I move:

That the requested amendment be made.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the amendments be considered immediately.

There is a motion before the House. The question before the House is that the amendments be considered immediately, so I'll put that question.

The way the standing orders work is that, once the question is stated before the House to deal with a matter immediately, it's not debated.

Shame!

We'll just get further clarification to make sure everyone is informed of what's happening in the House. The advice is that the motion can be debated.

I move:

That the question be now put.

The question before the House is that the question be put.

The question before the House is that the amendments be considered immediately.

I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

Instead of helping people, the major parties help themselves; what a stitch-up! On the last day of parliament, instead of reforming childcare laws, it's laws to help the big parties.

Order! The Leader of the Australian Greens will resume his seat. The assistant minister has the call.

I move:

That the question be now put.

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! We are dealing with matters before the House, and for us to deal with this we need some semblance of order in the House. Just so everyone understands what the motion is before the House—that's all I'm trying to assist with, so everyone is aware of what is happening—the question is that the question be put.

A division having been called and the bells being rung

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! I am drawing a line in the sand for this kind of behaviour. We are not going to behave in this unruly way, simply yelling at people across the chamber. I understand the issue is emotive for members, but this is not acceptable. I need members on both sides of the chamber to show restraint and some dignity while we deal with these issues.

The question before the House is that the question be put.

The question before the House is that the Senate amendments be agreed to.

I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That notice No. 1, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.

Question agreed to.

On behalf of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, I present the committee's report, entitled Inquiry into family violence orders, together with the minutes of the proceedings.

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

by leave—We all know that Australia has been tackling the issue of gendered violence and reviewing and updating the laws and responses that are intended to keep women and children safe. There have been 1,733 female victims of intimate partner homicide in Australia between July 1989 and December 2024, including 35 women who were murdered by their current or former partners in the last year. Despite legislative reforms and other measures, the system we have has failed these women and their children. We want to do everything we can to make sure it doesn't fail others.

This inquiry was focused on: the barriers to safety and fairness for victims-survivors in the state and territory family violence order, FVO, system and the federal family law system; the important intersections between jurisdictions; and the accessibility of services and supports that victims-survivors need to navigate both systems safely and fairly. We heard from victims-survivors of family, domestic and sexual violence and the individuals and organisations who support and advocate for them.

Women leaving abusive relationships must navigate two separate court systems to be protected by family violence orders under state and territory law and to resolve parenting or property disputes arising from separation through the family law courts. This dual system can be time consuming, confusing, costly and retraumatising for victims-survivors and can put them at risk and anchor them to their abusers. For example, once an FVO is obtained the family law courts may then override it and put victims-survivors in harm's way by granting perpetrators access to children. Furthermore, the presence of an FVO is no guarantee of safety. Current or historical FVOs were evident in more than 40 per cent of 224 cases where a male intimate partner murdered a female intimate partner between 2010 and 2018.

There have already been significant recent reforms to the way the family law courts manage and respond to family violence and child abuse risk and share information with state and territory courts and agencies, with more reforms planned. The Australian government provides a range of programs supporting victims-survivors as well as in partnership with the states and territories and it includes legal and non-legal support in the family law system, assisting victims-survivors through the social security and child support systems and providing safe and secure housing.

The Albanese government has recently announced the largest-ever investment in legal assistance—the $3.9 billion National Access to Justice Partnership. This builds on measures already announced to improve access to critical legal and non-legal support for victims-survivors, including a renewed five-year family, domestic and sexual violence national partnership which will deliver more than $700 million in new matched investments from the Australian, state and territory governments, including funding to support those specialist services for women and services supporting children to heal and recover from abuse and violence. Funding is also being directed towards men's behaviour change programs for perpetrators of gendered violence. However, more needs to be done.

I want to talk specifically about navigating the complex legal system. This is not something women should be expected to tackle alone. The committee heard of many community organisations that successfully help victims-survivors navigate the most complex aspects of separating from their abusers—the legal, the financial and the safety aspects—as they impact on each individual case. The inquiry found that many of these services are forced to turn away people who may be in absolute crisis due to current funding constraints. The National Access to Justice Partnership, which commences in July, and other measures are intended to address these issues to ensure that support services are put on a sustainable footing. It was not possible for this inquiry to determine whether the contribution of new and existing measures will address funding shortfalls, but it is the committee's view that adequate, ongoing and sustainable funding for wraparound legal and non-legal services is vital.

One of the issues that became evident to the committee is the degree of variation in relevant state and territory laws and police responses to family, domestic and sexual violence across the country. Our conclusion was that it is unreasonable and a barrier to safety and justice for victims-survivors. Australians have a right to expect access to the same protections regardless of where they live, but this is not currently the case. Variations in the protection of children, the duration of FVOs, the effectiveness of information sharing and the recognition of coercive control and police responses mean different outcomes for victims-survivors depending on where they live. It also makes it difficult to understand how FVOs will work when victims-survivors flee to a different state or territory to escape abuse. The committee found that a long-term systematic approach must be adopted across all jurisdictions to increase safety for women and children as they navigate family separation and to realise the ambition of the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032 to end violence against women and children over the next decade.

Building an effective, systematic and national approach as outlined in this report's 11 recommendations must start with harmonised definitions of family, domestic and sexual violence, best practice and consistent FVO laws and police responses, and enhanced information sharing and risk assessment across jurisdictions so that all key decision-makers, agencies and services are speaking the same language about risk. A long-term approach to increase safety for women and children will require all jurisdictions and agencies, including courts, police and other services, to work together.

Victims-survivors of family, domestic and sexual violence are usually advised to seek FVOs through a state or territory Magistrates Court or from police before attempting to resolve parenting or property matters in the federal family law courts. This is because of the serious risk of escalation in the violent and abusive behaviours of perpetrators during family law proceedings, particularly in cases involving coercive control, where a perpetrator's sense of power and dominance is threatened. The period of elevated risk is extended because family law matters are slow, complex, adversarial and expensive, and perpetrators often manipulate the system as an extension of their control and abuse. Most applications to the family law courts involve multiple family violence and child abuse risk factors.

The committee has made recommendations that will build on the Australian government's significant reforms over the past two years that have made the family law system safer and fairer for victims-survivors of family, domestic and sexual violence, including:

Further work to explore a single advocacy support model for victims-survivors is needed. Victims-survivors need someone to walk with them from the moment they decide to reach out for help—to guide them safely through separation, to advocate for them and to connect them with the services that they need.

This report would not have been possible without the bravery of many victims-survivors who shared their stories with the committee and those who dedicate their lives to preventing and responding to family, domestic and sexual violence and support victims-survivors to safely navigate separation. We acknowledge your strength and courage, and we thank you for sharing your lived experiences and your advocacy.

I also thank my committee members, including my deputy chair, for their participation in the inquiry, which has delivered a unanimous report. I want to especially thank the staff of the secretariat, including Dr John White, for all their diligence, advice and drafting expertise. I commend this report to the House.

by leave—Firstly, I'd like to thank the member for Macquarie for her fine words in relation to this report. I'd like to thank all the witnesses and particularly the victims-survivors who gave evidence. It is unimaginable, as a male, to be able to understand what many of you have been through. Thank you for putting yourselves out there to enable us to act on your behalf to make these important changes that are needed. Your evidence was incredibly valuable but, sadly, unsurprising.

Despite the changes over the past few years, there are failures within the system, and it is still lacking. The system does not provide the supports that are required to ensure that other victims-survivors and other victims are receiving the protection and the attention that they so desperately need. We heard through the inquiry that things such as real-time updating still don't exist in 2025. Failures in the system between states and territories, and the lack of communication, allow for abuse to continue in the system. Failures in the act allow for abuse of procedure to continue the trauma of victims. The procedure at court fails to protect and prevent further trauma or harm to victims-survivors. These are the things that we heard from you, and these form part of the recommendations to strengthen those systems and provide the protections for those suffering from this horrible scourge.

I do note that there was no dissenting report; it was unanimous. The committee worked well together because we all understand this issue is above politics. We cannot be partisan when trying to rid Australia of domestic violence. I've said that despite these efforts, despite the funding, only 17 per cent of the some $5 billion goes towards prevention and intervention. And whilst we need the adequate funding for the response and the recovery, until we adequately address prevention and intervention, dollar for dollar, then unfortunately these committees and these inquiries will continue.

That funding needs to address men because, let's face it, men are the problem, but men can also be the solution. We need a nationally accredited men's behavioural program, and that needs to be funded. We need a specialised workforce trained in delivering men's programs—men educating men—and we also need a national curriculum in respectful relationships. For a child going to school today in kindergarten, we need to travel with them until they reach university, to educate them in respectful relationships, not just men but men and women, to understand what good relationships look like, and that will take a generation. We need to fund prevention and intervention, dollar for dollar, as we do response and recovery.

Again, I'd like to thank all the witnesses. I'd like to thank the committee, and I'd also like to thank the secretariat for their excellent work. I commend the report to the House.

I 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 want to associate myself with the remarks of the earlier contributions of the members for Macquarie and Cowper in relation to the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs inquiries into domestic and family violence. This legislation before the House, the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025, goes to the core of families. Families mean a lot. The meaning of family is vastly different in 2025 than it was just 10 short years ago and certainly back in the sixties and seventies, when I was being raised in a family situation where my late father, Lance, worked the farm at Brucedale between Wagga Wagga and Junee and, prior to that, at Marrar. My late mother, Eileen, stayed at home, and looked after the children—five children. That was pretty much the norm: dads went out and worked and mums stayed at home. But, today, it's very different. It's very much changed. Mothers are now, in fact, in some cases, the sole breadwinner. In other cases, they're the highest-wage earner. Society has become very, very different.

I noted the previous standing committee reports and listened very carefully to the member for Cowper talking about men being the problem and men also being very much at the heart of the solution to domestic and family violence. Being a former police officer and having prosecuted cases of family violence as a lawyer, I can say the member for Cowper is very much right.

Late last year, the director of the Wagga Women's Health Centre, Johanna Elms, who I have a lot of respect for for her vision of what society could look like and certainly how Wagga Wagga could improve, organised, conducted and led a men's forum. It was held at a venue out on the Oura Road. It was to see what community leaders could do about domestic and family violence and how we could be achieving zero violent crimes against women. Ninety to 100 community leaders gathered. It was a men's-only affair. There were no women present. But Ms Elms arranged that particular forum. Everything was on the table.

I have supported the Wagga Women's Health Centre very much. My mother-in-law, Beverley Shaw, worked there for many years. I have supported that centre in my 14 years in the parliament because it has women's issues at the forefront. They were ahead of their time. They began in the 1970s, trying to get access to the pill when it was difficult to do so in Wagga Wagga. It was a very conservative city. They formed that centre. They didn't receive any funding but for some philanthropic donations. They did it on their own. I appreciate there are now calls for a similar type of arrangement for a men's centre and demands that there be state and federal funding for that. But the women, to their credit, did it on their own. This was in an era where we were just starting to have more women in the workforce.

When we were in coalition, I was very proud of the fact there were so many women in the workforce. In fact, the coalition saw women's workforce participation reach record highs, at 62.3 per cent. That was in May 2022, just before this Labor government took office. It was a big lift from when Labor had previously left office in 2013, when it was at 58.7 per cent. So it was quite a sizable and significant jump.

With this particular legislation before the House, it is interesting to read the May 2024 report of GrainGrowers. They placed as one of their main, if not top, items of importance early childhood education and care. This is an agricultural group. In that report—and I will read from it because it is fascinating to hear—they said:

Access to quality early childhood education and care (ECEC) services promotes children's cognitive and socio-emotional development, laying the foundation for academic success and fostering important life skills such as communication, problem-solving, and collaboration.

Mind you, I'm reading from an agriculture report. That's the thing here. They said:

Grain growing takes place in rural, regional and remote areas of Australia, where children and families experience more limited access to a range of quality ECEC services relative to those living in metropolitan centres, and in some instances, have no access at all.

The report continues:

Access to ECEC supports working parents living within grain growing regions by enabling them to pursue employment and education opportunities, thereby helping to alleviate workforce shortages in the grains industry and broader supply chain, and allows for greater economic productivity for our communities.

That's from GrainGrowers. You would think that a report from an organisation which has at its very heart the growing of grain would be talking about, perhaps, the instant asset write-off for harvesters, augers and silos—that happened under the coalition government—but they're talking about an early childhood education and care policy. You can see how society has shifted. You can see the concerns in rural and regional Australia about this very important policy area.

I've said so often—and you do get sneered at by those opposite, who are quick to crow about the fact that they've got cheaper, more affordable child care—that the rub in regional Australia and especially in remote Australia is not affordability; it's availability and accessibility, because in some areas you can't find child care to save yourself. Families, often led by women, and sometimes single-parent families where the mother has custody, can't get access to child care, and they are expected to put food on the table and to earn the money. Some of them are seriously super mums, and we pay credit to them.

We had a situation in Lockhart not that long ago. In the 2021 census—and the minister at the table and I have experience with the census, don't we, Member for Fenner?

Absolutely.

'Absolutely,' he says. He'd be interested to know that Lockhart's population was 3,319. There was no childcare centre in that town, in that shire. It is a huge grain-growing area—one of the very best in Australia—which was once represented in this place by the late great Tim Fisher. It's not far from Boree Creek, a town that Tim put on the map. Of course, the Lockhart council came in to see what it could do to fill the void left by the closure of the childcare centre.

Councils have to do more and more of the heavy lifting when it comes to not just child care but the other end of the scale. Coolamon Shire has a population of 4,385. For some years, its council has provided the aged-care services in that shire, which is only three-quarters of an hour's drive north-west of Wagga Wagga, with a population of more than 70,000. But unless the shire council, which runs the Allawah Lodge, did the aged-care services, there wouldn't be any aged-care services at all. The sad reality is that, unless local government steps up to fill the void in child care, there won't be any child care at all in some of these centres the size of Lockhart. It's not right. Yet we have a government spruiking the affordability of child care. It can be as cheap as anything—it can have a zero cost—but if you don't have a childcare centre then it's of no use at all. That is the point when coalition members argue about the childcare desert.

I hear so often about the childcare desert from the member for Mallee, who represents the largest electorate in Victoria. I've heard her eloquently describe the lack of childcare services in that sprawling Victorian electorate. Then there's the retiring member for Parkes. His electorate makes up half of the landmass of New South Wales, and one of the biggest issues in that electorate is childcare access. It's not affordability. It's access and availability. When you have families desperately needing services, desperately seeking places for the ability for them to go out and work, put food on the table and contribute to the economic wealth of this nation, but they can't find placements for their children, then it is something. There is market failure, that somebody, somewhere, somehow has to address.

There are several issues with this bill, including the removal of priority access for working families. It disincentivises aspiration, it increases access without addressing supply issues—something that I was talking about earlier—and it does nothing to increase access or flexibility for families. This is the issue. It's all well and good for Labor government members to talk about affordability. Again, if you don't have the infrastructure, if you don't have the service and if you don't have the people running the childcare centres, that issue of affordability is a moot point. It doesn't address current cost-of-living pressures.

I know that yesterday Labor finally, finally, finally—I harp on that point—lifted the biosecurity tax. Some might ask, 'What's that got to do with this particular childcare policy?' The biosecurity tax was forcing our farmers, many of whom often need childcare access, to pay the biosecurity measures of competitors who were coming in from foreign countries to sit on the supermarket shelves in opposition to ours. We have been banging on about this for months, and I know that Colin Bettles from Grain Producers sat in all the second reading speeches in the Federation Chamber about this. I didn't hear a jot from too many other stakeholders—disappointingly so, I have to say—but it's the same sort of people who were yesterday praising the agriculture minister for lifting it. About time, because our farmers need every bit of help.

And they need every bit of help when it comes to matters such as this—childcare support, childcare access and childcare availability. That's the issue, that's the rub. We talk—and I listened to the member for Macquarie and the member for Cowper—about the pressures on strained families. We don't need our families to be under any more pressure, and we need to absolutely support our families as best we can, so that local government areas such as Lockhart don't have to then try to fill the void left by a centre closure, so that local governments can get on with the job of filling potholes, fixing the roads, repairing the roads, putting bitumen down, picking up the bins and organising what they do, and do very, very well. They shouldn't have to be in this space.

The bill has been referred to a Senate inquiry, with a reporting date of 21 March 2025. Let's hope it's not too late to get something positive and meaningful done in this space, particularly about accessibility and availability of childcare services in regional and remote Australia.

Just before I give the call to the minister, I see the member for Nicholls was seeking the call.

To make a contribution to this debate, Deputy Speaker.

Absolutely. I'll come to you straight after I come to the minister.

My three boys are now in secondary school or graduated, but this bill certainly brings back memories of the great benefits that they got from their time in early childhood, attending the Acton Early Childhood Centre. I would sometimes cycle, with one of my boys on the back of the bike, to the campus at ANU. It's a lovely spot, surrounded by areas where the kids could walk and where they could enjoy playing. They had little carts and so they could be out and active in the play spaces. There were chickens for the kids to engage with, and there were educators who were dedicated to spending time with the kids—reading to them, singing to them, nurturing them.

Later, we moved our youngest to the Wiradjuri Preschool and Child Care Centre on the campus of the University of Canberra. Their motto is: 'We care, we share, we love to learn.' Wiradjuri had a smaller outdoor space, but they made terrific use of it. They enjoyed taking the kids for walks across the University of Canberra campus. I'm not quite sure what the young students made of these little tackers being taken across the campus, but the educators used the space to their best abilities.

What we really appreciated about Wiradjuri was the way it operated as a kind of teaching hospital model, where those students who were studying early childhood would come in and be mentored by experienced early childhood educators. They had two pictures on the wall, one of Gough Whitlam and one of Vincent Lingiari. They would tell the kids about that wonderful moment when, in the land handback, Whitlam poured a handful of sand into Vincent Lingiari's hand and Vincent so generously, so extraordinarily, said, 'We're all mates now.'

They played at the piano and gave the kids a love of learning and a love of friendship as well. The times at those centres are ones that shaped all three of our boys. As it happened, we drove by the Acton Early Childhood Centre on the weekend and the kids were immediately telling stories about how it influenced them more than a decade ago.

Today 1.4 million Australian children went off to an early learning centre, enjoying the benefits of a quality early learning education. We've gotten well past the notion that early learning is simply babysitting. Yes, there are huge benefits to workforce participation, particularly for women who've traditionally done the lion's share of the caring duties, but there's also a key education benefit, which is why it's so important to ensure that the early learning sector attracts and retains great educators.

The early learning reforms in this country really kicked off in 2007 when the Rudd government committed to a series of significant early childhood reforms, and I pay tribute to the work of Maxine McKew in this reform journey. The Starting strong II report acknowledged that Australia performed relatively poorly on early learning and committed to a national quality framework which would see all early learning centres in the country properly assessed. That national quality framework reflected the fact that the Labor government recognised it was important to have quality as well as affordability at the heart of what was done.

We have seen an increase in the number of children attending early childhood centres, but we have also seen challenges placed on the take-up of early learning as a result of the activity test. That was one of the factors that led the government to commission a key Productivity Commission report titled A path to universal early childhood education and care.

The three commissioners of that report were Martin Stokie, Lisa Gropp and Professor Deborah Brennan. I would particularly like to acknowledge the work of Professor Brennan, who I've known for a very long time—since I was eligible for early child care myself and then at the University of Sydney when I took her course on social policy. She has been an extraordinary advocate for a better early learning system in this country. I would like to thank Professor Brennan, as so many of the members the government have, for the important insights she brought to that Productivity Commission report. She is truly a national treasure. Her expertise and deep understanding of the history of reform in this sector, as well as the international experience, really made this a landmark report.

The Productivity Commission report noted that nearly half of one-year-olds and around 90 per cent of four-year-olds attend some form of early child care. Also, around one in seven children aged five to 12 attend outside school care. The report noted that the expansion of early learning has enabled an increase in parents' labour force participation, particularly of mothers of children aged zero to four. It noted that, in 2023, three in four mothers with children aged zero to four were in paid employment. But the report noted, too, that not all families benefit from early child care. The report reads:

In parts of the country, services are scarce and for some families, ECEC may be unaffordable or not inclusive of all children. Children experiencing disadvantage and vulnerability, while most likely to benefit from ECEC, are less likely to attend.

That has led the government to put in place this bill, which builds on our prior reforms.

When we came to office, we brought in our cheaper childcare package, which cut the cost of early education and care for more than a million families. We implemented a 15 per cent pay rise for early educators. This is part of a package that establishes the billion-dollar Building Early Education Fund to build and expand childcare centres in areas of need. We have understood, as part of our reforms, the importance of ensuring that we're raising quality while also tackling affordability. That is why, in our reforms, which saw the 15 per cent pay rise, we linked that wage rise to caps on fees. For providers to be eligible, they must not increase their fees by more than 4.4 per cent in the first year and 4.2 per cent in the second. That is putting wages up for workers and keeping costs down for families. We've seen vacancies in the early childhood education and care sector plummeting over the last 12 months. According to Jobs and Skills Australia, internet vacancy rates are down 22 per cent in that sector, since December 2023. It is good that we are seeing an increase in the workforce in that sector.

We know that a universal early learning system will require a significant journey. One of the things that strikes you, when you read the Productivity Commission's doorstopper report on early learning, is that it lays out a pathway for reform. The bill that is before the House today is part of that journey, but it's not the end of the journey. I'd encourage members to look at the way in which that journey is set out, going right out to 2036, acknowledging the importance of steadily building up the workforce and the number of available early childcare centres—we're going to have to build more early childcare centres in order to expand accessibility—and the importance of ensuring that early childhood care remains affordable.

Recent data shows an Australian family on an income of $120,000 a year, paying an average quarterly fee for 30 hours of child care per week, has saved approximately $2,768 since September 2023. Our cheaper childcare policy is delivering for Australian families, as our Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Act is delivering for the early childhood educators. This reform journey is absolutely critical if we are to improve the accessibility of the sector. The Productivity Commission has noted that ensuring that all children aged zero to five years have access to some form of high-quality, subsidised early childhood education and care—at least three days a week, 30 hours a fortnight, for 48 weeks a year—would accommodate the needs of families and the benefits to children from ECEC participation.

This three-day guarantee is about making sure that every child can have the best start in life. It's about ensuring that we get rid of the Liberals' activity test, which locked out children and families. Instead, we have put in Labor's three-day guarantee. It's a crucial step in delivering on the commitment to universal early learning.

The activity test has been at the centre of the debate over this bill, and I want to take a moment to talk about our rationale for scrapping the activity test, which was introduced by the Liberals in 2018. As Jay Weatherill from Thrive by Five states:

The Activity test was intended to encourage parents into work but in fact it has done the opposite. It has limited choices and made it harder for parents—especially single parents—to make an income.

An evaluation by the Australian Institute of Family Studies found no evidence that the introduction of the activity test caused any increase in workforce participation. The Productivity Commission found that the effects of the activity test on workforce participation were ambiguous.

We do know that the activity test has made early learning harder to access for many families, including disproportionately affecting those families that may be experiencing disadvantage. The Parenthood's Georgie Dent said the activity test is 'a barrier that disproportionately locks out children who stand to benefit the most from participating in quality early childhood education and care'. In 2021, only 54 per cent of children from the most disadvantaged areas were enrolled in early childhood education and care, compared with 76 per cent of children in the highest socioeconomic areas, and that is despite the fact that the most disadvantaged children are those who are most likely to benefit from early education and care.

We know this through a series of important randomised trials conducted in the 1960s: the Perry Preschool Project, the Abecedarian Project and the Early Training Project. These studies were critical because they used random assignment to assign children to high-quality early learning or to a control group. That meant that, as in a medical trial, we could be sure that we were seeing causal impacts of early learning. Those causal impacts didn't just show up in social skills and school readiness. They carried through until the children were in teenage years, at which point the girls were less likely to become teenage mums and the boys less likely to commit crimes, and they carried through to participation in university and higher earnings. Those randomised trials showed very clearly the benefits of early childhood education for the extremely disadvantaged cohorts who were targeted by them.

A similar randomised trial was conducted by Yi-Ping Tseng and Jeff Borland and a range of other researchers at the University of Melbourne. They set up a centre in Heidelberg West, providing high-quality early childhood services to children who had been exposed to domestic and family violence. Like the US randomised trials, the Melbourne randomised trial focused on a group of extremely disadvantaged children, and the Early Years Education Program, as it's known, is producing results as those children are tracked through into older years. Through randomised trials of this kind, we are learning about the impact of early childhood education and the importance of extremely high-quality early childhood education for extremely disadvantaged children. It's another area in which randomised trials are shedding insight on how to shape better public policy in Australia.

I, too, rise to speak on the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025. I'll set out the legislation and what it is replacing, and then I'll talk a bit about our view of this and what the consequences would be on the ground. This is another piece of flawed legislation by this government that will have consequences. They may be intended or unintended, but they'll be detrimental for our country as a whole. That's the way we view this.

Firstly, the bill amends the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999, removing reference to the childcare subsidy activity test and replacing it with the new three-day guarantee. It gives effect to the announcement made by the Prime Minister.

What was the activity test and why was it there? Firstly, what did the activity test do? It meant that parents and carers needed to be working or looking for work, studying or volunteering to be eligible for the finite—and I use that word 'finite'—subsidised care places. I note that volunteering and looking for work only counted towards the first 16 hours of your activity level. There was a whole formula: less than eight hours, zero hours; if you earn above $83,280, 24 hours; and the more hours you worked, the more hours of subsidised care you got each fortnight.

There were exemptions to that. They were carefully thought out and put into place by the previous coalition government. They were that parents and carers would be eligible for 36 hours a fortnight if they identified as Indigenous, were Parent Pathways participants and received an eligible income support payment. There were mutual obligations if you were receiving one of these payments, whether it be JobSeeker, parenting payment or special benefit, or if you had a child who attended preschool. They were designed to assuage some of the things that I think the member for Fenner was talking about and to try to get child care to the people who needed it.

To go back to first principles: why do we have child care/early childhood education? It is certainly a finite resource. In fact, the demand significantly outstrips the supply—particularly in regional and rural electorates, like the one I represent, Nicholls, where we have what are referred to as childcare deserts, and I'll talk a bit about that later. The first principles are that child care for a certain age enables working families to get back into the workforce sooner than they otherwise would, and that gives us a productivity boost in Australia. We certainly need productivity increases at the moment—perhaps now more than ever, while we've got a productivity crisis that is a causal factor of our inflation situation, which then impacts the cost-of-living crisis. Productivity is so important to us addressing that.

The childcare focus was about improving productivity—and not making a judgement as to what people want to do, but making sure that choice was respected. So if you chose that you didn't want to go back to work and you had the resources or that that was what you wanted to do, then you could do that. But, if you did want to get back into the workforce, for the variety of reasons that people have—for the extra income, or because you liked being in the workplace, as some people do more than others—then, again, there was no judgement as to that. Some people don't want to continue on with their career development as well as having children. Basically, this respected the choice of all Australians.

So the childcare arrangements that existed tried to prioritise the people who wanted to get back into the workforce—we wanted them to be in the workforce, and I'll give you some examples of that—by making sure that they were able to get their children into the finite childcare places that existed, and it has had a positive effect. When you see the childcare desert situation get worse, you can see the negative effect that has.

I sat in a park in a place called Seymour, in my electorate, having advertised, 'Anyone who wants to discuss this childcare issue and the lack of childcare places, come and see me in the park,' and I had a number of parents come and see me in that park, and we sat down and talked about things. I remember one mother speaking to me about just not being able to get the hospital shifts she wanted—she was a nurse in an already worker depleted health system in regional Victoria—and not being able to get a childcare place. She couldn't go back and do the work that she wanted to do and we needed her to do. She spoke to me about her frustration at that, and the frustration with the hospital that she worked at because they're short of workers. That's the problem that we encounter with the lack of investment in new childcare places.

What we're worried about in relation to the three-day guarantee is that, because everyone's guaranteed a place in child care, whether you're working or studying or you're not working—again, I want to emphasise that we on this side and, I think, everyone place no judgement on that. Everyone's free to live their life as they want, and we want them to have the choice to do that. But if those finite places are taken up by people who are putting their children into child care and not working, then, logically, there are going to be fewer places in child care for people who do want to work. Those people are doing jobs that need to be done.

In my own experience—we had our daughter just over 16 years ago, and then we had a son over 14 years ago—my wife and I each had careers in our own professions. I was working in agricultural science; she was working in animal nutrition. We wanted to spend as much time as we could with our daughter, when she was a baby, and there was some good maternity leave, as it was called then; we hadn't quite moved on to paternity leave, but we were able to have some good time. But she wanted to go back to work, I wanted to be at work and we faced the struggles that young families face—mortgage repayments, wanting to get ahead in the world, wanting to pay our house down and also wanting to keep moving in career progression, and wanting to balance that out with the joy and the benefit to Australia of having children, like so many families want to do. We want to make sure that choice and that balance is there for them. So we put our daughter into child care, very successfully, and then we did the same with our son. My wife and I were in the workforce, doing jobs that were incredibly important to the agricultural industries of the Goulburn Valley. Agriculture is, of course, what makes the Goulburn Valley tick.

One of the first principles is that child care is finite. I would love for everyone to have access to child care. I'd love for everyone to be given a million bucks. I'd love for this parliament to be able to give everyone in Australia everything they want. The idealists and the activists who come to this place, some of whom will never govern, often say those things. They want to give everything to everyone because it feels great. But the trouble is that we have finite resources in this country. We have finite workers. We have finite tax dollars. We've got to make difficult decisions about priorities. This piece of legislation skews the priorities in a way that, I think, will mean that people who would like to get back into the workforce, particularly in rural and regional areas, will find it more difficult because the already limited childcare industry—when I say limited, I mean limited in terms of places—will become even more difficult to access because of the three-day guarantee. I worry about the unintended consequences for regional economies like mine, where we are begging for workers. We're begging for workers to come and live in the regions.

We've got professional jobs. We've got trade jobs. We've got all sorts of jobs that are not being filled in our burgeoning economy—in places like Greater Shepparton, Seymour, along the Murray in Echuca, Cobram and Yarrawonga—and, because we've got these limited childcare places, parents are not able to go and participate in the workforce in the way they want to. I just worry this is going to make it worse. I worry this is going to make it worse, and then we're going to get a productivity hit. We can't afford another productivity hit.

People from regional Australia often talk about childcare deserts, and we don't seem to get much buy-in. Although I do acknowledge that there does appear to be some funding for new childcare facilities, I'll be interested to see how that works and whether that is focused on regional areas. I think it's been referred to a Senate inquiry and I'll be interested to see what that comes up with. I note that previous Labor governments have promised to build a lot of new facilities but have fallen short in those areas. I'll say this to the government: I would have been much more likely to support this sort of legislation had you sorted out the supply side first.

If the supply side gets sorted out, and if you can guarantee that this three-day guarantee is not going to keep any working family from being able to access child care and enable them to get back into the workforce—and I saw it on the ground. There are a range of different options, and sometimes those options require flexibility. Family day care seems to be getting harder to do. A lot of families in my electorate have been so successful with that family day care. People who had run those businesses are no longer doing it. They say that the current government regulation just makes it impossible to do that. That makes it harder.

I also think that there's a lot of opportunity around large employers in regional areas being able to set up their own childcare facilities. But, again, I'm told that that's very difficult. This place, this building, has a childcare facility, and that's fantastic. We want more parents to be able to work in this place, and I think the fact that they can drop the kids off at the creche here is great. Wouldn't it be great to have that in more locations in regional Australia?

The principle of this is that the activity test was good. People want to give everything to everyone, and I do understand that. But, when you're governing, you've got to make difficult decisions to try and prioritise resources where you get the most bang for buck. In this case, from my perspective, it's a productivity bang for buck. Do we get more productivity out of prioritising working families for child care or the three-day guarantee? I certainly think it's the former.

Again, I just want to emphasise that I don't make any judgement. I think it's fantastic if people want to stay home and look after their children. If they make the decision that the finances don't work for them to get back into work and do that, I understand that. This is about respecting everyone and their choice. But the most important thing is Australia has never needed its productivity to be increased further than now. Limiting child care for working families is a productivity-sapping measure, and I think we should oppose it.

It gives me great pleasure to speak on this important piece of legislation, the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025, because few things are more important to my constituents in Werriwa than access to child care. Let me commence by thanking all those wonderful early childhood teachers and workers in the electorate for the wonderful work they do and the care that they have for our children. It is much appreciated, I'm sure, by their parents and caregivers but also by the rest of society, giving children opportunities for education into the future.

I have made many visits to childcare centres in my electorate. One such centre is Organic Seedlings. I've visited them a number of times. I know the staff. They are my friends. I know how much they care about their children and the work that they do every day to give them interesting experiences. They are high-quality staff that are making sure that our littlies get the best start in life. I have a really wonderful and fun piece of artwork that was completed by the children at that childcare centre. It's a butterfly and it has all the children's names on it. it was part of their curriculum looking at the life cycle of a butterfly. I joined their class for a couple of hours one afternoon. It is amazing how these really experienced childcare workers and educators can make that complex scientific information available to littlies, from eight months old to five years old, and they were able to explain to me just exactly what was happening.

That is what is happening in childcare centres all over the country all the time. That's why we need to make sure that all of our children have access to that. We know that the first five years of life is the best time to give them the educational foundation they need. So I very much thank all the childcare workers in my electorate but particularly those who have welcomed me, like Organic Seedlings.

I clearly believe in access and opportunity. Specifically but not exclusively this includes access to good-quality health care, access to quality education, access to good jobs and training, and access to quality government support and help if it's needed. On top of that and especially relevant today, I believe in access to child care. Labor fundamentally believes that every child in Australia deserves the best possible start in life. It is what every parent wants for their child as well. Essential to getting the best start in life is access to early education. That's because we know how important the first few years of learning are. When a child starts kindy, it's vital they don't start behind. This bill will work towards making sure they don't.

Those opposite claim to champion accessible early education and care, but their track record says differently. When the former coalition government introduced the activity test in July 2018, they promised it would simplify childcare payments and encourage greater workforce participation. Instead, the activity test hopelessly failed. It created new barriers to workforce participation and made the childcare system even more complicated. Jay Weatherill of the Minderoo Foundation perhaps summed up the failed activity test best when he said the activity test has always been 'punitive and unfair'. The facts and figures attest to Mr Weatherill's quote. Data from the Department of Education shows the number of children from low-income families accessing child care went down from 32,000 in 2018 to 6,500 in 2019. This is just shameful.

The bill before us thankfully replaces the former coalition government's disastrous activity test with a new three-day guarantee to early education from 5 January 2026. All families will be guaranteed three days or 72 hours of childcare subsidy each fortnight. For families caring for First Nations children, there will be a guaranteed 100 hours of childcare subsidy per fortnight. Families who work, study or train will continue to be eligible for the 100 hours of the childcare subsidy each fortnight. This reform will increase entitlements for over 100,000 families, with 66,700 families expected to be better off in the first full financial year of operation. For example, families earning between $50,000 and $100,000 will save, on average, $1,460 per year. This provides genuine cost-of-living relief for those families, on top of Labor's tax cuts and energy bill assistance.

Crucially, no family will be worse off because of this legislation. The three-day guarantee adds to Labor's impressive record in the area of child care and early education. It builds on cheaper child care, which has cut the cost of early education and care for more than a million families, and builds on our 15 per cent pay rise for early educators. It forms part of a package that establishes a billion-dollar Building Early Education Fund to build and expand early education and care centres in areas of need. Specifically, the fund will build and expand around 160 childhood education and care centres. As a result, there will be around an additional 12,000 ECEC places for Australians in need.

Labor is building a universal early education system. We're improving affordability, boosting supply, increasing accessibility, and recognising and rewarding the vital early childhood education workforce sector. Reforms such as this one are very much in my DNA, and they are in Labor's DNA, and they make me proud to be a member of this Albanese government. We are the party of opportunity, we are the party of access, we're the party that helps out and we're the party committed to making sure that no Australian child is left behind. I commend the bill to the House and thank the minister for all the work they've done, in all sectors of education, making sure that every Australian has the opportunities that they deserve and that the country really needs.

I rise in support of the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025, which removes the activity test for early childhood education and care. Child care is important for children and for families. The activity test, which requires that parents are working or studying in order to get subsidised child care, is based on an assumption that early childhood education and care is a benefit for parents but not for kids. But quality care actually benefits kids, especially those from lower socioeconomic families. Quality early childhood education is linked to improved academic achievement, reduced delinquency, increased school completion, higher earnings in adulthood, and improved social and emotional wellbeing. This benefits everyone.

I remember, after having each of my three children, the challenge of looking for a job while still caring for kids full time. It feels like a chicken-and-egg situation: you can't afford to pay for the care unless you have a job, and you can't search for a job, go to interviews or even know how much you'll be able to work until you've secured child care. Thrive by Five's Jay Weatherill points out that the activity test has particularly punished single mothers, casual workers and those looking for work. They get trapped in a cycle where they can't get child care if they don't have a job lined up but can't get a job if they don't have child care lined up.

It's fantastic to have the option of staying home with your kids. But I know how much my kids gained from the stimulation of being in centre based care and how important the workers there were to their development. Educators at my kids' childcare centres taught them things that kept surprising me as a parent. They came home with new knowledge and new ways of resolving conflict—as well as the inevitable new viruses building up their immune systems.

This bill provides a guaranteed minimum of 72 hours of subsidised early childhood education and care per fortnight for all families, regardless of whether mums are working or studying. All households with a total income of $530,000 or less will be able to access some level of subsidised care. This will provide much needed cost-of-living relief for nearly 67,000 families in the first year alone, and lower-income families will save an average of $1,460 per year. For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kids, that guarantee is 100 hours per fortnight, which is aimed at closing the gap in school readiness.

Catherine Liddle, CEO of SNAICC, which is the national voice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children, calls it a 'game changer' for First Nations babies, meaning that more children will be ready for school and set up for a thriving future. Ms Liddle also refers to wider impacts in the community, with recent studies showing that interventions in early childhood education and care settings with vulnerable children and their families may be the key to reducing youth crime.

I understand that in the short term this will put pressure on the sector, but short-term transitional issues should not prevent good long-term reform like this. We need to be bold and have ambition, rather than only seeing the transitional problems. The transition will need to be managed, but paying early childcare workers more under the laws passed in November will definitely help. It's always a chicken-and-egg situation with supply and demand—if you change one, the other one needs to catch up. But, unless we actually make these bold decisions, then nothing will improve.

This change is supported by the Productivity Commission, the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, the ACCC, Thrive by Five and Early Childhood Australia—all of whom have made important policy contributions to improving outcomes for both families and the economy over the long term. WA's own Minderoo Foundation has pointed out that this could lead to almost 40,000 parents being able to return to work or to increase their hours if they want to. So I join the Parenthood CEO, Georgie Dent, in commending this bill. She says dropping the test is 'a profound win for children, equity and the nation', and I commend this bill to the House.

