2022-08-02 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 2 August 2022

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

COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Workforce Australia Employment Services Committee 1 Appointment 1 12:01 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move the motion relating to the appointment of a Select Committee on Workforce Australia Employment Services in the terms in which it appears on the Notice Paper: That: (1) a House Select Committee on Workforce Australia Employment Services be appointed to inquire into and report on: (a) the implementation, performance and appropriateness of Workforce Australia Employment Services; (b) the extent to which Workforce Australia Employment Services delivers services in a way that is fair, leaves no one behind, respects individuals' diverse needs, and supports job seekers into secure work, in particular, its support for long term unemployed and young people; and (c) other matters in relation to Workforce Australia Employment Services; (2) the committee presents its final report by no later than 29 September 2023; (3) the committee may choose to table an interim report at any time; (4) the committee consist of: (a) seven voting members, four Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, two Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, and one cross-bench member to be nominated by the Opposition Whip; and (b) two supplementary (non-voting) members (one Government, one non-Government) who may be substituted from time to time as advised by the Government Whip or Whips (in the case of a supplementary Government member) and the Opposition Whip or Whips (in the case of a supplementary non-Government member); (5) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the Speaker of the House of Representatives; (6) the members of the committee hold office as a House select committee until presentation of the committee's final report or the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time, whichever is the earlier; (7) the committee elect a: (a) Government member as its chair; and (b) non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee; (8) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting; (9) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a casting vote; (10) three members of the committee including at least one Government member constitute a quorum of the committee; (11) the committee: (a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine or conduct public hearings; and (b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only; (12) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee, the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting; (13) two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee including at least one government member; (14) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum; (15) the committee or any subcommittee have power to: (a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced; (b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit; (c) sit in public or in private; (d) report from time to time; and (e) adjourn from time to time and sit during any adjournment of the House of Representatives; and (16) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 2 BUSINESS Days and Hours of Meeting 2 12:02 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move the motion relating to the proposed amendment to standing order 192 in the terms in which it appears on the Notice Paper: That standing order 192 be amended as follows: Figure 4. Federation Chamber indicative order of business The meeting times of the Federation Chamber are fixed by the Deputy Speaker and are subject to change. Times shown for the start and finish of items of business are approximate. Adjournment debates can occur on days other than Thursdays by agreement between the Whips. For the benefit of members, now that on Wednesdays and Thursdays we start here half an hour earlier, this amendment allows the Federation Chamber to start half an hour earlier than it otherwise would. Question agreed to. TARIFF PROPOSALS 2 TARIFF PROPOSALS Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 2) 2022 2 12:02 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I move: Custom Tariff Proposal (No. 2) 2022. The printed proposal is now being circulated to honourable members. Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 2) 2022 proposes to amend the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to make concessional item 57 to schedule 4 permanent and to expand the range of goods to which the concession applies. From 1 February 2022, temporary concessional item 57 provided a 'free' rate of customs duty for imported goods such as personal protective equipment and certain types of disinfectants. The concession was implemented and then extended as needed to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. The concession has been made permanent, providing a free rate of customs duty for these prescribed goods on a continuing basis where they are capable of limiting the transmission of pathogens and viruses to humans via droplets or airborne spread. From 1 July 2022 the scope of the concessions has also been expanded to cover active ingredients and primary receptacles that are used for medicants, vaccines and similar goods to be used in the treatment, prevention or to limit the severity of COVID-19. The permanency and expanded scope of this concession will facilitate greater responsiveness to the medical needs of the Australian community and retain simplified import processes to support business. Debate adjourned. Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 3) 2022 2 12:05 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I move: Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 3) 2022 The customs tariff proposal that I've just tabled applies an additional customs duty of 35 per cent from 25 April 2022 to imported goods that are the produce or manufacture of Russia or Belarus. The additional duty range of 35 per cent would be payable for goods that have left for direct shipment to Australia on or after 25 April 2022 from a place of manufacture or a warehouse in the country from which the goods were exported and that are imported between 25 April 2022 and 24 October 2022. Australia joins like-minded countries in removing the most favoured nation treatment previously accorded to goods imported from Russia. This increase in duty is in line with the increases imposed by the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States of America. This temporary measure is a response to Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, supported by Belarus, and is necessary for the protection of Australia's essential security interests. Russia's actions are a gross violation of international law, including the Charter of the United Nations. They violate Ukraine sovereignty and territorial integrity and undermine the rules based international order. Australia is committed to upholding these principles, which are essential to international, regional and domestic stability and security. The amendments contained in this proposal commenced on 25 April 2022. Debate adjourned. Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 4) 2022 3 12:07 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I move: Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 4) 2022 Today I table Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 4) 2022, which proposes to amend the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to provide a 'Free range of customs duty to goods that are the produce or manufacture of Ukraine.' All goods other than fuel, tobacco and alcohol, on which the duty rate equivalent to excise for domestic producers will continue to apply, are eligible for duty free entry into Australia. Goods that are imported between 4 July 2022 and 3 July 2023 that are the produce or manufacture of Ukraine within the meaning of division 1A of part VIII of the Customs Act 1901 will be eligible for the reduction in customs duty. Any concessional measure which provides a lower rate of customs duty than the general rate will continue to apply. This measure contributes to Ukraine's continued participation in international trade and supports efforts by Ukraine to uphold its territorial integrity. It was implemented in response to Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, which violates Ukraine sovereignty and territorial integrity and undermines the rules based order. Australia is committed to upholding these principles, which are essential to international, regional and domestic stability and security. The measures commenced on 4 July 2022. Debate adjourned. Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 5) 2022 3 12:09 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I move: Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 5) 2022. The proposal that I have tabled proposes to amend the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to provide a free rate of customs duty to imported new electric passenger motor vehicles that have a customs value that is less than the luxury car tax threshold for fuel-efficient vehicles. The Australian government is committed to providing access to affordable electric vehicles to all Australians, and this measure is part of this commitment. From 1 July 2022 passenger motor vehicles below this value threshold that are hybrid electric vehicles that can be recharged by being plugged to an external source of power, battery electric vehicles or hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles are able to be imported with no customs duty payable. This will simplify import processes for the businesses that import these vehicles and enable Australian families to access more environmentally friendly forms of transport. This measure complements the reduction in fringe benefits tax implemented by the Australian Taxation Office and, together with this reduction, commenced on 1 July 2022. Debate adjourned. PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS 3 PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS Speaker's Panel 3 12:11 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley Pursuant to standing order 17, I lay on the table my warrant nominating the honourable members for Sturt and Longman to be members of the Speaker's panel to assist the chair when requested to do so by the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker. COMMITTEES 4 COMMITTEES Agriculture and Water Resources Committee, Communications and the Arts Committee, Economics Committee, Employment, Education and Training Committee, Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water Committee, Health, Aged Care and Sport Committee, Regional Development, Infrastructure and Transport Committee, Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee, Petitions Committee, Privileges and Members' Interests Committee, Procedure Committee, Publications Committee 4 Membership 4 12:11 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley I have received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip nominating members to be members of certain committees. 12:11 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham by leave—I move: That members be appointed as members of certain committees in accordance with the list that has been placed on the table As the list is a lengthy one, I do not propose to read the list to the House. The details will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Question agreed to. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Committee, Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity Joint Committee, Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings Joint Committee, Corporations and Financial Services Joint Committee, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, Human Rights Joint Committee, Law Enforcement Joint Committee, Migration Joint Committee, National Capital and External Territories Joint Committee, National Disability Insurance Scheme Joint Committee, Parliamentary Library Joint Committee, Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee, Public Works Joint Committee, Trade and Investment Growth Joint Committee, Treaties Joint Committee, Electoral Matters Joint Committee, Implementation of the National Redress Scheme: Joint Select Committee, Parliamentary Standards Joint Select Committee 4 Membership 4 12:12 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley I have received messages from the Senate informing the House of appointment of senators to certain joint committees. As the list of appointments is a lengthy one, I do not propose to read the list to the House. Details will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Question agreed to. BILLS 5 BILLS Australian Human Rights Commission Legislation Amendment (Selection and Appointment) Bill 2022 5

