July 2024—that whole year—Services Australia staff experienced nearly 1,700 serious instances of violence and aggression. The bill responds to this unacceptable situation.

The implementation of recommendation 17 of the Ashton review creates the Commonwealth workplace protection order—or WPO—scheme, and progresses the government's commitment to implement all 44 recommendations. The recommendation of the review states:

The current ACTWorkplace ProtectionOrder provisions should be adopted for use by the Commonwealth as a staff protection mechanism nationwide.

The bill establishes a framework to enable an authorised person within a Commonwealth entity to apply to a state or territory magistrate or local court, the Federal Court of Australia or the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia to issue a Commonwealth WPO in order to protect a Commonwealth worker or workplace from threats of harm and actual harm. Effectively this means a person who causes harm or threatens to cause harm to a Commonwealth worker or workplace can be subjected to a WPO. It establishes a new principal act and it introduces the scheme, which is crucial to mitigating some of the serious harm.

Ultimately a WPO is aimed at preventing future violence from happening. These orders aim to stop a person from accessing a particular Commonwealth workplace or from contacting a specific worker if they have been violent or aggressive in the past. The bill will make Commonwealth workplaces safe for members of the public who visit them to gain access to critical Commonwealth benefits and services. This bill will provide legal protections for Commonwealth workplaces and workers and deter acts of violence and other harmful behaviours by members of the public. The scheme will be available to most Commonwealth workplaces, extending to anywhere a Commonwealth worker is conducting official Commonwealth work. I mentioned emergency services and natural disasters. Someone from Services Australia might be at a community centre, for example, and delivering services for those much-needed financial supports that are given by the Commonwealth during those times. Commonwealth workplaces include pop-up service centres in shopping centres, Commonwealth service delivery vehicles and Commonwealth workers' residences away from home—so the WPO includes someone's home. It protects workers who are working on behalf of the Commonwealth regardless of where they are.

The bill enables an authorised person from a Commonwealth entity to apply to a court for a WPO on behalf of a Commonwealth worker or workplace where personal violence against a worker or workplace has taken place, is connected to the worker's official duties and where there is a risk it will occur again if an order is not made. The bill's definition of 'personal violence' is very similar to domestic and family violence legislation in Queensland that is mimicked throughout the states and territories. The Peace and Good Behaviour Act in Queensland includes acts of violence, harassment, intimidation, threats of harm and other harmful, non-physical violence such as verbal abuse over the phone or via email. On application, a Commonwealth, state or territory court can make an interim or a final WPO. In circumstances where urgent protection is required, the Commonwealth entity can write to the court to issue an urgent interim WPO to ensure protections are in place as quickly as possible. It can be done by telephonic or electronic means before a future court date considers a final order, which is a very sensible approach. If the court's satisfied that there's been personal violence under the definition, if there's a risk that the respondent will engage in personal violence if an order's not made or if the order is necessary or desirable, an order can be made. In making that order, the court has the power to impose a range of conditions. The conditions can include no contact with the Commonwealth worker or no attendance at that workplace.

The definition of 'Commonwealth worker' covers a whole range of people, and I alluded to it before. As to which particular Commonwealth entities are covered, that is defined, of course, by the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act, but they include, as I mentioned, Services Australia, Australian Taxation Office, Veterans' Affairs, Australia Post and electorate and ministerial offices as well. It also includes contractors, which I think is a good idea. The hardworking security guards, cleaners and other external staff are covered. While the safety of Commonwealth workers comes first, we want to make sure anyone who engages with the government and government services has the right to be protected as well.

A plan can be developed to ensure that they continue to access those services safely. It doesn't mean to say a person will lose their entitlement to Centrelink payments or family tax benefits or any other form of government services. A plan can be put in place for how they can do it, and those conditions can be put in place with the assistance of the relevant department and, of course, the court as well. In some circumstances, a condition may limit interactions to appointments over the phone, and that can be done. This will take a bit of work, but it's necessary.

The bill allows either party of a WPO to apply to a court to revoke or vary. It shouldn't be infinite. There are terms and conditions. A final WPO can't exceed two years or be made against a person who's under 14 years of age. There needs to be flexibility with how this is done. Breaching a WPO can constitute a criminal offence, as it can in other jurisdictions. The penalties include 120 penalty units, imprisonment for up to two years or both. That's the penalty for noncompliance. The bill also requires the minister to call for a review of the operation and the effectiveness of the act as soon as practicable three years after commencement. I think this bill completes a legislative gap.