Before I started preparing myself for this speech on the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025, I had a look at what I'd said in a previous bill, and I looked at some of the speeches that people had made on some of the reforms we were doing in relation to the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill back in 2022. Under that particular bill, the government had a really forward agenda by lifting the childcare subsidy rate to 90 per cent for families with a combined income of under $80,000 for the first child in care, increasing subsidies for families earning less than $530,000 with one child in care and keeping higher CCS rates with families with multiple children in care aged five and under. That plan was about making child care more affordable. About 1.26 million Australian families, about 8,900 families in my electorate, benefited. About 96 per cent of families who used child care were better off. In fact, no family was worse off. It delivered real benefits to Australian families, and it meant that a family on a combined income of about $120,000 with one child in care would save about $1,780 in the first year of the plan.

I remember those opposite railing against this particular bill, policy and plan when it came up, engaging in all forms of political gymnastics when we brought the bill in and constantly attacking us for the policy, the settings that we were doing and the reforms we were making. It's sort of deja vu. In last 24 hours, we've had Liberal and National Party people in this place saying, 'Oh, child care's not affordable; it's not accessible,' after about nine or 10 years in government doing nothing. We brought in a massive change back in 2022-23 to help Australians right across the board, which they railed against. We then announced a policy in December last year, supported by stakeholder after stakeholder—as the member for Curtin said, even the National Farmers Federation, who are not exactly an affiliated member of the Australian Labor Party, came out and said how wonderful the policy was—and you've got Liberal and National Party people from rural and regional Queensland and elsewhere saying, 'We can't get access to child care, and it's not affordable.' They haven't got a policy; there's nothing from them.

They're whingeing, moaning, carping and going on. That's all they've served for the last 24 hours—constantly whingeing, carping and moaning. Come up with something constructive! They've got the free lunches for bosses and $600 billion on nuclear power plants that won't deliver any benefits in terms of energy security and cheaper energy for the country. They've also got golden visas that they inadvertently announced by virtue of having a mic over their head. They're bereft of policies, and yet they come in here and criticise us about this, when, in practical terms, this policy will benefit so many Australians. The degree of contortion is like those old games of Twister. It's political Twister. They've got their body here and there, trying to avoid certain things.

The reality is that we've got an incredible need for child care to be affordable and accessible in Australia. About 1.4 million Australian families are going to benefit from it.

This is not just an equity issue; it's a productivity issue and it's an economic development issue. Many women caring for young children want to return to work and want to make sure that they can get access to more money, more hours and more financial security for their families. Families often lose family payments and childcare subsidies as their income rises. This is all a disincentive for parents, and especially mums, to do more paid work. According to the ABS data, in 2022-23, about 73,000 people who wanted to work didn't look for work, because they couldn't make childcare costs work for them.

That's why the first tranche of our reforms was done. Those opposite were railing against them, and they've railed against the second lot. It's quite extraordinary from the Liberal and National members opposite. The Grattan Institute research has consistently shown that supporting women's workforce participation through cheaper child care is one of the best things you can do to grow the country's GDP. The Liberal and National parties claim that they're in favour of economic development—the parties of capitalism and free enterprise—but, when you give them an opportunity to support the growth of the economy and support participation of women in the workforce to grow businesses small and large, they vote against it; they oppose it. It's total inconsistency.

We've announced this policy. We did it last year, in December. We're taking steps to make sure that early education and the care system is expanded. We want quality early education around the country. For a long time, people in our country thought that early education was simply child care. It's not. It's giving kids the best start in life. We all know. I'm a parent and a grandparent. I know how important those early years are for kids to learn and socialise: social inclusion, cooperating with one another, learning new concepts—numbers, the alphabet, reading and writing. Most kids, if they're getting a good education, can learn these basic concepts really, really well. It's about education.

We're establishing a $1 billion building early education fund to roll out from July 2025. We're building more centres. Those opposite criticise us, because they can't find enough centres. But we're doing a policy that's building more centres—and building and expanding them in areas of need. I mention the Liberal and National parties in rural and regional Australia. We're doing this in outer suburbs and regional Australia. We're doing the very thing they're saying we're not doing! It's the very thing that they can't come up with a policy to do.

We want to make sure there's universal child care in this country and that it's simple, affordable, accessible and high quality. That's what we want to do. We want to make sure that kids can get guaranteed three-day high-quality early education and care, because it will change their lives. It will change their lives and give them the best start in life. This particular fund is going to deliver grants to providers, and the government will explore options to invest in owning and leasing out services. But those opposite say we haven't got enough childcare centres. The government's building a fund to do it, and yet they're railing against it. We're focusing on co-locating those services at school sites to prevent the double drop off. We're going to support the growth of high-quality, not-for-profit providers. We want to make sure that's the case.

Now, what are we going to do here? It's really important. What we're going to do specifically in this bill is guarantee three days of high-quality early education. The three-day guarantee is going to replace the current activity test, which is the bane of parents, by the way, with guaranteed eligibility for three days a week of subsidised early education for children who need it.

We know that every child has the right to go to school, and it's a tragedy that parents don't facilitate and support that. Truancy is a terrible detriment to kids' education. Going to school, going to classrooms and learning in the classrooms are so, so important. But we want to make sure that that guarantee—that right, I might add—to go to school is extended for kids in their early years. We want to make sure that the right is not just to go to school but to go to early education too. We're going to make sure that, when they start school, they're not left behind, and we're doing this.

As part of the Building Early Education Fund package I described earlier, we're developing the early education service delivery price to make sure that we have a better understanding of the cost of delivery around the country and where the services are needed, to make sure that we can underpin future reform that needs to happen in the country. You can't set and forget. That's what those opposite did—'set and forget' for nine years. In fact, they didn't even set; they just let it go, for nine years. So we're doing this.

The package that this legislation is part of is really important. It represents a $1.47 billion investment, over five years, in our future. That's a big commitment. Those opposite are opposing it. There's $1.03 billion for the Building Early Education Fund that I referred to in the business case; $427 million for the three-day guarantee, which I described earlier; and $10 million to develop the early education service delivery price. As previous speakers have talked about, this, of course, has come about because of the Productivity Commission's and the ACCC's reports on early education. I thought those opposite liked the Productivity Commission, because they've quoted it plenty of times in the past in this chamber. The Productivity Commission knows that it's good economic sense to invest in early education. They know how important it is. It's really critical.

The fund that I referred to before is going to build on and expand around 160 of the early childhood education and care centres. We're going to focus on those. I think those opposite should listen to the Labor MPs who've been making speeches here, because many centres are going to be located in regional and rural areas. I have the honour and privilege of representing a regional and rural electorate in South-East Queensland. I've got plenty of country areas in my electorate. I've got booming suburbs like Springfield, Ripley and South Ripley. The average age of the people in those suburbs is in the mid-20s. They're just booming. Ipswich's population hit 260,000 in the last quarter of last year; it's probably close to 270,000 now. All those suburbs around Ipswich and country towns like Lowood and Fernvale are growing so rapidly. The development around Walloon and Rosewood in rural Ipswich is phenomenal, as is the number of childcare centres that are being built in these areas.

Goodstart has done a lot of good work in that area, and I've seen so many community kindergartens. We have fantastic community kindergartens in my electorate in places like Cribb Street and Milford Street, where I grew up. I went to that particular kindergarten near Queens Park; it's my old kindy. Recently, they celebrated about 85 years in operation. They're a fantastic community run kindy. These places are so important. The number of prominent citizens in our community who come from these places is important. I've been to these centres. They understand how important a universal early education and care system is.

I want the other side to know that the Productivity Commission inquiry into the ECEC system found that we had an undersupply of places and that there was a barrier to access for families across the country. The Productivity Commission, which is usually quite libertarian or neoliberal in its perspective, recommended the Australian government invest in addressing the gaps through grant funding and, indeed, by retaining ownership of services. The Productivity Commission recommended this, yet those opposite can't even bring themselves to support it. We have the National Farmers Federation supporting it. The coalition have said they're going to get rid of it. They've railed against it; in December 2024, the shadow Treasurer railed against it. They claim that it's something the country can't afford. The shadow Treasurer should listen to his backbenchers, who say we should be doing something like this—just not what we're doing. They've criticised our commitment, yet, if you listen to their speeches closely, they are saying exactly the opposite.

Now, I mentioned Goodstart before. We have some tremendous Goodstart centres in my area. The CEO, Dr Ros Baxter, said it would change lives and boost our productivity, ensuring Australian children don't fall behind. We've seen respected people like the BCA executive director of policy, Wendy Black, saying, 'Affordable, accessible quality child care will lead to long-term economic benefits and improve outcomes.' The Parenthood CEO, Georgie Dent, said, 'Today is the day I've been hanging out professionally for the last four years and seven months.' We have so many people. The National Party should be supporting this. I can't believe they are not supporting it in Queensland. I can't believe they're not supporting this stuff. We've got the National Farmers Federation. They should have a talk to their friends in the National Farmers Federation. On 5 February 2025, the National Farmers Federation, in a statement, said:

We implore the Coalition to match Labor's $1bn 'building early education fund' to build more than 160 new childcare centres.

Well, I say: how about the National Party listen to the National Farmers Federation for once.

CHESTER () (): I do take great pleasure in joining the debate this morning. I want to focus my remarks very much along the three key themes of accessibility, affordability and choice. Across this chamber, I have no doubt whatsoever that there is universal recognition of the value of access to child care. There would not be a member in this place who doesn't see the value in having better access to early childhood education to give our young people the best possible start in life. But the question around access is an important one. I fail to see how those opposite can come in here after almost three years and feel confident in lecturing people on this side of the House about the question of accessibility, when not one of them has bothered to listen to the repeated feedback they've received from rural and regional families, from rural and regional members of this place on this side of the House. I see the member for Nicholls here nodding his head and the member for Braddon nodding his head. So to come into this place and have the member for Blair claiming to be a rural and regional member of parliament, when his seat is at best suburban—it is on the periurban interface with Brisbane in South-East Queensland—and lecturing us about rural and regional accessibility to child care after 2½ years is completely ignoring the fundamental question for a lot of our families.

The problem with the direction taken by the government in this legislation is that allowing, or providing for, a minimum of 72 hours a fortnight access to subsidised child care doesn't mean anything if you can't get one day's access to child care. If there is no childcare centre, having three days provided in the suburbs, I'm sorry, doesn't help you at all. That is the fundamental problem—the disconnect in this place. We have members opposite who come in here and yell abuse at this side of the chamber, telling us how we don't know anything. But they never stop to listen to the lived experience of people in rural and regional communities.

One of our biggest challenges in our rural and regional communities is attracting and retaining a workforce for critical areas like health, education, child care, police, paramedics, nurses—you name it. We can't get them to come to regional areas if there isn't access to affordable child care in the towns where they want to be posted to. I can't tell you the number of times I have had conversations with small-town community leaders in my electorate about the paramedic they tried to attract to the region, or the teacher or the nurse, and the stumbling block was the fact there was no child care available to them.

The reason why this access issue has become even more critical is because, in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, we all need to understand that the vast majority of families need at least 1½ incomes, possibly two full-time incomes, to be able to pay their bills. So how can those opposite come into this place and lecture members on this side of the chamber who represent rural and regional communities, who live in childcare deserts, who have not seen a single improvement in the last three years addressing this problem, while the Labor Party has continued to inflame the cost-of-living crisis for families in our regions?

On the issue of accessibility, those opposite have failed to address the fundamental problem for a lot of rural and regional families. On the question of affordability, another key theme in child care, we need to ensure that families, right across Australia, are in a position to have their child go to a good-quality childcare centre, if required, but also to be able to afford to pay the bills. I do accept those opposite have worked in relation to increasing the wages for childcare workers, which has been a benefit to a large number of workers in the sector. But one of our problems in that regard is that the centres, where they do exist in regional communities, simply can't operate at full capacity because they can't attract the workforce. Again, there are accessibility issues. I say to those opposite that, with the cost of child care increasing by 22.3 per cent since Labor came to power, this is a piece of public policy that still requires an enormous amount of work. I urge those opposite to work in a bipartisan manner with the coalition to address issues of accessibility and affordability.

Finally, I want to refer to choice. What those opposite don't seem to understand is that individual families, particularly in our regional and rural communities, have different requirements for the early childhood education sector than, perhaps, many of our suburban cousins. I don't pretend to come in here and lecture the member for Jagajaga on the needs of Heidelberg or Ivanhoe, because I don't have a lived experience of those suburban areas. But I will come in here and talk about the needs of my community, where we have people working on farms, sometimes in quite remote locations. We have a disproportionate number of small-business owners in our communities, where you may have a husband-and-wife or family team working together in a small business. We need choice when it comes to child care. We need choice in this sector where it may be more appropriate for some of our rural and regional families to access in-home care, which is subsidised to some extent. We need more support for kinship care. A lot of families in rural and regional communities are relying on other family members to take up the care burden.

Why is there only one government sanctioned form of raising a child in Australia—that being institutionalised child care? What about the families who would prefer to be in a position to care for their own child for longer in their own home? Why have we got ourselves in a position as a nation where we seem to discriminate against those families who would prefer, with a little bit of help from the government, to look after their own children in their own home for longer. It'd be a lot cheaper than subsidising their child care. I don't come in here lecturing those opposite if it's their choice to have their children in long day care, nor should anyone come in here and lecture this side of the House if we represent families in our communities who would prefer to have the option, where possible, to look after their own children for longer. They are both reasonable choices with the best interests of the child at heart. That's a fundamental issue of the debate that we should be having today: where are we placing the best interests of the child in this debate? Surely, if we're talking about early childhood education and care, we have to be fundamentally addressing the needs of the children throughout Australia, whether they live in the suburbs, the inner cities, or in rural, regional or remote communities.

I appeal to those opposite to start taking the time to listen to members on this side with a lived experience of rural, regional and remote communities, because our needs are different when it comes to early childhood education and care. We're fundamentally focused on accessibility. We need access to more and a greater variety of services. In many of our communities, the corporate care for-profit model of 120 kids in a childcare centre just doesn't work. There are going to have to be models in regional communities where we work with local councils, hospitals and big industry, and support childcare facilities being built to support maybe only 20 or 30 children at a time. The accessibility question is fundamental. Again, the affordability question, I see the minister opposite nodding her head in agreement, but the choice question is one that this place has not grappled with, they refuse to respect the different choices Australian families want to make in the interests of their own children.

Come and talk to me, Darren.

I'll take the minister's offer to come and talk to her, and I will. I've always found the minister to be a very reasonable person, but I've sat in here in recent hours and listened to some misinformed lectures from suburban MPs who have no appreciation of life in rural and regional communities, telling us how we have failed to support families in regional areas. So I will take up the minister's offer of a meeting, and I look forward to that.

It is deceptive for the government to parade in this place and claim that it has solved all problems in relation to early childhood care and education across Australia.

I welcome the interjection by my good friend, the member for Spence. He's suggesting that it's misleading for me to claim that the government is making spectacular claims in relation to early childhood care and education. He obviously hasn't been in the chamber for the last hour to hear those opposite sprouting their achievements but failing to acknowledge the very real challenges that still exist in regional areas and communities in relation to accessibility, affordability and choice.

The Prime Minister is interjecting that we're against funding for regional child care. Prime Minister, I invite you to join me in the meeting with the minister. I would love to meet with the Prime Minister to talk about early childhood education and care in my community. I would love him to join us in that meeting, and we could exchange ideas on rural and regional areas. Prime Minister, I found when dealing with the vast number of your frontbenchers that they're not interested in hearing about rural and regional Australia. They're not interested in having conversations about how your policies have hurt rural and regional families. Your frontbenchers aren't interested in hearing about the impact of the cost-of-living crisis on regional people. So I do welcome the Prime Minister's invitation.

I came in here to hear you speak!

I welcome the Prime Minister's continued interjections. He's come in here to hear me speak— well, I'll speak more, Prime Minister! I was about to sit down, but since you've come here, I better let you have the benefit of hearing more about rural and regional Australia and how your frontbench has refused to engage with rural and regional communities on critical issues affecting our community. I'd suggest to the Prime Minister that, in relation to infrastructure and transport, he has a minister who takes up to 10 months to respond to correspondence from rural and regional members for information in relation to regional highways and other infrastructure. I do encourage the Prime Minister to urge his frontbench to at least pay some respect to members who have a lived experience in our rural and regional areas to understand the very real challenges that we face in dealing with issues which are both complex and require a different approach to the Canberra one-size-fits-all one which has been the hallmark of this government.

I will conclude with a few more remarks from where I started in relation to the fundamental areas where I think there is agreement on this issue. As I said at the outset, I believe that across the chamber there is enormous goodwill towards achieving the best possible outcome for young people and giving them the best possible start through access to early childhood education and care. Where I think we are failing today is in relation to those three key areas of accessibility, affordability and choice. The accessibility question can be resolved only when we have governments and bureaucrats here in Canberra prepared to listen to the lived experience of people in country areas who will come up with different models that aren't the corporate care models. They won't involve 120 children in one centre, will have smaller centres and may involve a greater investment in small-scale infrastructure, perhaps even for family day care, to support the growth in that sector.

The final point is about choice. We have got ourselves into a position in this nation where we seem to be promoting a government sanctioned model of raising children that doesn't recognise that families are individual and want to make their own choices. That should be respected. The choice to send your child to a childcare centre if required—sometimes through necessity; sometimes by choice—is a legitimate one, as is the choice of raising your child as much as possible in your own home.

This is where the member is taking insult where no insult is intended. The member is seeking to have an argument where no insult is intended. I'm saying there are opportunities for people to choose what works for their family or what incentive is forced upon them. When we have a single parent who requires access to early childhood education, of course it should be respected by the government—just as the family looking to have more opportunity to look after their own children in their own home for longer should be respected by government. If those opposite can't support that choice, they should come out and say it.

On my side of the chamber, due to the necessity of rural and remote locations, many families are in a situation where they want to spend more time looking after their own children in their own homes and not access formalised care, because it's not available to them. All I'm asking is that those opposite take the time to understand the lived experience of a lot of families in rural and regional communities around accessibility, affordability and choice, just as those on this side of the House respect the fact that, in a suburban or inner-urban environment, a lot of people with cost-of-living pressures, which are enormous, are faced with no other choice than to have two full-time incomes. That flexibility is so important for a lot of our rural and regional families.

In our first term, our government has brought down the cost of child care for over one million families by an average of around $2,700. That's additional money they have in their pockets. In addition to that, we're boosting the wages of up to 200,000 early educators by some 15 per cent—10 per cent from 1 December last year and five per cent from 1 December this year. More than 1,000 new childcare centres have opened since we came to government three years ago, and nearly 100,000 more childcare places are available since we came to government. There are 42,000 more early educators at work and 125,000 more in training. This is what reform looks like and this is what change looks like—making sure we are making a difference.

Of course, it is about choice for families. Families will make their own decisions, but the truth is that many families can't make the choice they would like to either because the childcare places aren't available or because child care is unaffordable and it doesn't make sense to work that extra day or two days. That's why early childhood education is not just about families or children; it's also about our economy. The three Ps of growth—participation, productivity and population—are all boosted by having a childcare system that works for people and enables people to take up their choice in life.

The announcement I made in Brisbane on behalf of the government was twofold. First, there is the three-day guarantee, abolishing the activity test and making sure that makes a difference. All the assessments that had been made showed that the activity test was a barrier for the most disadvantaged—those who were missing out. Second, we recognise that infrastructure is also important, which is why we announced a billion dollar fund to build new childcare centres in our regions and our outer suburbs, cooperating with state and territory governments. Co-location is a great example to stop that double drop-off as we move forward.

Back in the days when oppositions announced policies that were fully costed and set out, I announced this in my first budget reply, and the changes that we've implemented this term have made a real difference—an additional $2,700, increased wages for early educators, 1,000 new childcare centres, 100,000 more childcare places and 42,000 more early educators. It is a substantial record of achievement. It's consistent with what Labor governments do. A Labor government created universal Medicare because every Australian has the right to quality, affordable health care. A Labor government created universal superannuation because every worker has the right to retire in dignity and security. A Labor government created the National Disability Insurance Scheme because every Australian with disability has the right to choice and control over their life. We did all of that to help people, but it also helped build our society and our economy. And the Labor government wants to build a universal childcare system, one that's simple, affordable and accessible for every family. This legislation is the next step towards that, and I'm pleased that it will pass the House and the Senate today, to make that step towards reality and to make sure that every child can access at least three days of subsidy for high-quality early education and care.

Of course, universal and accessible don't mean compulsory or mandatory. The choice, as always, belongs to parents. But we want parents to have a real choice, not limited by where they live or what they earn. We want parents to make their decision on the basis of one thing only: what they want for their child. This is the big difference between the two approaches in this House. Every Australian accepts that, when a child reaches the age of four or five, they get to go to school and that public schools should be available to everyone, regardless of the income of their parents, regardless of everything, because it's about the child. Indeed, one of the benefits of schools that are diverse in the people and the background of those who come to them is that it enriches their experience in life. Child care is the same. We believe that a right to that should be available to all.

We know that more than 90 per cent of human brain development occurs in the first five years. That's why early education is so enriching. When I go into these centres—as I have, now, around the country, particularly over the last five or six years—I am inspired by the largely female, but also male, workforce, who are so enthusiastic at imparting knowledge in literacy and in numeracy, and in engaging those social skills that are so important for our youngest Australians at a time, as well, where there is too much conflict and hatred indeed around. One of the things that you learn is that hatred and distinction is learned behaviour, because those little kids don't see colour or faith or gender or anything else. What they see is other little fellow human beings, and they engage in a way which is absolutely delightful and wonderful, with each other.

So we think this is so important. More than a million families, of course, access child care. That's why there's more than a million reasons to invest in early education. It makes such an important difference to those young people. And it makes them ready for school—to step up to that next level—as well.

Part of what we are doing is the Building Early Education Fund, the single biggest investment by a Commonwealth government in new childcare services ever, building and expanding over 160 new centres where they're needed most—especially in regional communities, that have missed out for too long. These are places that have been left behind because the private sector didn't see an opportunity for profit. When the market lets people down, our government steps in. Building new childcare centres is about breaking down the barriers of distance.

We also need to break down barriers the previous government deliberately put up, starting with the Liberals' activity test. The activity test makes life harder for parents doing the hard yards of looking for work, locking their children out of early education. Parents do not need to go through a bureaucracy or work a certain number of hours to want the best possible education for their child. The aspiration to give your child the best chance in life drives every parent, whoever you are and wherever you live. This legislation will replace the Liberals' activity test with the three-day guarantee in early childhood education, meaning that every family earning up to $530,000 will have access to the childcare subsidy guaranteed for three days a week. That's our commitment. It's three days of early education, affordable for every family, funded for every child and building a better education system for our nation.

Of course, on the day that we outlined these policies, the Liberals and Nationals opposed them. They mocked our pay rise for early educators, even though all of the evidence was not only people not wanting to go into early education but that many of the workers there, in spite of their passion for their vocation of helping our littlest Australians get the best start in life, couldn't afford to stay in the system and so they were leaving. So that was placing a real constraint. But we fixed it. They called it wasteful spending. It's on the chopping block as part of their $350 billion of cuts they have foreshadowed. They'll tell us what's in them after the election, not before. That's before they have to find $600 billion to pay for their nuclear fantasy sometime in the 2040s.

Those opposite talk about child care as a luxury that parents have to prove they need. We know child care is an essential service for families. We know early education is an opportunity that every child deserves to have access to. The whole of the 20th century it was understood that every child has the right to go to school and government has the responsibility to make that possible. In the 21st century, every child has the right to have access to early education and government has the responsibility to make that possible. My government is determined to do just that. Those opposite, in their opposition to this plan, like their opposition to everything else, just reinforce how reactionary they have become. Anyone who wants to look forward to a better Australia is not welcome in the modern Liberal Party. The modern Liberal Party is more and more right-wing by the day. It sees Simon Birmingham and Paul Fletcher checking out, following Christopher Pyne and others as well. Will the last moderate in the Liberal Party turn the lights out before they leave the building? That is what they are like.

We know that this reform reinforces my view that it is only Labor governments that do the big nation-changing reforms. Off the back of universal health care, universal superannuation, universal provision of the National Disability Insurance Scheme will be universal provision of child care. That is something we're determined to do step by step to make sure that we get it right. That is how you build Australia's future, something that my government is determined to do.

It's a pleasure to follow the PM's contribution on the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025 and good to see that a few of my colleagues across the chamber are here for my contribution to this debate, in particular the member for Spence, who's made some important contributions during my debates this week, which is greatly appreciated.

I appreciate the Prime Minister's attempt to defend the validity and rationale of this policy. And I agree with some of what the Prime Minister has had to say, as well as other colleagues in this debate. We do want to see a high-quality, robust early childhood sector, with high education standards, to ensure that our young Australians get the best start in life that they can. And I want to take this opportunity to thank the early childhood educators across my electorate of Forde for the wonderful job they do each and every day trying to do exactly that. For many kids in my community, the fact that they have access to child care makes an enormous difference to their lives given the situation that some of them, sadly, find themselves in on the home front.

But when I look at this bill I see a bill that doesn't address what I see as the fundamental issues facing many in my community: lack of access and lack of affordability. Any number of centres I've spoken to over the past 12 months do not have spare places; they have waiting lists. I have also spoken to many people whose out-of-pocket costs have grown, despite increased childcare subsidies.

As I look at the structure of this bill, I see that it is only going to make the situation worse. At least now the situation is that the places in the childcare centres that are available are available to families who, for whatever reason, need two incomes—and increasingly that is largely as a result of the government's failure to deal with the cost-of-living issues that we've spoken about in other debates in this House over the course of this and previous weeks. Removing the activity test is going to see families who are working and trying to make ends meet compete with those who aren't, in a situation where there is already limited space, as we're seeing—and I know our regional members have even larger problems with available space, let alone having childcare centres at all in some cases.

So I don't see how this is going to help a significant number of people across my electorate. The government estimates that more than 100,000 families will have access to more subsidised care and that more than 66,000 families will be better off overall. That represents only about six per cent of all families who are currently engaged in the childcare subsidy system.

I note that the Prime Minister also referred to their wage subsidy. But, interestingly, that's funded by the government for only two years. What happens after two years? Who is going to pay the cost of those increased wages? I have no issue with those wages, because our childcare workers do a terrific job. At some point somebody has to pay for it, and it is going to be the families across my electorate of Forde who are going to pay for it through higher fees than they are already paying. Despite the government's protestations to the contrary, we are seeing a government that has failed to address the supply-side constraints in the system.

The modelling from the Productivity Commission shows that most of the children affected by the activity test changes live in major cities, but there is no point having access to three days of child care if there is no child care available. Once again we are finding that the real issues at the heart of the system are not being addressed. We want to have families who have a right to choose what their work life and family life look like, and the coalition respects this choice. Labor's three-day guarantee does nothing for families who choose to remain at home and raise their children until primary school or for families who use flexible arrangements such as grandparents or nannies. The bill also does nothing for families who need flexibility, such as families who do shiftwork or work non-standard hours. Again, these hardworking families will not benefit from this change, but families who aren't working, studying or training will. Similar to Labor's other policies, this rewards families who access child care at the expense of families who are unable to or choose not to.

We also believe there is a discrepancy in the policy costings and that the figures in the policy costings of $426 million over five years are undercooked and don't reflect the true impact of removing the activity cost. The department has also been unable to advise how many families are eligible for CCS but not enrolling their children or how many families are completely disengaged with CCS. The government's costings do not account for these groups.

Interestingly, the Productivity Commission's 2024 report A path to universal early childhood education and care costed the complete removal of the activity test at $2.3 billion a year. The PC's modelling suggested the complete removal of the activity test would increase the hours of early childhood education by four per cent. They also estimated this will lead to a 0.9 per cent decrease in hours worked by sole parents and primary carer parents in couple families. Again, this appears to be a policy that doesn't take into account the full range of factors, but that's nothing unusual for this government. They have a habit of saying one thing and actually delivering something completely different, so I find their failure to deal with the detail in the policy nothing unusual.

We've also heard it said that the three-day guarantee is a cost-of-living measure, but in reality it's nothing of the sort. Since Labor came to power the cost of child care has increased by 22.3 per cent. At this rate, childcare costs will have soared by over 124 per cent by March 2032. The last time Labor was in government, the cost of child care skyrocketed by 53 per cent in six years. So, once again, the Labor government has form in saying it's attempting to reduce the cost of something, but in reality all it does is significantly increase the cost. And, since the Labor government's cheaper childcare policy came into effect, out-of-pocket costs have increased by some 12.7 per cent, with almost one in three services charging above the fee cap as providers struggle to keep up with rising regulation and red tape.

I know that some providers in my electorate I have spoken to, who will remain nameless, have been going through the process of trying to apply for the subsidy for the wage rise, and, given that they've found it too hard, too burdensome, too bureaucratic, they have decided to pay the pay rise anyway. But the way they have funded that is by increasing their fees, so families are worse off. The majority of families accessing CCS will not see a reduction in their childcare costs because of this legislation.

Let's contrast that with the coalition's record. In our time in government, we almost doubled childcare investment to $11 billion, in 2022-23, and locked in ongoing funding for preschools and kindergartens. We also made the biggest reforms to the early childhood education system in over 40 years. More than 1.3 million children have access to the childcare subsidy, from around one million families. Under the coalition, 280,000 more children are in early childhood education, and our targeted extra support, introduced in March of 2022, made a real difference, as childcare costs came down by 4.6 per cent in the year to June 2022. We saw women's workforce participation reach record highs of 62.3 per cent in May of 2022, compared to 58.7 per cent when Labor left office in 2013.

Once again, it demonstrates that a coalition government can deliver real and tangible results for families right across this country, and it's only through a coalition government being elected next election that we'll get Australia back on track. For all the reasons I've outlined above, we oppose this bill.

Debate adjourned.

On behalf of the Speaker, it is my duty to draw to the attention of the House the fact that one of the Senate amendments conveyed by this message raises an important point of constitutional principle.

Proposed amendment (4) would have the effect of changing the persons to whom additional amounts under section 80 of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 are payable.

Senate amendment (4) is covered by section 53 of the Constitution because it changes the destination of money appropriated by section 423 of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. Thus, the amendment should have been made to the House as a requested amendment.

The matter for consideration is not so much one of the privileges and rights between the two houses, but observance of the requirements of the Constitution concerning the powers of the houses.

I am advised that, in the application of standing order 180, a change to the destination of money drawn from an existing appropriation is considered to be a proposal requiring a message from the Governor-General under section 56 of the Constitution. I understand that such a message has been obtained in this case.

If the House wishes to entertain the proposal reflected in the Senate's proposed amendment, the House may choose to proceed by alternative means.

I move:

That the:

(1) House endorses the statement of the Speaker in relation to the constitutional questions raised by Message No. 428 transmitted by the Senate in relation to the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024; and

(2) message be considered immediately.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate's purported amendment (4) be disagreed to.

I am moving that the amendment be disagreed to only for the reason of the constitutional issues that were raised in the statement by the Deputy Speaker. The content of the amendment is not disagreed to, and it's proposed that the content of that amendment be moved as an amendment in the House so that it all has the same import in the final legislation. This is merely to do with the constitutional issue raise by the Deputy Speaker.

We will move through a process of disagreeing to the Senate's purported amendment. We'll then have the message from the Governor-General. We'll then move that amendment in the House, agree that and then agree the remaining amendments from the Senate so that the bill is then finalised here, in the House. I look forward to the agreement of all in the House to make sure that we are able to pass this bill today.

As we note, through this process, we have worked as close as we can in a bipartisan form. I'm taking on honour and truth that we have a constitutional issue here. The issue is that—as long as the intent of that amendment is provided for in a form of concurrency with this debate, otherwise we're going to have a blue with the Senate, because they're going to say, 'You duped us in the House.' We don't need that grief. On that premise, I'm happy to go forward and concur with the minister, and then I look forward to us having the House amendment so we can get the intent put forward.

Question agreed to.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for requested amendments announced.

I move:

That the amendment set out in the schedule circulated to honourable members be made in place of the Senate's purported amendment (4) which has been disagreed to.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That Senate amendments (1) to (3) be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

(Quorum formed)

The Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025 is an important bill in terms of finally assisting young families in juggling those commitments of parenting, children and working. Support for our working families leads to stronger outcomes for the economy and our community.

The decision about whether to return to work or take more time off to care for a child is a decision that all new parents must face, and all too often women are left with that responsibility. That needs to change. Men and other parents and partners must shoulder more of that proportion and responsibility. Of course, there are trade-offs when that choice of either staying home or going back to work has to be made, whether they be financial or emotional, because none of these choices are easy. I've spoken to many young parents, especially women, across my electorate who rely on many different types of care, from private and public child care to relying on family, to help juggle the demands of working life and the exorbitant cost of accessing child care.

I've been there personally and I understand how incredibly hard and expensive it is. As a barrister and as a sole trader, I didn't get access to any of that assistance. It was a juggle between local childcare centres and my parents assisting me a number of days a week, and I often had to juggle leaving court and leaving chambers early because of the crazy closure times and the penalty rates that apply if you're five minutes late picking your kids up from the childcare centre. It's incredibly hard, and all too often the decks are stacked against women because all too often women are left to shoulder this responsibility. My call-out to men is: it is good for your relationship with your children to spend more time with them. The responsibility of caring should not fall on mothers; it has to fall equally on all parents. It is good for your relationship with your children and for our economy and our society because it means everyone has the opportunity to participate.

All too often for women, the frustration of wanting to go back to work but being penalised by a reduced eligibility to claim days in child care—you have this penalty cliff at which there is a point you are working to pay for it rather than working to get ahead. That is just wrong. Women juggling commitments need to feel supported by the community and our broader society. Parents need to feel supported. This is an essential part of Australia moving forward—being able to have that juggle of family, children and work and progressing careers.

Of course, support comes in many ways, through the childcare system, family support and a broader understanding of the pressure on working parents. The call for universal child care holds significant benefits for our children, and, far too often, it has quite insultingly been pitched as something that is given to women. With respect to every member, it is something given to our society, because we go nowhere unless we have children and we go nowhere unless everyone in our society has the opportunity to work and to contribute and has that equal opportunity to do those things. So universal child care holds significant benefits for our children, our community, our economy and our society.

Of course, for children, it also provides the best opportunity to be happy, safe and secure and it builds the necessary foundations and skills that children need throughout their life, especially when they then enter schooling. It's incredibly important that all children have the opportunity to access that early childcare experience. It's particularly impactful that children who come from disadvantaged backgrounds are able to get into those opportunities. So I very much support the implementation of full, universal access to child care for this minimum of three days, and this bill is a welcome start.

The bill is being introduced because the activity test is broken. The childcare subsidy does not provide an adequate safety net for working families. We have the second-highest childcare costs in OECD countries. It is prohibitively expensive, and, whilst there are childcare deserts and a lack of availability in regional communities, the cost in urban communities is exorbitant. My community would have to have one of the highest costs when it comes to child care. Australian families spend about 27 per cent of their income—that's nearly a third—on child care, compared to the OECD average of 14.5 per cent.

The Productivity Commission's report on universal child care found that 328,000 parents were not entering the workforce due to the affordability and availability of child care. We hear a lot in this place about staffing shortages and skills shortages. You can point to and blame immigration and do all those things, but, ultimately, the first and best thing we can do is utilise, to the best and the fullest capacity, our current population, making sure everyone in our communities now have that equal opportunity to participate. If you think about it, 328,000 parents are not entering the workforce due to the affordability and the availability of child care. So this bill goes some way to fixing that, and I welcome it.

The activity test introduced by the previous government in 2018, designed to encourage workforce participation, was shown not to work. The test is used to determine how much care subsidy a family can receive, but it's linked to hours a parent is working or a parent is volunteering, job hunting, on leave or studying, and it has been heavily criticised, because, unfortunately, it has not resulted in increased workforce participation. In fact, it has disincentivised workforce participation. The Australian Institute of Family Studies's evaluation found no evidence that the activity test caused any increase in workforce participation; instead, it is most likely to hurt lower income families and discourage use of access of early childhood education for their children.

The Productivity Commission, the Thrive by Five campaign and the Parenthood group all have done phenomenal work in raising this issue. This is not a women's issue; this will be a society issue and an economy issue unless we can all participate. It is very good to now be looking at this activity test and getting rid of it. It's too convoluted and difficult to understand. As it was, the subsidy didn't increase enough to cover the added cost of child care as a parent increased their working commitments. Too often parents, usually women, were left to work part time because the cost of going full time or increasing their days was simply too prohibitive. That has so many knock-on effects. It means that women may stay on part-time or casual contracts instead of going into permanent employment. It means that they are not accumulating the same amount of super. It means they are not eligible for the same promotions. You then see that pay gap and that opportunity gap widen.

The focus on the parents in that activity test does not provide an opportunity to allow all children to have the best opportunity to thrive. In fact, families have been found to deliberately keep their hours low enough to receive support. Alarmingly the Productivity Commission found that 70 per cent of sole parents and secondary earners have reduced their hours due to the reduction of childcare subsidies. If there was ever a counterproductive measure, this would have to be it! The ACCC found that families on a lower income spend a greater share of disposable income on child care and are disproportionately impacted by the childcare subsidy activity test. The impact is that some 126,000 children from the poorest households across Australia have missed out on early childhood education, and, unfortunately, that missing out is compounded over the years, and it makes a difference.

This bill reforms the activity test to ensure that families who earn less than $530,000 per year will be guaranteed access to at least three days a week, or 72 hours per fortnight, of subsidised child care. According to the Department of Education, households earning between $50,000 and $100,000 per year will save around $15,000 a year. This is really significant. It provides a guaranteed 100-hour entitlement per fortnight for parents caring for an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child. And I welcome that additional provision for First Nations Australians.

It's a high-stakes road map; there is no doubt. The bill presents an opportunity to improve gender equity by providing more choice between increasing caring responsibility and entering the workforce. It's a first step to make universal child care available for all Australian families. Better access to affordable child care leads to additional hours of work by more parents joining the workforce. It's estimated that the taxation uplift will actually be in the order of some $292 million, and it will increase Australia's GDP by some $6 billion. So I dare anyone in this place to oppose the bill and say that somehow this is not a good measure.

The bill presents an opportunity for children to access high-quality child care that will set them on the right path. Now, of course, this only works if we couple this with a measure to make sure child care is available in all communities in Australia. I've heard many from the opposition, in their speeches, talk about the childcare deserts. That does not warrant opposing this bill. It means go to the table, sit down with the government. You find ways to do it on other issues, so sit down and work out how we can roll out childcare centres so they are available in every community in Australia. Pointing at the lack of availability is not a reason to not support making it available and more affordable to all. It's so important.

I've spoken many times in this place about the need to help women participate equally in work and strengthen our gender equity, including in our superannuation laws and paid parental scheme. For me, this campaign to increase the childcare subsidy to provide more support for working families is essential. That's why it is so important to be committed to having more voices in this place, more diversity. Especially, it is about having more women's voices in this place—to make sure that these issues are not pigeonholed but are put front and centre of good economic management.

This bill is welcome, but more can be done. The activity test still needs reforming. I think we need to remove the activity test completely to ensure greater universal childcare access. The affordability is one piece of the puzzle, but it doesn't work without access to high-quality childcare centres. So, as I said, we need to do more about this. During the break, the government committed to funding and constructing more. They have committed to 160 centres. Unfortunately, I remember at the time there was a media outcry about the scale of that spend. Well, you can't come into this place and complain about the lack of availability, oppose the measure to build and support more child care and then also oppose making it more affordable for families. And you can't then go out to communities and say you're somehow in this place fighting for families.