Australian Human Rights Commission Legislation Amendment (Selection and Appointment) Bill 2022

Second Reading 5 12:13 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra The coalition doesn't oppose the Australian Human Rights Commission Legislation Amendment (Selection and Appointment) Bill 2022. The bill requires that appointments to the commission are made through a merit based and transparent process that is publicly advertised. The bill amends the Australian Human Rights Commission Act, the Age Discrimination Act, the Disability Discrimination Act, the Racial Discrimination Act and the Sex Discrimination Act to clarify that the maximum term of appointment for the president and commissioners is seven years, including any reappointments. The bill makes consistent qualification requirements for all commissioners by inserting a provision requiring the person to have appropriate qualifications, knowledge or experience. The government is making these amendments at the behest of the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions. Earlier this year, the global alliance threatened to downgrade Australia's human rights body's accreditation from an A status institution to a B status institution. Such a downgrade could mean that Australia's human rights bodies might not be able to fully participate in some international fora. It's worth looking more closely at the work of the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions. Accreditation processes in institutions like these are really designed to assist developing countries without a strong history of independent institutions, not countries like Australia who have a very strong history of independent institutions but from time to time have become victims to the activist grievance politics of international institutions. Some examples I will give in relation to the work of the global alliance's accreditation arrangements demonstrate that the global alliance often applies its accreditation processes inconsistently and produces strange results. For instance, Sweden's NHRI, the discrimination ombudsman, was downgraded to B status in 2011. The subcommittee determined its mandate was too narrow as it focused on equal rights but didn't consider non-discrimination. The subcommittee was also concerned it lacked independence, because government appoints and can remove the ombudsman without clear criteria. So Sweden, despite its strong human rights record, has a B status NHRI. Belgium's national human rights institution, or NHRI, the interfederal centre for equal opportunity, was given B status accreditation in 2018. The subcommittee was concerned its mandate was too narrow as it didn't cover the full range of human rights and was only responsible for combatting racism and discrimination. It acknowledged that, while in practice its mandate was interpreted broadly, it didn't have clear legislative backing for a broad human rights approach. It noted also there was no legal provision that required the NHRI to participate in international human rights processes and that it failed to submit reports to all UN treaty bodies during Belgium's periodic review. In March 2022, in the same review that Australia was threatened with a downgrade, some other countries which seemed to excite the same criticism as Australia had received from the global alliance nevertheless had their A status confirmed. For instance, Benin was accredited for the first time. Benin was given A status despite the subcommittee expressing concern that its appointments weren't independent or transparent. The report said the subcommittee: … is of the view that the process currently enshrined in the Law is not sufficiently broad and transparent. In particular, it does not: require the advertisement of vacancies for members; establish clear and uniform criteria; ensure that such criteria are uniformly used to assess the merit of eligible applicants; and promote broad consultation and/or participation in the application, screening, selection, and appointment process for all members. It sounds like the same criticism as the criticism made about Australia. Nevertheless Benin received A status. Gambia was accredited for the first time and was given A status despite the subcommittee expressing concern that they were not provided with evidence of provisions or practices that ensure ethnic, geographic, religious and minority representation. Austria was re-accredited with a status despite the subcommittee noting: …that the process currently enshrined in the Federal Constitutional Law is not sufficiently broad and transparent. In particular, the process does not: — Require the advertisement of vacancies, and — Promote broad consultations and or participation in the application, screening, selection and appointment process. Mexico was re-accredited with a status despite the subcommittee expressing concern that the enabling legislation was 'silent on the criteria used to determine the suitability of the candidates' and that 'the grounds for dismissal of members of the Advisory Council are not specified in the Law'. Germany also had it accreditation deferred, like Australia. The subcommittee found the mandate of Germany's NHRI was too narrow too narrow because it did not have sufficient inquiry and investigation functions. The subcommittee was concerned vacancies weren't publicly advertised. It advocated for uniform practices of publicly