In conclusion, I think this is an important step in creating safer Commonwealth workplaces and sends a strong message that the Albanese government values workers. Violence and aggression towards workers are unacceptable, and WPOs are a significant tool in keeping workers safe. The bill builds on the layers of protection the Commonwealth has provided for workers and increases penalties that are, as I said, in the previous legislation, the Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Commonwealth Frontline Workers) Act 2024. The act increases criminal penalties for assaults against Commonwealth frontline workers and implements recommendation 18 of the Ashton review.

This is a good outcome. I did visit the Ipswich office of Services Australia, in my electorate, last year to meet the workers and thank them for their fantastic work, particularly in slashing the backlogs of Centrelink and Medicare claims and improving customer experience. We have invested in 3,000 frontline workers across the country, including 500 in South-East Queensland and quite a number in Ipswich. They do great work, and they deserve to be safe in their workplace and in an environment free from harm. This bill will protect those kinds of workers and the workers in the Ipswich Services Australia centre. I want to thank them for their service to our local community. I thank the former Minister for Government Services for his support of the bill and commend it to the chamber.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.

I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Tony Messner in contributing to this condolence motion. Yesterday in the House the Prime Minister and the opposition leader put some very poignant comments on the record about Tony's career and time in this parliament. He was a South Australian senator, and, as a South Australian, I want to make a few comments.

I never met Tony Messner, which is quite surprising because I have two quite significant connections to him. By the time I had become active in the South Australian Liberal Party he had moved to the South Coast of New South Wales, but when he was a senator my mother worked for him, and that put her on the path to meeting my father—so it's thanks to Tony Messner that I'm standing before you today in this parliament, so we've got to hold him to account there! Also, Tony Messner served as the Administrator of Norfolk Island, and I grew up for a few years on Norfolk Island—funnily enough, in the late 1980s, when my father was the chief administrative officer over there. So I can connect with his service in Norfolk Island, and my family probably owes my existence to his election to the Senate.

Tony was elected in the infamous 1975 election, which was brought about by the dismissal of the Whitlam government. In no way am I undermining my leader, Mr Dutton, who says that the upcoming election is the most important in a generation—he's right about that—but, boy, the 1975 election was pretty significant for many reasons, particularly for the future of parliamentary democracy. Indeed, we were in a very precarious situation when the Governor-General made the very sensible and relieving decision to dismiss a government that was seeking to govern without the consent of the parliament, effectively committing crimes against the Constitution of our own country. The people of Australia made very clear what they thought about that when they had the chance to vote at the ballot box in December 1975.

I've had the opportunity, being very much a political nerd—that wouldn't surprise anyone here—to speak to a few people that contested that 1975 election, and it is quite fascinating to hear those firsthand accounts of what it was like to be in that contest. It was probably the most dramatic of elections that this country has ever seen—and, I genuinely hope, will ever see. The tension and the division in our country around that election is not what we want in our democratic contests; we want spirited contests but we don't want them to rip our country apart. Hopefully, 1975 is the one and only time we see anything of that great significance.

Tony was elected in that election. He served for 15 years in the Senate. One thing I want to single out about his contribution—and I think we could all pay tribute to him by thinking ourselves about how we can do more and follow his example—is how much he cared for and shone a spotlight on the need for us to do better by small businesses in this country. I feel like I spend way too much time as a member of this parliament in debates around legislation putting more pressure, more restriction, more red tape and more regulation on small businesses. If Tony Messner was here, he would be calling that out at every opportunity. That was what he did through his career, and that is what I think we need to strongly consider in our own careers in this place—how we find opportunities not to put more burden on the small-business sector but in fact to take the burden off the small-business sector and make it easier for them.

The Prime Minister and the opposition leader reflected on Tony Messner's career yesterday and talked about his great policy achievements in veterans' affairs and many other areas. It is beyond question that trying to find ways—many times successfully—to make life easier for small businesses was the great legacy of his career here.