I support the government on this issue. We need to do more to make sure that there are more centres built and, in particular, that regional and rural Australia has access to child care. Victoria University has done a study which shows that 24 per cent of Australians live where there is a lack of childcare availability. There are more than three children for each childcare spot. So it's slightly better than in 2020, when it was 34 per cent, but it shows that there's still a lot to do; there is so much more that needs to be done.

Yes, I represent an urban community, but I am acutely aware that child care needs to be available to all Australians. All communities need to have access to quality child care so that all Australian children have that opportunity to develop. So I encourage the government to consider incentives to increase availability of high-quality education and early learning, such as rewarding centres if they meet or exceed national quality standards. We need to make sure there are incentives.

Of course, we have labour shortages, so the question will be whether we have enough people to staff these centres. So, again, it's making sure qualified staff are available. We know that they're struggling to find qualified staff, and it's putting extra pressure on families as centres cap the number of places due to staffing shortages. Now, of course, that is linked to wages and whether or not it's an attractive career pathway. Median wages for early childhood teachers are about 20 per cent lower than those of primary school teachers. They have poorer working conditions, fewer leave days and greater workplace pressures. More than half of graduates of early childhood education degrees choose employment in primary school, so clearly we still do not have parity across these education sectors and we are picking and choosing which ones we value. We need to do better to make sure that the entire pathway is supported and equitable.

The government's commitment to early childhood education is welcome, but, as I said, more can be done. So it comes again to that coordination piece at the state and territory and federal levels to improve the recruitment and retention of early childhood educators: removing unnecessary workforce barriers, such as moving between state and territory jurisdictions; improving opportunities for career development, such as early career support and mentoring programs; and, of course, wage increases.

So I welcome this legislation. It is an essential part of us having an equitable society where men and women—all parents—have the opportunity to juggle the responsibility of parenting with working and making a financial contribution by being in paid employment. It is so important that early child care be available. Ultimately, it is a key to us having a smart next generation. We know that the data shows that engagement in early child care helps development and improves learning outcomes as children go on to primary school.

I want to acknowledge the contribution that the member for Warringah just made, echoing that belief that there is a fundamental good for society in having every young child given the opportunity to have quality early education. I think back to what it was like to be a mum with little kids. It was a long time ago. It's more than 30 years ago. It was during the recession we had to have. It was a tough time economically, and the cost of child care even back then was something that weighed on you. But, as we know, it's gotten tougher. I see my children's generations really struggling to work full time—or part time, if they can afford it—and balance the budget with their childcare costs. We need to say to those young people now: We realise that it's tough. These have been difficult economic times.

On top of that, those young people are probably at the hardest stage of their lives, with the biggest calls on their time, their funds and their energy. That's what this is tackling. It's about recognising the challenges—challenges that got harder because of the previous government. When the Liberals were in government they created a bigger problem here, and that's where I want to start, in talking about the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025.

When the former Liberal government introduced the activity test in July 2018, they promised that it was about enabling and encouraging greater workforce participation and simplifying childcare payments. Instead, what it actually did was to create new barriers to workforce participation for parents. It made the childcare system more complicated for their families. It made it harder for families to access early childhood education, especially for those with children who are likely to benefit from it the most. That's the appalling consequence of what happened. And it had multiple other consequences. We've seen a massive increase in grandparents looking after grandchildren to try to help ease the costs because parents aren't able to access the number of subsidised hours of care that would make it accessible.

That 2018 childcare package halved the number of subsidised hours of care that low-income families could access. It went from 48 hours a fortnight to 24 hours, essentially one day a week. Data from the Department of Education shows that the number of children from low-income families who accessed care went from 32,000 in 2018 to around 6½ thousand in 2019. That suggests that without that extra help many low-income families simply dropped out of early education. There's a whole generation of toddlers who missed out because of the Liberal Party's decision. That is unacceptable.

The Australian Institute of Family Studies reviewed the Liberals' childcare reforms back in 2021 and gave them the advice that the small increase in parents' employment since 2018 was consistent with ongoing trends around the world in workforce participation and couldn't be linked to their reforms. The Liberals probably wished they hadn't been given that advice. They certainly didn't take note of that advice, and they maintained their policy settings.

The Australian Institute of Family Studies found that detailed activity testing was making the system more difficult to navigate—and it is not a simple system; it never was. Even back in my day it was complicated and confusing. When you're a young mum with young kids, the system is even more challenging to try and get your head around when there's so much else going on. When you're trying to get out the door in the morning with the kids while you're on your way to work, that's really the focus of the way you start each day.

The Institute of Family Studies also found that children in low-income families who didn't meet the activity test were not getting enough access to early childhood education. These were the children who, as we all know, often need it the most—not always, but often. When you look at the consequences of that down the line, you see that when kids get to primary school—in New South Wales in their first year they do kindergarten—if they haven't had that early learning there are big differences within that class. This means big challenges for teachers, who of course do an extraordinary job in our schools to cater for it. It's actually a benefit to every parent of a child in those first years of school to have all the other kids having had a fantastic quality early childhood education background.

All of this is backed by research. This is not just something where we say, 'I've been a mum and I know.' The analysis by the Institute of Family Studies has been backed in multiple ways, and I want to quote Dr Angela Jackson and Impact Economics, which found:

The current activity test—

and this is talking about the Liberals' activity test—

for the Child Care Subsidy limits access to subsidised child care and is contributing to … children from the poorest households missing out on critical early childhood education and care. As a result, these children are more likely to start school behind their peers, with many never catching up.

And these are choices that the Liberals made, choices that have consequences for kids who are now in school. They have consequences for our system now and in years to come. That's why this reform is so important.

The three-day guarantee is about making sure that every family and every child can access subsidised early learning. We want to make sure every single child gets the best possible start in life. They have a right to go to early education, to help make sure they don't start school behind other kids. This Labor government is going to make sure that is possible.

This bill replaces the activity test, and the three-day guarantee will essentially increase entitlements for more than 100,000 families, with more than 66,000 families expected to be better off in the first full financial year of the implementation of this policy and no families worse off. This reform is part of our next steps to continue building a universal early education and care system where we see expanding access to quality care across the country. It obviously builds on cheaper child care, which cuts the cost of early education and care for around a million families. It also builds on our efforts to get a 15 per cent pay rise for early educators. It's part of a package that establishes a $1 billion Building Early Education Fund to build and expand childcare centres in areas of need, including the outer suburbs and regions.

That brings a big smile to my face because, as someone who represents an outer suburb and region—the Hawkesbury, the Plains and the Blue Mountains—we really need help getting access to childcare places. I know mums who can't work or who can only work a small amount of time but not the amount they'd like. That's because we are one of those deserts where the actions of the previous government did nothing to help increase access to early education. It's the height of hypocrisy for those opposite to now suddenly discover that there are problems and a bit tricky to get childcare places if you're a new mum. This has been going on for years, and, under their watch, they did absolutely nothing. They chose to ignore it completely.

The Building Early Education Fund is going to include $500 million in targeted capital grant rounds focused on quality, not-for-profit early childhood education and care providers and state and local governments to establish new services and increase the capacity of existing services. Grants will be targeted—as Labor always does—to priority and underserved markets, including regional locations and outer suburbs. I certainly know I am advocating hard for my community on these matters.

That's how this piece of legislation fits into a bigger picture. It's not a one-off—let's just do this and give it a tick, and that'll fix everything. We recognise the breadth of work there is to do. I acknowledge in the chamber the Minister for Education, who, along with his assistant minister, works so hard to ensure that we have an education system that will have universal access and treats people across Australia with dignity and respect and recognises that it's not just those who live in posh parts of cities who deserve the best; it's everybody.

The key to this legislation is that all families will be guaranteed three days, 72 hours, of childcare subsidy each fortnight. Families caring for First Nations children will be guaranteed 100 hours each fortnight. Families who work, study or train will continue to be eligible for 100 hours of subsidised care each fortnight. This is a fundamental difference to the existing status quo. To those who argue that this is something we can't afford to do: this is something we can't afford not to do. The benefits of educating children early in a quality way flow through their entire lives. The benefits flow through to the rest of society. These are things that people will look back on and say, 'That was transformational.' This legislation will also help with cost-of-living pressures. Our whole focus has been on trying to alleviate cost-of-living pressures wherever we can.

The cheaper childcare reforms cut the cost of child care by about 17 per cent for the typical family—that's more than a million families receiving about 17 per cent relief. Today, the average out-of-pocket costs for early education and care are not only lower than before cheaper child care came in but lower than they were when the former Liberal government introduced the childcare subsidy in 2018. This is significant for families. Our three-day guarantee will deliver additional cost-of-living relief for more than 66,000 families after the changes commence in January 2026. As an example, families earning from $50,000 to $100,000 will be better off under the three-day guarantee to the tune of about, on average, $1,460 a year, so I'm very pleased to be here to talk about these changes. The regime that we are replacing has been described by Jay Weatherill from the Minderoo Foundation as 'punitive and unfair'. We are making this fairer. We're not punishing families and particularly not punishing children for the circumstances that they are in.

I want to leave you with some of the words of those who know this sector way better than me. I come to it as a parent, and hopefully grandparent, not only thinking about how my children might interact with this system but watching my many friends' children coming to grips with how they navigate work, child care and early education. Dr Ros Baxter, the CEO of Goodstart, who knows a thing or two about child care, says:

This will change lives. It will boost our nation's productivity, ensuring Australia's children don't fall behind. And it will support more parents into work, study and training.

That's the change we make. Georgie Dent, the CEO of The Parenthood, someone who speaks to many families and particularly to women, describes the activity test as 'a barrier that disproportionately locks out children who stand to benefit the most from participating in quality early childhood education and care'. She says:

The evidence shows the main people who will benefit from scrapping the Activity Test are single mothers and their children, First Nations families and casual and shift workers.

So I'm very proud that this policy change to bring affordable, accessible and quality child care within the reach of more people is going through this parliament, and I would really urge those opposite to support it. There's nothing better that we can do than invest in our young people. We all know that investing in things that prevent problems down the track is such a better use of taxpayer dollars than dealing with issues later down the track. This is exactly what this bill will do. It will ease things for families, and I commend it to the House.

Early education is absolutely critical to Australian families and to Australian children. Having accessible and affordable early childhood education makes a massive difference, a huge difference, to community members and their families and certainly to people in Wentworth. Affordable and high-quality child care allows parents, particularly women, to return to the workforce, contribute to the economy and boost productivity. As someone who at some stage of my life was dropping off three children at the same time to my local early education child care up in Paddington, I couldn't have done it without them. The confidence with which I could drop off my children, knowing they would have a day of fulfilment, would be safe and would be learning, and with which I could then go and do my job—which I loved—was not only integral to my mental health and to my ability to pay the bills but also to the lives of my kids.

Research from the University of Chicago and Stanford estimated that between 20 per cent and 40 per cent of our rise in living standards since the 1960s has been a direct result of increased female workforce participation. So much of that has been about how our children can be looked after. But let's not forget the demonstrable impact that great, high-quality early childhood education has on kids, because you see that from children participating in child care. The first years of a child's life are about setting them up for success, and, if they have access to high-quality child care, it improves language, motor skills and social skills during this critical time of their lives.

This bill makes an important contribution to our childcare system by modifying the flawed activity test that determines the number of hours of subsidised child care for families based on recognised work, training or study. Under this legislation, families will have access to a guaranteed three days of care regardless of their activity. Now let's look at the context of this. This activity test was introduced in 2018, but, ever since then, the activity test has been criticised. In particular, the Productivity Commission, in its most recent report, agreed that the activity test has disproportionately impacted low-income families and kept children from disadvantaged backgrounds from fully receiving the benefits of the childcare system. Impact Economics and Policy estimates that around 126,000 children from low-income households, from the poorest households, are missing out on child care. In particular, they could find no evidence that the activity test had the effect of increasing workforce participation, which was the major argument for the activity test. In fact, research by the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee attested the opposite: that the test complicated the system, created uncertainty around funding and impacted employment decisions, around the margins, leading to a decrease in workforce participation. I think that's the context we need to see this question in.

The activity test was there to increase workforce participation. It appears that it has done the opposite. The activity test is restricting access to high-quality early learning for kids from our most disadvantaged backgrounds. We know the numbers. We know that the kids who are most likely to be behind when they start school are those kids from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. Those are the ones we need to be investing in the most to make sure they start school with the skills that will allow them to succeed and go through the school system with those skills, and that means having great access to high-quality early childhood education. That is why the removal of the activity test is so important, and that is why I'm supporting the bill.

I do want to acknowledge that, while we are working on the childcare system in this parliament, there are some fundamental issues with the entire system. I think it is incumbent on the parliament in the next term, whatever form it takes, to really fundamentally address them.

Let's look at the numbers. Gross childcare fees in Australia are the third highest in the OECD; after the inclusion of the CCS, they are still the seventh highest. Those are the statistics. Around my electorate, which is an economically advantaged electorate, higher childcare costs are stopping people from having more children. I was doorknocking the other day and I met a young woman. She's got two kids. Her family are really good earners; they've just bought a house, and she and her husband have great jobs. Despite both of them literally earning well into the six figures, she said, 'We can't afford to have another child right now because of the cost of child care.' If you are not receiving the Child Care Subsidy, you're spending around $60,000 of post-tax income on childcare fees alone, and that's just for three days a week. For families in my area, some of whom are at the edges of the Child Care Subsidy, this is stopping them from having more kids. It's wrong for families in our country to have to choose not to have children because they can't afford the child care.

It's also bad economics. We know that we've got a birth rate that is at a record low at 1.5. It's historically low, but it's not a surprise given how much child care costs at the moment. Even with the subsidy, the average family in my electorate of Wentworth is still spending around $40,000 on out-of-pocket childcare fees to put two children into child care just four days a week. That goes up to $60,000 if they're not getting the Child Care Subsidy. We're talking about $120,000 of income that is required to pay for child care. Research by the New South Wales Productivity and Equality Commission showed that a one per cent increase in fees paid by a family led to a 0.16 per cent fall in the number of hours worked by the primary carer, which, in 80 per cent of cases, is the mother. As I said, it's no wonder that Australia's birth rate is so low.

We do need to look at broader reforms. As well as looking at how we fund this, how we make sure that we address childcare deserts and how we increase access, as we are looking to do through this removal of the activity test, we also need to look at supply-side factors that are driving up the cost of child care for Australian families.

When I talk to my local childcare centres, they tell me time and time again that some of the quality and compliance that is put in place—which is there for good aims, good reasons, in relation to maintaining childcare quality—is turning into a tick box that is not actually adding a lot of value. It has just become an administrative burden. In some cases they are pulling workers away from their kids because of all this documentation and the pressure to provide parents with updates constantly through the day, with photos and things like that. There are some rods that we've created for our own backs, with parents getting all this information. The system as it stands is making it more expensive and harder for childcare centres to offer high-quality child care at a price affordable to families and affordable to the government.

Similarly, I talk to them about training in relation to early childhood education. I was speaking to a woman who had been involved in early childhood education as a nanny for eight to 10 years. She had entered her training with a great desire to learn new skills and learn more about child development, but she spent her time learning about the compliance. That is ticking the boxes but not building her skills, and it's making it harder for her to continue with her childcare education because she's earning a lower wage but not feeling like she's building her skills. I think we need to look at the education system and also the compliance system, and say, 'How do we make sure that these are well-targeted to deliver high-quality but more affordable child care into our country?'

Finally, we need to look at the complexity of the system for parents. I've had numerous contacts from people in the community talking about the challenges in accessing the system, where young families are being caught out because they're unaware of the convention and the necessity of applying for childcare positions when the child hasn't yet been born. After 12 weeks of pregnancy I was calling all the childcare centres in my area, and I still struggled to get my children into a childcare centre. Families are seeing their hourly fees skyrocket well above the rate cap that's meant to be adjusted, and families are stuck and unaware of their eligibility because the application process for child care is archaic, complicated and inflexible. I remember trying to apply for the CCS myself and finding it notoriously complex; I'm well-educated and happy to deal with government systems, but this is a difficulty. For people in my area, an area that is relatively well served with child care compared to many parts of the country, the idea of shopping around for child care is a joke because families are completely beholden to the availability of places and often take whatever hours they can get—and that doesn't start to deal with shift workers and other complexities.

While I think we should celebrate each of the incremental steps in improving the childcare system as progress, I think we need to be honest with ourselves; history tells us the joy will be short-lived. I support the government's direction on child care and believe the Productivity Commission's recommendations provide a modest reprieve to working families. We need to accept these modest changes but look at a redesign of the system. We need to prioritise this issue in the next term of parliament and work out how we can get better outcomes at an affordable price both for families and the taxpayer. Having such high childcare and early learning costs compared to other countries around the world is hurting families and hurting the economy as well. We are tinkering on the demand side, and I think we need to look at meaningful and substantive supply-side reform.

Ask any parent, and they'll tell you early education and care is an essential service. It helps them get back to work and helps their children get ready for school. Under the Liberals the cost went through the roof and the rules were tightened to make it harder for some children to get the start in life they deserve. We're fixing that.

Over 10 years the cost of child care exploded by more than 49 per cent—double the OECD average—under Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison. We said we'd cut the cost of child care and we have, for more than one million families right across the country. As a result of the changes we made and passed through this parliament two years ago, a family on a joint income of about $120,000 has saved $2,768 since July 2023. That's helped a lot of parents get back to work and put more money in their pockets, and it's meant more children are now getting the benefits of our early education system. The number of children in our early education system is now about 100,000 more than it was when we were elected 2½ years ago. That's a good thing. There are also 1,000 more centres and more services. That's good, too.

When we came to office 2½ years ago, something else was happening. The people who educate and care for our children were leaving the sector in droves. They were leaving the job that they loved. The attrition rate was through the roof. That's now changed, too. The reason for that is the 15 per cent pay rise that we're now rolling out. The best example of that is what's happening at Goodstart Early Learning, the biggest childcare operator in the country. At their centres, across the country, job applications have now jumped by 35 per cent. Expressions of interest have jumped by 50 to 60 per cent, and vacancy rates are down by a massive 28 per cent. We're seeing that right across the country. Vacancy rates right across the sector are now down by 22 per cent. It turns out that, if you pay people more, more want to do the job. Early educators are some of the most important workers in this country and some of the most underpaid. They were leaving the job that they love, the job that we need them to, not because they didn't want to do it but because they couldn't afford to keep doing it. That 15 per cent pay increase is fixing that.

The next step in making our early education system better and fairer is making sure that more children who currently can't get access to it get that chance. In February 2023, we asked the Productivity Commission to comprehensively review our early education system. We asked them to help build a blueprint for reform and tell us how we can build a truly universal early education system. We got their final report in June of last year. One of the things it says that we have to do if we want to build that universal early education system is build more centres where they don't exist, what are sometimes referred to as 'childcare deserts'. We're doing that. In December, the Prime Minister announced that, if we win the next election, the government will create a $1 billion Building Early Education Fund. This will be the single biggest ever investment by an Australian government in new childcare services. It will build or expand over 160 early education and care centres where they're needed most.

I want to thank GrainGrowers, who said that this is positive step and that this fund will help expand and build new childhood education and care centres in areas of need. I want to thank the National Farmers Federation too for imploring the Liberals and the Nationals to match what we're doing. They get it. Unfortunately, the Liberal Party and National Party haven't heard them, because they don't support this. They've spent 2½ years in this parliament talking about childcare deserts. They spent a decade in government doing nothing about it. Now there is a $1 billion fund on the table that they could support, but they choose not to. It's unbelievable.

The Productivity Commission also recommended something else that we need to do next. That's to get rid of the Liberals' activity test. This is a real barrier that was purposefully put in place by the Liberal Party to limit access to early education for a lot of children—in particular, a lot of disadvantaged children and kids from poor families. It is deeply unfair. A test to determine if your child is worthy of accessing early education is one that no family should have to pass. The Productivity Commission report gives us a definition of what a universal early education and care system could and should look like. It says it's a system where every child can get access to affordable early education and care three days a week or 30 hours a week. This bill gets rid of the Liberals' activity test and replaces it with a guarantee of access to three days a week of government supported early education and care for every child who needs it. It's still means tested, but it means that families will not be left out because parents are looking for work or preparing to go back to study. It means that over 100,000 families will be able to get more subsidised hours of early education and care. And it means real cost-of-living relief for 66,700 families in the first full financial year alone. Those families will save an average of $1,370 per year on their childcare costs. About half of those families earn less than $100,000 per year. Lower-income families will save even more: an average of $1,460 a year.

This is going to make a real difference for a lot of young families. It will help with the cost of living but it will do more than that. Fundamentally this is about helping every child get a great start in life—what every parent wants for their children and what every child deserves—helping them to get ready to start school, helping to make sure they don't start school behind. That's what early education does. This is not babysitting; it's early education. The evidence is clear: children who get access to early education and care are more likely to start school ready to go, ready to learn. They're also more likely to finish school and then go on to more study. Former US president Joe Biden often made the point that a child who goes to preschool is 50 per cent more likely to go to college.

At the moment, while lots of Australian children get the benefit of this life-changing opportunity, not all do. As the Productivity Commission pointed out in its final report, at the moment it's children who need it most who are least likely to access early education and care. In 2021 only 54 per cent of children in the most disadvantaged areas were enrolled in early education and care, compared with 76 per cent of children in the highest socioeconomic areas. The most recent Early Development Census report found that only 42.7 per cent of children experiencing the highest level of socioeconomic disadvantage were on track when they started school, compared with 54.8 per cent of all children. That's what this is about: helping them, helping to make sure more children are ready to start school.

This bill does something else, too. As part of our commitment to closing the gap we are setting a target of ensuring that at least 55 per cent of Indigenous Australian children are developmentally on track. At the moment it's 34 per cent. That's a big gap. Not unsurprisingly, Indigenous children's attendance at early education and care is way below the national average, and the activity test is one of the reasons for this. That's why this bill increases the base entitlement to 100 hours for Indigenous children. It's a really important change—one that Indigenous families and communities have been calling for since the activity test was created. And we have listened. You only have to listen to the words of the CEO of SNAICC, Catherine Liddle, after the Prime Minister announced this policy to know how important this is. This is what Catherine said:

This can be a game-changer for our babies. It will mean more children are developmentally ready for school, setting them up for a thriving future.

It's just one part of the work we need do to close the gap, and I am so very proud that it's part of this bill.

I want to thank the Prime Minister for his leadership in driving reform in this area, and I know how personally important it is to him to see these changes being made. I also want to thank my dear friend and colleague the Minister for Early Childhood Education, the awesome Anne Aly. I also want to thank our offices, and I want to thank our department for the work they have done in preparing this legislation. And I want to thank our early educators and our teachers, and I hope you see in this bill how this government values the important work you do.

I also want to thank everyone who has called for this for years and years and years—groups like the Parenthood, whose CEO, Georgie Dent, called this 'a paradigm shift'; people like Ros Baxter, the CEO of Goodstart, who said, 'This will change lives'; Jay Weatherill at the Minderoo Foundation, who called this 'a momentous step'; the Centre for Policy Development, who said that this guarantee 'is a game-changer' and that it demonstrates 'a real dedication to delivering a universal system'; or the Business Council of Australia's Wendy Black, who said that they have 'long called for an early childhood education guarantee based on quality, universal access to give children a strong educational foundation'.

This is important reform for an essential service for more than a million families across the country. It helps parents get back to work, but, even more importantly than that, it helps the next generation of Australians to prepare for school, to prepare for their life ahead. That's what makes this reform so important, and I am so happy to commend it to the House.

This legislation is important, because every family deserves to have access to quality and affordable education. In speaking on this legislation, the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025, I reflect on how significant an issue early childhood education and care is for the people in my electorate of Chisholm. I've recently undertaken a survey with my electorate on the importance of education and care for their children, had a forum with the magnificent minister, Anne Aly, in my electorate and made a submission to the Productivity Commission on behalf of my community.

I think what is before us today is the building blocks of a really important institutional and structural change in this country. It will make our country better to have universal education for our youngest Australians. It will make our communities stronger and more prosperous.

What I really want Australians to understand, and what I really want the people of Chisholm to understand, is that this work that we as a government are doing is delivering something really good here, and those opposite are standing against it. They are not part of this positive change for our country. We know education opens doors. Those opposite want to keep those doors closed. As the Minister for Education has reminded us here in this chamber, those who need early education the most are the least likely to be able to access it, and this legislation ensures that those who need early education the most will be able to receive it. Again, I emphasise: I really want the people of Chisholm to understand and to know, and the people of Australia to understand and to know, that the Liberal Party do not support this—they do not support universal access to early education for all Australians. I think that is a really damning reflection on what the modern Liberal Party is. 'Modern Liberal Party' does feel a little like an oxymoron.

This is a bill that represents real change for Australian families. We know that, for too long, the Liberals' unfair activity test locked children out of early learning centres, penalising families who didn't meet the rigid work and study requirements. This system hit the most vulnerable families in our communities the hardest—low-income families, single parents and families that lacked support. The result? Thousands and thousands of children missing out on the early education that sets them up for life. I'm so proud that our government is taking a big step forward here and putting an end to that.

This legislation will benefit all of us. Yes, it will benefit families. It will benefit children—of course it will. But we are building something here that will ensure greater workforce participation and an educated workforce of the future, with our youngest minds being exposed to education early so that they can pursue whatever it is they want to and make a bigger contribution to our nation.

This bill replaces the Liberals' outdated activity test with a simple, fair guarantee: three days a week of subsidised early education for every family. This bill redefines how we support our children and their families. There won't be penalties for parents who aren't working a set number of hours—just a simple commitment that every child, regardless of their background, should get the best start in life. I can't believe those opposite cannot support that idea. The three-day guarantee boosts access to early childhood education and care and ensures an opportunity that those on this side of the House believe that every child deserves.

This isn't just about child care. This is about ensuring that every Australian family and every Australian child thrives. This legislation guarantees that families don't need to choose—and they shouldn't have to choose—between their child's education and making ends meet. We know families are doing it tough in our communities, and that's why on this side of the House we've implemented a number of measures to make life easier for Australians. Again, those opposite have opposed them almost every step of the way.

Parents need a fair go. We know that families were forced to cut hours because they couldn't meet the Liberals' outdated activity test. That's still happening. We're changing that. The 2018 childcare package cut down the number of subsidised hours of care that low-income families could access from 48 hours to 24 hours or just one day a week. That's what those opposite did. That's their contribution to early childhood education and care. This bill cuts through their red tape. Under this legislation, more than 100,000 families will have access to more hours of subsidised care, and this is how we are helping to ease the cost-of-living pressures on families and households. Around 66,700 families are expected to benefit from our changes in the first financial year of being implemented. This legislation ensures that the rules work for Australian families, not against them.

We have a strong record when it comes to early childhood education and care. We introduced a 15 per cent pay rise for early educators. They are people who deserve our thanks absolutely, but they deserve so much more than that. We've made child care cheaper, and this bill is a critical step towards continuing our work to build a system that is simple, affordable and accessible for every family. Over 10,800 families are already benefiting from cheaper child care. I know that I've spoken to many families over the course of the last little while who are better off. This has given them the freedom to work, study and support their families without the fear of losing access to early learning. This is a real game changer for Australian families. Through the $1 billion Building Early Education Fund, we're going to support more early learning centres to be built in underserviced areas, ensuring that every single child has access to quality education close to home. Again, that's what we think Australian children and their families deserve.

This is about building strong foundations for our children and their families to thrive. Through our legislation here and in the changes that we've made more broadly to this system, we've demonstrated that we will not tolerate a system that leaves Australian families vulnerable, that leaves Australian families behind or that leaves Australian children behind, frankly. I want to see, and I would hope that everyone in the chamber would want to see, a future where every child can succeed and where every family has the support they need to thrive. We know that the activity test those opposite introduced was never about supporting our communities. It was about cutting access and leaving too many families behind.

I'm really proud—it is a privilege—to be part of a government that is fixing that and building a future for so many through investing in education. This is real reform for families. This is an investment in the future. We don't just talk about the future on this side of the House, although we are ambitious and aspirational for what that future looks like; we invest in it. We make sure that we do everything we can with the privilege of government we have to ensure our communities thrive not just now but into the future. I really do think that this is going to change the lives of so many people in this country. As I mentioned, it will not just help families or children; it will help all of us in Australia to build the kind of prosperous country we all deserve to live in and ensure that every single person in this country has the kinds of educational opportunities that they deserve.

I spoke about the importance of education in my very first speech in this place, and I've witnessed in the term of this government so far the incredible commitment that we have had to making sure that everyone is able to realise aspiration and opportunity through education. This bill is another example of the work that we are doing to achieve that—to open those doors. It is really disappointing that, rather than investing in the futures of our youngest Australians, those opposite want to spend money on free lunches for bosses. That's their priority. On this side of the House, we want to make sure that every child gets the best possible start in life.

I know how welcome this is going to be in my community, in Chisholm. I know that this is going to change lives. It is going to mean that parents can make decisions to do more work and participate in the economy more. I know that this is going to mean that we have a culture where we value education in our communities and we understand where education can take people. We know that the first five years of a child's life are so significant for brain development. I don't think we would question the right for a child to access education at any other level, and we shouldn't question a child's right to access it from those very early years.

I thank the Minister for Education and the Minister for Early Childhood Education for their work here and in so many other areas. Thank you, on behalf of the children and the families in Chisholm, for the positive difference you are going to make to their lives. I commend this bill to the House.

I rise to speak on the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025. This bill amends the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 and replaces reference to the childcare subsidy activity test with a three-day guarantee. The bill is set to commence in January 2026, and the three-day guarantee will provide all families with a combined income of up to $533,000 with access to 72 hours a fortnight of subsidised child care. For Indigenous families, this will be increased to a maximum of 100 hours a fortnight of subsidised child care. The legislation does not guarantee or prioritise access for working families over non-working families. The government estimates that the cost of these measures will be $426.7 million over five years from 2024-25, despite the policy not rolling out until January 2026. This is also in stark contrast to the Productivity Commission's report estimating that the full removal of the activity test would cost $2.3 billion per year.

The coalition will oppose this legislation. There are several issues with this bill, including the removal of priority access for working families. It disincentivises aspiration, increases access without addressing supply issues, does nothing to increase access or flexibility for families and does not address the current cost-of-living pressures. The bill has been referred to a Senate inquiry with a reporting date of 21 March. I'll remind the House that that is prior to the House being scheduled to return for the budget on 26 March. This policy was first announced by the Prime Minister on 11 December 2024, and it's been described as the next step in the Albanese government's plan for a universal early learning system.

The government estimates that over 100,000 families will have access to more subsidised care and more than 66,000 families will be better off overall. This represents only about six per cent of all families currently engaged with the childcare subsidy system. Under the current activity test, parents and carers need to be looking for work or working, studying or volunteering to be eligible for subsidised care, noting that volunteering and looking for work only count towards the first 16 hours of your activity level. To calculate a family's hours of subsidised care, Services Australia uses the lower activity level of a couple, even if one of them has an exemption. In a single-parent household, only their activity levels are used to determine the number of hours of subsidised care.

There are exemptions to the activity test in which parents and carers are eligible for 36 hours of subsidised care a fortnight, including, firstly, if you identify as Indigenous, and, secondly, if you're a parent pathways participant and receive an eligible income support payment. A parent or carer is exempt from the mutual obligations if they receive one of these payments: JobSeeker, the parenting payment and special benefit. Or they're exempt if they have a preschool-age child that attends preschool through centre based day care. Parents and carers can access 72 hours a fortnight if they're receiving a care allowance. Grandparents and some eligible families accessing the additional childcare subsidy, including vulnerable children in the foster system and families escaping domestic violence, are exempt from the activity test. As part of the 2022 cheaper child care legislation, the Albanese government amended A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 to provide Indigenous children with a minimum of 36 hours a fortnight of subsidised care.

Removing the activity test for three days a week means parents who require the support of early childhood education while they work, study, train or volunteer will be competing with families who don't work or don't require support in order to work. The coalition's childcare subsidy reforms came into effect on 2 July 2018, including the activity test. Prior to this, parents and carers were required to satisfy a work, train or study test. The activity test was introduced to encourage labour force participation and to ensure priority of access was given to vulnerable and working families.

Australia has a long history of priority access guidelines for child care, which this new legislation removes. This legislation brought forward with this timing is just a political game to create a wedge for the opposition. The policy was initially announced as an election commitment, along with a $1 billion Building Early Education Fund on 11 December, and somehow this legislation just popped up last week. Despite the government claiming urgency and having the numbers to pass the legislation this fortnight, they have agreed to the motion in the Senate to refer it to an inquiry.

Labor's three-day guarantee is fundamentally unfair and divisive. While it appears that this will only increase access for a small number of families, it will have a wide-ranging effect on all. Families who need early childhood education so they can work will be competing against families who now have extra subsidised access but may not be working, studying or volunteering at all. So, generally speaking, families already in the system are unlikely to be impacted, but working families about to enter the system or trying to enrol a new child will be greatly impacted.

I see this across my electorate where childcare places are desperately short in our regional towns and cities, which haven't seen any new investment in childcare facilities. They are desperately short. These are the towns and the communities that produce this nation's wealth. Across the goldfields, for example, $14 billion of mineral wealth is produced from those towns, yet childcare places across the goldfields and, in particular, the major regional city of Kalgoorlie are desperately short. Families are leaving town because they can't access the sort of child care they need for both partners in the family to work and earn the money they need to earn in a high-cost regional town like Kalgoorlie.

Once again, Labor is at war with aspiration. It's at war with working families, and it's actually at war with working mothers. Over the last three years, Labor has failed to meaningfully address supply-side constraints. That's what I'm referring to, certainly, in the towns and cities in my electorate where there are massive constraints on supply. Modelling from the Productivity Commission shows that most children affected by the activity-test changes live in major capital cities. Families in thin markets and childcare deserts, such as the ones I'm describing across my electorate of O'Connor, who have little or no access to child care at all will be most disadvantaged. There is no point in having access to three days of care if there is no care available. Once again, Labor is dividing the nation—working versus non-working families and metropolitan versus regional families. Labor argue that their $1 billion BEEF policy will boost supply, but history tells us they will not be able to deliver.

Families have the right to choose what their working family looks like, and the coalition respects this choice. Labor's three-day guarantee does nothing for families who choose to remain at home to raise their children until primary school or families who use flexible arrangements, such as grandparents or nannies. The bill also does nothing for parents who need flexibility, such as families who do shift work or non-standard work hours. Once again, across my electorate, there are a lot of shift workers—the mines that produce this nation's wealth run 24/7. There is nothing in this legislation for those families. Again, hardworking families will not benefit from this change, but families who aren't working, studying or training will. It's similar to Labor's other policies. This rewards families who access child care, at the expense of those who aren't able to or choose not to.

There is a significant discrepancy in costings. We believe the $426.7 million over five years is well and truly undercooked, and the true impact of removing the activity test will not be fully known. The department was unable to advise how many families are eligible for CCS but are not enrolling their children nor how many families are completely engaged with CCS. The government costing does not account for these groups. The Productivity Commission's 2024 report A path to universal early childhood education and carecosted the complete removal of the activity test at $2.3 billion per year. I'll repeat that: $2.3 billion, versus the government's costing of $426.7 million, over four years. The Productivity Commission's modelling suggested that the complete removal of the activity test would increase hours of early childhood education by only four per cent. They also estimated that it would lead to a 0.9 per cent decrease in hours worked by sole parents and primary carer parents in coupled families. These are not our numbers; these are the Productivity Commission's numbers.

Some sections of the community have labelled the three-day guarantee a cost-of-living measure, but in reality it is nothing of the sort. Since Labor came to power, the cost of child care has increased by 22.3 per cent. I'll just repeat that in case anybody missed it: since Labor came to power the cost of child care has increased by 22.3 per cent. At this rate, childcare costs will have soared by 124 per cent by March 2032. That is the equivalent amount of time, a decade, that the Labor Party are saying that under the previous coalition government prices rose by 49 per cent—which in hindsight we may look back on as the golden era for childcare costs.

The last time Labor was in government the cost of child care rocketed almost 53 per cent in six years. Since Labor's cheaper childcare policy came into effect, out-of-pocket costs increased by 12.7 per cent. Almost one in three services are charging above the fee cap as providers struggle to keep up with rising regulation and operational costs. We see this, I hear this from my constituents—

I move:

That the question be now put.

The question before the House is that the question be put.

The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Question negatived.

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

I move:

That standing order 43(a) be suspended until the conclusion of proceedings on the bill.

That means we complete the bill and then do 90-second statements.

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

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Over the past week, we've heard the government talk endlessly about their success on Medicare. We've seen them roll out an advertising campaign—'Mediscare' 2.0. The only 'Mediscare' 2.0 that applies in my electorate is the fall in bulk-billing rates, from 96 per cent in 2019 to 84 per cent today. In the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, the government is waxing lyrical over there about their Medicare success, yet the people in my electorate of Forde are paying the price for their failure each and every day. They are seeing fewer and fewer bulk-billed medical services and are paying an increased cost to get health care.

So whatever this government says in this space, I say to the people in the electorate of Forde: do not listen to what the government is saying to you, because nine times out of 10, it is completely and utterly the opposite of what they're doing. They have presided over a fall in the provision of bulk-billed Medicare services in the electorate of Forde since 2022. We see that in the figures each and every day. The people in Forde are paying higher fees as a result in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. Shame on this government for their failure!

Labor has been delivering for Dunkley in spades, with my community seeing projects delivered ranging from Medicare urgent care clinics and sporting pavilions to road upgrades and community centre upgrades to brand-new commuter car parks. Over the past three years, approximately $220 million has been invested in our community alone. We have delivered the upgrade to Jubilee Park Stadium; the upgrade to Ballarto and Hall Road; two commuter car parks at Frankston and Kananook; upgrades to Emil Madsen Reserve; the new facilities for Sikh Volunteers Australia; a bulk-billed Medicare urgent clinic right in the heart of Frankston; thousands of dollars in grants to local community organisations and RSLs, including $2.2 million for community organisations, volunteers and sporting clubs; and soon we will have the groundbreaking Frankston basketball stadium. On top of this, Labor has delivered locally a newly redeveloped Frankston Hospital and a brand-new Chisholm TAFE. We have been laying the foundations for implementing the Frankston Metropolitan Activity Centre to have a thriving Frankston.

I seek leave to table a petition from the members of the Lyne electorate.

Has it been taken through the Petitions Committee?

No, not yet, but we're running out of time to do that. I seek leave to table it.

Is leave granted?

Leave not granted.

Speak to it, and we will try and organise a pathway for the petition to be admitted.