advertising vacancies and assessment of applications against predetermined objective and publicly available criteria. The subcommittee noted in practice terms of office were four years but this wasn't specified in the relevant legislation. You can see that there is a very different level of application of the work of the global alliance, and we shouldn't genuflect uncritically to its work. But despite its shortcomings, it is important to maintain Australia's membership of the global alliance so we can use our influence to reform those institutions. Australia's ongoing position as a leader of human rights in our region and further afield ensuring that the Human Rights Commission can retain it's A status accreditation. This will mean some important things for the Human Rights Commission and for Australia more broadly. It will mean that the Human Rights Commission can continue to have an independent voice in UN for a, including the Human Rights Council and some of the bodies of the UN General Assembly. The Human Rights Commission provides an additional Australian voice in UN discussions on human rights on top of that of our professional diplomats who represent us in these bodies. The Human Rights Commission is also able to engage directly with its counterpart bodies, which allows us to show leadership in our region and continue to build human rights competence in NHRIs through collaboration. In not opposing this bill we stand by the high-quality appointments to the Human Rights Commission that the coalition made in government. I particularly want to observe, note and thank them for the service and the contribution they have made to the discussion and protection of human rights in this country. In particular, I want to acknowledge the President of the Human Rights Commission, Ros Croucher; the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins; the Aboriginal social justice commissioner, June Oscar; the disability discrimination commissioners that we appointed, Alastair McEwin and Ben Gauntlett; the Children's Commissioner, Anne Hollonds; the Age Discrimination Commissioner, Kay Patterson; the Race Discrimination Commissioner, Chin Tan; and the three human rights commissioners that served during our time in office, Tim Wilson, Ed Santow and Lorraine Finlay. All of these people are distinguished Australians who made particular contributions to safeguarding and advancing human rights in this country and beyond. As the shadow minister for Indigenous Australians, I particularly want to commend the work that Tim Wilson did and was praised for by Indigenous leaders on Indigenous property rights. That is work that I wish to continue to pursue in my role as shadow minister. I also want to take this time, while we're talking about Australia's role in international human rights, to outline the coalition's strong international human rights record during the previous government. During the coalition's term in office, Australia was a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council for three years. As a liberal democracy with a commitment to human rights, Australia delivered on key priorities during our term on the council. We spoke out against Russia's attack on Ukraine and its people; against the Chinese Communist Party's human rights violations in Xinjiang province; against deteriorating human rights situations in North Korea, Afghanistan, Ethiopia and Myanmar; against the erosion of human rights in Hong Kong; against the erosion of democratic institutions in Venezuela; and against the humanitarian toll of the conflicts in Yemen and Syria. We led the Human Rights Council's action on national human rights institutions, advocating for the protection of human rights defenders. We advocated for the rights of women and girls, and we championed equal rights for the LGBTI community. We encouraged Fiji and other Pacific countries to become members of the Human Rights Council. We spoke out against the notorious item 7 of the Human Rights Council agenda, which singles out Israel for special treatment. We were consistent in raising our voice to promote the rights of Indigenous persons, to oppose the death penalty and to advocate for freedom of expression, freedom of the media and freedom of religious belief. Our three-year membership of the United Nations Human Rights Council came to a close at the end of 2020. However, the Morrison government continued to be guided by a commitment to strengthening the reach of international human rights, through our engagement as an observer at the Human Rights Council and the UN General Assembly Third Committee. To ensure Australia was actively engaging in the international system, then Prime Minister Morrison commissioned an audit by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade into Australia's engagement in key multilateral institutions like the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions—GANHRI. That audit, led by then foreign minister Marise Payne, examined Australia's engagement in these institutions. DFAT's audit recognised Australia's immense contribution, noting that there was more to be done. It also acknowledged the pressure these bodies were under; there were times when their performance struggled to achieve their agreed obligations. In the wake of that audit, our government recommitted Australia's efforts to ensure global institutions were fit for purpose, relevant and accountable to member states. The coalition's foreign policy mirrored this by supporting reforms in United Nations agencies and multilateral institutions to improve their transparency, accountability and effectiveness. The Morrison government directed its efforts to preserve three fundamental parts of the multilateral system: firstly, through rules that protect the sovereignty of nations, preserve peace and enable international trade and investment; secondly, by setting and adhering to international standards with regard to a range of issues that underpin the global economy; and thirdly, through the norms that underpin the universal human rights system and the rule of law. A prime example of Australia's