I always thank businesspeople when I go and visit their businesses and they're employing people and being successful. Some of them are a bit surprised, because they're not used to receiving any gratitude from government, but we're so lucky to have the small-business sector taking a risk, putting their capital on the line and employing and giving people a wage so that they can support their families. They're growing our economy and paying the taxes that provide the society that we're all so lucky to enjoy in this country. There is now and there has always been a little too much of a lack of appreciation for the small-business sector in particular, like sole traders and businesses with few employees, who take enormous risk and make this country and its economy what they are. That was something that Tony understood very intuitively. He didn't just understand it; he effectively said, 'While I'm here in this parliament, that's the thing I really want to have as my focus.' We all have things we're interested in and pursue in this building—they're all credible—and it's important that individual members pick up causes and policy priorities and objectives that they want to shine a spotlight on.

But the fact that Tony's was the small-business sector is a great credit to him and is something I want to reinforce in this condolence motion. We thank him for his service to South Australia. As a South Australian Liberal Party member, I thank him for his service to the Liberal Party. He served with great distinction in the true spirit and traditions of the Liberal Party and was a senator in that House, as the house of review. He made a great contribution. He leaves a great legacy. Vale, Tony Messner.

I thank the member. I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places. I ask all present to do so.

Honourable members having stood in their places—

I thank the Federation Chamber.

by leave—I move:

That further proceedings be conducted in the House.

Question agreed to.

I still remember visiting Fairfield Hospital back in 2019. I was really shocked to learn that the hospital's doctors and nurses were still using clipboards and writing patients' details by hand. Why? The answer was that they had no wi-fi and no electronic records. The hospital didn't have enough electricity capacity or load to support it. I couldn't believe it. In modern Australia, our frontline health workers were relying on pen and paper. I fought for change, and today Fairfield Hospital is better, with upgraded technology that helps doctors and nurses care for patients more efficiently. But the truth is that we still have a long way to go. Fairfield Hospital still doesn't have an MRI machine. Patients are still being sent to Liverpool Hospital, which is already overcrowded. And our hand clinic—one of the only ones serving not just Western Sydney but the entire Pacific region—is operating in a demountable. A temporary structure is being used for critical healthcare service. The New South Wales Labor government promised $500 million for Fairfield Hospital in 2023. But, instead of funding urgently needed improvements, most of that money is going towards yet another master plan. Our community don't need a master plan; we need action.

Then there's Medicare. When Medicare was introduced in the 1980s, it was groundbreaking. It meant Australians could see a doctor without worrying about costs. But, today, it's broken. Doctors are struggling to keep their clinics open. Patients are struggling to afford a visit. Here's the reality: bulk-billing rates in New South Wales have dropped to 37.2 per cent. The average out-of-pocket fee is now about $42.44. And 37 per cent of doctors are charging over $90 for a 20-minute consultation. But there's something we don't talk enough about. A doctor's consultation isn't always 10 minutes. Medical science has advanced. We now understand complex diseases that take time to diagnose. In a community like Fowler, a doctor's visit isn't just about symptoms; it's about trust. Patients don't walk in and immediately list their symptoms; they talk about family, mental health struggles, gambling addiction and financial stresses because that's how they build their trust with their doctors. Yet, under the current Medicare system, doctors are forced to rush through consultations and are financially penalised if they spend more than 10 minutes with a patient. This is the cost of inaction.

For many families in Fowler, $42.44 could contribute to their groceries—the cost of which, we know, has increased dramatically. Many are prepared to skip a doctor's visit. They wait until it's too late and then they end up in emergency, putting even more pressure on our already overwhelmed hospitals. Dr Kean-Seng Lim, a Western Sydney GP, has started using remote monitoring to keep patients out of hospitals. It's innovative, it's effective and yet Medicare doesn't cover it. Why? Why are we forcing families to choose between their health and their next meal? Why are we ignoring solutions that could prevent hospital overcrowding? The government talks about increasing Medicare rebates, but let's be clear: those increases only apply to children under 16 and those who are healthcare cardholders. What about middle Australians? How do they cope with the rising cost of living and higher healthcare costs?

I call on the Albanese government to take real action. Increase Medicare rebates for GPs. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners has called for 20 per cent rebate increase for longer consultations. Incentivise doctors to work in communities like Fowler. Just like regional doctors receive extra support, we need a similar tier for GPs in lower socio-economic areas; this will help retain doctors so families don't have to travel or wait for care. Invest in preventative care. Medicare should cover remote monitoring and community health programs, keeping people healthier and reducing hospital strain, because health care should not be a privilege; it should be a priority.