Twelve thousand, one hundred and thirty-seven people have signed this petition from around Port Stephens in the Lyne electorate and the Paterson electorate opposing the proposed wind farm development off Newcastle and Port Stephens. That's 12,137 people. As has been found out around the world, offshore wind farms are highly unpredictable and hard to maintain. They can be a barrier to navigation on the surface and confuse radar and submarine sonar. It's adjacent to one of the busiest ports in the country, the Port of Newcastle, as well as Port Stephens. There's a huge marine industry based around food security, with food supply coming from that area, as well as bluewater economy. It is also an incredibly expensive way to provide baseload energy. It requires gas backup, pumped hydro backup, batteries, coal plants and gas plants—you name it. If you're going to rely on a bit of wind, that's the consequence. You just get more build and more intensity. This offshore wind farm is proposed as the source of energy for Tomago, but it would be better to have a highly efficient baseload energy system. I commend this petition, which will go to the Petitions Committee. I'd like to thank all those people that signed the petition, because it's a major issue for the whole state. (Time expired)

As the co-founder and CEO of Missing School, Megan Gilmour has dedicated more than a decade to ensuring that children with serious medical and mental health challenges stay connected to their learning and peers. Up to one in three children, approximately 1.2 million students, are at risk of missing school for months to years due to complex health issues. These absences can lead to social isolation and have long-term impacts on their opportunities and mental health. Megan's personal experience with the critical illness of her son, Darcy, gave her a front-row seat to the devastating impact of disconnection from school.

This led her to establish Missing School in 2012 to bridge the gap between students and their classrooms. Under Megan's leadership, Missing School has launched Australia's first national report on chronic school absence through illness, pioneered a world-first school telepresence service to keep kids virtually present in class, and innovated for policy progress. Her work has transformed education access for some of our most vulnerable young Australians. As we begin the 2025 school year, Megan's relentless advocacy reminds us of what can be achieved. If we back policy and technology to end school isolation, we can ensure that no child is left behind.

Today I wish to recognise the outstanding small businesses that took out major honours in the recent NSW Tourism Awards. Orange's Oriana Retro Hotel & Resort, and owner, Espen Harbitz, won gold in the four- to 4½-star deluxe accommodation category. Well done, Espen. Balloon Aloft, which operates in Mudgee, won gold and was inducted into the hall of fame in the adventure tourism category, as well as winning gold for excellence in accessible tourism. Borenore's Black Sheep Inn, and owners, Helen and Andrew Napier, were awarded gold in the hosted accommodation category. Bathurst Regional Council took out gold and a local government award for tourism.

Lithgow's Frankie's Restaurant and Bar, and owners, Chris, Michael, Sandra and Genna Inzitari, took out bronze in the tourism restaurants and catering services category. Mudgee's Sierra Escape, and owners, Cameron and Natascha D'Arcy, won gold in the unique accommodation category. Bathurst's Wilga Station, and owners, Mez and Hamish Keith, won silver in the unique accommodation category. Bathurst Visitor Information Centre won gold in the visitor information services category.

These outstanding businesses do an amazing job contributing to our local economy, employing local residents and attracting thousands of tourists every year to our beautiful region. Our nation needs to support and value our small businesses and all they do for our communities. We warmly congratulate all of our wonderful local award winners in the NSW Tourism Awards.

Yesterday AMES Australia was in parliament to launch their new book, Heartlands, a collection of migrant stories that reflect the history of our nation. Among the many stories are those of South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas; the member for South-Eastern Metropolitan, Lee Tarlamis; Socceroo Archie Thompson; and many more, including mine. Each wave of migration has contributed to the story of Australia, shaping the nation we are so proud of today. This project captures a snapshot of that ongoing story, a story of generations, of those who have come here to build a better future.

When I read the experiences shared in Heartlands, I see a common theme. Whether families arrived 20 years ago or 100 years ago, they all came with the same dreams—the hope of opportunity, security and a better life for their children. I want to thank the Minister for Skills and Training for coming along to launch the book, and Catherine Scarth, the AMES CEO, for all her hard work. I want to wish her good luck for her retirement in the years to come.

In 2022, the North Sydney community sent me to parliament to be their authentic voice, rather than a distorted version filtered through a party caucus room. As the last federal member for North Sydney, I wanted to record how that voice and vote has been used.

I've served on three parliamentary joint committees—the human rights committee, the Parliamentary Library committee and the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards—and have fearlessly applied our community's values to those deliberations. I've introduced three private member's bills: the first on cleaner vehicles, the second to end indefinite detention of asylum seekers and children, and one to legislate a rights based approach to housing.

On the 326 bills passed I have spoken 143 times, and moved 82 amendments to 19 different bills to influence climate, industrial relations, tax, superannuation and integrity reforms. I've made over 240 statements, including on ministerial questions and constituent statements. I've attended 90 per cent of divisions, voting with the ALP 49 per cent of the time, to support human rights, HECS, fuel efficiency standards and net zero economy reform, and with the coalition 55 per cent of the time, to support small business, industrial relations and superannuation reform. I voted with the Greens 61 per cent of the time, to support climate policy and environmental reform. I've also consistently supported crossbench colleagues on integrity and accountability, women's safety, climate change mitigation and adaptation and environmental reform.

Contrasting this to party backbenchers, I've done three times the work. I'd say North Sydney's voice has been well and truly heard.

I rise to acknowledge a tremendous constituent in my electorate of Robertson, Roslyn Sackley, who has recently been awarded an honorary doctorate at the University of Sydney. Roslyn is a proud First Nations woman. She lives with a disability and was diagnosed as being blind during her childhood. She's not let her disability get in the way of her living a vibrant and fulfilling life, especially when it comes to her work supporting her community. Roslyn was one of the first Indigenous Australians living with a disability to graduate from an Australian tertiary institution, taking out her first degree in the 1970s. She has subsequently dedicated her life to education, specialising in Aboriginal studies, and has supported the national Indigenous disability network, as well as the blind and deaf communities across Australia.

In 2019, she was awarded the Trevor Parmenter Award for Excellence in the category of Lifetime Achievement Advocacy. Based on the New South Wales Central Coast, Roslyn has established her own microbusiness called AccessAble Braille Enterprises, helping people live with blindness and low vision to better understand the world around them. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Roslyn for her lifetime of advocacy and education, supporting not only Australians only living with a disability but also those who are our First Nations people.

This Labor government has taken this country in the wrong direction. Its bad decisions and poor priorities have made Australians worse off, and indeed Australians are poorer than they were just 2½ years ago when Labor came to power. After spending an entire election campaign telling Australians that they were going to get cheaper energy, a cheaper cost of living and cheaper mortgages, they have got exactly the opposite. Let's take a look at what they have delivered: twelve interest rate increases, meaning a typical family with a mortgage is paying more than $50,000 extra from when Labor came to power. They've delivered a $1,000 hike in energy bills—whatever happened to that $275 reduction that the minister for energy promised?—and a record collapse in living standards, which no other peer economy in the world has seen. Twenty-seven thousand small businesses and other businesses have hit the wall. And there's been a record-breaking household recession.

Inflation has been too high for too long. It remains above the target band. It's been stuck outside the target band for 12 quarters, and prices are not going down under this government. There is a better way to get this country back on track.

You know what the coalition's favourite word is? It's 'no'. They say it all the time—no to cheaper power bills; no to better wages; and no to fixing our roads, our schools and our hospitals. I bet that if you asked them whether the sky was blue, they'd still say no, they just love that word so much. No, no, no—that's the coalition. Honestly, if the coalition were in charge of a restaurant, they'd refuse to serve you, overcharge you for your water and then blame you for being hungry.

While they're stuck saying no, we're on the side of saying yes—yes to real cost-of-living relief; yes to cheaper child care; yes to tax cuts for every taxpayer; yes to more bulk-billing doctors; yes to backing Aussie workers with stronger wages and secure jobs; and yes to making things here in Australia again. The coalition's vision for the cost of living is like what would happen if the Australian economy was run by a dodgy tradie—everything costs you double, but it's half as good as it should be, and, worst of all, they disappear when it's time to clean up the resulting mess. Nobody wants to go back to that nightmare. We can't afford to have the coalition saying no to cost-of-living relief that Australians need not only to keep afloat but also to prosper. Whilst we have delivered for the people of Australia every day, we have heard from the coalition what their favourite word is: no.

Last week the South Australian Premier announced that his state will outlaw 'posting and boasting', making South Australia the sixth jurisdiction committed to ending violent crimes being put online for notoriety, following the lead of the opposition leader. In March 2024, the coalition made a strong stand on 'post and boast' laws by introducing a bill to parliament which sought to impose jail terms and provide stronger social media takedown powers. Under the coalition's plan, a person could be jailed for up to two years for depicting violence, drug offences or property offences for the purpose of increasing a person's notoriety.

The Albanese Labor government demonstrated that it was weak on law and order when it refused to support the coalition's bill. The Prime Minister is once again missing in action when it comes to important legislation to keep Australians safe. Australian communities have had enough of criminals and young offenders committing violent actions and boasting about it via social media. We have seen horrendous footage of homes being invaded and people being accosted at night. The coalition stands firm that a Dutton led government will ensure 'post and boast' laws are passed through parliament to ensure that no-one is glorifying their criminal activity online.

This week is Sepsis Survivor Week. Due to sepsis, every 20 minutes an Australian is admitted to ICU and every hour one Australian dies. This is resulting in more death and harm to Australians than breast cancer, prostate cancer and road accidents combined. Sepsis disproportionately affects First Nations people who suffer at four times the rate of non-Indigenous Australians.

So yesterday I was proud to host a parliamentary briefing about sepsis with Territorian and Is It Sepsis president, Yvette Clarke. Sepsis is a medical emergency that can start from any infection; it could be an insect bite, the flu or even a UTI. With sepsis, they can become deadly within hours, so please get to know the signs: confusion, fever and chills, fast heart rate and breathing, low urine, vomiting, diarrhoea and feeling extremely unwell. If you are concerned that it could be sepsis, get to a hospital and ask the question, 'Is it sepsis?' These three words—'Is it sepsis?'—could save a life. For more information on the signs of sepsis, go to isitsepsis.org.

My mum said, 'Always be careful of fair-weathered friends.' When it comes to farmers, there are no friends more fair-weathered than those opposite. Yesterday the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill was officially withdrawn from the Senate Notice Paper. This is a good thing, but it took so long to get there, and the farmers' fair-weathered friends over there said nothing. Where were those regional members when the biosecurity tax came in? Why would a country expect foreign imports to be having their levies paid for and their biosecurity measures paid for by Australian farmers? What country would do that to their own farmers? Those opposite would do it. The Grain Producers Australia chair and WA grain producer, Barry Large, welcomed news of the flawed biosecurity tax proposal finally being scrapped. He said:

I'd like to genuinely thank those members of parliament who took time to sit down and talk to farmers … The Coalition has been particularly strong on this matter, understanding the policy design failures, led by the strong voices of rural members who spoke with farmers in their local electorates.

I'd also like to thank the CEO of that organisation, GPA, Colin Bettles. With friends like those opposite, who needs enemies?

This week we heard of the record $500 million investment in women's health. I really want to thank the people of Chisholm for participating in forums, round tables and surveys about their health needs, which really helped our government to implement the initiatives that we are. I'm really grateful for their participation. The active electorate that I have in Chisholm really cares about health. I've been really pleased to be able to deliver an urgent care clinic in Mount Waverley that has been so well received in the community. This is in addition to a new headspace centre in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne, which I know is providing much needed support to young people in our community with mental health concerns. It also has a GP, which is a very important resource for young people in our community. I want to thank everyone in my electorate for their advocacy around community infrastructure, including a new pavilion at Mount Waverley Reserve. I want to thank our volunteers for all the work they do and their support for our wonderful community organisations, and I'm really looking forward to being able to work with them on the latest grant program. I acknowledge their hard work in putting in their submissions to that. I've been able to take ministers to see the TAFE institutions in our electorate to meet people benefitting from free TAFE and the changes to higher education more broadly. I'm so grateful for the way that the people of Chisholm have been vocal in their advocacy that allow— (Time expired)

This could be the last sitting day of this parliament. Australians are waiting. They know they have less than 100 days to make history. At some point in the next 100 days, there will be an election, right across our nation. It's a chance to get rid of a bad Labor government in its first term. It's a chance to save regional Australia from a Labor-Greens-teals minority government, which would be devastating for our regional way of life. Australians will be asking themselves just one simple question once this election is called: Am I worse off under Labor? Is my family worse off under the Albanese government? Resoundingly, they are answering yes. Australians know they're worse off because they've seen this government in action. They've seen the waste. They've seen a government which has sought to divide the nation through the ill-advised Voice referendum. They've also seen a government completely distracted by the wrong priorities. On this side of the House, we're on the side of everyday Australians trying to get ahead. We're not on the side of the virtue-signalling elites, which have captured this government throughout this term. The next election is a chance to get Australia back on track with a Dutton-Littleproud coalition government.

If you came down to my electorate in the northern suburbs of Adelaide, you'd find families who are worried about the cost of their homes. Those families are relying on their federal government to help them keep a roof over their head. That is exactly what this Labor government is doing. Labor has committed six times more funding for housing in three years than the previous government did in a decade. Labor is building five times more social, affordable housing than the Liberals bothered to. We are making housing accessible again. Labor has put over 1,000 families in the north into homes via the Home Guarantee Scheme. It's supported over 140,000 new homeowners nationwide through that program alone, more than twice the number supported when the Liberals were in charge.

However, there is a man in this place who would take all of this away. If that man had his way, 40,000 fewer Australians would own their own home. If that man had his way, there would be 30,000 fewer social and affordable homes in this country. If that man had his way, there would be 80,000 less build-to-rent apartments in Australia. If that man had his way, he would take $19 billion from housing. What is that man's name? Well, it rhymes with 'cuttin''.

There hasn't been a lot of good news for Western Australian sheep farmers over the last 12 months, I have to say. Over the summer period, when many of them visit the coastal areas in my electorate like Albany, Bremer Bay, Esperance, where I managed to catch up with many of those farmers, the lack of confidence in the industry was palpable. Many of those farmers I spoke to were talking about having to head home next week or in the next fortnight to load the last truckload of sheep off their properties. What people don't understand is that the sheep industry is competing for acres against the cropping industry. While the cropping industry across my electorate in Western Australia has had a great season and things are going well, the government has smashed the confidence in the sheep industry. Many of those farmers expressed the view: 'If the government hate us and if they hate our industry then why would I stick around? Why would I put in the hard yards?'

There was one bit of good news and one bit of light on the horizon for Western Australian sheep growers when a delegation from the Kingdom of Morocco arrived in Perth on Monday. I had a day's leave from the parliament to meet them and to make the introductions. Morocco is a wonderful country of 38 million people in the north-west of Africa. They've suffered many years of drought. They have basically consumed their breeding flock for their own use and are here in Australia to buy the best sheep product that the world can supply, and I was very proud to be part of that process.

() (): We have all seen the video of two health workers making disgusting and hateful comments towards Jewish Australians. This video is abhorrent, their words are vile, and it is right to unequivocally condemn them. This morning, nurses who had planned a pay dispute picket line outside the New South Wales parliament instead held a solidarity rally following the release of this video, and leading the pack was a Bennelong local—Alison Brannelly. Alison lives in Denison and works at Concord hospital. Alison could only watch part of that video last night. After a few seconds, she had seen enough. She rallied today because she wanted to send a message of solidarity for all the people cared for in the health system. She said this to the Sydney Morning Herald:'Every patient that comes in the door gets cared for whatever their race, whatever their religion. Nurses will look after them. Everyone in New South Wales Health will look after them.'

New South Wales nurses have their own issues at the moment. They're overworked, tired and deserve a pay rise, yet today nurses like Alison put that aside to show unity and strength—unity with all Jewish Australians and strength to call out antisemitism and say 'enough is enough'. I'm proud of Alison for taking a stand today, not only on behalf of nurses but on behalf of everyone who lives in Bennelong. We all stand against antisemitism. Thank you, Alison.

It's a great honour to represent the people of Petrie. Every term, I try to achieve as much as I can for the electorate, but the last three years under the Albanese government have been a bit dry. There were no election promises delivered from the government since the last election—absolutely nothing from the Prime Minister. When you look at what the government promised before the election and what they've delivered, it's all bad. What happened to the $275 power bill reduction? What happened to the $275, Prime Minister? Not there. What happened to cheaper rents? Nothing. They haven't been delivered. What happened to cheaper mortgages? We have had 12 interest rate rises, and all the rents and mortgages have gone up.

What the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and others said before the election—diddly squat, nothing happening. What happened to stage 3 tax cuts—'My word is my bond'? 'We're going to keep them. We're going to kill bracket creep. My word is my bond,' from the Treasurer. But then, not anymore—my word means nothing. So the reality is, with the election in just a couple of months—due in May—when the Albanese government open their mouths, when ministers open their mouths and when the Prime Minister opens his mouth, their word cannot be trusted. You cannot believe a word this frontbench says because they have not delivered for Australians and they certainly haven't delivered for the people of Petrie. The LNP will, if given the opportunity.

Recently I met a young man studying to be a glazier at Lidcombe TAFE. He had left school early and had been working in a warehouse. He told me he thought this would be his lot in life until he found out about free TAFE. This young man wanted a better life for himself. He aspired to learn new skills and start his own business, and, because of free TAFE, he was able to lift his ambitions. The skills he learns as a glazier will contribute to constructing new homes that we need. He will earn more money, and he'll employ local people. But what does the Leader of the Opposition want to do? He wants to cut free TAFE and, with it, cut dreams, cut ambition and cut aspiration not just for this young man but for the half a million Australians who are already enrolled in free TAFE. That's the difference.

This Labor government lifts people up. We help them dream bigger dreams. We want to lift your wages, lift your aspirations and lift this country. The Leader of the Opposition cuts people down. He wants to cut jobs, make cuts to Medicare and cut free TAFE. We build, and they cut.

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

The question is that the motion moved by the Prime Minister be agreed to. As a mark of respect, I ask all present to signify their approval by rising in their places.

Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places.

The question is that the motion moved by the Prime Minister be agreed to. As a mark of respect, I ask all present to signify their approval by rising in their places.

Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places.

The question is that the motion moved by the Prime Minister be agreed to. As a mark of respect, I ask all present to signify their approval by rising in their places.

Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Under this Prime Minister, thugs were allowed to chant antisemitic hate speech on the steps of the Sydney Opera House. The Prime Minister refused for months to establish an AFP taskforce or convene national cabinet, and Jewish places of worship, schools, businesses and homes have been relentlessly threatened and vandalised. The Prime Minister promised Australians that social cohesion was his priority. Prime Minister, with antisemitism getting worse, not better, what has our country become under your government?

I thank the member for his question. I've been opposed to racism in all its forms my entire life, including antisemitism. Indeed, the morning after the terrorist attack on 7 October, I was on Insiders condemning it unequivocally. The next morning on the Today Show, I said this in response to the demonstration that took place Lakemba that night:

Well, there's nothing to celebrate by the murder of innocent civilians, going about their day. Some of those who've been captured were young people attending a rave, enjoying life, enjoying each other's company.

Word got out about the Opera House rally that was due. I spoke before the rally on 2GB. 'So, you, as the Prime Minister believe that this march should not go ahead?' I was asked. I said:

I absolutely believe it should not.

I went on to say that there was nothing to be achieved 'apart from creating a climate that is not conducive to peace'.

The day after those rallies, I went on to say on Sky News—2GB and Sky News, they should be familiar:

We need to lower the temperature. I don't want to see conflict here in Australia and I don't want to see the sorts of scenes that I saw last night …

And I said:

… one of the reasons why I believe it was just inappropriate for it to go ahead last night.

I did a press conference in Port Lincoln in South Australia on that day, 10 October. I said there, again:

I think that there's nothing to celebrate here.

I went on to speak about the rallies and said:

But the actions that we saw on the weekend need to be unequivocally condemned.

I did that consistently, at every single opportunity—every opportunity. I've continued to do that.

I note the comments of those who, for reasons beyond my comprehension, have argued that that was not the case. It's up to them to explain why that is not the case, why they suggest that and why, rather than look for the absolute maximum of unity, some have sought a different road.

In this parliament, we carried a resolution as well, unequivocally. And there were some fine speeches that day.

Antisemitism is a scourge. It's opposed by anyone who is decent. What we saw in the videos yesterday was abhorrent. I note that this morning I have spoken with Premier Minns. He spoke to me about the health minister, who has travelled with the Jewish Board of Deputies to Bankstown hospital this morning to make it very clear—very clear—that the actions of these two reprehensible people in showing their hatred for people because they are Jewish, their antisemitism, there for all to see, without any shame or any embarrassment, is overwhelmingly not why people go into the health professions.

What I have sought and will continue to seek—and I ask my friend here to join with me on it, because we have been on unity tickets before—is to join, at every single opportunity, to look for social cohesion and to look to bring people together, rather than any suggestion of anything other than total condemnation of antisemitism. It's precisely what every person in my government has done—not just since October 7, but our entire political lives. That is one of the reasons why people join the Labor Party: because they believe in cohesiveness in our society; because they believe in inclusion; because they believe in diversity; because they believe in respect for people, regardless of their faith or their origins.

My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government building Australia's future to ensure no-one is held back and no-one is left behind? And, Prime Minister, what approaches would leave Australians worse off?

I thank the member for Lingiari for her question. I thank her as well for the enormous work that she does in that extraordinary electorate that is so vast and full of remote communities—an electorate, were it in Europe, that would make up at least one country and perhaps two or three, I've got to say!

Now, the world has thrown a lot of challenges at us, and we know that it's been tough. We've managed the economy responsibly while providing cost-of-living relief: tax cuts, cheaper medicines, cheaper child care, energy bill relief and, importantly, under this Treasurer, back-to-back budget surpluses, turning the $78 billion deficit that we inherited into a $22 billion surplus. These are the strong foundations we have laid: inflation now with a two in front of it—2.4 per cent—down from the above-six that we inherited; unemployment remaining low, with 1.1 million jobs being created; and, importantly, real wages increasing as well, and, with our tax cuts, meaning people are earning more and getting to keep more of what they earn.

Now, building Australia's future is about people. It's more than just bricks and mortar, although we're doing that, too, with our plan for 1.2 million homes, with our building of Medicare urgent care clinics and with our support of fee-free TAFE. It also means fully funding all schools, not just some, and we're committed to that. It means the three-day guarantee for child care that those opposite tried to filibuster past today's question time. It means wiping 20 per cent off student debt to tackle the intergenerational inequities which are there. It also means investing in our regions, making sure they have the health care, the services, the childcare centres, the businesses and the tourism that they need.

That's why we have been prepared to foreshadow our support for Rex, whether through a private owner or not. But we won't let it just go by the wayside. It is something that overwhelmingly benefits electorates represented by those opposite. But we on this side of the House understand that being in government is about representing every Australian, regardless of where they live and regardless of who their local representative is. In spite of the opposition to this proposal by the Liberal and National parties, we are determined to get this done and to make sure regional Australians have access to air transport. (Time expired)

My question is to the Prime Minister. The Greens political party is a racist, antisemitic party. Will the Prime Minister join with the Leader of the Opposition in committing to putting the Greens last at the coming election?

Before I call the Prime Minister I will hear from the Leader of the Australian Greens on a point of order.

The statements in the question are a clear reflection on members and are disorderly, and I ask that those statements be withdrawn.

The manager on a point of order?

In response to the point of order—and I suspect that you will share this view, Mr Speaker—it was not a reflection on any individual member; it was on the Greens political party. And the Prime Minister seems willing to answer the question.

There are a few problems with this question. In terms of the Prime Minister's direct responsibilities, he can't be asked about party affairs, which is a longstanding part of Practice. But he's indicated that he's willing to take the question. I'd just ask the member for Berowra to make sure his language is in line with standing orders. This is a very sensitive and hot topic; I understand that. But inflammatory language doesn't assist the chamber. I'm not going to ask him to withdraw. I just remind all members—it wasn't directed to an individual, but if it was, as has happened before, I would ask the member to withdraw. I'd just ask, moving forward, that we do use language that everyone can live with. The member for Warringah on a further point of order?

Yes, for clarification and consistency. My understanding, from the standing orders, as to reflection is that the question included a reference to a party—completely separate to me—but that is a reflection on its members. The question is that I was required to withdraw when it was a reflection on policy. Yet here it is a reflection on a party, which is the members of a party, and that is not considered to be contrary to the standing orders. So, for consistency—which I'm sure everybody in this place would appreciate—I would submit, respectfully, that there is a discrepancy there.

The manager on a further point of order?

I think there are lots of examples in Practice that support your way forward, Mr Speaker, so I would submit that that point of order is not relevant.

The Leader of the House?

Sorry for the delay. I was trying to find the reference. It's on page 517 of Practice. I think the Clerk is referring to the same section, which explains the situations where something that is otherwise generally said may still be required to be withdrawn.

Yes. Speaker Snedden, back in time, followed a practice where a collective group of people were described in a certain way. I won't read it to the chamber. In the member's case, that was a slightly different variation, where it was directed towards an individual. I'm not going to litigate previous decisions. I just want to remind all members that language is important in this place and to ask members, moving forward, that you just reflect on that to make sure everyone is comfortable. Now, I need to move forward, but that being said, I'm asking, to assist the House with future questions, that they comply with the standing orders and that everyone is shown respect. The Prime Minister has the call.

I'll make four points. The first point is, you're quite right, that, within this chamber, leaders and ministers can't be asked about decisions to be made by political parties. The question clearly went to that. I refer to previous answers made by prime ministers, ministers and leaders of political parties that those decisions are a matter for the political parties.

The second point I make is to refer to your comments about the concern about some of the language in the question. I just refer to Director-General of ASIO Mike Burgess's comments about turning the heat down wherever possible. We all have a responsibility to do that. I think that it is in Australia's interests that that occur. I say that consistently.

The third point I make is on the reasons why there are currently four members of the Greens political party in the House of Representatives. In the member for Melbourne's case, he is there directly because the Liberal Party gave preferences to Adam Bandt, which, upon Lindsay Tanner's retirement as the member for Melbourne, saw Adam Bandt elected, and he has continued to serve since.

The member for Fadden is warned.

As for the other three—

Order, Member for Petrie! You've just got to get through this answer.

Of course, in Queensland, the Queensland LNP made a decision to put the Queensland Greens into the Queensland parliament by giving them preferences and getting them elected.

The fourth point is that I joined, at a very young age, a major political party that sought to be a party of government, the Australian Labor Party—a party that I have supported since I came out of the womb. It's a party that seeks to make a difference because, like many of us on this side of the House, being Labor, making a difference and standing up for fairness and equity is something that we were raised with from a very early age, whether it be from our parents or from the Josephite nuns, for that matter.

The final point that I will make—

Time's up!

Order! The member for Mitchell is warned. We had this debate yesterday about the time. I don't think we want to go back in time.

My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education. What action has the Albanese Labor government taken to start building a universal early education system that is simple, affordable and accessible for every family? What could put this at risk and leave families worse off?

I thank the wonderful member not just for her question but for her passion and her dedication to early childhood education and care for Australian children in her electorate and across Australia. It was very clear when we came into office that we inherited an early childhood education sector that was in desperate need of reform. We've made significant progress on reforming the sector across those three pillars—affordability, accessibility and a sustainable workforce—towards a vision of a universal early childhood education and care sector that is simple, affordable and accessible.

Today, because of the actions of this government, there are 41,900 more educators in the sector. There are 1,083 more services, with 30 per cent of them outside major cities. There are 97,000 more children in early childhood education and care. Because of our cheaper childcare reforms, one million families are better off, to the tune of around $2,700. We're building on that by capping our fee increases as well. We have more educators in the sector, and vacancies are down by 22 per cent. There are more educators getting training and professional development to get into and stay in the sector that they love.

Today, this House passed our three-day guarantee. I'm asked about risks. It's well known that the Liberals and the Nationals, those opposite, have opposed every cost-of-living measure we have put before this House—every single one of them. Today, they again—

That is an outright lie!

The minister will pause. Member for Moncrieff, that comment was unparliamentary. I will ask you to withdraw that.

I withdraw.

I thank the member. I call the minister.

Today, we saw the opposition again vote against a cost-of-living measure. What they voted against today is 70,000 families saving $1,370. That's what they voted against. They voted against more children, particularly children from disadvantaged families, getting access to those transformative benefits of early childhood education and care. They voted against more women being able to get back to work. They voted against low-income families accessing affordable early learning. They voted against aspiration and they voted against the future because they have no plan, no vision and no policy for early childhood education and care. Instead, they want to take us back to the days of high early childhood education and care fees and back to the days of low wages for early childhood education workers. They have no plan for the future, only a plan for bosses to get longer lunches and a plan for $350 billion worth of cuts. Australians know. Today, Australians saw just what those opposite stand for.

My question is to the Minister for Communications. Just 1.6 per cent of Australians solely use a landline, while nearly 90 per cent have a smart phone. Will the government expand the Universal Service Obligation to the mobile phone network in the regions and, if not, why not?

I thank the member for her question. I appreciate throughout this term the advocacy that she has provided for her constituents with her constructive engagement with me on a variety of communications matter across the portfolio. For the benefit of members, USO stands for 'Universal Service Obligation', and Telstra is designated as the universal service provider. Basically, this is a requirement that has not changed since it was put in place. It applies to landline services and, taken on a reading, a pretty basic data service. The intention of the National Broadband Network, when it was conceived by Labor, was to ensure that we had not only broadband capacity across Australia but a wholesale-only access network vertically integrated that would provide competition in the regions. This is where it matters.

The member is right that there is a complete lack of flexibility when it comes to the Universal Service Obligation. That is why in 2023 I announced that this government would undertake a full consultation into how a reform could be undertaken here and how it could best benefit, in particular, those living in regional Australia. I also pay tribute to the member for Kennedy, who has been a staunch advocate for reform in this area. We have undertaken that consultation on the scope of services, and clearly there needs to be change. This has been strongly endorsed by every stakeholder in the area, be it the National Farmers Federation, ACEM or the industry themselves. That is encouraging, I would say to the member for Mayo and everyone in this place. But this is an area long overdue for reform. No reform happened under the previous government for a decade. Despite that, we have undertaken a consultation not only on the scope of services but how it should be funded. There are a variety of ways in which that could happen.

Telstra, as you know, has the contract as the universal service provider, under those arrangements which happened when the NBN was conceived. They are due to expire not in the immediate term, but in future years—though not a long way away. So we need to determine now what that is going to look like. I can say to the member that the government has been working diligently in this area. We will have more to say very soon.

But I'll make three very good points. Firstly, this is an area where reform was absolutely left lacking under the previous government. Secondly, this is an area where regional Australia has missed out, because of that lack of reform. Thirdly, that lack of reform flies in the face of the fact that Australians have always been early adopters. They want the best technology. They want the best connectivity. I can assure the honourable member that Labor will be reforming this area, and I look forward to engaging with the member as we implement those reforms.

I would like to inform the House that present in the gallery today is a delegation of scientists and researchers, who are in Parliament House today meeting with members and senators as part of the 25th year of the Science Meets Parliament initiative. On behalf of the House, welcome to question time.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

My question, my last in this place, is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. How is the Albanese Labor government building Australia's future and strengthening Medicare by delivering more bulk-billing, more doctors and cheaper medicines? Why is urgent action needed to strengthen Medicare after a decade of cuts and neglect?

I thank the member for Lyons not only for his question but also for his friendship over nine years. He's been a terrific representative of his electorate and a terrific advocate for a stronger Medicare in Tasmania, in particular. He was also a fierce advocate for a Medicare urgent care clinic in Bridgewater, north of Hobart, and I was delighted to visit it after it opened very late last year.

It's already seen more than 1,200 patients in only several weeks, and every single one of them has been fully bulk-billed. That is so important for Labor, because for Labor, bulk-billing has always been the beating heart of Medicare. It was from its very first day. But it has also always been very hard-fought. It was opposed by the AMA. Bulk-billing was opposed by the Liberal Party. Famously, John Howard called bulk-billing 'an absolute rort' and, of course, the Leader of the Opposition tried to abolish it altogether. Today, the latest data says that around four in five visits to the GP are bulk-billed. For me, that is too low. For Labor, that is too low. We would like to see it higher. But it must be said not everyone in this chamber shares that view.

Back when he was the health minister, the Leader of the Opposition did a radio interview on Radio National in August 2014—

The point of order is on relevance. That question referred to 'why is more action needed?' It didn't have a request for a comparison against alternative policies. I don't think the question invited a compare and contrast in any way that would mean that this is relevant.

It did, only because the minister was asked about the importance of strengthening Medicare after a decade of neglect. That was in the question.

That was your decade!

The member for Moreton will leave the chamber under 94(a).

The member for Moreton then left the chamber.

The manager is entitled to raise his point of order, and no-one will interject on him before or after, as a matter of respect. The minister, in continuation.

Poor Graham! As I was saying, about four in five visits are currently bulk-billed, which we think is too low. We'd like to see it higher. But, in 2014, a decade ago, when the cuts started, the Leader of the Opposition said this on Radio National: 'About four out of five services by GPs are performed for free, which is too high.' That explains why, of course, he then tried to impose a GP tax, and, when he couldn't do that, he imposed a six-year-long freeze to the Medicare rebate.

We're about protecting Medicare. We're about strengthening Medicare, and at the heart of that is our effort around bulk-billing. We've delivered, in this term of parliament, the three biggest increases to the Medicare rebate in 30 years—the first biggest, the second biggest and the third biggest. In three years we've increased the Medicare rebate by much more than they managed in nine long years. We've tripled the bulk-billing incentive. In Tasmania that means bulk-billing is up seven per cent—the biggest increase in the country—meaning more Tasmanians can afford to be going to the doctor—and they are. GP services are up in the last 12 months by four per cent in Tasmania—again, the biggest increase in the country. But, unlike for the Leader of the Opposition, that's not good enough for us. We know there's more we need to do.

The Leader of the Opposition has different priorities. He's going to prioritise long lunches on the taxpayer's dime and $600 billion for a nuclear power plant. That's why no-one trusts him with Medicare. (Time expired)

My question is for the Prime Minister. Tomorrow it will be 1,000 days since the election of the Albanese Labor government. The Prime Minister promised a $275 cut on power bills and life would be cheaper under Labor. Instead, working households are now paying up to $1,000 more for energy than promised, the cost of living has increased by nearly 20 per cent, and people are suffering the longest recession on record. Why won't this Prime Minister apologise to Australians for his weak leadership, bad decisions and wrong priorities?

I thank the member for his question. We're strengthening Medicare; they want to cut it. We're growing wages; they want people to work longer for less. We've cut taxes for every single taxpayer, including those in the electorate of Forde; the member for Forde voted against it. We've made medicines cheaper; they voted against it multiple times. We're building new energy now; they support a plan to build nuclear power stations in the 2040s, even though AGL have made it very clear that coal-fired power stations can't keep going forever, and there will be energy shortages. We're backing a future made in Australia; they want to send jobs and industries offshore. The member for Forde's plan, and this bloke's plan—

The Prime Minister can direct his remarks through the chair.

This bloke's plan here—the party he supports have a plan that envisages 40 per cent less energy use than what the Australian Energy Market Operator says will be necessary. That means less manufacturing, fewer jobs and less economic activity. We're cutting student debt by 20 per cent; those opposite say it's very, very bad. We're making free TAFE permanent; those opposite say that free TAFE has no value for the 600,000 Australians who benefit from it. We've given early educators a 15 per cent pay rise; they mock it and call it waste. We have rescued aged care from crisis; those opposite presided over a system that was summed up in one word: neglect.

The member for Cowper is now warned.

We're delivering on the cost of living; they only care about their mate's cost of lunching. We are a government delivering for all Australians. We understand that cost-of-living pressures are real, which is why we have acted on the cost of living. Those opposite have only acted on the cost of lunch for some of their people. We are a government for all Australians. We're working hard to deliver in every part of the country, because only Labor does the big reforms: universal Medicare, universal super, universal provision of the NDIS for those people who need it, universal child care—opposed once again by those opposite just before question time. Only Labor drives the big reforms. Only Labor builds to last. Only Labor is building Australia's future.

The member for Wright is warned.

My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government's responsible economic management helping in the fight against inflation and with the cost of living? And, Treasurer, what economic approaches would leave Australians worse off?

Thanks to the member for Tangney for being an outstanding local member from the west and a great colleague and for his important question. When we came to office almost three years ago, inflation was much higher and rising, and real wages and living standards were falling. That's why our priority right from the beginning has been the fight against inflation and helping Australians with the cost of living. Together, Australians have made very substantial and now sustained progress when it comes to inflation. Inflation is now almost a third of what we inherited from those opposite. The headline measure is in the mid twos, underlying is in the low threes, and both are falling. This week, Westpac and ANZ both substantially lowered their forecasts for inflation for the first half of this year.

Inflation is falling in Australia, but it is rising in other parts of the world. Overnight, we heard that in the US inflation rose again, so their measure of both underlying and headline inflation is higher there than it is here. What makes the Australian experience different to what we're seeing around the world is that we've made this progress together on inflation at the same time that average unemployment has been lower under this Prime Minister than under any Prime Minister in the last 50 years. That means that, at the same time, the economy—while growth is soft—has been growing while two-thirds of the OECD have gone backwards at least once. We've delivered back-to-back surpluses for the first time in almost two decades and lowered debt by $177 billion. So inflation is down, and wages are up. Unemployment is low, and the budget is in much better nick.

Even as we've made this progress together as Australians, we acknowledge that growth in the economy is weak and people are under pressure. That's why our cost-of-living help is so important. Getting wages moving, tax cuts, energy bill relief, cheaper early childhood education, cheaper medicines and free TAFE—the Leader of the Opposition has opposed all of this. He says he'll make big cuts, but he won't tell Australians what those cuts are until after the election. The reason this will make people worse off is he can't find that $350 billion in cuts or the $600 billion he needs for nuclear reactors without going after Medicare again, without going after pension indexation or housing or veterans or disaster relief or wages. That's why the choice of the election later this year is such a stark one for the Australian people: the Leader of the Opposition, who will make people worse off, who opposed our cost-of-living help and who will take Australia backwards, or this Prime Minister and his government, helping Australians with the cost of living, making progress in the fight against inflation, strengthening Medicare and building Australia's future.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Tomorrow, it will be 1,000 days since the election, where the Prime Minister promised life would be cheaper under him. Instead, food is up 12 per cent, gas is up 34 per cent, rents are up 17 per cent, and Australian families have paid $50,000 more on a typical mortgage. Why won't the Prime Minister apologise to Australians for his weak leadership, bad decisions and wrong priorities?

I thank the member for Cook. I wasn't aware it was 1,000 days since we were elected. I noticed, when government changed hands last time, when government last changed hands, Tony Abbott didn't make it to his second anniversary, because all of the cuts to health and education and the ABC all came in. In spite of the massive majority that they were elected with, those opposite knocked off their own leader before the second anniversary, including this guy here.

I'm asked about the cost of living. The member for Cook is now part of a show that opposed energy bill relief, because you wanted people to be worse off, I assume; opposed cheaper medicine, because the member wanted people to pay more; opposed higher wages, because the member wanted people to earn less; and opposed tax cuts, because the member wanted people to be worse off. That is not our approach.

I noticed the Leader of the Opposition this week saying, about interest rates, that the RBA governor shouldn't feel pressured one way or the other, because she can cut rates and then find out they've been cut too early. Well, I'll just leave that out there for people to read into it what they will.

But we on this side of the chamber want people to be better off. We want standards of living to rise, not fall, which is why we've done the hard yards to decrease inflation and to increase wages whilst, as the Treasurer just said, having unemployment lower, on average, than any government over the last 50 years. And that's at a time when, in some of our competitive nations—advanced economies—unemployment hit double digits and inflation hit double digits. There were all sorts of problems in those countries.