I don't want to hear another story about a mother who can't afford to take her child to the doctor. I don't want to hear about another GP closing their doors because they can't afford to stay open. And I certainly don't want to hear about another government spending money on plans instead of fixing real problems. We need action now because no-one should suffer just because they can't afford a doctor.

Since coming to office, our Labor government has been focused on strengthening Medicare. After a decade of cuts and neglect under the former Liberal government, we've seen a stabilisation in bulk-billing—we've seen a big increase of nearly eight per cent in communities like mine—and we've seen the opening of new services like urgent care clinics and Medicare mental health centres. As a pharmacist, as a regional MP and as the Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention and Assistant Minister for Regional and Rural Health, I know there is more to do but I also know that, after a decade of cuts and neglect, we have made progress.

I note, Deputy Speaker Chesters, the big increase in bulk-billing that we've seen in your community in Bendigo since tripling of the bulk-billing incentive. As I said, as a registered pharmacist, someone who was the chief pharmacist at our local hospital and someone who's worked in health care their whole life, I know there is more to do but I'm so pleased to see what we've been able to achieve so far. I also know what's at risk if we aren't re-elected.

I think it's important to remember it was the Hawke Labor government that established Medicare 41 years ago, and it was opposed at every point. We've gone to elections about Medicare. We've been taken to court about Medicare. Only Labor believes in Medicare, believes universal health care and believes in health care for all Australians, wherever they live and whatever they can afford.

At the last election, we committed to two Medicare urgent care clinics on the Central Coast. In late 2023, the Umina and Lake Haven Medicare urgent care clinics opened, offering free walk-in urgent care seven days a week over extended hours. I am so pleased to update the House that, since opening, the Lake Haven Medicare Urgent Care Clinic has seen more than 15,000 people. That's 15,000 local people who've been able to have walk-in free quality care. It's also important to let the House know that almost a third of those people are children under 15. It's become a trusted alternative to the emergency department, particularly for families. Almost a third of those visits are out of hours. People would otherwise have been forced to go to an already stretched emergency department. This is making such a big difference in the community that I live in and represent.

Recently, I was pleased to officially launch the Medicare mental health centre in Tuggerah Business Park. It is offering free walk-in mental health support and care for everyone. I note my colleague, the member for Macquarie, Susan Templeman, is here. She's a really strong and passionate advocate for mental health services and she was delighted to also have the opportunity to be at the official opening of the service in her community, as well. This is making such a big difference to people in communities right across the country. This is free walk-in care for people, and they don't need a referral or have to wait for an appointment. They are able to access psychologists, counsellors and social workers.

As the Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, I was so pleased to be able to secure nearly $30 million in additional funding to establish a virtual network that means psychologists and psychiatrists are available in every centre. If someone walks into a centre in Richmond, in Macquarie, or they walk into the centre in Tuggerah on the Central Coast, they will be connected to a network of specialist psychiatrists and psychologists who are able to meet their needs. It's making such a big difference.

I've worked in mental health and health for all of my working life. We have worked collaboratively with the states and territories, with service providers and with clinicians to be able to reform mental health and suicide prevention in Australia. Soon, we will have a new national early intervention service where anyone in distress who needs support can call up over the phone or video and be given that earlier intervention. We know the earlier the intervention, the less the impact and duration of their distress.

We're also, as I mentioned, rolling out Medicare mental health centres where someone can walk in without an appointment and without a referral to get free wraparound support and care because we know that sometimes the support that someone needs is holistic wraparound support and care. As I mentioned, as someone who has worked in acute mental health inpatient units in Wyong Hospital in my electorate, I cannot express the profound difference that putting mental health in the heart of Medicare and putting services in the heart of communities is making to people right around the country.

I want to finish with the story of Ken from Gladstone— (Time expired)

I'm pleased to share with the Federation Chamber that innovation is alive and well across my electorate of Forde. Since its early days in 1884, when Australia's first rum distillery opened in Beenleigh, to the recent grand unveiling of the tech start-up eLumina, my electorate of Forde is renowned for its pioneering ideas and innovations.

We now have another, who has not only been recognised by myself previously, but recognised at the 'Oscars of innovation'. At the end of last year, Loganholme based tech company, BlockTexx, won the Manufacturing Innovation Award at the InnovationAus 2024 Awards for Excellence. Their recycling solution of bringing a 'fibre-to-fibre' future to the fashion industry saw them recognised for their achievements. BlockTexx took out the award for its solution for transforming difficult-to-recycle textile waste into sustainable products. They also took out the Australian Hero Award at the InnovationAus Awards, which was the top award of the night.

BlockTexx is aiming to address a huge problem of wastage in the fashion and textile industries with 113 million tonnes of fibre produced; much of this is very difficult to recycle. With the growth of fast fashion and wastage, this number is expected to steadily increase in the coming years. BlockTexx has developed a tech solution that is capable of significantly boosting the ability to recycle these types of polyester so it can be reused in other products. They collaborated with the Queensland University of Technology and the University of Queensland to conduct a pilot of this technology. The company designed, built and commissioned the first-ever commercial-scale chemical recycling facility, which has the ability to take in hard-to-recycle polyester and cotton blends. It deconstructs them and separates the cotton from the polyester. This factory now has expanded to be able to take in 10,000 tons of textile waste a year. It gathers textile and fashion waste from large companies, government agencies, commercial laundries, charities, manufactures and local councils. Earlier last year more than 150 global companies and suppliers signed the 2025 Recycle Polyester Challenge, led by Textile Exchange and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. This challenge commits companies to increase their share of recycled polyester to 45 per cent by 2025 and 90 per cent by 2030. Without the innovation of companies like BlockTexx these targets would likely be unattainable. I want to see manufacturers like BlockTexx continue to thrive and survive and grow.

For every BlockTexx there's a Technical Fabric Services Australia, another quality innovative business doing incredible work in and around my local community. But they are doing it tough. More and more of our great innovators are doing it tough. And TFS's general manager has told me they are facing extreme difficulties, as 'billions of government dollars are being allocated to chosen industries and renewable energy, whilst leaving many sectors, like manufacturing, seriously behind'.

Manufacturing insolvencies have tripled since the last election, and domestic energy prices are among the highest in the world. We are seeing the flow-on consequences of that. I am pleased to say that a coalition government is working towards ensuring Australia can play its part in the world and play to its strengths. We are looking to build a nation which is a mining, manufacturing and agricultural powerhouse, a leader in technology and innovation. We've seen the Prime Minister attempt to talk up his Future Made in Australia manufacturing scheme, and he's gone quiet on that for a little while now. What he has repeatedly failed to acknowledge is that economist after economist has criticised the policy for its lack of breadth. Not even the Labor-aligned unions believe the government has the mettle and the know-how to run this scheme successfully. The policies the coalition will seek to implement in the next election are not just about the next election cycle but about the foundation of forging a better Australia—the reason being that we need companies like BlockTexx and TFS to grow and prosper so we have a sovereign capability. Australia will get strong economic management only with an LNP government at the helm.

People west of the Hawkesbury River have waited a really long time to see progress on a new flood-resilient bridge. Fifteen years after the Prime Minister and I stood on the now 121-year-old Richmond Bridge, people are finally seeing what the New South Wales government plan is. Now a four-lane bridge providing a higher crossing and approaches, this latest design means the government have listened to community feedback on previous concepts that originally ignored any flood resilience. Its aim is to ease congestion and make the trip across the river a bit easier for thousands of people every single day. Has Transport for NSW got a perfect plan? I don't think anyone would expect it to be perfect. While I have my own views, when I attended the online session last Wednesday, and Saturday's in-person information session, I greatly appreciated the opportunity to hear people's feedback. From querying how effective the traffic flow will be to impacts on flooding and impacts on historic properties, there are a lot of issues that Transport for NSW will need to address.

What is different, I note, to the last experience this region had of a new bridge at Windsor, is that there is engagement by Transport for NSW. I'm sure all of us who fought for years to preserve the unique and now diminished Thompson Square—where there was absolutely no engagement about the serious issues of that flawed Windsor Bridge project—appreciate the difference. It's very clear to me that the people in Southee Road in Hobartville have not had their concerns fully addressed, and they deserve to have their quality of life protected. I'll be supporting them in that objective. I joined them in requesting an additional information session on the Richmond side of the river, which is in process of being arranged, and upgrading the North Richmond intersection of Terrace Road, Bells Line of Road and Grose Vale Road is also an essential part of this plan.