We know that people have been under pressure, but that's why we've taken action. What's extraordinary is that, if the opposition had got their way, Australians would have been, on average, $7,200 worse off. If ever they sit on this side of the chamber, we know that Australians will be worse off, because they call relief 'sugar hits'. Make no mistake, if they have their way, Australians will be worse off and Australians will have to pay.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How has the Albanese Labor government delivered higher wages for Australian workers, after a decade of wages being kept deliberately low? What workplace relation policies would leave Australians worse off?

I thank the member for Hasluck. I remember, during the election campaign, standing up with the member for Hasluck at the Guildford Town Hall, talking about the need to get wages moving and talking about the fact there had been a decade of wages flatlining. Well, 10 years of low wages as a deliberate design feature in Australia ended the day the Albanese Labor government began. With that one word of 'absolutely', there was a change from wanting to keep wages deliberately low to wanting to get wages moving in this country. You can only imagine, with global inflation, what the wage freeze of those opposite would have meant over the last three years if they'd been able to continue with it. Every single thing we have put forward to get wages moving in this country, they have opposed. When we moved to fixed bargaining, they opposed it.

I remember them arguing why we had to not go to these new bargaining rules. It was because it would push wages up. Well, yes, it has, and people in this country needed to get pay rises, just like we needed to have same job, same pay, just like we needed to criminalise wage theft and just like we needed to have minimum standards for gig workers. Why should there be a situation where low-paid gig workers in this country have no minimum rates at all? But those opposite fought for that to continue to be the case. They're a party that wants to continue to have people to work longer for less.

Every one of these results for wage rises is a result that those opposite tried to prevent—pay rises of up to 13½ per cent for aged-care workers; pay rises of 15 per cent for early childhood educators. Over three years, minimum wage workers now have a wage increase of an additional $143 a week. That's for the lowest paid in the country. There has been a 27 per cent increase in bargaining. Flight attendants, coalminers, meatworkers are all earning more, and, at the same time, the days lost to industrial action have fall by 63 per cent. There are more than a million new jobs, with more than half of them full time. Danielle, a mine worker in the Hunter, who I've referred to before, got her pay rise because of the same job, same pay legislation—an exact policy those opposite have said they will take to the election to undo. Are you going to cut her pay, or are you just going to freeze her pay? If same job, same pay goes—it's the only reason Danielle is now paid the same as her fellow workers, which is why she says that she's now in a position to purchase a home.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Tomorrow, it will be 1,000 days since the election of the Albanese Labor government. The Prime Minister promised Australians he would halve migration numbers. Instead, the Prime Minister is bringing 1.8 million more people into Australia over five years, during a housing crisis with higher rents and fewer homes being built. Why won't this Prime Minister apologise to Australians for his weak leadership, bad decisions and wrong priorities?

I thank the member for her congratulations on our 1,000 days in office. The Leader of the Opposition, along with those opposite, wants to present himself somehow as a fresh new face during the campaign over the coming months, no doubt—just like his predecessor, Scott Morrison, did. The truth is that he was a part of it all.

A thousand days ago, tomorrow, we inherited a fair bit. We inherited a crisis in aged care that had been summed up with one word: neglect. We have now done what those opposite said couldn't be done, which is to put a nurse back in nursing homes 99 per cent of the time. We're paying workers properly. Our older Australians are getting the care and dignity that they deserve. It's all in place. Those opposite said it couldn't happen. In Veterans' Affairs, we inherited a system where literally those men and women who had defended us, our nation, our democracy—

A point of order on relevance. The question was focused on levels of migration—nothing that the Prime Minister's referring to. The Prime Minister needs to explain why his record migration program in a housing crisis is justified.

If it were just on that topic, you would be correct. But when you phrase a question about the Prime Minister's leadership and the priorities and ask for an apology, the Prime Minister is obviously going to take an argument as he sees fit with that part of the question. So he's directly relevant and he'll continue.

Thank you very much. He's new, Mr Speaker. He's new to the job. In Veterans' Affairs, there were 60,000 people waiting for payments that they had earned due to their service for our country. People died waiting to get entitlements that they deserved. That's before we get to the human impact of the robodebt scheme.

A thousand days ago, we inherited a crisis in skills—the worst skills shortage in 50 years. We inherited inflation that was rising. We inherited wages that were falling. We inherited a crisis in health, with Medicare bulk-billing in freefall. We inherited a crisis in the NDIS, with rorting and rip-offs and packages being cut. We inherited a fiscal crisis, with a trillion dollars in debt and deficits, including $78 billion being forecast in that first year. We inherited a crisis in accountability as well after the Prime Minister had sworn himself into multiple portfolios, in some cases without anyone knowing, including the bloke he shared a house with at the Lodge. The Treasurer didn't know that there was another Treasurer. It was extraordinary!

That was the chaos that we inherited from those opposite. There were no cabinet processes, just overheads in the cabinet room. We inherited a crisis in energy and an ageing grid, with four gigs out and one gig in. And we inherited a crisis in our immigration system presided over by those opposite—a crisis exposed by three separate reports.

My question is to the Minister for Education. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to build a better and fairer education system? What approaches to education would leave Australian students worse off?

I thank my friend the brilliant member for Parramatta for his question. Just over an hour ago we passed laws through this place that will help more kids get a great start in life, that will help more kids get ready to start school. It will guarantee their mums and dads get access to three days a week of government supported early education and care.

If you ever need an example of the difference between us and them, between the Labor Party and the Liberal Party, then this is it, because they voted against it. They voted against legislation to help some of the most disadvantaged kids in this country get the early education that they need to start school ready to learn. It's a real-life example of opening the doors of opportunity for our kids, and they voted to slam it shut. And here's the kicker: the argument that they use is that we can't afford it. But apparently we can afford billions of dollars for bosses to have lunch on the taxpayer. There's the difference: a three-day guarantee for our kids under Labor, or a three-course guarantee for bosses under the Liberal Party.

And this is not the only place where the difference is clear. We're fixing the funding of our schools, and we're tying that funding to the sorts of things that will help children who fall behind at school to catch up through things like free tutoring. If those opposite win, that all goes. Free tutoring will be replaced by free lunches—again leaving our kids worse off.

If we win the election, we will also do something else. We will cut student debts of three million Australians by 20 per cent. If those opposite win, that won't happen either because they're opposed to that too. Here's the press release from the shadow Treasurer on 3 November, on the day that they said they're opposed to cutting student debt by 20 per cent. I promise you I'm not making this up. Their argument for opposing it is this: 'There are no free lunches in economics.' It turns out there are, but only for the bosses—a bit of vichyssoise on the taxpayer Visa card, a bit of taxpayer funded turducken. If you don't know what that is, that's a chicken stuffed in a duck stuffed in a turkey, which is the perfect analogy for this policy because I think most Australians will think it's stuffed.

My question is to the Treasurer. Petrol prices in Mudgee have been disgracefully high for way too long. They're consistently 30c to 40c per litre higher than in other parts of our region, and sometimes even higher than that. The ACCC is not acting. Will you and your government take action to stop this outrageous price gouging that's being perpetrated by fuel companies in a cost-of-living crisis?

Thank you to the honourable member for his question. I'm happy to take that up with the ACCC. The ACCC does have an important role when it comes to monitoring petrol prices. We do know from time to time there is a risk that petrol stations, particularly in the regions, can do the wrong thing. Where they're doing the wrong thing, we should be reporting them to the ACCC to make sure that it isn't happening.

I'm pleased to welcome to the House John Gosling AM from Guide Dogs Victoria, the dad of the member for Solomon.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How is the Albanese Labor government's energy plan helping Australian families and small businesses with their energy bills? What proposals for the energy system would leave Australians worse off?

I thank my honourable friend for the question. I'm pleased to tell the member for Reid and the House about new figures out today which show that last year was a record year for new renewable energy investment. Nine billion dollars was invested over the course of last year, creating 10,000 construction jobs across the country, building the energy system of the future and introducing more and cheaper reliable renewable energy into our grid after a decade in which four gigawatts of dispatchable energy left the grid and only one gigawatt came on. Last year, we saw this record, which benefits families and small businesses.

The honourable member asked me which energy policies might hurt Australians. Of course, the good thing about that $9 billion of expenditure last year is that the vast bulk of it came from the private sector. It came from private investors into our energy system. A policy which would take Australia backwards would be a policy which is taxpayer funded to the tune of $600 billion. That's the policy of the opposition. The nuclear policy is a thirsty one—it's thirsty for money and thirsty for water. That's the indication we have from the opposition. As the Minister for the Environment and Water and I pointed out today, they would need a Sydney Harbour every year for their nuclear policy. The member for Fairfax has been flogging the Harbour Bridge all year. Now he needs to throw in the entire Sydney Harbour, because it's a policy which would take water away from farmers across the country. It would also require money. It would be paid for by taxpayers.

To be fair to the Leader of the Opposition, he's been out talking about his policy. He was out last week. He subjected himself to an interview with that Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, Peta Credlin. He was asked, during that interview, about his nuclear policy. I've got to say, this interview is being compared to the Frost-Nixon interviews for its searching intellect and for the tough questions! Ray Hadley wasn't available that evening. But this interview saw the Leader of the Opposition talk about his nuclear policy—I'm going to defend the Leader of the Opposition, because I thought it was a good choice. They could talk about old times, like the 2014 budget, where they took $50 billion out of the health system. As my friend the Minister for Health and Aged Care has pointed out at the despatch box once or twice, the Leader of the Opposition was voted Australia's worst health minister because of the $50 billion he cut. Now, he'd need to cut $600 billion to pay for his nuclear policy, plus $10 billion a year to pay for the free lunch policy, plus the $350 billion of cuts that they admit to. The 2014 budget would look like a Sunday picnic! We know the Leader of the Opposition has said there'll be cuts, but he'll tell us about them after the election. So we have this policy, which will cost $600 billion, and you know what will follow: a horror budget—cigars and all—with cuts to health and cuts to education to pay for his nuclear fantasy.

My question is to the Prime Minister. Tomorrow it will be a thousand days since the election of the Albanese Labor government. The Prime Minister promised Australians that he would deliver 1.2 million new homes. Instead, mortgages are up, approvals are down, construction costs are skyrocketing, rents are through the roof and the Australian dream of homeownership has never been further out of reach. Why won't this Prime Minister apologise for his weak leadership, bad decisions and wrong priorities?

I thank the member for Bass for her question. It has, indeed, been a thousand days, and 84 per cent of taxpayers are better off because of our tax cuts. A thousand days—and $1 billion has been saved thanks to cheaper medicines. A thousand days—and there have been 1.1 million free doctor's appointments at urgent care clinics, including the one in your electorate. A thousand days—and there have been 5.8 million extra bulk-billed appointments thanks to our bulk-billing increases. A thousand days—and the upgrade of Launceston hospital was delivered by this side. A thousand days—and 2.6 million award-wage workers have better pay. A thousand days—and over one million families have on average saved $2,700 with cheaper child care as a result of our reforms. A thousand days—and 600,000 Australians are getting access to free TAFE. A thousand days—and thousands of workers are earning more because of same job, same pay. That is including Nicole, who I met in Queensland, who is earning more than an additional $30,000 just by being paid the same wage as the person they're working beside, doing the same job with the same experience. A thousand days—and we've delivered 1.1 million new jobs.

The member for Bass is part of an operation that has delivered three policies. One, $10 billion to fund long lunches for business. I say to Australians: they'll keep asking you to dig deep so someone else can dig in—simple as that. Two, $600 billion to build nuclear reactors. There won't be any of them in Tasmania, but Tasmanian taxpayers will pay.

The Prime Minister will pause. The member for Bass, on a point of order.

Relevance: there's not much left of the answer, and the Prime Minister hasn't mentioned housing, which was what I asked about.

The Prime Minister has 48 seconds. He will make sure his answer is directly relevant. It was a fairly broad question, but it was about housing as well.

I'll tell you what will happen with housing with the third policy. We have the free lunches, we have the $600 billion nuclear reactors and we've got a third policy as well from those opposite—cuts to everything to pay for them, including cutting the Housing Australia Future Fund and less money for public and social housing. I've opened new social housing in the member's electorate, there in Launceston, along with the community housing provider. The member might have voted for that, but all of her colleagues didn't. I suggest to the member that she knows the answer herself. She voted for things that the Liberal Party voted against. She's a good person, but she's in a very bad party.

My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. How is the Albanese Labor government working to protect access to air services in regional Australia? Are there other approaches that will leave regional Australians worse off?

I thank the member for Gilmore for the question. I know she is a fantastic supporter of regional aviation and a great supporter of the announcement we made this week about investments in her electorate at Moruya Airport, which she advocated for.

The Albanese Labor government is building Australia's future by working to ensure the future of critical aviation services in our regions. We believe that Australians living in regional and remote communities deserve access to air travel that is affordable and reliable. Yesterday we announced the government will support short-listed bidders to maximise a successful sale of Rex Airlines to ensure crucial regional aviation services continue beyond 30 June. We've been clear the Commonwealth is not a bidder in this process but we want to see a successful market-led outcome. When markets fail or struggle to deliver for regional communities, the government has a role to ensure people don't miss out on opportunities, education and the critical connections that aviation brings. The same is, of course, true in telecommunications as well. We have been absolutely clear that, if there is no second sale, we will look at the contingency options, including preparations necessary for potential Commonwealth acquisition, and work with the states on that.

While this side of the House is doing everything it can to protect and support regional Australians, we saw the Liberals and Nationals confirm that they see no role for government in this. In fact, they have actively said that they will oppose it.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting.

We had the shadow finance minister saying Commonwealth acquisition was a bridge too far.

The minister will pause. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition needs to not interject for the remainder of this answer. It will be greatly appreciated by me and the House. The minister has the call.

I'll go to the comments by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition says that governments shouldn't own airlines. This is about the Australian government saying, 'Look, this is really important to regional Australia that we actually say this.' But she does think that it is perfectly okay for governments to own $600 billion worth of publicly owned nuclear reactors. That's what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition thinks is worthy—absolutely important—for the Commonwealth to own. What an absolute joke. You either back regional Australia—you back making sure we continue to have services in our regional communities—or you back $600 billion of publicly owned nuclear reactors and the cuts that are coming in order to actually fund them.

What we've seen on that side of the House is that they've got no interest in supporting regional Australia and no interest in making sure we continue to have that connectivity. Unlike the Liberals and Nationals, we're going to back regional airlines.

My question is to the housing minister. Minister, in 2023, National Cabinet agreed on nine reforms under A Better Deal for Renters. However, both the national shelter and the tenants union note that in Tasmania the state government is currently not pursuing six of the nine agreed reforms. Why is the Tasmanian government being allowed to slow-walk these agreed reforms, and will the federal government finally inject some urgency into nationally consistent protections for renters?

I want to thank the member for Clark for his question about a subject that we have a shared passion for—that is, the situation faced by renters across our country right now. I know that the member will be meeting with his constituents, as I do. They are not necessarily young renters but renters who are middle-aged, who've got children of their own and who are living in that precarious situation where they're getting moved from property to property and sometimes having to move their kids from school to school. This is something that I don't want to see. People sometimes ask me, in this job, what gets me out of bed in the morning. One of them is this. If we go back to around the year I was born, 60 per cent of young low-income people across our country owned their own home. Today that number is 20 per cent. This tells us not only that we have a long-term issue with housing in our country but also that, just because of housing, the experience of low-income people across Australia is very different to how it was 40 years ago.

Implicit in the member's question, I think, is an acknowledgement that these important issues of the rights of renters sit at the state level. Almost all previous governments have basically said, 'We want nothing to do with this problem,' but that's not the case with our government. The Prime Minister, of course, has placed housing at the very heart of our government's agenda. So, instead of ignoring this problem, we have sat down with the states and made an agreement—the National Housing Accord. Part of that agreement is asking all the states to sign up to the important new rental standards, which are things like ending no-fault evictions, banning rent bidding, limiting excessive rent increases and ensuring minimum standards for rental accommodation.

The member asked about the performance of the Tasmanian government. Each of the states report to me about their progress. The last report I received was in December 2024. Tasmania reported that they have completed seven of nine of their requirements and that two of nine are in progress. I see you shaking your head. The national shelter numbers are from a few months earlier, which probably explains the discrepancy. But, if the member doesn't mind, I'd really appreciate the opportunity to sit down with him and go through the report. I'm very happy to work with him to push the Tasmanian government to move faster. I can tell you: no-one wants the states to move faster on this than me. It's a really important part of the government's urgent housing agenda, and I thank him for his question.

My question is to the Prime Minister. What has the Albanese Labor government done to help ease cost-of-living pressures that Australians are facing? Are there any approaches which would make Australians worse off?

I thank the member for Bennelong for his question. It was terrific to be with him in Eastwood last Saturday at the lunar new year celebrations.

We have an economy that is growing. We have inflation which is down to a four-year low. We have wages that are up and pay packets that are growing at the fastest pace since 2012. Unemployment on average is the lowest it has been under any government in 50 years—in the context of a global economic crisis—with 1.1 million jobs created, more than two-thirds of which have been full time. We have the smallest gender pay gap on record, fewer days lost to industrial disputes, and a record number of small businesses and record business investment. We've delivered tax cuts for every single taxpayer; a cost-of-living support rollout; energy bill relief; cheaper child care; cheaper medicines; extra GP appointments; free TAFE; the largest increase in rent assistance in 30 years of 45 per cent over two increases; student debt relief for three million Australians, with more to come; the first back-to-back surpluses in two decades; and less debt—to the tune of $200 billion saved—as a result of the hard work that we have done.

I'm asked about alternatives. The Leader of the Opposition was a senior minister for every day of the former government. Every Australian will remember all too well what he means when he speaks about going back. It will be back to rising inflation; back to wages being kept deliberately low; back to aged care in crisis, bulk-billing in freefall and child care being out of reach; back to chasing manufacturing offshore; back to Australia being completely isolated on the world stage; back to secret ministries and robodebt; and back to wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on commuter car parks that weren't anywhere near train stations. At the beginning of the show, he was appointed health minister. He was so bad that he was dumped by Tony Abbott, but do you know what was worse? He was replaced by Sussan Ley.

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

I present the government's response to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure's report Maintenance of the standing and sessional orders.

I move:

That leave of absence be given to every Member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting.

Question agreed to.

We have had the worst flooding—maybe in the nation's history—in North Queensland. There are 500,000 people trapped; they have no way of getting out. Helicopters can't get in, planes can't get in and boats can't get in. There is no way you can get off the coastal plain. On one side is the Great Dividing Range—5,000-feet-high mountains—and 30 kilometres away is the Pacific Ocean. There are three roads that are utterly impassable even in good times, and they are utterly impassable now, and we can't get back to Townsville. There is great urgency, and we should haven't to go into a calamity of this nature. We should be prepared for it. Any civilised nation would have looked after the half-a-million people that are there and have been in great jeopardy for the last two weeks.

We crave the indulgence of the people of Australia and the parliament of Australia. We need a tunnel to get out of that captured situation. Infinitely more importantly, we need an upgrading of the roads system from Tully back to Townsville so we can get out that way. Infinitely more importantly, the Prime Minister gave the first monies for the Great Inland Way. That got it started, and there's been $2 billion spent on it since his $28 million. It just needs 10.8 kilometres to get completion so we've got an alternative way out. We need to be able to get back to Townsville, but we need a tunnel at the other end so we can get onto this highway. We've got 500,000 Australians who've had their lives placed in very grave jeopardy. We've lost two—arguably three—lives that we know of already.

I thank the member for Kennedy not just for his contribution today but also, more importantly, for his extraordinary representation of the people of that region over 50 years. I was with the member for Kennedy last week at the bridge that had collapsed. We witnessed the extraordinary work of the Australian Defence Force in making sure that access for essential services—

That was your doing, Prime Minister.

was upgraded there. I would like to think it was my decision, but I've got to say that the blokes in the Australian Defence Force who were doing that were just extraordinary, showing their skills in engineering. I pay tribute to them and the other emergency service workers who were on the ground there in Townsville, along with the member for Kennedy; Premier Crisafulli; the Minister for Emergency Management, Senator Jenny McAllister; and the Mayor of Hinchinbrook, who walked across in his thongs and shorts in amongst what was still pretty muddy. I have had conversations there with the Premier, as well as the member for Kennedy. Yesterday I spoke with the Premier again when I informed him that I'd signed off on considerable grants, $100 million worth of support, for people in that community.

One of the issues the member raised with regard to roads is the Kennedy development road. It's a great example of, frankly, stuff that needs to be done better. Ten kilometres of that road are still dirt, and that has meant that it hasn't been able to be used. We will fix it. We have funding provided for it, and that will be fixed. I've spoken with the Premier about making sure that we don't just build what was there again in the same form but that we build it back better.

Just like in the member for Kennedy's electorate, as he would remember, he made representations about the Einasleigh River Bridge so that Karumba and Normanton in his electorate were not cut off. We built it back better through the council, and not only did they do that under the $31 million budget; they provided additional three bridges as a result of using that local labour. They know what they're doing, and they used local suppliers as well. I've spoken to the Premier about the same approach to make sure that the bureaucrats in either the capital city here or the capital city in Queensland listen to people on the ground, particularly the people in local government, because that is how you can get things done.

The Kennedy development road, I assure you, will be done, and we will work constructively. I must say that the engagement with the Premier of Queensland has been very constructive, and our two governments are working seamlessly because that is what is required at a time like this to get things done. I do praise the member for Kennedy, who's been on the ground there with his local community. These are tough times. North Queenslanders are tough people, and they're showing it yet again. We're seeing that, at the worst of times, we see the best of the Australian character.

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

The Government's weak leadership and the need to get Australia back on track.

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—

Well, if you're sitting at home at the moment around the kitchen table working out how you're going to pay bills, looking at your insurance premium which has gone up dramatically, looking at the rent bill, looking at the grocery bill—if you're looking at any aspect of expenditure in your household or, indeed, in your small business, you would've watched question time today and believed that this Prime Minister and this government were living in a parallel universe. This government is so far out of touch with where the Australian public is that it is deeply offensive. As day after day goes by, the Australian public realise that this Prime Minister has no solution for them, has no answer to their problems and is, in fact, the architect of the problems that have been created over the course of the last long 1,000 days.

What we have seen from this Prime Minister and from this government from the very start is an absolute abrogation of their key responsibilities. Their first responsibility is to keep Australians safe. What has happened since particularly 7 October 2023 is that our country has become less cohesive and less safe. That is the reality. There are thousands and thousands of people in the Jewish community today who know that our country, their community and their neighbourhood is less safe because of the inaction and the weak leadership of this Prime Minister. This Prime Minister has demonstrated that he is out of his depth. When those people went to the steps of the Sydney Opera House, they weren't condemned as they should've been by this Prime Minister. When those protests started on the steps of the Opera House, they spread to university campuses and they went on unabated for months and months on the streets of Melbourne and of Sydney. People knew no red lines whatsoever because the police were instructed by a weak Premier in Victoria and by the Premier and the police minister in New South Wales to hold up law and order and to keep peace but not to intervene and arrest people for committing serious crimes.

Australians have been horrified by what they've seen on their television screens in the last 24 hours, with those two healthcare workers and their disgraceful, deplorable comments. That is the face of what the people of the Jewish community have been experiencing for the last 15 months at their local shopping centres, when they go online, when they read emails and when they've been disenfranchised and disowned by people in their own communities. That is exactly the sort of vile filth and racism that these people have been experiencing in our country for the last 15 months.

It's given the Australian public a window into the way in which this Prime Minister conducts himself. This Prime Minister has made it his core business to prioritise policies that will win them the votes of Greens voters in the inner-city suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne. That is what's driven this Prime Minister because that is where this Prime Minister sees political opportunity. It's not just in relation to issues around national security; it's also in relation to issues on the environment.

People in Western Australia—the powerhouse of this economy and of this nation—know that, if this Prime Minister is to be re-elected, he can only do so with the support of the Greens and the Green teals. If that is the case, mining will be on its knees overnight. The people of WA aren't stupid. The people of WA know that this bill—which is ironically called 'nature positive' but really is mining negative—is all about how it can frustrate mining. If we close down mining in Western Australia, we stop funding schools on the east coast. If we close down mining in WA—as the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Greens would do after the election—we won't fund infrastructure projects, including in North Queensland, as the member for Kennedy rightly pleaded only a few moments ago. If the Labor Party is re-elected, we know that the nature-positive, mining-negative bill will be reintroduced in its worst form as part of the construct between the Labor Party and the Greens. It will kill the economy, not just in WA, but across the nation.

It doesn't stop with just national security, social cohesion and the environment. It also goes to what we've seen in the government's decisions on salmon farming. The economy and the environment in Tasmania will be adversely affected. Those workers in Tasmania will be adversely affected by the decision that the government's taken to close down the salmon industry in Tasmania. Why would they do that, when it's a central part of the economy, the economic life and the social life of those living in Tasmania? It's because the Prime Minister is again seeking to appeal to voters who would otherwise be voting for the Greens in inner-city Sydney and Melbourne. This Prime Minister has decided to put, as his first priority, the interests of Greens voters in Sydney and Melbourne, and he has hung the people in suburbs and regional and remote areas of the country out to dry. That's exactly what has happened under this Prime Minister's watch.

When we speak about 1,000 long days of this Prime Minister's reign—it feels like 10,000, first of all—we consider the impact has been negative on so many families, with so many people struggling to pay their mortgages after interest rates have increased 12 times. Interest rates have already gone down in the United States and the United Kingdom, in Canada and in New Zealand, but they haven't gone down here yet. I hope and pray they go down next week to provide some relief to mortgage holders.

It's not just households. There are 27,000 small businesses who have gone bankrupt under this Prime Minister's watch—a record high. There are manufacturing workers in this country with very few prospects of a future under this Prime Minister, particularly after the election in a minority government, because there has been a threefold increase in the number of manufacturing businesses which have closed over the course of the last two-and-a-half years. Have a look at what has happened in the area of health. When people go to their doctors, they know there's no bulk-billing available. When I was health minister the bulk-billing rate was at 84 per cent; today it's at 77 per cent and heading south. Of those 27,000 small businesses which closed under the Prime Minister's watch, 272 of them have been doctors surgeries—a record number of closures of doctors surgeries under the Albanese government's watch. That is an outrage. We need to provide support to aging Australians. We need to provide support to those mothers going through maternity services. We need to provide support to every Australian who needs a doctor at the time they need that doctor, not to make them wait for two weeks to get in to see a bulk-billing practice.

We've promised $400 million to train more doctors and to get more doctors into the system. We've promised to prioritise households and small businesses and businesses otherwise, because we want to grow the economy again. We want to get this country back on track. We want to fight the cost-of-living scourge that has been created by Labor. We want to make sure that we can help the health system grow, not shrink as it has under Labor. We want to make sure we can help all those businesses grow so they can employ more people, and help them with their priorities in life. We want to make sure that we can support every Australian to be the best they can be. We have outlined a vision for the Australian public. We have put forward a plan and will detail more of that as we go into the election. We will fight the cost-of-living pressures. We will build a stronger economy. We will cut government waste, which has fuelled inflation. We will back small business. We will deliver affordable and reliable energy. We will rebalance our migration program. We will fix the housing crisis. We will deliver quality health care. We will focus on practical action for Indigenous Australians. We will grow a stronger regional Australia. We will build strong and sustainable communities. We will keep Australians safe.

I promise the Australian people, as we go to the next election, that our government will be a government of strength, prepared to make the decisions to keep our country safe. My government will be a government which stands up for our interests on the world stage. We will do what it takes to rebuild the Australian economy, to clean up a Labor mess, exactly as John Howard and Peter Costello did in 1996. We won't shirk the responsibilities that sit on the shoulders of the government and a prime minister of the day. We will clean up this government's mess and we will get our country back on track.

Well, there's another anniversary they don't want to talk about. Today is the day we say happy birthday to the ABC's Nemesis. We saw the Liberal Party and the National Party fighting amongst each other on the public purse for nine whole years. We saw the Leader of the Opposition arguing with his cabinet colleagues about why he opposed a fair share of the GST for Western Australia. He opposed those tax initiatives when he was in government; he opposes critical minerals tax incentives now that he's in opposition. We saw them more focused on one another than on the Australian people. We saw them say that secret ministries were a good thing. The Leader of the Opposition defended secret ministries, saying that it was in the national interest. There's only one word that I remember more than any other from the Nemesis program, the word 'thug'. The word 'thug' was chosen by former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull when he was asked to define the now Leader of the Opposition. So they argued, Liberal against Liberal, National against National. What we know is what those opposite have said about themselves. We had former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull say—

You might quieten down on the interjections or you won't be going well, except for out the door. Let's concentrate on the debate for the moment.

I want to quote former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, someone that all on that side respect and that all on that side urged the Australian people to vote for to be Prime Minister of this country and sat with in the cabinet room with week after week, year after year. He said this about the now Leader of the Opposition: 'The Leader of the Opposition basically never wants to do anything risky. He is not a leader. He lacks courage or conviction, other than when he can revert to some hardline measures he thinks will go down well on 2GB.'

I have a point of order on relevance. I understand that MPIs have a bit of leeway, but this—

If I do a relevance order here, I'll be listening extraordinarily carefully, and most of the MPIs would have been ruled out of order.

With all due respect, Deputy Speaker, deputy speakers in the past have ruled on this. He hasn't touched on anything to do with—

If you want to contest—I am not ruling on this. I am listening carefully to the debate. We are about two-and-a-bit minutes in and I'm listening. Please sit down.

This is a debate about leadership, and, again, I quote former Prime Minister Turnbull, who said, when it comes to the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition: 'He doesn't have the courage to make a call. Always preferring to be hanging back and muttering about the risks rather than offering an alternative. Happy to push on open doors only.' Then there was a warning for the Australian people about this person who offered to be the alternative Prime Minister of Australia. Former Prime Minister Turnbull said this about why he worked to make sure that the now Leader of the Opposition did not take over from him as Prime Minister back in 2018: 'I thought Dutton would run off to the right. I thought he would do a lot of damage as the Prime Minister of Australia in a short period.'

We know that this Leader of the Opposition is not prime ministerial material. He is not up to the job. It is not prime ministerial to joke about Pacific island neighbours having water lapping at their front doors. It was not prime ministerial when, 17 years ago today, the Leader of the Opposition, from this chamber, boycotted the National Apology to the Stolen Generations. It was not prime ministerial when he went to Collie to talk about his nuclear plant. It was not prime ministerial of him to run off when the people of Collie came up to him and said, 'Let's talk about your plan'. He ran away from the people he sought to impose a multibillion dollar nuclear power plant on.

I'm happy to debate with the Leader of the Opposition in this MPI right now. I'm happy to debate him in Central Park, in Collie, about his plans. We could go and get a coffee at the Wagon; we could have a good chat with the community there. Something tells me the Leader of the Opposition will not be going back to Collie between now and the federal election. The last time he was there, he was literally run out of town.

You might say, 'Oh, you would say that.' Well, what are his WA Liberal colleagues saying? This is, of course, when the WA Liberal Party aren't busy preselecting former One Nation candidates to be their candidate in the state seat of Perth. That's right; they've shown my community so much respect that they've had to knock on the door to One Nation and say, 'Hey, have you got any leftovers from that long lunch that we can use?' A former One Nation candidate is who the WA Liberals have chosen. I note that the Leader of the Nationals is here. The Leader of the Nationals and I probably agree on one thing, which is that the WA Liberals have a few problems when they preselect candidates in the metropolitan area. There are a few other candidates that he may think are better than some of the candidates the Liberals have preselected in the West. This is what the WA Leader of the Liberal Party says, when it comes to the Leader of the Opposition, from an article by Paul Garvey in today's national newspaper, the Australian:

While she has a good relationship with federal Opposition Leader Peter Dutton, she does not have any expectations that he will be joining her on the campaign trail.

I'm not surprised. But she offers a little glimmer of hope at the end. There's a quote from Libby Mettam that reads:

I imagine that Peter Dutton's popularity will continue to grow …

Well, it can probably only go in one direction.

We talk about governments—how they are, and how they perform. Again, here we are, one year on from the anniversary, the birthday party, for the Nemesis program, where they all sat down. It wasn't an accident that they walked into the interviews. It wasn't an accident that they went into those ABC studios to do those interviews. We saw, in that program, a reminder of what we got under those opposite. We got the robodebt scheme, causing serious harm to thousands of Australians. We got a government that refused to legislate net zero, saying that it wasn't on their agenda. We then saw, during the election campaign in 2022, that they refused to support an increase to the minimum wage for the lowest-paid Australians. They thought it was a step too far to legislate for 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave. But they thought it was okay to increase childcare fees by 41 per cent. They thought it was okay to walk out the door in 2022 leaving a trillion dollars of debt behind.

When they were a fresh thinking, newly elected government back in 2014, what were the great ideas they had, the fresh ideas for Australia? One was a $7 GP tax and 900 cuts and changes to Medicare. Then of course there were ideas that gave us other challenges, such as when the now Leader of the Opposition personally signed off on the abolition of Health Workforce Australia, the body that was supposed to give us forward planning for our health system for the future—not a great way of getting themselves, as they say, in their terms, 'back on track'.

But the Leader of the Opposition's failures do not stop there. We all remember, back in 2004, when John Howard was re-elected, and he had promised he would be 'keeping interest rates low'. So who did he get to help him with that mission when interest rates were 5.5 per cent? I know that's higher than they are today. He recruited the Leader of the Opposition to help him keep interest rates low. Then we saw rates go up by 0.25 per cent to 5.75 per cent, and again on 2 August 2006 they went up by 2.5 per cent to six per cent. It doesn't stop there. They went up again to 6.5 per cent, then up again to 6.75 per cent. If you want to know what sort of interest rate you'd get under this Leader of the Opposition, you can look at his record as Assistant Treasurer: an interest rate of 6.75 per cent.

Now we get to the cuts. We know, when it comes to their plans, that they will savagely cut across states and territories. I only need to look at what we've seen in my community in Perth, where the WA GST deal has delivered some $6.2 billion additional revenue. They have plans to cut some 1,700 public servants from Western Australia, most of which are based at the Australian Tax Office and Medicare, in my electorate. I think the Australian people like getting their tax returns quickly, and they like getting their Medicare benefits. All of that will slow down under the plans of those opposite.

What Australians know is that they will be worse off under the Leader of the Opposition. They'll be worse off without a tax cut for every taxpayer. They'll be worse off without energy bill relief. They'll be worse off without cheaper medicines. They'll be worse off without fee-free TAFE. They'll be worse off without Medicare urgent care clinics, which this Leader of the Opposition has said they will close across the country. People will be worse off without our initiative, a three-day guarantee, which those opposite voted against in this chamber just a few hours ago. They'll be worse off with higher student debt under the Liberals and Nationals. They'll be worse off because there will be no increases to the minimum wage. They'll be worse off because those opposite will go around the country sacking public servants, making vicious cuts to health, Medicare, universities and TAFE— (Time expired)

Everyone remembers the words of the Prime Minister on election night—'No-one held back, no-one left behind.' But fast forward 1,000 days and every Australian is being held back and everyone is being left behind. Our standard of living has reduced by eight per cent since the Anthony Albanese government was elected 1,000 days ago. Every Australian is worse off because of the ideology of this Labor government in not addressing the fundamentals of what has kept inflation and interest rates higher than what they need to be.

It's about getting the fundamentals right about proper energy policy, not living in an ideology of an all-renewables approach that no country of the industrial scale and size of Australia has gone through or is going down, because you cannot do it and keep your industrial base going. That will cost jobs and that has cost jobs in this country. It has torn away at the very fabric of what's underpinning our economy. It has driven people's energy bills up. That is about the fact that they have taken away supply and they have not replaced it. When you reduce supply, prices go up. That is what has happened under this ideology. It has seen premiers pleading with their citizens to turn off their dishwashers so that they can keep the grid going. That's how desperate we are. In a country as resource-rich as Australia, that's the path that we have gone down.

That has put inflationary pressure on us and kept interest rates higher. While the rest of the world's interest rates are coming down, Australia's are sticking there. We hope that on Tuesday the RBA reduces interest rates by 25 points. That's important. Appreciate this number: since Anthony Albanese and the Labor government were elected, the average mortgage in Australia has gone up by $50,000. I hope that that 25 points is granted by the RBA governor. That will take $1,875 off that bill. That's a start, but there's a long way to go.

That's because this government hasn't faced up to the fundamentals of what needs to be fixed and what's keeping interest rates higher longer. They've tried to paper over it with $6.5 billion worth of subsidies to keep electricity bills down, after promising a $275 reduction at the last election only to see it go up by thousands. Discretionary spending is dropping but fixed costs continue to go up. If you don't fix your electricity bill then you don't fix your grocery bill, because food processors are paying two or sometimes three times more than what they were before Anthony Albanese came to power. That means people are paying more at the check-out.

We have a government that's not even prepared to stand up to the supermarkets when there is clear evidence that they've been gouging Australians. We, in this parliament, including the Prime Minister, voted for divestiture powers in 2019 to stand up to the big CEOs of energy companies. But, when there are Australians that will not eat dinner tonight, who cannot afford to eat dinner, why wouldn't we come into this place and send a very strong message and hold the supermarkets to account to make sure there is fairness and transparency from the farm gate to the plate? 'Where are the priorities when there are Australians who will not eat tonight?' I ask those opposite. They all have their heads down.

You have to fix your fundamentals. This is about making sure in the short term you can get gas into the grid quickly. That brings energy bills down quickly. In the long term, it's underpinning our energy grid with nuclear energy and then taking on and bringing down the food bill.

It's also about making sure we have some common sense about building some homes. We've gone to a seven-star construction code, adding $50,000 to $60,000 to the construction of a new home. It's absolute madness. We will pause that and we will actually go line by line to try and reduce those costs to give some hope. To give some hope to young people that they'll finally own a home, we're going to bring in people who might build them—not the martial arts instructors and dog groomers that this mob have prioritised, but some plumbers, electricians and roofers. We're going to ban foreigners from competing with Australians at auctions on a Saturday. We're going to give Australians the first chance at buying a home. We're going to say to them that they're the most important people in this country and should have a roof over their heads. We're going to give the states some time to help with supply.

That's the common-sense solution that a coalition government will bring. They're the solutions that will fix the fundamentals and won't keep spending the Australian taxpayers' money. To solve the nation's problems, you need common sense, courage and strength in leadership. Anthony Albanese and the Labor government have shown nothing but ideology, unable to meet the practical reality of what's been bled out of Australians' wallets for the last three years. Ask yourself if you are better off after three years of Anthony Albanese.

Now, we might appreciate a dialling-down of volume.

I think everyone just needs to take a big, deep breath after that contribution. Let's get back to some facts, shall we? Let's get back to living in the real world, after the diatribe we just heard from the Leader of the Nationals. Those opposite come into this place and talk about taking Australia back. I'll tell you where they're going to take us. They're going to take us back to cuts, culture wars and climate denial. You only have to look at what their record was when they last had a chance to sit on the treasury bench. When the Leader of the Opposition was last in government, he tried to cut the pension. In 2014, when the Leader of the Opposition was the health minister, he tried to cut billions from Medicare. He tried to rip money out of our hospitals and make Australians pay each and every time they go to the GP. We had huge queues in our immigration department. Those opposite wanted to cut child care. They wanted to cut all the services that Australians rely on.