I'm obviously very mindful that the larger bridge and new design do not come within the budget allocated by the previous federal and state Liberal governments. The shortfall for this project is the consequence of poor planning by the Liberals and their back-of-the-envelope costings. Scott Morrison announced $200 million for the bridge leading into the 2019 election, vastly underestimating the cost. He was forced to double the federal contribution in 2021, and now we know that still leaves a shortfall. This is the mess left by the Liberals that we are cleaning up. Projects of this scale are funded over a number of years, and I'll be working with my government and the New South Wales government to ensure there is no delay in completing the entire project. I started this process to build a bridge, and I won't stop until this project is fully delivered.

In 2012 something called Gonski was born. Two years earlier, businessman David Gonski was engaged by the Labor government to lead a review into Australia's school funding with the aim of reducing the impact of social disadvantage on educational outcomes and ending inequities in the distribution of public money. The report was released in February 2012. The reforms recommended that governments reduce payments to overfunded schools that didn't need them and redirect those funds on a needs based model. Its key recommendation was the schooling resource standard—the SRS—a base rate of funding per student with extra loading for disadvantage factors. The SRS would determine the funding required for each school. The change was designed—and still is—to ensure that every Australian child, no matter what their background, can get a high-quality education. David Gonski said the system would ensure that differences in educational outcomes are not the result of differences in wealth, income, power or possessions.

I say this because parents with kids at school now could well have been in school themselves as the Gonski momentum grew. I was handing out Gonski information back in 2013 at Winter Magic and Springwood's fair. I held the first forum with the New South Wales Teachers Federation at about the same time at Windsor South Public School to help explain what Gonski meant, and I had to watch the Abbott government break its promise of no cuts to education as it ditched its commitment to Gonski funding on coming to government. Now, we don't call it Gonski, but the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement is the same principle, and it's about time that New South Wales and the Commonwealth got the deal done.

I rise today on what will most likely be the second-last Thursday of this parliament. I was first elected to represent the mighty electorate of Durack in 2013, and I can confidently say that this 47th parliament is the least effective that I have witnessed. As this parliament draws to a close, it is worth taking time to reflect on this term and whether this government has improved the lives of everyday Australians. As we get ready to go to the polls, the question that Australians will be asking themselves is this: 'Am I better off now than I was three years ago?' Sadly, for the vast majority of Australians, the answer will be no.

Under Labor's economic mismanagement, Australians are experiencing the longest sustained period of inflation since the 1980s. Under those opposite, interest rates have increased 12 times, energy bills have risen by $1,000, living standards have collapsed, 27,000 businesses have gone insolvent and we're also in a record-breaking household recession. In the last few weeks, we've seen Labor patting themselves on the back and rubbing their hands together for, hopefully, some good pre-election news, for the government is hoping for an interest rate cut when the RBA meets on 18 February. Let me tell you, Deputy Speaker: I want to see interest rates come down. People are hurting out there. Higher interest rates have been absolutely devastating, and they've meant that families with a typical mortgage have had to pay an additional $50,000 of interest since Labor came to government in May 2022. Unfortunately there is no guarantee that we will get a pre-election cut, as core inflation—the RBA's preferred measure—still sits outside the RBA's target band at 3.2 per cent.

While Labor's failure to deal with the rising cost of living is front of mind for most Australians, people in my part of the world, in regional Western Australia, are also deeply concerned by this government's attacks on farmers and failure to invest in the bush. The Prime Minister often credits Western Australia with his election in 2022. Why, then, did he insist on betraying Western Australia and our regional communities by banning the live sheep trade? This policy wasn't based on science or animal welfare concerns; instead, it was all about currying favour with inner-city voters on the east coast. The Prime Minister said that live exports were in decline and that this policy would boost domestic production. Well, how out of touch was the Prime Minister? Already we know that to be a furphy because, in the same week in January that the Tammin sheep abattoir closed—and it is going to be back in Durack at the next election—the Moroccan government announced they would begin to take our live sheep. Confidence has collapsed since this decision, and the domestic market is suffering as a result. Farmers are rushing to get out of sheep, and farming communities are hurting.