If you think they've changed their stripes, they haven't. While we've been in government, those opposite have voted against tax cuts. They've voted against cheaper medicines. They've voted against free TAFE. They've voted against Medicare Urgent Care Clinics. They've voted against reducing HECS debts. They've voted against increasing the minimum wage. Today, they voted against cheaper child care; they voted against the three-day guarantee. There hasn't been a policy to take the edge off and help Australians that they haven't opposed.

They just want to cut government services, and you have to think, 'Why on earth do they want to do that?' It's because they've got some crazy ideas they want to fund. They've got some big, expensive toys that they want to buy that make absolutely no sense. We've been listening to the Leader of the Nationals talk about how they want to come in and reduce costs for Australians and how Australians can't afford all of these different things. When Australia can't afford a whole range of different things, what's the answer? I'll tell you what the answer isn't: $600 billion for a nuclear energy program. Those opposite have been fighting renewable energy because that is in their DNA. Fighting renewable energy is part of the reason they don't hold many of the seats that now belong to the crossbench. It's why we hold Higgins, Reid and so many other seats that have changed hands because those opposite have this absolute ideological desire to fight renewable energy. The markets aren't doing that; the markets are fighting to invest in renewable energy. But those opposite have this climate denial. When the Leader of the Opposition had a quiet little moment with a couple of former prime ministers over a little—

A long lunch.

over a long lunch—which they want to subsidise—the Leader of the Opposition made jokes about our Pacific neighbours. He made jokes about the water coming up and the real consequences of climate change. I've been to the Pacific; I've spent a lot of time in the Pacific. You cannot step off the plane without people telling you about how frightened they are, how serious this is for their children and how much of a program will be required to move community centres and schools—assets that are right on the edge of the coastline—up inland so that communities can literally just survive. This is a real threat to the people in our region. Since coming into government, we have worked extremely hard to ensure that Australia aligns with the priorities of our Pacific family. This Leader of the Opposition was making jokes about the water running up above their knees. That is the climate denial that these people will bring to government.

Then, of course, there are the culture wars. Time after time, instead of looking to unite this country, the Leader of the Opposition has sought to draw lines and put people on one side or the other. I still remember him commenting that Melburnians were too afraid to go out to restaurants and targeting migrants. Funnily enough, Christopher Pyne was asked about it, and he said: 'What do you mean? I love restaurants in Melbourne'—which is the normal answer, because restaurants in Melbourne are fantastic. But that's not the way that the Leader of the Opposition saw things. He just wanted to try and create division in society. I don't think anyone's ever said it better than this:

Peter's got one tune that he plays, and it's been all his political life, and that is division and animosity, generally targeted at immigrants. I couldn't think of anyone less suited to be Prime Minister of a multicultural society like Australia.

It wasn't a Labor member who said that. It wasn't even a member of the crossbench. It was former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Turnbull who said that.

These people want to take us back to cuts, climate denial and culture wars. That's not the direction we're going to take. We're going to build Australia's future and unite this country around a good, prosperous future for all Australian citizens.

Australians are feeling upset, they're feeling angry, and they're certainly—and rightly—feeling let down by this Albanese Labor government, because of the pure lack of leadership, because of the broken promises that have been made time and time again since the last election. It is true that all politics is local, and at the heart of this are the broken promises on a local level, the heartbreak on a local level. I know this, because there were promises made to my community during the 2022 election. The government stood up and declared: 'We will do this for you,' yet people are still waiting, and what they're getting is absolutely nothing.

The Albanese Labor government came into my electorate during the last election and promised that a road that I secured funding for would be fast tracked. It was due to start in the beginning of 2023, and here we are in 2025 with the construction nowhere in sight. This is a major road, and it is about the safety of people that are taking their kids to school or that are going to work. This Albanese Labor government seems to take no interest in the people of Western Sydney.

It's not just about this local road in my community. Major infrastructure projects have been cut across the board—$2 billion dollars in cut projects—when we have an international airport right on our doorstep due to open next year. There are roads around the airport, local roads, that are going to be major freight roads in the not-too-distant future, yet the infrastructure minister cut funding to upgrade these roads so they can deal with the trucks that are going to be driving along them. The local community are scared about the future that is coming. They should be excited about the future for our kids and the opportunities that Western Sydney airport will bring. Other roads have been cut around the airport in my community as well—major roads that take people to school, that take people to work and that keep them safe.

Another issue lacking leadership is that of airport flight paths into Western Sydney International Airport. We've been fighting hard. My community is the most impacted community of all out of all the electorates across Western Sydney. The flight paths were able to be moved for one electorate—the electorate of Macquarie, a Labor seat. It seems like no other calmness could be made for anyone else with the flight paths and the flights that would be going ahead. It is extraordinary.

From local to the portfolios I've been very fortunate to have since coming into opposition, the first was in mental health. Mental health in this country has been completely ignored by the Albanese Labor government. It took the opposition leader, a number of years ago now, to say, 'If we are in government, we will restore the 20 free Medicare funded sessions for people that need psychology sessions that have been cut in half by the Albanese Labor government.' There's an outcry from the sector, saying, 'Please support people with mental illness in this country.' Yet, from those opposite, there is absolutely nothing. We have the former chair of Mental Health Australia calling out the government for their lack of action on mental health. We have shown leadership in this space, and Australians can know that a Dutton led coalition government will restore the full 20 Medicare-subsidised psychology sessions.

In the energy affordability space, my second shadow portfolio, we had 97 promises to the Australian community that their power bills will be cut by $275 by this year. Yet, right across Australia, people are paying so much more for their electricity. Western Sydney residents are paying $1,000 more. This is on top of inflation that's causing higher grocery prices, and people are just struggling so much that they are now lining up at food banks to feed their families.

Finally, in my newest portfolio in communications, it took the opposition leader to come forward and say 'Kids' safety means something. We are going to protect kids online.' Every parent out there knows that this is a major issue when it comes to bullying online, and when it comes to exposure inappropriate content. We, as a government, will ensure that any child under 16 won't have access to social media online—that is, TikTok, Facebook, all social media platforms. It took us and Peter Dutton to take leadership on that, and for the government to come forward and make that same policy. These are just a few things where there is such a lack of leadership. Only a coalition government— (Time expired)

The great Paul Keating once said:

When you change the government, you change the country.

That is very true, and this country is going to face a serious choice later on this year.

This MPI has been set up as an opportunity for those opposite to offer us their manifesto, in a way. The interesting thing about the manifesto is you look at the first three paragraphs, but then you turn the page over and it's blank. There's no 'please turn over'. It's such a threadbare offering from those opposite. When you examine what they're offering versus the demands this nation is facing, and the choice the Australian people face later on this year, the opposition's plan will take this country backwards.

Let's look at a few of the most pressing issues this nation faces. First, the economy. When we came to power this government inherited an economy where inflation was far higher than it is today and was rising. We inherited an economy where, for a long period of time, real wages had been in the doldrums. We had just experienced the worst decade for a very long period of time. Over the course of the past three years, through the hard work of the Australian people, inflation has more than halved and is continuing to track down on all the key measures—headline inflation and core inflation. Importantly, real wages are now growing through the strength of the labour market and because of some of the key reforms we have put in place in relation to industrial relations and workers' rights. But there is still more work to be done.

If we look at and contrast the two parties' policies—let's look at the last three years and the difficult challenges people have faced in relation to the cost of living. We've put in place policies in relation to tax cuts which have improved outcomes for 84 per cent of taxpayers—compared to the plan we inherited. We've provided significantly cheaper energy through rebates. We've provided cheaper medicine. We've provided consecutive significant rental relief assistance. What's telling—and the choice will be offered later this year—is that those opposite voted against every single one of those measures. When they talk about the cost of living, the disingenuousness of that will be tested when the Australian people look at their voting record when it comes to every one of the things that has actually made a difference to people's lives over the last three years. When we look at priorities, they didn't want to vote for any of those measures presumably because they cost too much. Now the centrepiece of their economic management is an up-to-$10-billion plan—the costings of which they haven't released—for free lunches for bosses. It is an economically unjustified tax break and one that shows a shocking sense of prioritisation.

Let's look at health. We have turned around bulk-billing rate declines. We have invested in urgent healthcare clinics, which I can say have made a real difference in my electorate and in so many communities like mine where so many people rely on bulk-billing. We've promised to invest $1.7 billion in hospitals. Compare that to what those opposite are offering in health care and so many other areas of social service provision. They rail against our spending—hundreds of billions of dollars of overspending, they say—but won't tell us where the cuts will come. They like the rhetoric of sharp cuts in government but won't be honest with the Australian people about where the cuts will come. We on this side know that the cuts will have meaningful consequences, particularly for the most vulnerable in our society.

Let's look at housing—another complex, difficult, long-term challenge. We brought the Housing Australia Future Fund to this place; those opposite voted against it. We brought in Rent to Buy, Help to Buy and the First Home Guarantee. We brought in fee-free TAFE, which has provided opportunities and supported tens of thousands of additional workers in a sector of the economy where supply is absolutely critical. What have those opposite offered? Those opposite have offered the early release of super, which not a single macroeconomist or expert in housing says will produce a single extra house; it will only produce upward pressure on housing prices.

This nation will face a choice later this year, and the manifesto which is being provided by those opposite today is simply not good enough. This country faces a number of challenges. It needs a serious plan going forward, not the divisiveness of those opposite.

Under Labor, Australians have endured a cost-of-living crisis, an energy crisis, a housing crisis, a youth-crime crisis and now a national security crisis. These crises have been brought about by rising prices, radical policies and the wrong priorities under the leadership of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. This is a prime minister who is out of his depth and taking the country in the wrong direction. Well, in a couple of months, or maybe even only a couple of weeks, Australians will get the choice at the ballot box to vote out one of the worst governments since Federation—vote in the coalition and get Australia back on track.

Let's look first of all at national security. The response by the Prime Minister and those on that side to the appalling attacks of 7 October 2023 have demonstrated why those on that side are not fit for government and why this Prime Minister is not fit to lead this country. Following 9 October, this Prime Minister had the opportunity to behave in the same manner as John Howard did in 1996 at Port Arthur with gun control. John Howard had to stand up to the conservative faction and farmers within his party to bring about change that he knew was right for the rest of the country. This Prime Minister has failed to stand up and do what was right for Australians. If he doesn't stand up for Jewish Australians, what guarantee is there that he's going to stand up for any other Australians? When you are Prime Minister of the country you need to be leading for all Australians, and this Prime Minister has failed.

And who is next? Catholics? Hindus? Who will this Prime Minister let down next and refuse to support? When university students are terrified on campus, when four-year-olds are being accompanied to their preschool by armed guards and when synagogues are being firebombed, we see the beginning of the breakdown of the fabric of society. That is why we also have a youth-crime crisis in many parts of this country. And it has all come about under this government's watch, under this Prime Minister's leadership.

Cost of living: in two years and nine months, Australians' cost of living has gone down by 8.7 per cent. That is the steepest decline for Australians under any term of government—worse than under Whitlam. So, when I stand here and hear those on the other side talking about health care being cheaper, about everything being cheaper, it is not the case, and members on that side know this. Their constituents are telling them exactly the same thing that my constituents are telling me, and that is that they are doing it really, really tough; they've never had it tougher, my constituents say to me. And if we're not going to stand up for Australians on cost of living—

I hear the member for Hasluck. Deputy Speaker, I would say to the member for Hasluck—

Member for Hasluck, I have warned you before. Leave the chamber if you cannot hold your tongue during these debates.

I bet there is not a single person in the electorate of Hasluck who can turn around and say to that member that they are doing it better. And if we're not going to stand up for Jewish Australians or for Australians generally, what about we stand up for those who have been under the scourge of gambling addiction and gambling harm? The Murphy report was delivered to the minister in June 2023, and I sat on that inquiry, as did my good friend the honourable member for Menzies. Why is it up to the Reverand Tim Costello to have to be advocating for the recommendations of that report to be put into law? It is a disgrace that this Prime Minister put the interests of his mates in big business before the interests of Australians. We need a coalition government now to get Australia back on track.

Every single cost-of-living measure was opposed by the Leader of the Opposition and members opposite. We know people are doing it tough and that there is more to do, and we are getting on with the job. Under their government Territorians would be worse off. I often speak about bush communities because of their neglect over the 10 years or nine years that those opposite were in government. The members opposite talk about neglect. The Liberals neglected bush communities in my electorate and removed funding.

We on this side have been focused on delivering $7 billion to achieve long-term sustainability and improve the liveability of the Northern Territory's remote Aboriginal communities, which is often a dirty word and something that's not talked about by members opposite. These measures include a 10-year $4 billion housing injection—which will be cut under those opposite; $2.8 billion to improve the safety and reliability of Northern Territory roads and the nation's critical supply chains—that will be cut by those opposite; $700 million to increase 3,000 new jobs in remote communities—that will be cut by the Leader of the Opposition; substantial improvements to essential health services and facilities, with more renal dialysis units on country and six remote Medicare urgent care clinics—they will be cut by the Leader of the Opposition; significant enhancements to water security and infrastructure at a standard every Australian deserves, no matter where they live—these will be cut by those opposite; and enhancements to the liveability of remote communities through upgraded sporting and recreational facilities, playground equipment, shade shelters and improved digital connectivity to the internet—these will also be cut.

We have also provided more protection for families and children. In the nearly three years I've been standing in this chamber, all I've heard the Leader of the Opposition bleat about is child sexual abuse in remote Aboriginal communities and the issues of child protection. Well, I reckon that that protection will be one of the things they will cut. He's appointed a senator from the other chamber to become the new minister under their government to look at government efficiency, and these are all the things that she will cut. We are investing in quality education and vocational training through the injection of $1.1 billion in public education and the establishment of on-country vocational training facilities. That will be cut. Recently I was proud to be with the Prime Minister in Alice Springs where we announced an extra $842 million over the next six years to fund needed services to close the gap in remote Aboriginal communities. We know they didn't care on the other side, and it will be cut.

People stand up say here and say, 'The Leader of the Opposition will make a great prime minister.' I'm sorry; I've been on the receiving end of these mob all of my life, and so have many Aboriginal Territorians, and all the Leader of the Opposition is interested in this is culture wars. He publicly stated, on Australia Day—when we're trying to unite the country, black and white, and our multicultural communities—that his No. 1 policy will be to remove the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags if he becomes Prime Minister. This is a divisive and nasty person who will not unite the country.

I get that the antisemitism that's been happening is terrible. What's been happening on the eastern seaboard is terrible. But have a think about what's been happening to Aboriginal people in this country for a long time. We talk about genocide. Let's talk about the history of this country and what that side, when they've been in government, have done, particularly in the last nine years of their government, where they ripped needed and necessary funds and resources from Aboriginal communities. And you wonder why we've got problems in Alice Springs, in Tennant Creek and in Katherine! It's because the bush has been neglected for too long.

It is not lost on me that in the chamber right now are nine members of the class of 2022. I just want to say at the outset that it has been a pleasure serving with all of you if this is our last time, and we'll find out soon. In a previous life I was a barrister, and I learned the most from a particular silk who, when he gave me the most constructive feedback, said, 'You know I love you,' and then would give me the feedback. So to the class of 2022 on that side I say: 'You know I love you—but.'

I go back to my first speech here, which was in September 2022. From time to time, we should go back to our first speeches because they should be a guidebook for all of us when we have tough decisions to make. And there is no tougher decision for this country right now than easing the cost-of-living pressure on Australians, because it's affecting their daily lives. We can rattle off the numbers on inflation. We can do: 'This is your fault. No, this is your fault.' We can do the Punch and Judy show. But let's imagine you are a young family at a supermarket buying essentials. Let's narrow it down to the ones that count: milk, bread and eggs. Milk is up 18 per cent this term. Bread is up 25 per cent this term. Eggs, an essential protein, cheaper than steak and other foods, is up 35 per cent this term. For those of you who don't use compound interest calculators much, I ask you to put 35 per cent in, divide it by three and see how long it takes to double it. It doubles every six years. If we continue that trend in the next term, it means eggs have doubled in two terms of your government—doubled! These are basic essentials to have breakfast at the table for a family, and there's not much change from $20. So, when we say Australians are doing it tough, that's the practical reality of what we're talking about.

I haven't touched on the big bills of insurance, the monumental bills of mortgage or rent, or the lack of hope that comes with that when you do live pay cheque to pay cheque. When you live pay cheque to pay cheque, people have moments of panic and desperation, and Australians are living in moments of panic and desperation between the fortnightly pay cheques that are coming through. They're not sleeping well. They're stressed. Some of them are in tears, and you know it. All of us know it. The class of 2022, on both sides, are good doorknockers, and we hit the phones and we know what people are telling us. Yes, this started as a global challenge that we all had to meet, but the truth is inflation was longer and higher here. It just was. We didn't do a good job compared to other countries. We didn't.

So when you want to ask, 'Well, what will a second term of a Labor government look like?' look to Victoria. I'm a proud Victorian. There aren't many Liberal Victorians here in this place, but guess how many Labor Victorians are in the federal caucus? There are 26. There is real frustration and anger and disappointment at the state Labor government, but to think that you can separate yourselves from that is a fantasy. This caucus is dominated by Victorian Labor. So the future for a second-term Albanese government is what you've seen in Victoria, where we have the highest debt, the highest tax and a sense of despair that hasn't been seen since the early 1990s.

I said in my first speech that, when we have tough problems, we should have a true north. The true north for me was to make sure that we democratise prosperity and democratise power. So, when we criticise the monumental increase in government spending over this term, it's because that's the antithesis of democratising prosperity and power. It is concentrating power and it is taking prosperity away from Australians, because that side of politics that I'm looking at have the opposite view. Yes, these are tough challenges. Yes, it's not all of this government's making, of course, but it's how you react to it. When there's a decision to be made, there are two doors you can walk through: you can walk through one based on power and self-interest or you can walk through one based on principle and values. That is a test of leadership and that's why this MPI is all about leadership, and this government has failed.

Thank you to the member for Menzies for his kind words about the class of 2022, but I am going to vigorously disagree with him. When we talk about power and prosperity, the Labor Party is fundamentally about bringing power to the people, power to the workers and power to our communities. One of the things that we did within the first two weeks of being elected was back minimum wage workers. You talk about prosperity, but I'm talking about prosperity for those that were working night and day during the pandemic—those who deserved our respect. Guess who had their back? Labor did. We had their back.

The reason why I'm on this side of the House is I want all Australians to succeed. I want to be very intentional with the way that we do that, and, the truth is, we have been doing this day in, day out. When we came into office, inflation had a six in front of it. Now inflation has a two in front of it. We've been working consistently and deliberately, and we've been fine tuning, and we are on the right track. It's fascinating because I remember that decade under the coalition and being used to not getting a pay rise, but I didn't realise that this was a deliberate design feature of the coalition policy. We are in a time where households are absolutely doing it tough, but the thing that Australia has managed to do is get inflation down and have record levels of employment across the country.

One of the ways that you can deliver prosperity is people being in a job, and I think that our Assistant Treasurer and Treasurer have been doing a very intentional job. It's because we care about people. Talking about where we could be going, if the opposition were to be elected we would be back to rising inflation. We'd be back to keeping wages deliberately low. We'd be back into an aged-care crisis. Bulk-billing would be in freefall. We'd be going back to child care being out of reach, forcing parents, especially women, to choose between work and caring for their kids. We'd be back to chasing manufacturing offshore. We'd be back to deficits as far as the eye can see.

I was thinking about numbers earlier today and I thought about the number two. What was the number of surpluses we delivered? Two! How many times did the opposition leader do a press conference? Two! I just find that mind-boggling. We delivered something that the coalition could not do in nine years. What do they have to show from a 'two' perspective? The opposition leader rocked up to a press conference twice! We can't wait for the election campaign. That's going to be a pressure cooker environment, and Australians and Western Australians are going to see his true colours. You can try to be controlled inside the House; this is a place where there are creatures that have developed here. But we and the public will see the true colours of the opposition leader and the opposition. There's a saying that I heard: 'What's Dutts going to cut?' Who knows? Is it veterans' affairs? Is it Medicare? Is it access to child care? Is it women's equality? Who knows. We're going to be back to chaos and conflict on climate change.

I'm going to say I don't think that it will be back to secret ministries. I don't have that vibe from the opposition leader, but, you know, who knows—right? Who knows? The thing I would say is that, at this election, we have a choice. I think we have been on the right track, and we will continue to work hard every day to deliver real results for households.

The discussion has now concluded.

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, I present the committee's report entitled Wholesale investor and wholesale client tests.

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

I move the second reading amendment, as circulated, in the name of the member for Farrer:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House urges the Government to establish an additional National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Antisemitism, which:

(1) makes it clear to all higher education students, staff and providers that everyone on a higher education campus has a right to be safe;

(2) imposes on universities a range of obligations concerning student and staff safety which is very important given the alarming increase in antisemitic incidents on university campuses since 7 October 2023; and

(3) ensures that higher education providers must comply with recommendations of the National Student Ombudsman concerning the National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Antisemitism".

This is a bill to establish a national higher education code to prevent and respond to gender based violence—a national code. The coalition strongly supports this initiative and this bill. Everyone on a university campus or in student accommodation has the right to be safe. What we have seen recently at our universities is that students do not feel safe. Where there have been instances of violence—especially gender based—threats, abuse or harassment, our universities have not acted fast enough. The incidence of sexual assault and sexual harassment on university campuses was again brought to light by the Universities Australia National Student Safety Survey 2021, released in March 2022. The survey found that one in 20 students had been sexually assaulted since they started university, and one in six sexually harassed. It is important to note that the survey included the entire university context and extended to off-campus areas, student and private accommodation, work experience and professional placements. These statistics were shocking at the time. They remain so today and are clearly unacceptable.

The National Student Safety Survey 2021 also provided an insight into the ability for students to make complaints and seek support and assistance. More than half of students knew nothing or little about the formal reporting processes for instances concerning harassment or assault. Almost half of students knew nothing or very little about where to seek support or assistance.

The national code was developed after a consultation process in May and June last year. Stakeholders participated in expert reference groups, including provider peak bodies, accommodation providers and key advocates for the code, such as Fair Agenda, End of Rape on Campus, the Stop campaign, and Dr Allison Henry. The coalition acknowledges the important job that advocates have done to improve the safety of students and staff on campus. We also acknowledge the bravery of those who have spoken out about their experience of gender based violence, including through the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee inquiry into current and proposed sexual consent laws in Australia.

This bill, the Universities Accord (National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-Based Violence) Bill 2025, is necessary because our national regulator of universities, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, TEQSA, has not done its job in holding universities and other higher education providers to account when they fail to adequately protect students from and respond to incidents of sexual harassment, sexual assault and other gender based violence.

It is, however, important to ask the following question: why didn't the education minister demand a higher level of performance from the regulator? He has a range of powers to do so and yet this never happened. There is an emerging pattern of behaviour from this minister, an apparent weakness of leadership. Australian universities should be exemplary institutions. This bill puts universities and other higher education providers on notice.

Failure to protect and respond to gender based violence will have serious consequences. This bill establishes a new specialist unit within the Department of Education as the regulator. This specialist unit will, in effect, be the regulator, and it is on this basis that the coalition retains some concerns. This, self-evidently, should be the job of the higher education regulator, and demonstrates the failure of the minister to ensure that TEQSA is exercising its functions adequately.

Whilst TEQSA does not have the powers to investigate individual cases, TEQSA does have a range of powers which enable the regulator to ring the alarm bells about university failings, to keep students safe or to respond appropriately in relation to cases of sexual harassment or sexual assault. If things were so bad on campus, why didn't TEQSA alert the minister and make recommendations for action? The minister could have also acted to strengthen TEQSA's powers, but, instead, did nothing of the kind. It will be critical for the minister to ensure his secretary and departmental officials are appropriately qualified to fulfil these important regulatory functions.

The bill also gives the minister the power to establish the national code by legislative instrument and gives the minister significant powers relating to the providers' approval. While the coalition has some concerns with this bill, namely, the establishment of a regulator within the Department of Education, we are committed to seeing new efforts within the higher education sector aimed at preventing and responding more effectively to insidious gender based violence.

The coalition will be moving an amendment to this bill to ensure the code, which governs the obligations of higher education providers relating to gender based violence, is extended to incidents of antisemitism. The coalition has long called for a National Student Ombudsman to provide university students with greater access to justice. A new National Student Ombudsman became operational on 1 February 2025. The ombudsman is empowered to respond to individual complaints. The national code includes a provision that, 'A provider must implement any recommendations made by the ombudsman in relation to gender based violence, but not in relation to any other matters,' such as complaints of antisemitism. The coalition is moving an amendment to the bill to urge the government to introduce a second new national code, a national higher education code to prevent and respond to antisemitism: the antisemitism code.

The regulatory framework established by this bill could be replicated to take account of student safety as it relates to antisemitism. Even before the Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel, on 7 October 2023, universities were failing to adequately deal with antisemitism. In August 2023, the Social Research Centre and the Australasian Union of Jewish Students released the Australian Jewish University Experience Survey. It revealed that 64 per cent of Australian Jewish university students had experienced antisemitism on campus, 57 per cent of Jewish students had hidden the fact that they were Jewish at university and 19 per cent had stayed away from campus at some point because of antisemitism.

When antisemitism occurred, 85 per cent of students did not make a complaint. Of those who did complain, 61 per cent were dissatisfied with the outcome. The coalition has led the charge on holding the Albanese government and universities to account for failing to prevent and respond to antisemitism on university campuses. We continue to call on the government to legislate a commission of inquiry into antisemitism at Australian universities. Everyone on a university campus deserves to be safe, including Jewish students and staff. There has been an alarming increase of antisemitism on university campuses since the horrific Hamas terrorist attack on innocent Israeli citizens on 7 October 2023. Antisemitic incidents are up by over 700 per cent, with many of these occurring on campus, compounded by the weakness of leadership from the Albanese government. TEQSA has been equally deficient in combating antisemitism as it has been in combating gender based violence.

The Albanese government has failed Jewish students and staff in the face of the protests, encampments and other incidents which fuelled so much antisemitic hate and incitement on campus. The education minister failed to throw the book at universities. He put his head in the sand, and that is a disgrace.

Member for Moncrieff, are you going to conclude your remarks in order to get a seconder to this before the 4.30 cut-off?

Yes, I am. This amendment makes it clear to all university students, staff and providers that everyone on university campus has the right to be safe.

Is the amendment seconded?

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Debate interrupted.

We're living in a time where the truth isn't just distorted; it's drowned. Political leaders flood the media with so many outrageous claims that accountability becomes almost impossible. We're seeing what's happening in the US with the Trump-Musk dysfunction to the extent no-one can keep up with it, and I'm seeing that same playbook unfolding here in Australia.

As a foreign correspondent, I was in Singapore in 2018 among an international press pack as Donald Trump unloaded his idea of a deal to encourage Kim Jong Un to give up his nuclear aspirations and exploit the beauty of North Korea's beaches to become a tourist attraction. He informed us that he'd told the one he called 'little rocket man':

… Boy, look at that view. Wouldn't that make a great condo? …

In his version of international diplomacy, he is, to his credit, consistent. Benjamin Netanyahu struggled to contain his surprise last week when the President pronounced that two million Palestinians could be shifted out of Gaza so it could become the 'riviera of the Middle East'.

No-one should imagine that these outrageous fantasies are spontaneous. They reflect Trump's conviction that the modern media can't cope with more than one initiative a day, and he's right. As New York Times journalist Ezra Klein noted in the days after Trump's second inauguration:

… speed and force is a strategy unto itself …

My observation after spending four years or so covering the first Trump administration is that, if you say something often enough, it becomes true and often more dangerous.

This week the President has pledged to impose a 25 per cent tariff on imports of iron, steel and aluminium to the United States without exception. Then he and our Prime Minister agreed that an exemption of Australia would be under consideration. Beyond the obvious question of how Australian diplomats do their work when the target changes not weekly but within minutes is the issue of whether we want this kind of behaviour to influence our own politics.

I can see it already has. In Australia, tolerance and respect are now being weaponised as 'woke'. An end to so-called diversity hires in the Australian Public Service, for example, was foreshadowed by the opposition should it win government. This week 18 of the 30 coalition senators supported a failed move by Senator Pauline Hanson—I repeat, Senator Pauline Hanson—for an inquiry into the human cost of child gender treatment, a callous, inflammatory political stunt, with a government sponsored inquiry into health care for trans children already underway. Yet the majority of the opposition Senate, the alternative government, bought in. Respected and long-time columnist Niki Savva, previously a long-time Liberal staffer, suggests the opposition leader is Trump's 'little sir echo'. This copycat behaviour includes enlisting Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price as an Elon Musk lookalike with a signature offering of ending Commonwealth expenditure on welcomes to country—all $450,000 of it. Unity's great, I guess, unless it involves standing in front of Indigenous flags!

Culture wars are a condescending vote grab, a calculated distraction, and they're dangerous. We've seen this all before in the mid-20th century—you can guess the regime—and I'm very troubled that we're seeing it again. It may work for some but apparently not in my home state of Victoria, where the Werribee state by-election showed a massive swing away from Labor but not towards the Liberal Party. The old way of doing things is done.

On this likely last day of the 47th Parliament, I ask the constituents of Goldstein to consider everything I've said when they cast their votes in the next few weeks. Understand your power, weaponise your independence and choose hope.

Tomorrow marks a thousand days since the election of an Albanese Labor government. I am so proud of everything that we have achieved, but there is still so much more to do. Under the Albanese Labor government, we are seeing real life-changing investment in our people, our businesses and our communities all across Australia. Labor has a strong history of delivering for Australians when in government, especially in Cunningham and the Illawarra. When Labor is in government, investing in the Illawarra is a priority—a priority that I am proudly continuing, along with the member for Whitlam, who is sitting here today.

Under previous state and federal Labor governments, we've seen some pretty big investments, like the $140 million BlueScope steel adjustment package, $45 million in upgrades to Mount Ousley Road, $4.67 million in improvements to Picton Road, $49 million to construct the iconic Sea Cliff Bridge, $12.1 million in funding to establish the Illawarra Cancer Care Centre—with the help and the fierce advocacy of Professor Phil Clingan—and the Illawarra's first MRI Medicare licence. We've also invested in our academic institutions to set the region up for success, with the University of Wollongong receiving $35 million for the SMART Infrastructure Facility, $31 million for the Early Start facility, $25.1 million for the Sustainable Buildings Research Centre and $43.8 million for the Australian Institute for Innovative Materials. These are just a few major investments previous Labor governments delivered in the Illawarra, and we are continuing that investment. We are building a stronger economy, addressing cost-of-living pressures and ensuring that every Australian has access to quality education, health care and secure jobs.

Under this Labor government, we have seen historic investments to strengthen Medicare. We are opening 87 Medicare urgent care clinics, with two already open in the Illawarra, in Corrimal and in Dapto, offering bulk-billed urgent care seven days a week. We have tripled the bulk-billing incentive, which saw a 4.5 per cent increase to the bulk-billing rates locally, which meant there were an additional 63,356 free visits to GPs from November 2023 to December 2024. We have cut the cost of medicines, we have lowered the safety net threshold and we've introduced 60-day prescriptions, saving Cunningham residents over $8 million of their hard-earned cash.

After being left with an aged-care-bed crisis in the Illawarra, stemming from a decade of neglect by those opposite, I have helped secure $16.5 million through the Aged Care Capital Assistance Program for IRT to open over 40 additional beds in Unanderra. We've funded the local Acute to Residential Care Transition Service and supported an eight-place Specialist Dementia Care Program unit at HammondCare in Horsley, in the member for Whitlam's electorate. And we're working with the New South Wales government, jointly funding 35 new transition care places to assist older people out of hospital and into residential aged-care homes.

We understand the importance of a strong health and aged-care system, just like we know the importance of a good education. We are committed to ensuring that every Australian has access to the best possible opportunities. Our university has received an additional 1,361 Commonwealth supported places to train students in areas of need, like teaching, nursing and engineering. This represents a $42.5 million investment to bridge the skills gap. To continue the phenomenal research that they are renowned for, the university has been awarded more than $74 million in Australian Research Council funding in the last five years, with $20 million in 2023 alone. For vocational education, fee-free TAFE began in January 2023, and we have seen over 5,000 Illawarra students enrol. Unlike the Liberals, we want to make this permanent. We are investing in new research and teaching facilities, with a $2.5 million renewable energy training centre at the Wollongong TAFE and the $10 million Energy Futures Skills Centre at the University of Wollongong. This will help to train and upskill our industrial workforce, providing them with the skills and knowledge necessary to thrive.

The Illawarra is known for its deep industrial roots, and we know how important it is to retain our sovereign steel-making capabilities. That's why we supported BlueScope with the reline and upgrade of its No. 6 blast furnace at the Port Kembla Steelworks with $136.8 million through the Powering the Regions Fund.

Helping businesses and households decarbonise has been a key focus, and I'm proud to have helped secure over $50 million for the development of a green hydrogen industry at Hysata at Port Kembla and $5 million for the Electrify 2515 pilot in Thirroul.

This could very well be the last sitting of the 47th Parliament. I thought it was important to speak about small businesses and the significant challenges that they face in respect to energy prices. There are more than 27,000 businesses that have gone insolvent since the Labor government took office, which is devastating. Before parliament resumed this year I spent much of my time out and about in various communities in the electorate of Flynn, speaking to people of all backgrounds as well as hardworking small-business owners that are keeping the Australian economy going—small-business owners such as Fiona at Craig's Bakery in the Sun Valley at Gladstone, and Hardy from the Foodworks store in Biggenden. While they raised many challenges that small businesses face, the No. 1 issue is the cost of energy. Both small businesses have seen their energy prices rise some 30 per cent in the last 18 months, and this is simply not sustainable for a small business. There is only so much a small business can do to increase the price of a pie, a can of Coke or their groceries. Small-business owners like Fiona and Hardy are having to absorb these input costs, and that is making it harder and harder to do business, particularly in these small communities.

This leads me to why energy prices are becoming unaffordable for householders and businesses. It is because of Labor's reckless energy plan, which is delivering higher prices across the Flynn electorate. Late last week Moody's confirmed Labor's energy policy would cost up to $230 billion over the next 10 years and drive household and business electricity prices up another 25 per cent. This is yet another independent warning that the minister for energy's renewables-only approach will hurt Australians, forcing families and businesses to the wall. Labor's renewables-only approach is failing, and industry and small businesses continue to sound the alarm. If the Prime Minister and the energy minister won't listen to everyday Australians struggling with soaring energy prices, surely they will at least listen to the businesses, warning them that their plan is driving them to the wall.

Wholesale prices skyrocketed 83 per cent in the past year, with record highs in Queensland, proving that the 2022 pre-election energy modelling was complete and utter fantasy. The energy minister promised wholesale prices of $51 a megawatt hour in 2025, but the reality is Australians' quarterly prices have been more than $100 a megawatt hour in the last year. The Prime Minister and the energy minister promised Australians a $275 cut to their power bills, but instead families are paying up to $1,000 more under this costly and chaotic energy policy. Labor's ideological war on coal and gas has weakened the grid, and as a result Australians have been forced to rely on expensive, unreliable renewables without the necessary back-up power. Labor has no plan for affordability, no plan for reliability and no plan to keep the lights on, and Australian families are paying the price.

Furthermore, the government has little regard for the regional communities that are having to host these mass-scale renewable energy projects. In my electorate of Flynn, this is ground zero, and it is reckless energy policy, with dozens and dozens of these projects all over the Flynn electorate. The renewables-only dream that the Labor government and the Greens are pushing will not only fail to meet the needs of businesses but also cost Australians $263 billion more than the coalition's nuclear energy policy, while continuing to destroy our environment and agricultural communities that are carrying the weight of these unwanted projects.

The Gladstone community and heavy industry rely heavily on reliable, predictable and affordable power. The reality is that wind and solar cannot provide any reliability at all. It is not a 24-hour baseload solution. Wind does not always blow, nor does the sun always shine. Nuclear provides about 25 per cent of the world's electricity, and could easily support the manufacturing industry in Gladstone into the 22nd century, with an expected lifespan of some 80 years. You would have to replace solar panels and wind turbines at least four times over this same period. The waste problems and sheer footprint of these projects and transmission lines are already compounding this. (Time expired)

I will always fight for access to quality, affordable health care for people living in my electorate of Gilmore, which is why I campaigned for and delivered the Batemans Bay Medicare Urgent Care Clinic. It's why I am lobbying for a second urgent care clinic for the New South Wales South Coast. Since the Batemans Bay urgent care clinic opened in December 2023, more than 11,000 people have presented for the treatment of urgent but non-life-threatening conditions. The Batemans Bay clinic has been embraced by the community. It has been such a success, particularly over the busy summer holidays, that I am seeking extended hours and a higher level of care for the Eurobodalla community.

It's funny how good ideas just explode, because, since launching the Batemans Bay campaign, I've been contacted by people from right across the Gilmore electorate asking for a Medicare urgent care clinic in their town. They have seen how well the Batemans Bay clinic is working and they want one as well. I would love to see a second free, bulk-billed clinic open for the people of the South Coast, and I'm seeking feedback from people about that and the best possible location. With many retirees, young families and a population that swells during the holiday periods, it would be great to have in the region another urgent care clinic where patients can just walk in and all services are bulk-billed.

As part of its plan to improve health services, the Albanese Labor government is continuing to establish Medicare urgent care clinics right across the country. These clinics are fantastic, especially in regional areas, where they take pressure off our emergency departments by providing treatment for a range of non-life-threatening conditions, like cuts, sprains, stings and viral infections.

Forty years ago the Labor government created Medicare because they understood—and we still understand—the importance of making health care available and affordable for all Australians. It's fantastic to see the Albanese government's record investment to strengthen Medicare has revived bulk-billing across my Gilmore electorate. Our tripling of the GP incentive to bulk-bill pensioners, Commonwealth concession card holders and students has made a real difference in my community. We have a lot of older people in Gilmore and families struggling with the cost of living, so more people seeing a bulk-billed GP relieves a bit of that pressure. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners called our investment in Medicare 'a game changer', and it has given GPs the confidence to increase bulk-billing after a decade of cuts to and neglect of Medicare.

Health care is incredibly important in my community, and I will always advocate for improved health services to assist people in Gilmore. In the past 12 months I'm proud to have officially opened the doors of two free walk-in mental health centres at Nowra and Moruya, which provide a safe space where adults in distress can seek immediate support. In response to community need, I've lobbied hard to get these services up and running to ensure that Eurobodalla and Shoalhaven residents can get the mental health care they need. Access to mental health support is absolutely crucial for young people living in regional areas. That's why, following the tragic loss of a number of teenagers to suicide in my community, I also worked alongside my local community to secure federal funding to establish the much-needed headspace for Kiama, which is now open.

Since September 2023, women in my electorate have been able to access multidisciplinary care at the South-Eastern Endometriosis and Pelvic Pain Clinic in Milton. With one in nine women living with endometriosis, it's really essential that they receive good support and a timely diagnosis, and it's just fantastic that women in Gilmore can access help from a local team close to home.

It's also great news that, thanks to this government, women can now receive specialist gynaecological care without worrying about the cost. The addition of endometriosis medicines, some contraceptive pills and menopausal hormone therapies to the PBS will be life-changing for women. As a woman and a mum, I join with women of all ages from right across the nation in celebrating Labor's $573 million investment to provide more choice, lower costs and better health care for women. I welcome the Albanese government's delivery of more doctors, more health workers and more accessible, affordable health care for people in Gilmore.

Today I rise to pay my respect to and honour a remarkable group of Australians who have been unwavering in their support and have sustained me in my fight to protect our freedoms, especially our fundamental rights to bodily autonomy and freedom of speech. While I know there's always a risk in naming individuals, I cannot possibly list everyone who's played a part. I want to acknowledge the extraordinary commitment, tenacity and courage of the following people. These are the people who have consistently stood for truth and justice, no matter the personal or professional costs—medical professionals like doctors Julie Sladden, Chris Neil, Duncan Syme, Jeyanthi Kundahasan, Melissa McCann, Phil Altman, Judy Wilyman, David Bell and Kara Thomas; professors Ian Brighthope, Gigi Foster and Kylie O'Brien; lawyers Katie Ashby-Koppens, Julian Gillespie and Tony Nikolic; journalists Rebekah Barnett, Maryanne DeMassi and Elizabeth Hart; and, of course, former Qantas pilot Graham Hood, former paramedic John Larter and firefighter Josh Hawkes, who, despite being terminated from their jobs due to COVID mandates, have turned their adversity into a powerful force for truth and justice. A special mention goes to Katie Ashby-Koppens, who, as part of a small but determined team at the Aligned Council of Australia, a peak group representing over 1.8 million Australians, led the charge against the chilling and Orwellian mis- and disinformation bill, a bill that would have legalised state sanctioned surveillance and censorship.

In mid-2023, I wrote to all my fellow parliamentarians to sound the alarm about this heinous bill. Now, thanks to the efforts of thousands of Australians, the bill has been axed—for now at least. Today I'm proud to present to the House the 'Save the truth, Stop the Mad Bill' petition, which has been considered by the petitions committee and found to be in order.

The petition read as follows—

The proposed Misinformation and Disinformation Bill threatens to undermine freedom of speech and limit open public discourse in Australia. The Bill grants excessive powers to regulate online content, which could lead to censorship and stifling of independent opinions and media, putting our democratic values at risk. We believe that it is essential for the Australian people to retain the right to express their views without unnecessary government intervention.

We, the undersigned, believe that the proposed Misinformation and Disinformation Bill poses a significant threat to freedom of speech in Australia. This Bill risks undermining open dialogue and censoring independent voices by granting excessive regulatory powers over online content. We urge the House of Representatives to reject this Bill and protect the rights of Australians to freely express their opinions and access diverse information without undue government control.

from 908 citizens (Petition No. PN0630)

Petition received.

To all who signed: I applaud your courage in standing up for freedom of speech in this country. You recognised that this bill posed a grave threat to our ability to speak freely, exchange ideas and access information without undue government control—which brings me to another person I want to honour today. Professor Robyn Cosford, a functional medicine doctor, educator and researcher, with 38 years of experience in nutritional and environmental medicine, has been a driving force behind the 'David Declaration', a powerful initiative born from the voices of thousands of Australians calling on the government to investigate the safety of COVID vaccines. The David Declaration outlines 10 clear demands for open and transparent dialogue about the TGA's vaccine safety and testing processes and a further 13 statements calling for the restoration of the health and wellbeing of all Australians.

When COVID hit, like many integrative doctors and health professionals, Robyn questioned why the world was being forced to take experimental vaccines for what was in essence a flu-like illness when safe and time-tested treatments like vitamin C, vitamin D, zinc and affordable, re-purposed drugs like Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine and antibiotics have been shown to work. Robyn has been key in rallying doctors and health practitioners globally in support of my letters to the Prime Minister and health minister regarding DNA contamination in COVID vaccine vials—something the government has stubbornly ignored despite the growing body of evidence. This contamination may be linked to the surge in turbo cancers and autoimmune and neurological diseases that are becoming far too common in Western countries. So why isn't the government at least following this up?

Next week, the David Declaration website will go live. The name is a tribute to Dr David Speicher, the researcher who first identified the DNA contamination in Australian vaccine vials and to the David-and-Goliath struggle we're facing. Hundreds of medical professionals have already pledged to support the declaration, and soon the general public will also be able to sign. I'll share the link next week.

I'm truly honoured to have worked alongside such remarkable and brave individuals, and those I have named are just a few of the many inspiring people I've had the privilege to stand with over the last three years in this 47th Parliament. Together we continue to fight for truth, justice and the freedoms that define us as Australians. I say: follow the money, find the truth, and the truth will set you free.

I also acknowledge in the chamber tonight the member for Moreton, who I think is about to speak. I had the privilege of working with the member for Moreton on the House of Representatives human rights committee. I found him to be a person above reproach in his approach to the difficult issues we faced at the time. He is a gentleman in all his ways and a man who thought very deeply about the issues around human rights in Australia. He has been an adornment to this parliament. I thought it was very unfair and very uncharitable of the Speaker in this 47th Parliament to eject the member for Moreton from the parliament on his last day of sitting—the only reason being that his voice is a voice that can be heard.

Well said by the member for Monash.

I couldn't possibly comment on those earlier words, Speaker. You're always fair. At the last federal election in Moreton, the Liberal-National coalition put a corflute up that had a pointing finger and a headline that said, 'Labor lie.' The finger was pointed at a corflute of me. I always thought referring to me as a liar was odd, because I think therefore I am. For many elections, someone in Moreton spent a lot of time distributing flyers that said I was the writer of pornographic material and that my mother had disowned me for it. Incidentally, neither of these statements were true. The campaign backfired because so many residents were offended at receiving these lies in their letterbox—and it was also very good for my book sales!

My point here is that most politicians have probably been subject to some form of misinformation during their political careers—heightened, of course, around elections. Factors like foreign interference and cyberattacks are acknowledged as credible threats at such times. But what has changed is the veracity of social media and the misinformation it regurgitates. We've seen a proliferation of AI generated text, images, video, audio and deepfakes, and much of this information is homegrown. The Acting Australian Electoral Commissioner, Jeff Pope, said:

We're seeing sovereign citizens and conspiracy theorists and keyboard warriors, who don't want to reveal their identity. They do want to stir the pot and cause problems.

People seem more susceptible to believing misinformation they read and watch online compared to what is dropped in their letterbox, often because it's unwittingly shared by someone they agree with or trust.

We're now more than familiar with the proliferation of fake news, and it is impossible to avoid fake ads on social media. They're linked to scam activities designed to fleece victims, as the minister at the table can attest, which makes some of the latest Greens political party fundraising efforts in Queensland very suspect indeed. Recently the Greens admitted to photoshopping their own anti-Greens ad to increase its impact. The doctored image contains a menacing green goblin alongside the words 'the Greens are coming to get you'. The members for Ryan, Brisbane and Griffith all blithely posted the fake ad on their Facebook pages, alongside lengthy complaints about it and, of course, pleas for donations—generate outrage and ask for money. Given the Greens political party's highly publicised stance against mis- and disinformation, their actions are disingenuous and hypocritical—but they're on brand. The party that spread harmful and socially divisive disinformation about weapons and ammunition exports to Israel does not blink at doctoring their ads to make money. Why let facts and truth get in the way of your political agenda?

Mis- and disinformation are not always signposted by a cartoon gremlin. This recent incident is a timely reminder that we all need to be on our guard as the federal election approaches, especially while scrolling through social media. An Australia Institute report released after the 2022 federal election found that political parties spent over $12 million on social media advertising in the last two months of the campaign alone. The same report stated:

… misinformation and disinformation were widespread during the election with 73% of voters reporting exposure to misleading political advertising, and 43% of those saying they saw this "once a day or more often."

The Electoral Integrity Assurance Taskforce defines misinformation as:

… false, misleading or deceptive information, that is spread due to ignorance, by error or mistake, or without the intent to deceive. It can include made-up news articles, doctored images and videos and false information shared on social media.

'Doctored images'—I stress that. This is exactly what the Greens political party in Queensland deliberately released. The taskforce definition of disinformation is:

… the deliberate spread of false information to deceive or mislead for malicious or deceptive purposes. This can cause confusion and undermine trust in government and institutions.

Political parties should be leading the way in making sure their messaging, whether it be in reports of parliamentary activity, advertising or social media posts, does not mislead voters. The same applies to activist groups working behind political parties in the shadows financing misleading advertising. Remember that porno flyer I mentioned earlier? It was authorised using a fake name and fake address in my electorate.

Ultimately, the best advice for voters comes from the taskforce, to think about what they're reading, hearing and watching, and to stop and consider the source of the information when weighing up voting decisions. As the AEC says, Australia has one of the most trusted electoral systems in the world, and we all have a responsibility to protect it. Don't risk what we have. I call out the three Greens members elected in the chamber and some of the candidates and ask them to make sure they apologise for that misleading doctoring of an ad.

House adjourned at 17 : 0 0

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Archer ) took the chair at 09:37, a division having been called in the House of Representatives.

According to Oxfam, $67,000 is how much the average billionaire in Australia makes every hour. It's over 1,300 times more than the average Australian. Last year the wealth of billionaires in this country grew by more than eight per cent—roughly $28 billion or about $3.2 million per hour. All these numbers can sound overwhelming, unreal even. It's the dragon hoarding the medieval peasant towns' wealth—all this wealth being amassed in the pockets of the already megawealthy while the rest of the country sees living standards decline and life become more unaffordable. We are truly living through a new Gilded Age, watching economic inequality increase every year. The cost-of-living crisis did not create a new problem; it simply laid bare a problem that had been brewing for decades. According to research done by the Australia Institute, the wealth of the richest 200 people in this country has grown from the equivalent of 8.4 per cent of GDP in 2004 to 23.7 per cent now. This is wildly unsustainable.

Our entire economy is based on the principle of supply and demand. If we continue down the path of more and more wealth being amassed in fewer and fewer hands, how does anyone expect our economy to survive? It can't and it won't. Billionaires and giant multinational companies calling the shots on policy and setting the framework for what is even considered possible in politics cannot last forever. I said before that we are living through a new Gilded Age; that age ended with the start of the Great Depression. If we do not learn from our past, we are just condemned to repeat it.

So it's time for a new vision. We have a unique opportunity here in Australia, for better or worse, being about 10 years or so behind the US and UK. We have time to make the changes that we need, and it starts with making sure the ultrawealthy and the multinational corporations pay their fair share of tax. Everyone else does, so they should too. What's worse is they already do elsewhere. Soon after Norway discovered oil off their coast, they decided that wealth generated by a resource-rich country needed to be shared among everyone in society, not just the top 0.1 per cent. Their solution was a superprofits tax on oil companies.

The revenue from the oil tax allowed Norway to invest in free universities, universal health care, impressive national infrastructure, renewable energy and a welfare system that ensures everyone can live a dignified life. That is the kind of policy we can make and the type of society we can have if we are not afraid to take on those with all the wealth and power.

Making sure that billionaires and huge multinational corporations pay their fair share of tax means that we can get dental and mental health into Medicare, get 100 per cent renewable energy, build affordable housing, and ensure everyone can lead a dignified life. This vision is not radical. What is radical is to see the crises we are living through and then recommit to the status quo that the two major parties offer.

Blair is one of the fastest-growing regions in the country. That's why the Albanese Labor government has been rolling out support for infrastructure in health services, housing, and community and sporting facilities. Firstly, we committed $138.5 million to upgrade the busy Mount Crosby Road interchange, duplicating the interchange, and $42.5 million for the Bremer River Bridge strengthening on the Warrego Highway.

We announced $20 million towards planning vital upgrades along the Cunningham Highway, including the Amberley intersection. This is on top of the $12.5 million of funding for the next stage of the Ipswich Motorway upgrade, $3.4 million of funding the Ipswich to Springfield rail line business case, and the $20 million of funding for the Brisbane Valley Highway safety upgrades under the South-East Queensland City Deal.

I've always fought for better health services for our community. That's why I've been so proud to open the Ipswich Medicare Urgent Care Clinic and the Medicare Mental Health Centre in Ipswich, which both provide bulk-billed care for locals when they need it, taking pressure off the Ipswich Hospital Emergency Department. We also rolled out $2.5 million for the Kambu Health Service to support our local Indigenous community, particularly children and families; and $5 million—or more—for the Ipswich veterans and families hub to provide support for the growing number of local veterans and their families.

Labor is determined to help more locals in Blair to build, buy and rent. On top of our record boost to rent assistance and investments in social and affordable housing, we have been helping more locals to buy their own homes with more than 4,200 guarantees issued to Ipswich homebuyers under the government's expanded Home Guarantee Scheme—one of the highest rates of take-up across the country.

The Albanese Labor government knows how important it is to provide local community infrastructure for our growing Ipswich and Somerset regions. That's why we've allocated $5 million for two projects: the Toogoolawah Gateway Centre for a new library and medical facilities and the Mount Glen Rock Hiking Trail in Esk along the Brisbane Valley Rail Trail in the Somerset region under the Thriving Suburbs Program. We've also allocated $3.8 million for the Ipswich Central Heart project under the Urban Precincts and Partnerships Program to support the Ipswich Art Gallery, Ipswich Civic Centre, planning, cycling and CBD redevelopment for Ipswich.

At the same time, I know many people in my community are doing it tough.  We have been working hard to make it easier for people to tackle inflation, providing much-needed cost-of-living relief through tax cuts, energy rebates, cheaper child care, cheaper medicines, paid parental leave, free TAFE and getting wages moving. Those opposite, the LNP, have opposed every one of them.

From Galston to Glenorie and Beecroft to Berowra, no issue is raised with me more often than the cost of living. Small-business owners, young families and retirees, no matter what their circumstances—everyone is feeling the impact of this crisis. Australians are resilient. They know the economy fluctuates, particularly when significant events occur abroad, but there is also an understanding that during these times government should do what's needed to navigate the challenges ahead. They should tighten their own belt and rein in government spending and improve productivity.

Most importantly, Australians once looked to the future knowing that our nation would come out stronger on the other side, but that longstanding trust and understanding has been broken by the Albanese government. Spending by the Albanese government is out of control, causing reckless government fuelled inflation. Under this government, interest rates have gone up 12 times, tripling payments on mortgages; annual electricity bills have increased by up to $1,000; grocery prices have increased 12 per cent over the last two years; fuel is up 36 per cent; and rent is up 17 per cent. At the same time, Australians are looking around the world and watching other countries bring inflation under control. When I look at these statistics, I think back to the local stories I hear at home. Increases like this mean families need to make difficult choices: enrolling their kids in the upcoming football season or purchasing a new pair of shoes. James from Cherrybrook has seen his home insurance prices skyrocket by $2,000 under the Albanese government.

I also think of the local nursery owner who recently wrote to me, outlining how hard inflation has hit her nursery. She wants to know, in her words, 'why the current government is stifling us after 33 successful years in business'. The prices of her fuel, electricity and machinery have increased dramatically, causing financial strain to her business's bottom line. Compliance and employment red tape have also stretched their business earnings thinner. Despite business growth, staff have now been cut, machinery has been sold, and payment plans have been arranged with the ATO. The nursery owner's plans to expand in 2025 have now turned into plans for survival. This is the legacy of the Albanese government.

When my community speak with me about their cost-of-living struggles, they're not asking for a silver bullet to solve the crisis. What they want is an explanation from this government of their record. Why have Labor, the Greens and the teals allowed this crisis to continue? Why have household energy prices increased dramatically when the Prime Minister promised close to 100 times that they would be reduced by $275? The Albanese government has been fast and loose with its wasteful spending for too long, putting the burden on taxpayers. The people of Australia and the people of my community of Berowra want change. Wasteful government spending needs to be reined in, limiting the rate of inflation and bringing interest rates down. Energy prices need to be lowered for a balanced energy plan that incorporates a mix of renewables, gas and zero-emissions nuclear. Supermarkets need to be held to account for exploiting suppliers and consumers through new competition policy, including divestiture powers. These are changes only the coalition will deliver. My community can no longer bear the brunt of these reckless economic decisions of the Albanese government. They're ready for a government that will get Australia back on track.

The East African Women's Foundation is an extremely important community organisation based in my electorate. It works across the northern and western suburbs of Melbourne, providing support to Somali women, often in very vulnerable situations. For women experiencing family violence, social isolation or financial insecurity, the East African Women's Foundation is an invaluable support.

This past weekend, I attended the Australian launch of the East African Women's Foundation's Network to End Female Genital Mutilation and Circumcision in Australia, NEFA. This initiative is the result of the foundation's tireless advocacy for the right of women and girls to bodily autonomy and reproductive health. The United Nations has identified this as a major problem internationally and is fighting for the end of this practice by 2030. This is a practice that does not have health or religious justification, and this was made clear at the launch of the network. Despite being illegal in every state and territory in the country, the foundation reports that FGM remains a significant issue. Women in their community are coming to them and saying that they find it very difficult to access clear information about the impact of the practice on women and children. Likewise, legal advice about the ways they can protect their daughters often remains out of reach. The Network to End FGM will bridge these gaps with culturally appropriate and accessible programs delivered in the community and by the community.

FGM is an international issue and a national issue, but the solutions are going to be local and come through trusted organisations like the East African Women's Foundation. This is not an insular initiative. NEFA recognises that effective advocacy requires building strong coalitions, not just within the diaspora but with religious and cultural leaders, the health, education and legal sectors, and young women and girls who may go on to have daughters of their own. To this end, NEFA are developing a network to deliver these services with the cultural sensitivity required to shift the perspective of those within the community who remain resistant to change. I'd like to particularly draw attention to the work of Fartun Farah, the chair of the EAWF, and her work over a long period of time.

Can I also call to attention the work of AMES, who provide important English-language supports and early childhood and aged-care training in my electorate and right across Melbourne and Australia. They have 31 centres and over 500 staff. The Heartlands project was launched last night, with speeches by Cassandra Fernando, a member of this parliament, telling her story as a migrant, and Archie Thompson, a former Socceroo, and there was a very powerful speech by Tara Fatehi, a person who emigrated to South Australia from Kurdistan. These stories provided very powerful examples of how the supports provided by AMES and similar organisations, but AMES in particular, are so critical to people learning the language and other skills they need. Can I also draw attention to Cath Scarth, the CEO, and all the work that she's done over a long period of time.

I stand with great pride and admiration to join in celebrating the exceptional achievements of those who have been included on the Australia Day honours list. These honours are a symbol of high distinction, awarded to those whose contribution to community and to country have made a long-lasting and significant impact. They're an acknowledgement of great service to others and a devotion to the betterment of the society around them. After all, that's what it takes to make this Australian nation—a nation of freedom and opportunity even in tough times. As Australians, we strive to better ourselves while supporting others. Mateship is an intrinsic part of Australian society. Aussies have each other's backs. It is the sense of community, shared experience, mutual respect and unconditional assistance that sets us apart. We all share a stake in this nation's future. We all have a responsibility to each other and to future generations to preserve our way of life and to build on the great Australian success story that is founded in unity.

To this end, to those formally recognised on Australia Day for their contribution to their local community and our nation, I say thank you. Thank you for the enormous contribution each of you has made to strengthen our community and uphold our Australian values.

With seven out of 732 honours and awards going to people in the electorate of Barker, it's fair to say we're punching above our weight. I often speak in this place about the amazing people that make the communities in my part of the world amongst the greatest in the nation. These people include Dr David Mills AM, who was honoured for significant service to medicine through international development and rural and remote health education; Mr David Botting, who was honoured for services to agriculture and the community of Millicent; Mrs Wendy Gambling, who was honoured for services to netball as an administrator; Mrs Cheryle Pedler, who was honoured for services to community through a range of roles and organisations; Mr Peter Squires, who was honoured for services to community history; Mr Alfred Wilkinson, who was honoured for service to the communities of the Fleurieu Peninsula and Barossa Valley; and, finally, Mr Matthew Staples, who was honoured for distinguished service as a correctional services member. I commend these remarkable individuals and the legacy they're building for future generations of their fellow Australians, and I thank them for the enormous contribution each and every one of them made to strengthen our community and uphold our Australian values. To them I say: thank you for your dedication. You continue to inspire me and, indeed, others. May we follow in your footsteps, contributing to a fairer, a stronger and, most importantly, a united Australia.

I'm thankful for the people who work in this place supporting the parliament to do its work. From the clerks to the drivers and all the way up to the Library, nothing here could really happen without their collective professionalism.

I'm thankful to the people of Hasluck. I thank the community organisations, the sporting clubs, the RSLs, the councils—mayors and councillors—my state colleagues, the many Indigenous organisations I have walked beside, the schools, teachers and families, and the thousands who have called, emailed and walked into my offices in Ellenbrook and in Midland. I say a sorry farewell to the constituents of the Perth Hills, whom, by way of redistribution, I leave behind. I'm consoled by the fact that I still live among you and that you have the chance to elect Mundaring councillor and deputy president Trish Cook, who will be a marvellous representative for the seat of Bullwinkel.

To the voters of Hasluck in the coming election, I promise more of the same: forthright representation, government with integrity and a willingness to continue to grapple earnestly with the issues and challenges that face us in 2025 and beyond. I want the people of Hasluck to remember and contrast the shambolic LNP governments of the decades before this one. The Albanese government has been a model of propriety and restraint, with consistent leadership, building bridges across the globe, nation-building legislation across portfolios, no scandals, no sackings, and no cuts—including no secret cuts. The government has brought down two budget surpluses, whereas the LNP couldn't manage one. It brought down inflation, set climate targets in legislation and moved towards those targets. We've improved the nation's health and education funding and made work, pay and tax fairer and better for millions.

Yesterday I met with Rosanna and other union members here at the House. Rosie is a member of the SDA and works at one of our major hardware retailers. Poor customer behaviour is just the beginning of the issues faced by retail workers in many workplaces across Australia. No-one deserves a serve. With action by the SDA, Rosie's workplace organised a quick way to respond to issues in the workplace, with a code word, to intervene in cases of bad behaviour before it turns worse or violent. Rosie not only has joined the SDA but also is a workplace delegate for the union to keep her work mates safe. I discussed the government's Fair Work changes with Rosie and heard how much she appreciated a government that has not only listened to workers but also acted on representing workers' rights to make workplaces fairer and to make pay and conditions better.

Let's be honest, it's not going well for the government; it's really not. And people like me and the member for Gippsland and the member for Morton—we've been around for a while. We know the talking points that you get, and we know that deep down in your gut you have to go out and say things that are blatantly untrue and a load of rubbish. But you've got to go through the discipline of it. I feel for the Labor Party now. They're all handed their talking points and they trot out that power prices are going down, that the government has never been better and that the cost of living is all fixed up.

If you talk to anyone on the street, they give you this 100-yard stare. You know you're cactus. We've all been there, and I feel the government is there at the moment. Why? You're never going to control the cost of living while you've got some of the dearest power in the world. It's not possible. You can't do it. And you're never going to bring down the price of power while you have this unhinged cult-like attachment to intermittents. You need this epiphany: what you are saying in here and what's happening out there are two entirely different universes. You go to shops, and they say: 'Mate, my gas bill is going through the roof. I can't pay for this anymore.' Pensioners say, 'I can't afford my power bill.' And then you say to them, 'We're going to fix it with wind towers and solar panels,' and they just look at you like you are discombobulated and detached from reality.

The poor old Labor Party jumped fair off the cliff with the Voice, and they hit the deck in amongst the rocks. They dusted themselves off, shook their heads and climbed back up the cliff, and now they're going to jump off it again for intermittent power. It's just not working. They're tragically honourable but politically idiotic. And the price will be paid at the ballot box. In our area, in New England, they took away the Tenterfield bypass and gave us swindle factories and wind towers everywhere. They took away Dungowan dam and gave us solar panels, fields of photovoltaic black. They took away the Inland Rail and gave us highly flammable batteries that sit beside towns. They took away our property rights and gave us the highest cost of living that we've experienced. They gave us transmission lines with your environmental law. They go out to regional areas such as St George and say, 'We assuage our virtue by taking away your property rights.' It ain't going to help you at the election.

There has been a lot of talk about the Greater Adelaide Freight Bypass in South Australia. The freight bypass would take heavy vehicles off South Eastern Freeway, around the back of the hills and onto the Northern Expressway. The aim is to get unnecessary heavy vehicles off Cross Road in Boothby and Portrush Road in Sturt.

At the 2018 South Australian election, which was won by the Liberal Party, they campaigned that they would build the bypass, which they called Globelink. But less than two years later the then Liberal premier Steven Marshall cancelled Globelink. They then said they would still do a road version but all they planned was a bypass around the rural town of Truro. They tried to say this was their major freight bypass, but their plans showed one lane each way, and it didn't join up to the freeway or the expressway—one lane each way for a major freight bypass. But they were not averse to building extra lanes, because, at the time they were allegedly planning the totally inadequate Truro bypass, they put $61 million of federal funding into widening an intersection on Cross Road in Boothby and $98 million of federal funding into widening an intersection on Portrush Road in Sturt. Both of these intersections—on roads that we're trying to get the freight traffic off—mysteriously have extra lanes around the intersections. These lanes, however, disappear a couple of hundred metres from the intersection, where you suddenly have a bottleneck, as traffic has to merge back into the more narrow road. It seems odd, yes?

Well, last week we found out what this was about. The Liberal tenders required the intersections to be upgraded to freight standard. So, while they were still pretending they were doing a one-lane freight bypass at Truro, they were, in reality, funding massive upgrades of Cross Road and Portrush Road to freight standards. But it gets worse. We now find out that the Liberals had a report done on what it would cost to further progress their sneaky Cross Road freight route. They worked out how much it would cost to purchase up to 188 homes and businesses that they would need to compulsorily acquire.

I can advise that the South Australian Labor Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Tom Koutsantonis, absolutely ruled out a freight route on Cross Road and Portrush Road prior to the 2022 state election and has now submitted a business case to Infrastructure Australia for the entire freight bypass with two lanes each way, so the residents of Boothby and Sturt can rest assured. At the 2022 election in Boothby, there were differences of opinion and policy, but no-one actually lied about the position of their opponents. Sadly, this has not been the case for the Liberals in Boothby this time, and the election hasn't even been called. It just goes to show you can't believe anything the Liberals say; you have to look at what they do.

The Bindoon Mountain Bike Park is a fantastic asset for Western Australia. Located in the southern part of my electorate of Durack, the park is situated in Bindoon, a town that is just over an hour's drive north of Perth, and it serves as a vital regional hub for surrounding communities. With its stunning natural setting and well-designed trails, the park has quickly become a major drawcard for outdoor enthusiasts, families and tourists.

Recognising the potential of the park, I am very excited today to announce that a Dutton coalition government will commit to investing $1.5 million to deliver stage 2 of the Bindoon Mountain Bike Park. This will include more than 10 kilometres of new trails featuring advanced double-black, black and blue trails, as well as a dedicated walking track—that's the track that I'll be using, by the way. A dual access way for emergency services will also be constructed, ensuring greater safety for all visitors. On top of this, a WA Mettam Liberal state government will commit $600,000 for a pump track and essential infrastructure upgrades to improve accessibility for families. This is real investment in WA, not the empty promises and neglect that we continue to see from Labor.

I am very proud that the former federal Liberal government committed $1 million to fund stage 1 of this really important park. I was, however, subsequently so disappointed when the Albanese Labor government refused to honour this funding commitment, forcing the Shire of Chittering to cover the costs. This placed an unnecessary financial burden on the local community, which was yet another slap in the face to regional Western Australians who continue to be overlooked by this government. Despite Bindoon's close proximity to Perth, it appears Labor still considered that it is too far away to care about, because we know that for those opposite it's only cities that matter. This is why, when the WA Cook Labor state government recently announced $23 million for outdoor adventure projects across WA, bizarrely, Bindoon was once again completely overlooked.

I'd like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the hardworking member for North West Central, Merome Beard MLA, for her tireless advocacy on this issue. Mem is the Liberal candidate for the new seat of Mid-West. She will be an incredible representative for the people of Bindoon following the upcoming state election. Mem and I understand only too well the importance of investing in regional infrastructure to boost tourism and drive local economic growth. So I, together with Mem Beard, will not stop fighting for regional Western Australia and the people of Bindoon. The people in Bindoon and Chittering deserve for the Bindoon Mountain Bike Park stage 2 to be invested in, and that is what we will do.

On a humid day in Brisbane a fortnight ago, well over 200 people crowded into the Wellers Hill Bowls Club to celebrate the most selfless people in our community. The annual Moreton Volunteer Awards is one of my favourite events of the year. This time it was bittersweet because it was my 17th and final awards, but we certainly finished on a high. This year's 53 award winners were people who gave up their time in community centres, multicultural groups, RSL sub-branches, P&C associations, girl guides, scout groups, schools and so many other parts of our community. There were award winners from all sorts of clubs from ponies, to soccer, to Lions, to swimming, to cricket, to AFL and even to croquet. We applauded three 2024 high school graduates whose time at school was distinguished by their conspicuous community service and a Rotarian who is celebrating 50 years in the organisation. We honoured a men's shed stalwart, people who teach traditional Taiwanese dancing, a koala rescuer who's available 24/7, a church leader who fixes parishioners' cars, some Meals on Wheels volunteers, some refugee and asylum seeker volunteer workers and so many more. It was an impressive, wide range of community organisations. Beyond these differences, the recipients all share some key factors in common: they are generous with their time and their knowledge, they care for others, they're humble and they look to make the world a better place.

Right now, when so many people are doing it tough, these inspiring community workers really make a direct difference on the ground. Together, they illustrate the diversity of the Moreton community, but, more than that, they demonstrate the shared values of our community. They also showcase the benefits that come with volunteering. We know how it positively impacts our community, but it also has a myriad of personal benefits. Volunteering has been shown to decrease the possibility of depression, anxiety and social isolation. It builds social capital and the connections you have with those around you, and it increases your sense of satisfaction and happiness. I can affirm that there was certainly a lot of happiness, laughter and good cheer at our awards. After the event, the local and state elected representatives joined me in mingling with the recipients—a great, swirling group of people—and we heard more about the challenges and successes of these local legends. I'm now lucky and proud to count many of these people as my friends after representing them for 18 years.

I'd like to thank those who took the time to nominate the recipients and our wonderful emcee—the best emcee in Australia—Lewis Lee, who is himself a dedicated volunteer. I also thank the Wellers Hill Bowls Club for their ongoing support and giving us a room for free; it's a great venue. Congratulations to all the volunteers who received an award, and I'm sure Julie-Ann Campbell will continue this next year.

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

I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places.

Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places.

I thank the Chamber.

by leave—I move:

That further proceedings be conducted in the House.

Question agreed to.

On Sunday this past week, there was a groundbreaking announcement by the Minister for Finance and the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care focusing on providing accessible reproductive health care for women and girls. The Albanese Labor government is building Australia's future and strengthening Medicare with an investment of more than half a billion dollars to deliver more choice, lower costs and better health care for women with $573 million over five years. Women have asked government persistently to take their health care seriously, and we have listened. Here in the Federation Chamber today we are talking about it in the most unusual of places.

In my late 40s I transitioned into menopause. I spent the first four to five years treating it using alternative medicine. But as time went on that approach stopped working—there were the night sweats, the insomnia, the muscle cramps and the sore joints, and my wellbeing was waning with every month that transpired. I eventually turned to Western medicine to get things under control. Thanks to Dr Sandi Vinson Bromberger and Hayley Binding, who have both supported me to navigate the menopause journey. Without your medical advice, I may not be working at all.

The Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care spoke in the chamber just yesterday about her experience during perimenopause, with flooding on a tram on her way to work, and the embarrassment and sense of helplessness she felt. I remember when I was transitioning from perimenopause to menopause, sitting in a meeting on my first day of a new job, with my new boss, and having to get up due to flooding. I felt totally ashamed and embarrassed. This is the reality of many women experiencing reproductive health issues, with many women choosing to leave the workforce.

The women's economic and equality task report, chaired by our Governor-General Sam Mostyn AC, notes the cost of women not engaging in employment to our economy is $128 billion. Reproductive health issues like period pain, endometriosis and menopause have a significant impact on women's employment. I'm sure there are many people listening to this who will know a woman—a wife, a partner, a mother, a daughter, a sister, a grandmother—who has to stay at home from work or school because of reproductive health issues. Until more recently, we haven't spoken about our experiences openly. The topic of reproductive health has been placed in a closet, spoken about in hushed tones. I always remember my grandmother talking about 'The Change'. She, like many women, felt embarrassed and ashamed to talk about menopause and medical issues, but this week that changed.

Just like that, reproductive health is the hottest topic in health this week, because we have introduced more Medicare support for women experiencing menopause. A new Medicare rebate of around $110 for menopause health assessments will be introduced so women can get the care and support they need from their family GP. Funding will be provided to train health professionals, the first ever clinical guidelines will be developed, a national awareness campaign will be rolled out, and specialist support for menopause will be provided at the 33 endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics. For the first time in more than 20 years we are listing new menopausal hormone therapies. From 1 March we will have a range of hormone therapies listed on the PBS, including EstroGel and EstroGel Pro, helping to secure supply and end the shortage of these important treatments.

More than 150 women each year are expected to save $290 a year or up to $577 a year with a concession card. Two new oral contraceptive pills have been added to the PBS for the first time in more than 30 years—Yaz and Yasmin—saving 50,000 women $250 to $300 dollars a year. Work is under way to list more contraceptive pills. There will be more choice, lower costs and better access to long-term contraceptives. One in 10 Australian women use a long-term contraceptive compared to one in eight in New Zealand, one in seven in Ireland, and one in three in Sweden. Medicare rebates for insertion of IUDs and birth-control implants will increase by up to 150 per cent, with around 300,000 women each year expected to save $400 in out-of-pocket costs. We will open more endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics, treating more conditions, while those that suffer from uncomplicated UTIs will be able to consult a trained pharmacist at no cost.

The PBS listings come into effect almost immediately on 1 March, and the remaining measures will be implemented following the re-election of the Albanese Labor government. These changes could save women and their families thousands of dollars across their lifetime. By presenting this package and making this announcement in federal parliament and in the national media, we are giving women, girls and those that love and support them permission to talk about this topic, to get educated and to get the help they need when they need it.

To my colleagues, thank you for your leadership on women's reproductive health. I would also like to thank the women in my community of Dunkley who have shared their stories and amplified the importance of increased support. Kit McMahon and Laura Riccardi from Women's Health in the South East and Cathy Halmarick from Peninsula Health have also been involved in running a forum on menopause to shine a light on this issue. It's started the process of demystifying a hot topic and enabling women to feel unashamed for asking for help and sharing experiences.

This investment has been informed by extensive consultation with women, healthcare providers, advocacy groups and the National Women's Health Advisory Council and the findings of two separate Senate inquiries. This announcement is a result of having women in leadership at the big table in the highest level of government. Half of the members of the Labor Party are women, and they are making significant contributions alongside our male counterparts.

I have been fortunate to have the income to seek help and pay for medicines to support my menopause journey; however, I know for many women, the cost of treatment has been a big issue. This announcement levels the playing field and ensures women can get the help they need when they need it. Thank you to the women out there that have shared their stories and led the charge. This announcement is a tribute to all of you—Australian women who have worked so hard for so long to have their voices heard on this very important topic.

The Greens-initiated inquiries and the persistent pressure from women across Australia have finally led to the government listing more modern contraceptive pills and some menopausal hormone therapies on the PBS. The Greens have already announced costed policies that would completely remove the financial burden for women and make all contraceptives free, as they are in France, Ireland and Sweden, and costed policies to make all MHT free, as it is in parts of Canada—and it's heavily subsidised in the UK.

There are 4.8 million women in Australia using contraceptives, and making them free would save women hundreds of dollars a year and empower women to make decisions about bodily autonomy despite a difficult financial climate. The Greens want to work with Labor in a minority government after the election and deliver critical progress for women's health care. I'm pleased that the PBS changes take effect on 1 March, but why did the other elements have to wait until after the election? The menopause assessment, the menopause national awareness campaign and more endometriosis clinics have to wait till post-election.

The government's announcement did nothing to address the affordability and accessibility of surgical abortions. There are still abortion deserts right across Australia, especially in rural and regional areas. Women are having to travel hundreds of kilometres and paying thousands to get this time bound health care. It should be provided in public hospitals. The Greens will continue pushing for comprehensive healthcare access for all women.

I welcome that the opposition backed the government's announcement yesterday, but still Mr Dutton doesn't want to talk about abortion access. He's told his people to stop talking about the issue, but that doesn't fix the issues of affordability or accessibility. A Dutton minority government could send us back to the Dark Ages, bringing with it the potential for Trump style restrictions on reproductive rights in Australia. We cannot afford that. Women's health care must always be a priority, and the Greens will help to keep fighting for

Every woman has a story about gender bias in the health system. For too long, women and girls have faced barriers to accessing appropriate health care, from being told that their pain during IUD insertion 'isn't that bad', waiting years for a diagnosis of endometriosis, paying hundreds of dollars a year for their chosen contraception, to not being able to access hormone replacement therapy. That's why Labor is delivering an historic boost of over half a billion dollars to women's health. This will deliver more choice, lower costs and better health care for millions of Australian women, including tens of thousands of women in Newcastle. This package is a result of a chorus of voices from across Australia. Women have been telling us that they have needed more from the health and medical system. This is not a new story, but we finally have a government that is listening.

The response to this half a billion dollar package for women's health measures has been literally overwhelming. All of the peak medical bodies, including the RACGP, the AMA and all of the nursing colleges, as well as all of the other professional health bodies, have praised this package as an absolute game changer. But it's not just the health professionals that recognise this; it's women. We have been hearing from the women of Australia. They have been rejoicing that, finally, someone is listening to them about their pelvic pain, menopause symptoms and experiences with contraception. Someone is listening to our concern that to be a woman in Australia means we pay thousands of dollars more on our health over our lifetime.

The Albanese Labor government certainly are listening, and we're doing all of this because, of course, we are Australia's first majority women government. When you have a majority women government, the conversation changes. We can see that not only in women's health but also in every piece of legislation we have created. We see it in wage increases for female dominated industries like aged care and early childhood education; access to increased paid parental leave and ensuring superannuation is paid on that paid parental leave; investments in women's safety; supporting women's sports; and securing more safe housing for women. A majority women government means that every single piece of legislation has a gender lens run over it, and we no longer have ridiculous conversations in our party room about trying to establish the value of ensuring equity in Australia. In all of those areas, we've got fantastic female ministers, as well as the fabulous women MPs and senators in the caucus room, advocating consistently for policies that ensure women get a fair crack at opportunity in this country.

The women's health package is part of a much broader agenda from the Albanese Labor government. It's making sure that women get a fair opportunity and are treated equally in Australia. We've made big steps in the last two years, but there is, of course, always more to do. We know that women face dual gender biases in health care and society. Women face almost sole responsibility for family planning in this nation, physically and financially. That's why we've introduced this package to take unfair financial pressure off women and provide them with more choice.