In terms of regional infrastructure: as I've pointed out to the House several times, this government is failing us. Those opposite ripped up the Building Better Regions Fund and replaced it with their Growing Regions program. Not one cent has been delivered from that program to fund projects in Durack. Two projects were announced but not a single cent has been delivered. Round 1 was a complete joke, marred by delays, and, incredibly, the minister—who happens to be sitting here in the chamber—underspent the pool by about $90 million. Honestly—there weren't enough projects that could have spent that $90 million? This meant that projects like the Newman Youth Centre in the Pilbara weren't supported in round 1. But incredibly, just months out from an election, it's now all of a sudden deemed worthy of funding. Why wasn't it funded in round 1? The minister is sitting here, so I ask her that. This was always a worthwhile project, and Labor should not have delayed its approval, because, as we in the bush know, this has inevitably led to cost blowouts.

Failing to manage the economy and failing to support our regions are typical features—

The minister has a lot to say at the moment about people listening here, but she has failed regional Western Australia—as have many of the ministers. Whether it's housing—

The minister continues to talk over the top of me, such is the disrespect of this government. We have seen underspending on a fantastic program which should be supporting regional areas. This government has failed Western Australia and Western Australians. They will remember that when we finally get to that election date.

It has been the saddest of years for the family and friends of Samantha Murphy—an unfathomable loss of a wife, mother and friend. We continue to hold them close in our thoughts and to support them. Amid the shock and sadness we all feel, the community has stepped up in a way that shows the best of us in dealing with the worst possible news—and not just once: the community has also stepped up following the deaths of Rebecca Young and Hannah McGuire, which also happened during the last 12 difficult months.

Grief can be a long path to walk. Having the support of people around you actually helps. As I've said before, we, the community, have another task as well: making the world we live in a safer place for women. Simply living your life shouldn't put you in danger. Women shouldn't have to worry that being out by themselves at night or in the early morning or even being behind closed doors in their own home puts them at risk.

I wrote in an op-ed last April that how we educate our boys in this community matters and that their opportunities to learn how to be the fabulous, beautiful men we all know in some aspects of our lives actually matter. Governments have a role to play, too, with campaigns, early intervention services and a national plan from all levels of government as well as legislated paid family and domestic violence leave, better access to child care and early education.

There are, of course, small signs of change. Ballarat resident Pauline O'Shannessy-Dowling has told the ABC that when she is out running, which was what Samantha was doing, men who are also running are making the effort to let her know that they are not a threat. Last year we saw at the first Ballarat Marathon a concerted effort of dads running with their daughters. They really wanted to come together as a community to show how much they care about their girls.

There are signs of a much bigger change under way in our community. A partnership of organisations, businesses, clubs and groups led by Women's Health Grampians called the Communities of Respect and Equality, CoRE, alliance shares a vision for safe, equal and respectful communities. The CoRE alliance usually has between one and five new organisations join as members each year. Since February last year when Samantha went missing, 19 organisations have joined, 13 of which were from Ballarat including a number of schools, and this significant increase has been driven by students themselves.

There has also been a notable increase in inquiries from organisations and individuals, particularly men, interested in CoRE and what they can do to prevent gender based violence. Men's Initiative information sessions saw a massive increase in registrations, and, in December, Women's Health Grampians and the City of Ballarat held a leadership forum for men interested in learning more about how they can lead change to prevent gender based violence in the organisations they're part of. At that event, 188 people attended, of whom 60 per cent were men.

These are all positive signs of the change that we want. Again, the community is stepping up, and, importantly, men are stepping up as part of that. We all need to see change across our communities, and, in mine, that has been incredibly important and felt very deeply by the deaths of Samantha, Rebecca and Hannah. We want a community that is safe for everybody, particularly women. Everywhere, in every community and in every place, we need to stop seeing violence against women and to stop losing women like beautiful Samantha Murphy, who still had so much to give.

In this, the anniversary week of her loss and leading into the anniversaries of the deaths of Rebecca and Hannah, my thoughts and my condolences continue to go out to their families. The legacy of their deaths is that we do so much better to keep women safe in our communities.

Question agreed to.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 12:22