After more than 30 years, we finally have a new contraceptive pill listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. I have to say—I'm sure this is a shock to Australian men—women have been more than patient about this. I think patience has absolutely run out. Thirty years is more than enough time to finally get some new-generation contraception onto the PBS. So it's great that's going to happen. Currently, one in three women aged 18 to 39 who use the combined oral contraceptive pill are paying for a non-PBS listed pill, which costs them hundreds of dollars more each and every year. From 1 March, in just a couple of weeks time, some of the most commonly used contraceptive pills, like Yaz and Yasmin, will be listed on the PBS after the Minister for Health and Aged Care asked the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee to finally put some deep thinking into how we might extend PBS benefits to this newer generation of oral contraceptives and the menopause hormone therapies. The listing of these pills is expected to benefit around 50,000 women each year who would otherwise have paid $380 a year and will now pay $126.40 a year, or just $30 a year if they're on a concession card. Work is underway to progress the listing of other contraceptive pills, so stay tuned.

Australian women have got some of the lowest uptake of long-term contraceptives, like IUDs, and only one in 10 Australian women use a long-term contraceptive. That is compared to one in eight women in—our closest neighbours—New Zealand, one in seven in Ireland and one in three in Sweden. So we've got some work to do there. The government will be boosting Medicare payments to doctors and nurse practitioners to provide bulk-billed insertion and removal of IUDs and implants, and Medicare rebates will increase by up to 150 per cent, with around 300,000 women each year expected to save up to $400 in out-of-pocket costs.

IUDs and birth-control implants provide health benefits that extend way beyond contraception—I think that's kind of important to note—including the management of really heavy menstrual bleeding, painful periods and endometriosis, as well as perimenopause and menopause. We know they're not for everyone, but every woman should absolutely have the choice and be able to access them if she chooses. An investment of $25.1 million will establish eight centres of training of excellence to ensure healthcare professionals are trained, skilled and confident in recommending and inserting IUDs. One in five Australian women will have menopause symptoms severe enough to interfere with their daily lives. I know a number of my colleagues have spoken about either themselves or women that they've known who've had the extreme end of having to give up work. That is shocking for our economic productivity as a nation, not to mention the extreme impacts that that has on women, forced out of the workforce way too early.

The government will also provide funding for health professionals to undertake additional training in menopause and perimenopause and develop the first ever national clinical guidelines. That's an important step. After more than 20 years, three new menopausal hormone therapies will be listed on the PBS. Again, from 1 March, EstroGel and a number of others now will go onto the PBS listing to help secure supply and end that shortage of these really important treatments. Around 150,000 women each year are expected to benefit, who otherwise might pay between $400 and $670 a year. They will only pay a maximum of $31.60 a month or only $7.70 if they're on a concession card. Women on these therapies will be saving $290-odd a year. But it's much more than the financial gain. It's going to give women a whole new level of confidence and wellbeing, and that's what is especially important.

I just want to end in the brief time that I have left by saying that this historic boost to women's health will deliver on that important matter of choice, help lower costs and make health care for women a much more affordable option. I am very, very proud to be part of the government moving this. I am also very proud to be hosting the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care, Ged Kearney, who will be conducting a women's health forum in Newcastle on Thursday 20 February. I invite all Novocastrian women to join us in this important historical moment.

I, too, am very excited to speak on this very important and overdue reform to women's health from Labor, offering women lower costs, more choice and better health care. For too long, women's health has not been taken seriously by decision-makers. We've heard too many stories of women struggling to access essential healthcare services, whether for contraception, menopause support, pelvic pain or endometriosis treatment. Women have had to fight to be heard, to be believed and to receive the care that they need. I think all of us—even if we haven't had a terrible experience, we've had an experience or multiple experiences that come to mind when we think about these things. There are many stories I and every woman I know could share about perhaps not being taken seriously, about problems not being addressed or that couldn't be worked out, or about things that don't really seem fair.

Women face a lot of extra costs at the moment in the health system not because they're unwell but simply because they're women. Our announcement this week will change that. Our government has made a landmark investment in the health and wellbeing of Australian women, an investment of more than $500 million in women's health, which is a historic leap forward and one which will ensure better access, more choice and more affordable health care for millions of Australian women.

This is what happens when you have women in the room making the decisions, and I am so proud that our government is the first with over 50 per cent of women in its caucus. It means that these issues are being discussed. I want to pay a particular tribute to my friend and colleague the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care, Ged Kearney. For her whole life—as a nurse, a unionist, a member of this House and now a minister—she has fought for better health care and health outcomes for Australians, including Australian women. Part of the work that she's been doing has been shining a light on medical misogyny, which is exactly what we've talked about where, systemically, women's health has not been given the attention it deserves. She's shone a light on these stories of Australian women through forums that she's held—overwhelmed by the numbers and the stories of what people have gone through.

I also want to acknowledge Senator Marielle Smith, who headed up the Senate inquiry into menopause. Again, she shone a light on this experience that affects all women, which has for too long been hidden and taboo. Women, as usual, have been fronting up against serious health challenges but needing to go about their everyday lives as though nothing is happening and not having access to the affordable care that they need.

I would like to acknowledge Senator Katy Gallagher, my ACT colleague, who has led so much change for women as the Minister for Women in this government. I also, of course, want to acknowledge the Minister for Health and Aged Care for championing this as well. It was wonderful to join them all on Sunday at the Sexual Health and Family Planning ACT clinic, and I want to acknowledge that brilliant organisation and the support that they give to Canberra women at all stages of their journey, sometimes in difficult circumstances. The accessible advice and health care that they provide is a really important service.

This package will ensure that women on low incomes can access critical medications through pharmacies, that general practitioners are supported and rewarded for providing quality care, and that women's health concerns—too often dismissed—are met with serious investment and action. It will transform menopause care. It will make contraception more affordable and accessible, reducing unplanned pregnancies. It will ensure that women suffering from endometriosis and pelvic pain get the early diagnosis and treatment they deserve, and it will mean that women experiencing the debilitating pain of urinary tract infections can access treatment more quickly.

I recently met with pharmacists in my electorate, at their pharmacy in Kingston. They were part of a trial of being able to give out antibiotics for UTIs, and they were saying it is such an important thing and they hoped it would be rolled out more broadly. So it is an excellent thing that women will be able to access that quickly and also avoid an appointment with a GP that could be hard to get, expensive and not really necessary if they know what the problem is and can go and get that help from the pharmacy.

These are not just policies; these are life-changing measures that will improve the lives of women across the country at all ages and in all parts of their journeys—women like Allie Pepper, a world-class mountaineer. When she joined us at the announcement of this package in Canberra this week—it was wonderful to hear from her there—she described her battle with menopause as 'harder than Everest'. She thought she'd never climb again. She fought to find a GP trained in menopause care, and, once she did, the right treatment changed her life and made her feel like herself again. Allie is now making incredible progress on her goal to climb all 14 of the 8,000-metre peaks across the world without oxygen. Our medical system cannot stand in the way of women not only achieving amazing goals, like Allie, but also going about their daily routines and facing challenges. As I said, for too long women have had to hide these challenges and just been told it's part of being a woman. It's not always; sometimes there are treatments available that can make a world of difference, and this package is about making those more affordable and accessible to Australian women.

This investment also acknowledges the tireless advocacy of women's health organisations, community leaders and everyday Australians who have spoken about these challenges. Their courage and persistence have led to this moment, and I thank them all for their efforts. Our government is correcting the record for women's health through this package. For the first time in 30 years we have listed new oral contraceptive pills on the PBS. The 50,000 women who use Yaz and Yasmin will save hundreds of dollars a year. It amazed me when I heard that a pill hadn't been listed in so long, but then I remembered paying a fortune for things. What a difference this will make to Australian women! Many of the pills are old and are not as effective and don't work as well. Thirty years is a long time. These newer pills are now on the PBS, and so women can find the one that is right for them.

We're also introducing more choice, lower cost and better access to long-term contraceptives, with larger Medicare payments and more bulk-billing for IUDs and birth control implants. This will save 300,000 women up to $400 a year in out-of-pocket costs for the birth control that works best for them. The importance of ensuring that women will have choice in their birth control cannot be overstated. Not every form of birth control is right for every woman. We have unique bodies and unique responses to different medications. Our government, by providing lower-cost alternatives, is giving women the option to find the birth control that's right for them. It gives us agency over our bodies and control over our reproductive health. Most women would recall being dismissed at some point in their lives while trying to sort out those sorts of issues.

As the assistant minister likes to say, medical misogyny is alive and well. A woman with endometriosis waits, on average, seven years to receive a diagnosis. Endometriosis affects one in nine women; it's not uncommon. A women with polycystic ovary syndrome waits, on average, two years for a diagnosis, and PCOS affects one in five women. These illnesses are often debilitating, with detrimental effects on both physical and mental health, and that's not taking into account menopause, which every person who menstruates will experience at some point in their lives. Menopausal hot flushes, lack of sleep and muscle and joint aches are an almost universal experience for women, and for too long these conditions have not received the funding, research or resources that make significant improvements to the quality of life of Australian women. This package is investing in 11 new endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics around the country, joining the 22 we have already funded. All 33 clinics will be staffed to provide this important care to women.

I am so proud of this announcement and of my colleagues—including the assistant minister, who is here—the work that they have done, and the difference this will make to the lives of Australian women—things that seem overdue. It has taken an Albanese Labor government, with these women pushing these important issues, to achieve this change for Australian women, and I want everyone to know about it.

Today marks a sombre but important occasion—a day that reminds us to reflect on the past of this country, examine the present and look to the future for what we as a society should be and what we can be. It's an important day—a day for reflecting on our nation's brutal and dark history and for acknowledging the pain that has occurred and is still occurring. It is a day for transformation and for committing to doing better and being better as a country. Of course, 13 February is the anniversary of the day in 2008 when the then Labor Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, issued his apology to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and to the stolen generations—people whose lives had been blighted by past government policies of forced child removal and assimilation. It is a time that is a stain on our country and one we can't ignore—one that we must acknowledge and commit to never letting happen again.

I, like so many Australians, remember that day very well. It was a watershed moment. I remember being on the lawns in front of Parliament House. At the time, I was working at the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation, and I stood proudly on the lawns with my colleagues from the Congress of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Nurses and Midwives. We stood there listening to those amazing words—those moving words, those important words—from Kevin Rudd. There were tears. There was relief. There was joy. There were lots of hugs.

At this morning's Sorry Day breakfast, the Prime Minister reflected on how, when we first apologised for the atrocities inflicted upon our First Nations people, we collectively became a better country, a country ready to take the next step to moving forward. Just as we acknowledged that history in 2008, today we commit to being a better country for now and into the future.

Earlier this week, the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator Malarndirri McCarthy, tabled the Closing the gap annual report and implementation plan. As the minister said, and as our Prime Minister reiterated, the National Agreement on Closing the Gap is a landmark partnership. It brings together all levels of Australian governments and the Coalition of Peaks. It's an agreement that not only prioritises the government's deep partnership with Indigenous Australians and their organisations through the Coalition of Peaks but is one for all Australians, all political parties, all communities, all businesses and all schools. I thank the First Nations leaders who are working with the government on closing the gap. I particularly acknowledge the amazing Pat Turner, the lead convener and co-chair of the Joint Council on Closing the Gap.

We know that, when policies and programs are created and delivered in partnership, when the community controlled sector is strengthened, when mainstream institutions are transformed and when data and information are shared with community, we see real positive changes in the lives of First Nations Australians. This is the key for transformation and for closing the gap. Our annual report and implementation plan show the progress made across the government and detail our plan in the priority areas of economic empowerment, cost of living, mental health and wellbeing, and giving our children the best start in life, health, education and housing.

In 2024, I had the immense honour of being appointed the Assistant Minister for Indigenous Health. It's not a role that I take lightly. I'm absolutely honoured to continue the work that Minister McCarthy undertook in this portfolio, and I'm privileged to continue to work with her in her new role as the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, an important portfolio. We also thank Linda Burney for all her incredible work in that portfolio. From the get-go, my approach to this role has been listening to First Nations people. It's why I've travelled across the country to meet with communities from Brisbane to Perth, Badu Island to Naarm and the Torres Strait to Adelaide.

I had the great privilege of travelling to the Torres Strait, to Badu Island, where we announced that we would have four dialysis chairs there for that community. We had an amazing meeting. This is a tiny island, with 2,000 to 4,000 people, very close to Papua New Guinea, very remote and in dire need of dialysis chairs. Without those chairs, the people on Badu Island have to go to Thursday Island for treatment. Many have to say goodbye to their communities because they know that they will not return. It's a very sad thing when they have to leave the island simply to get health care. So one of the areas I'm particularly proud of is providing community controlled health care in the communities where people live and they can stay with their families.

We are particularly proud of strengthening the community controlled sector. When the Albanese Labor government came into office we committed to strengthening the community controlled sector. We know that we get better outcomes when we work in genuine partnership with the people on the ground who know their communities so well. One of the key pieces of feedback we received from the sector was the need for long-term, sustainable and flexible funding to ensure that ACCHOs can focus on their core business of delivering culturally appropriate high-quality care to First Nations people across the country. From July 2024 we were proud to invest an initial $300 million to implement rolling funding agreements to provide certainty and flexibility for ACCHOs, bringing the total ACCHO investment under the Indigenous Australians' Health Program to $2.7 billion.

What we know now that our forefathers did not acknowledge is that First Nations people are more likely to achieve better health outcomes when they receive health care from First Nations led organisations rather than from non-First-Nations-led organisations. Take, for instance, birthing on country. For thousands of years First Nations women have given birth on country, surrounded by culture, knowledge and community. Birthing on country is not just a health practice; it's a sacred connection to land, ancestors and identity for many. When First Nations women lead their own maternal care, we see better health outcomes. In fact, we've seen evidence that birthing on country leads to increased attendance at prenatal check-ups, higher rates of smoking cessation, the reduced likelihood of preterm births and greater rates of exclusive breastfeeding upon hospital discharge. The practice of forcing women to leave community security and home, often for environments that have felt unsafe, is disempowering and wrong. We also know that hospitals, like many other government run facilities, were a place where babies were stolen. It will take generations for our nation to rebuild that trust. It the responsibility of all of us to ensure First Nations women have choice and control over their health care and that culturally safe options are available. Today we acknowledge that progress has been achieved, mostly led by First Nations Australians, and that there is continuing work that must be done.

On National Sorry Day I want to add my voice to the millions of others and say, on behalf of our government and ancestors, I am deeply, deeply sorry. I acknowledge that, while no words will ever be enough to rectify the pain that has been caused, we must always endeavour to mend the pain in any way possible—not just through words but through actions too. I thank everyone who fought for the national apology, many who are from the stolen generations themselves and who are still with us here today. We heard a number of their testimonies this morning at the breakfast here in this house. It was extremely moving. Their goodwill to continue to come to this house, to continue to work with the Australian people and to continue to work with the government to do more to repair the past wrongs is extremely generous. We want to do more, we will do more and we must do more.

The stolen generations are a tragic and absolutely shameful chapter in the history of Australia—one that has left deep, lasting scars on Indigenous communities. Today is an important day to reflect on these policies of our country and the impact that they've had on First Nations Australians. The apology to the stolen generations was 17 years ago today, when former prime minister Kevin Rudd apologised to those stolen from their families. Today is a reminder of the deep injustices that have been done to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and an urgent call for action. It is a reminder that the legacy of those policies continues to shape the lives of First Nations people in Australia today.

We continue to listen to those stories, and we know that the hurt will never go away—children separated from their parents, forced to live in institutions or foster homes where they were stripped of their languages, traditions and identities, a most wicked breaking of the most sacred bonds between parents and children and families. Many were then subjected to physical, emotional and sexual abuse and faced ongoing neglect. For many, this loss of connection with family, culture and country has had intergenerational impacts affecting not only those directly involved but also future generations. The pain caused by the removal of children has reverberated throughout communities, creating a cycle of loss that continues today.

This morning, I was privileged to attend the stolen generations breakfast here in the parliament and to hear from stolen generations survivors of the impacts that this has had on them. It is incredibly generous, beyond words, that these people are willing to come into this place and share those stories and that they do so to see us move forward—to see us address the hurt that was caused and to continue to move forward in reconciliation and in closing the gap. Listening to their voices and providing opportunities for them to share the stories is an important step in the healing process. It is through these stories that the full extent of the trauma can be understood.

I'm proud that our government will always continue to listen to First Nations Australians. Obviously, in 2023 we held a referendum, and we didn't get the result that we wanted or that the majority of First Nations Australians wanted. But the Prime Minister this morning addressed the stolen generations breakfast, and he said that he will always be there as long as he is Prime Minister, because it is such an important event. He talked about the referendum, and he said that, while it obviously was not the result that we wanted and that that has caused harm to many in the community, he doesn't regret wanting to enlarge our nation, because that's why we are here and, as he said, we will get there. The arc of history bends towards justice, as Martin Luther King said. While, obviously, that proposal for the Voice to Parliament was rejected by the Australian people, and we respect that result, we are a government that will always listen to First Nations people and look to them for the ways in which we will close the gap and walk together in reconciliation.

An important part of that is that earlier this week, on Monday, we had the Closing the Gap statement and report. Since the apology, this has been an important process of looking at these terrible gaps that continue between First Nations and other Australians, and there is always more work to be done. This is front of mind for our government and always will be front of mind for the Labor Party.

One of the particularly regrettable and terrible parts of the gap is the high rates of out-of-home care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children that currently exist and continue. Here in the ACT, we actually have some of the highest rates. This is something we must address because it continues the trauma for those families and the breaking down of connections between families, communities, country and culture. We need to do better to address this. That is why we set up a First Nations children's commissioner, the first in this country. We want to make sure that that commissioner is watching out for First Nations children around Australia.

We are working with peak bodies through the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. This is a landmark partnership with First Nations groups across Australia. Earlier this week, the government released the Commonwealth closing the gap 2024 annual report and 2025 implementation plan. It outlines the actions that the Albanese government has taken over the past year to deliver on the outcomes of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. Its focus is on creating jobs and economic empowerment for remote communities, easing housing overcrowding and improving safety. The 2025 implementation plan outlines our strategy for the year ahead, focusing on easing cost-of-living pressures and improving food security in remote communities, delivering the next steps of our economic empowerment agenda and continuing to improve outcomes for First Nations people.

We will invest in a range of new measures. We will extend the Territories Stolen Generations Redress Scheme for an additional two years to support stolen generation survivors. This is an incredibly important measure, particularly for my community as a part of the ACT. We are improving the health of First Nations people in regional and remote Australia by improving food security across those regions, including reducing the cost of 30 essential products in more than 76 remote stores to help ease cost-of-living pressures and improve access to quality food for people in remote communities. We will build a nutrition workforce in remote communities by upskilling up to 120 local First Nations staff in remote stores. We will roll out new laundries or upgrade existing facilities to 12 remote First Nations communities to help improve long-term health outcomes. We will strengthen the Indigenous procurement policy to boost opportunities for First Nations businesses to grow and create jobs. We will boost the Indigenous Business Australia's home loan capital fund and establish a place based business coaching and mentoring program for First Nations business women and entrepreneurs. We will increase the availability of culturally safe and qualified mental health support, including scholarships for up to 150 First Nations psychology students. We will continue to deliver critical early intervention and response services to address family, domestic and sexual violence in high-need First Nations communities. We will continue the digitisation of at-risk audio and video collections held by First Nations broadcasters and community organisations by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies.

The Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator McCarthy, has been working on food security throughout her career. She is committed to ensuring that remote Indigenous communities have regular and quality access to food, and she is making sure that Indigenous communities do not pay these high prices. I want to commend Senator McCarthy on the work that she is doing for Closing the Gap. In my first term as the secretary of the First Nations Caucus Committee, I had the privilege of working closely with Senator McCarthy, the member for Barton—Linda Burney—and Senator Pat Dodson on many issues and bringing to the forefront our considerations the impacts on First Nations communities. It was such a privilege to work with those leaders.

I'll take this opportunity on what may be the last day of parliament to acknowledge the member for Barton and former Minister for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney, for the incredible contribution she has made over many years. She is, I believe, one of the greatest leaders our country will see. When I think of Linda, the words that come to mind are 'grace' and 'strength', which she showed in an almost unfathomable way when confronted with some of the ugliest parts of Australian politics. I thank her for her contribution. We will miss her in this place, but I know that she will continue to contribute.

On this day, as we reflect on the anniversary and on the apology, may we always continue to listen to First Nations Australians and work together for a country that is truly one and truly enlarged.

Debate adjourned.

When I gave my first speech in this place almost three years ago, I said that the people of North Sydney wanted faster action on climate change, led by facts, not politics. They recognised we're at a tipping point on climate and, fundamentally, politics. Like many other forward-looking communities across Australia, they wanted a clear and actionable plan to reduce national emissions. They wanted innovative, smart and transparent investment in renewable energy, and they wanted improved access to clean transport. When I stood here then, I committed to advocate for science informed action on climate change and faster access to cleaner fuels and more efficient vehicles, and I committed to work together across all levels of government to make the electorate of North Sydney one of the first net zero urban energy zones in the country. Fast forward to today, and I can proudly say that North Sydney has delivered. From legislative amendments to private member's bills, community forums and clean energy fairs, the electorate of North Sydney has moved towards net zero as a community and pushed this 47th Parliament to take bold, decisive steps to tackle climate change.

When the Climate Change Bill 2022 was introduced to legislate the government's 43 per cent emissions reduction target, North Sydney was there, ensuring advice from the Climate Change Authority would be published on its website and tabled in parliament. We supported other crossbench amendments to strengthen the bill, including supporting regional communities and ensuring the 43 per cent emissions reduction target was a floor, not a ceiling. We successfully amended the safeguard mechanism to prevent new or expanded fossil fuel projects from accessing government funding to pursue abatement, and we worked with the government to ensure carbon offsets are not recognised within the Future Made in Australia Guarantee of Origin scheme. We fought for changes to the nature-positive bills to ensure better transparency and community consultation. Although those changes were ultimately not adopted, they put community consultation at the centre of the nature-positive discussions.

Throughout this term, we have consistently pushed for both the major parties to release 2035 emissions targets before the next election and for the government to urgently legislate a duty of care. We introduced a private member's bill, the Fuel and Vehicle Standards Legislation Amendment (Reducing Vehicle Pollution) Bill 2022, to bring vehicle emissions regulations in line with international best practice, and we advocated strongly for fuel efficiency standards, which were finally introduced in 2024.

As the member for North Sydney, I brought the federal climate conversation back to my community, hosting multiple local forums on the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 and the broader EPBCA reforms. It was a pleasure to host the Sustainable Living in North Sydney Forum, bringing together experts from sustainability, bushcare, garden and repurposing groups across the electorate to discuss their vision for a better climate in Canberra. And, in collaboration with local councils, I held the inaugural Clean Energy Community Fair, with over 30 stalls run by vendors, service providers and councils to help households and businesses reduce their reliance on fossil fuels.

Just a few weeks ago, I joined with members of the Powering to Net Zero team and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to launch the first community battery in Cammeray. I've had the immense privilege of working with amazing groups and talented people dedicated to climate action, from launching a report calling for communities to be afforded the right to seek a merits review of environmental decisions to facilitating a cross-political and science led discussion on nuclear energy to supporting my crossbench colleagues' calls for investment in climate resilience and preparedness measures. I can proudly say that my Powering to Net Zero team has made a real difference on the ground. Whether it be through their handy guide to government incentives to help electrify homes and businesses in North Sydney or their regular webinars and events, they have helped the North Sydney community reduce emissions and power bills.

The growth rate in total residential rooftop solar installations between June 2022 and December 2024 in North Sydney was 41.9 per cent, far above the New South Wales average of 31.5 per cent. Passenger battery electric vehicles garaged in North Sydney electorate grew from 1,115 in July 2022 to 4,511 in January 2025, now making up four per cent of the total vehicle fleet, far above the New South Wales average of 1.6 per cent of passenger vehicles.

While there is still much to do, North Sydney can be proud that we have, indeed, progressed urgent climate action, led by facts, not politics, in this place. As a community, we have both changed the climate here in parliament and driven our community closer to net zero.

Over the recent holiday period, most of us would have taken the opportunity to enjoy the arts and cultural sector and all it has to offer. It may have been a visit to the theatre. It might have been taking your kids to the cinema, streaming your favourite TV series, catching a live gig or visiting one of Canberra's iconic museums and galleries. Regardless of our background or wealth, nearly all of us appreciate and engage with the sector. We know that creative activities and experiences are essential to our mental health and wellbeing, which was particularly evident through the pandemic. As Creative Australia's Creating our future: results of national arts participation survey2023 points out, most of us agree that the arts make for a richer and more meaningful life.

Yet, despite our national appreciation of the arts and cultural sector, it was left devastated after 10 years of funding cuts under the previous coalition government. The small to medium sector of innovative arts and cultural organisations was hit particularly hard. The sector's challenges were compounded throughout the pandemic, especially those in live performance and public exhibition. Since the pandemic, response policies were lifted and borders reopened, and household spending and business conditions have improved. And I'm proud to say that one of the first things our government did, under the leadership of the arts minister, Tony Burke, was, after a lost decade a federal policy drift and funding neglect, to release its national cultural policy, Revive, a five-year plan to revive the arts in Australia. Revive seeks to empower our talented artist and arts organisations to thrive and grow, unlock new opportunities and reach new audiences. I'm also proud that our government has provided funding to Canberra organisations in the arts as well, including the Canberra Symphony Orchestra, and for the redevelopment of Gorman House.

However, the recovery continues with many in the sector still struggling, and I was devastated to learn just before Christmas that the Canberra Youth Theatre will be cutting staff and closing programs this year due to funding challenges and rising costs. The theatre has been instrumental to young artists for over 50 years, providing opportunities for young people to be creative and develop their artistic skills. It's something I've spoken about with the artistic director and CEO, Luke Rogers, over many years. I've had the pleasure to attend some of their rehearsals and to meet with some of the young people. I was blown away by the talent and enthusiasm of these young people.

My understanding is that the Canberra Youth Theatre also write their own work, and they have had incredible success, which has been recognised nationally. However, they are doing it tough at the moment. Usually, Canberrans enjoy numerous productions from the theatre, but, sadly, they will not be able to deliver those this year. They will continue delivering some of their courses. But this is a really significant blow to the young people who want to be involved in theatre, and it's a significant loss to our whole community.

The benefits of the arts to youth and community cannot be underestimated. Revered youth theatre artistic director Carol Woodrow AM has emphasised the inherent value of youth arts. She understands that, while many kids are never going to be professional actors, it is an important opportunity for children to release their imagination, to learn about themselves and the world and to develop self-confidence. I've seen that. I've heard from families about the incredible impact that it has had on their children, developing their confidence, which they've then used in other parts of their schooling. It's clear to me, from talking with Luke and meeting with the young people, that this is where many young people really find their place. It's so important for them.

It's really important that we consider youth arts as equally important as mainstream arts. It's not just about the pipeline of the next brilliant Australian actors, performers, writers and other artists. It's also about the intrinsic value of young people and giving them these opportunities. We want to be a society that fosters this, because if we don't continue it now we will lose that next generation of great Australian actors that we come to know and love and the great Australian productions. We all want to hear Australian stories told. I do hope that youth arts is something that will be taken seriously.

I rise today because at the end of this address I will be seeking leave to table a petition on behalf of the Derrinallum Progress Association calling on VicRoads to promptly maintain the Hamilton Highway between Darlington, Derrinallum and Lismore and to reduce the speed limit to 50 kilometres in the townships of Derrinallum and Lismore.

The Derrinallum Progress Association is a very active group. They are deeply concerned about the state of the Hamilton Highway, which runs between Derrinallum, Lismore and Darlington. They want to ensure that part of the Hamilton Highway is properly maintained and that proper attention is given to public safety. They are deeply concerned that the maintenance is not occurring when it comes to this section of road. They are deeply concerned that VicRoads isn't paying attention to what is happening with the speed limit. They're deeply concerned that people are driving through these towns unaware that these are important towns, that there are young children who go to and from school and sport and that it's absolutely vital that these people and families going to and from work can drive safely in these communities and not have to worry about people speeding or about the conditions of the road. That is why they called a public meeting to put these concerns on the table. At that public meeting it was decided to put a petition together to send to VicRoads and say: 'Please do your job properly when it comes to the Hamilton Highway, a state road. Make sure you maintain it properly, make sure you're upgrading it properly, and make sure you're paying attention to what is happening with regard to the level of traffic and the speed in which people are travelling through these three marvellous towns.'

The Derrinallum Progress Association has now called on VicRoads to properly maintain the Hamilton Highway between Darlington, Derrinallum and Lismore and to reduce the speed limit to 50 kilometres in the townships of Derrinallum and Lismore. I say to the Victorian state government and to VicRoads: please pay attention to this petition. Not only will I be tabling it here in the federal parliament, but I will also be sending it to the state minister and to VicRoads. There are over 200 signatures on this petition from these three wonderful communities. All they are asking of VicRoads and the Victorian state Labor government is to be listened to, to be heard and for action to be taken. I call on VicRoads to take that action. There are two ways they can do that immediately.

The first way is to immediately address maintenance issues with regard to the part of the Hamilton Highway between Darlington, Derrinallum and Lismore. They must make sure they're looking at these maintenance issues and putting in the funding that is necessary to take the Hamilton Highway to a place where it's safe to travel on, where it's not full of potholes and where the edges are not eroding away. That is the first thing we want VicRoads to do.

The second thing we want VicRoads to do is look at the 50-kay speed limits in two of the towns on the Hamilton Highway. That is what the community is calling for, and I ask VicRoads and the Victorian state Labor government to listen and to act. I seek leave to table this petition.

Has the petition been approved by the Petitions Committee?

It has not, but I will be sending it to the Petitions Committee.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is leave granted to present the petition?

Leave granted.

The document will be forwarded to the Standing Committee on Petitions for its consideration and will be accepted subject to confirmation by the committee that it conforms to the standing orders.

The Liberals are bandying about their campaign slogan to cut wasteful spending, but they're not committing to cutting any of the investments we've made in early childhood education, TAFE or Medicare—the bulk-billing urgent care clinics, for example—because we know all their cuts are secret. They're not actually prepared to tell the constituents exactly what they intend to cut. All that leads me to believe that when they say, 'Labor, please cut wasteful spending,' the way to do that is to get on with cutting the wasteful spending that was the legacy we were left with by the LNP. Three years sometimes feels like a long time, but at other times it seems short. I want to remind the voters of Hasluck of the debacle that the LNP government left us. The Leader of the Opposition, the member for Dickson, was a member of that government throughout, and he held decision-making roles that led to absolutely outrageous and questionable spending of taxpayer funds.

Let's start with one of the most famous examples of all: robodebt. They spent more than half a billion dollars of taxpayer money—$606 million, to be precise—on their robodebt program. Robodebt, to the eternal shame of all who supported it—and that's the entire coalition, the Liberals and the Nationals, led by politicians like the member for Dickson, who thought it was a great idea—gutted people's lives. When the full extent of the damage done was revealed, it was the Australian people who paid for the coalition's mistakes. In June 2021, the Federal Court approved a $1.872 billion dollar settlement for the victims of robodebt, incorporating repayment and legal costs—wasteful spending indeed.

We have cut the wasteful spending on consultants like the ones that then minister Dutton subcontracted KPMG to investigate. But he didn't investigate Paladin, the company that went on to secure a $500 million tender after one week of preparation—less than a week, in fact; that's how supposedly great they were. No, he contracted KPMG to investigate Paladin Solutions, a completely different and unrelated company that had nothing to do with Paladin Holdings. The opposition leader's response was that he noted these auditing and procurement failures at the time, but did nothing to address them. He walked away from all accountability. What did that mean? What did that wasteful spending on that subcontracting tender to KPMG lead to? It led to the Australian taxpayers bankrolling a beach shack on Kangaroo Island which had just $50,000 in capital to its name. As I say, Paladin prepared their bid in less than a week, but they secured contract worth half a billion dollars from the then minister, Peter Dutton. There's nothing fishy here apparently.

Yet, soon after winning that contract, the LNP's spending gave Paladin a tidy $1.3 million profit per week, all while Paladin was under investigation by the AFP over bribery allegations involving PNG officials. They breached their key performance indicators thousands of times during their first year of operations. What was the then minister Dutton's response? 'Let's renew their contract a few more times.' Wasteful spending indeed! The Labor government is cutting that wasteful spending. The then minister Dutton presided over Home Affairs from 2017 to 2021, and in 2022 the Nauru offshore processing contracts cost the taxpayers $485 million despite there being just 22 refugees and asylum seekers there.

Should we start talking about the $80 million Watergate for Angus Taylor's company that went to the Cayman Islands?

Honourable members interjecting—

Should we talk about the $600,000 drought report that the member for his seat—Barnaby Joyce—when he was then minister for agriculture—

Member for Hasluck, please use people's titles.

Sending a text message—that was the value that taxpayers got for $600,000, leaving farmers absolutely unprepared for the next drought. We know what wasteful spending looks like, and we are cutting wasteful spending.

I'll just remind the chamber that all members must use the correct titles if they are referring to other members of parliament in here, not their names.

I thoroughly enjoyed that contribution from the member for Hasluck on what I'm pretty confident will be her last day in this place, because if we go to an election the people of Hasluck actually deserve a good representative. When I say good, I mean Mr Goode, the candidate for the Liberal Party in that seat. Quite frankly, he will conduct himself properly in this place, unlike the member for Hasluck and the contribution that has been made there, which just goes to show how out of touch this Labor government are with reality. The Leader of the Opposition is living rent free in their heads. They cannot get past the concept of Peter Dutton—the member for Dickson, the Leader of the Opposition—being elected as the Prime Minister. So instead of standing here and talking about something meaningful to the people of Australia—to Western Australia and the people of Hasluck—we get this diatribe that made no sense whatsoever about the Leader of the Opposition.

It's actually quite embarrassing that the Labor Party has nothing more to contribute. But I'll tell you what they have contributed over their nearly three years in government, and that is an energy policy that is leading to higher power prices and rolling blackouts across Australia. Australian businesses and households are being crippled by the price rises in their energy bills. Instead of having a plan for affordability or reliability to keep the lights on, Labor are too busy screaming about the nemesis that they see in the Leader of the Opposition.

Let's make a contrast here between the Leader of the Opposition, who is one of the choices for Prime Minister for the Australian people at the next election, and the current Prime Minister, who, prior to the last election, made a promise—and he made this promise on more than 97 occasions—that Australians would receive a $275 reduction in their power bills. Since the election, that number has not been mentioned or uttered by the Prime Minister, but, more than that, he has utterly failed to deliver it. More than that, he has actually gone back on his word because the reality is that power prices have gone up. In New South Wales and Queensland, for example, we have seen record highs in wholesale prices and market volatility spiralling completely out of control. So, at the next election, the coalition stands ready to deliver a cheaper, cleaner and consistent 24/7 power source for our nation that will deliver jobs and security for us to remain prosperous off the backbone of that energy grid.

As Australians go to the ballot boxes, they will be thinking about whether or not they are better off now than they were when Labor came into office in May 2022. The answer to that is a clear and resounding no. This is not just some sort of fictional thing that people are imagining. This is their real lived experience over the term of this Labor government. One critical point for Australian families has been out-of-control mortgage rises. Every other advanced economy last year was seeing interest rates coming down, but, in Australia, we have a Treasurer who is addicted to big spending, big bureaucracy and therefore bigger inflation. That has set the baseline for the pain that Australians are feeling as they pay their rent and their mortgage. We need to get Australia back on track.

Our job in this place is to take the local values of our communities and turn them into national results. Every day that I've been in this place that's exactly what I have sought to do—taking my community's values of opportunity, fairness and democracy and turning them into national results that don't just lift up my community of Perth but lift up the nation. That's what we've done when it comes to education, opening the doors of opportunity by literally building new doors for a new university in the CBD in the heart of Perth, where we'll see, later this year, Yagan Square open up with a brand-new university, the Edith Cowan city campus. We've seen the commitment that we've got going through the parliament right now for our littlest learners, making sure we open the doors of opportunity to make sure that we have a fairer system of early childhood education.

We've opened the doors of the Rudloc Road urgent care clinic, making sure that the people of Perth can walk through the doors and get health care based on what they need, not how much they can afford. Equally, we've opened the doors, in this term of government, of headspace Osborne Park, making sure that young people in Perth can get the mental health support that they need and deserve. At train stations in my electorate, including in Bayswater and Morley, you can walk through the doors onto the train of the Perth Morley-Ellenbrook Line, which is connecting so many suburbs across the Perth metropolitan area and making sure that more people can get the benefits of a great public transport system—a public transport system that I want to commend Deputy Premier Rita Saffioti for, for making it cheaper for Western Australians, meaning that we don't have unfair zones that put all the costs onto those in the outer suburbs, making it cheaper and more affordable to catch one of the most sustainable forms of transport ever created: public transport.

We will see, soon, the doors open at the revitalisation of the WACA, turning it into a true community facility for all to use. Similarly, my community values our local parks. Making sure that we've used the power of democracy to deliver, I'm pleased with the upgrades we've delivered in lighting for Axford Park and the brand-new playground for Joondanna Reserve. It was an honour to be there last year with families who, some 40 years ago, had planted the first trees of that reserve and were there to see the upgrades we had made. Just a few days ago, I went and helped plant the first trees at the new Bayswater Urban Forest, making sure that what once was bushland and became a tip now returns to bushland in my community.

I'm pleased at the support that we've given when it comes to the announcement I joined the Prime Minister in making on the Holocaust Institute of Western Australia, for their education centre in Yokine, with some $2 million to ensure that that vision is fully realised. That is on top of the longstanding commitment I have had for what is now the very proud world-class facility known as the JHUB, the Jewish community hub in Yokine. I also commend them for their foresight in ensuring there was child care on that site.

We've made sure that we have serious support for local councils in the electorate of Perth to deliver when it comes to our community's determination to make sure there is housing for everyone who wants to live in the wonderful inner city of Perth. That includes the $1 million that we have delivered for housing studies in the City of Vincent to make sure we can do the planning work to get more housing into our inner city. It has been great to work with the City of Vincent mayor, Alison Xamon, in delivering that. It was similarly great to see the longstanding commitment of this government to the Ruah community centre turned into action. I was able to join the Premier at the end of last year for the opening of the new Ruah centre. What I know is that, when you take your local values and bring them here, determined to get results, you can therefore be confident that you are delivering for your community and that you're doing the right thing in our fundamental job of representing the people whom we are here to represent—those who send us here.

In my last few moments, I want to talk about when democracy goes really wrong. I want to talk about when democracy gets really sick and twisted. In 2017, I remember former Premier Colin Barnett and the WA Liberal Party—I think it was more those in the WA Liberal Party than Premier Barnett, to be fair—signing a comprehensive preference deal with One Nation. It shocked people at the time and, as a result, led to an absolutely catastrophic defeat of the Liberal Party in Western Australia. It was so bad that Scott Morrison, when he was Prime Minister in 2019, put One Nation below Labor on every ballot across the country. But what we learned today is that the Liberal Party of Western Australia is going down, digging into the One Nation rejects, and has chosen Sean Butler to be its state candidate in Perth. It is an absolute disgrace that the partnership between the Liberal Party and One Nation has rejoined— (Time expired)

Federation Chamber adjourned at 11:32