international engagement was our role in seeking an independent review into the origins of the COVID-19 virus by the World Health Organization. A record 145 countries co-sponsored that resolution, in a significant moment of global consensus. Another example of the Morrison government's commitment to human rights can be seen in its response to the situation in Afghanistan. When the Taliban overthrew the Afghan government in 2021, they committed egregious human rights violations. The Morrison government stood in solidarity with the Afghan people in the face of great hardship. The Taliban dismantled more than 20 years of gains in the area of human rights in Afghanistan. Then foreign minister Marise Payne affirmed the coalition's support for Afghan people. She said: All Afghans should be able to enjoy their fundamental human rights. These rights are indivisible and inalienable, expressed in international human rights law, and endorsed by all members of the United Nations. Guided by the values of democracy, the rule of law, individual freedom and the rights of all to dignity and respect, the Morrison government committed $120 million to support immediate Afghan needs and humanitarian services. It also provided $20 million to support internally displaced people in Afghanistan and those neighbouring countries that were hosting Afghan refugees. The government's package was designed to cater for the settlement of Afghan nationals fleeing the humanitarian crisis in Afghan. The Morrison government also committed to more than 30,000 places through the humanitarian and family visa programs to ensure the safe resettlement of Afghan nationals in Australia. Not only was Australia a strong and unwavering advocate for the protection of human rights globally but we made critical reforms to our domestic law to ensure that we could continue to play our role supporting the international rules based order. An example of the Morrison government's human rights policy reforms was the expansion of Australia's autonomous sanctions laws through the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Magnitsky-style and Other Thematic Sanctions) Act 2021 and the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Magnitsky-style and Other Thematic Sanctions) Regulations 2021. These critical reforms gave Australia the ability to sanction individuals, as opposed to sanctioning states, for serious human rights abuses and violations. These reforms ensure that Australia may, where it is in our national interest, take action to impose costs upon, influence and deter those responsible for egregious situations of international concern but with a minimal impact on general populations. In conclusion, Australia has a strong human rights record. This legislation will ensure that there is no impediment to the Australian Human Rights Commission participating in international fora to continue to advance Australia's human rights agenda. 12:26 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley I'm not going to speak for too long on this piece of legislation, the Australian Human Rights Commission Legislation Amendment (Selection And Appointment) Bill 2022. I do want to address something that the member for Berowra said. He's just walked out, unfortunately. He said that this legislation has been brought forward at the behest of the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions. It's clear that Australia and the Australian Human Rights Commission retaining a status is an important reason for bringing forward this legislation, but so are the principles of transparency and merit based appointments. This is something that the Australian Human Rights Commission itself has asked for. The president of the commission, Emeritus Professor Rosalind Croucher, wrote to members of parliament on 1 August, this week. At paragraph 3 of her correspondence to all of the members of this place, she wrote: The Australian Human Rights Commission (Commission) has long advocated for these reforms to strengthen the integrity and independence of the Commission and unreservedly supports the passage of the Bill and the proposal for accompanying guidelines. Under the heading 'Why is the Bill necessary?' on the second page of the president's correspondence, paragraph 8 says: The existing legislation is not sufficient to support the legitimacy of the Commission, as it does not require all statutory appointments to be conducted through robust, merit-based processes. This affects public confidence and trust in the Commission and its appointed Commissioners. So while the criticism by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions has been ongoing for several years and is something that is worthy of consideration and a reason to support this legislation, what is fundamentally important to this legislation is public confidence and trust in the commission and its appointed commissioners. As Professor Croucher finishes at paragraph 24 of that correspondence to all members of this place: The Australian Human Rights Commission has advocated for these reforms for some time and unreservedly supports the passage of the Bill as a priority. In fact, one of the papers that the Human Rights Commission published in the last term of this parliament as part of their national consultation, called Free and Equal: a national conversation on human rights, was a position paper published in December of 2021. It said: One of the key findings of the Commission's work is that the existing system of federal discrimination law is primarily geared towards the remedial aspects of the obligations to respect and protect, and even with this as its main focus, it falls short of realising effective remediation for discrimination. The commission identified gaps in the protection offered by discrimination laws and significant questions for accessibility of the discrimination law system, particularly for marginalised and disadvantaged groups, suggesting inevitably that federal discrimination law could be more effective in meeting obligations to respect and protect rights. The position paper outlines the need to shift the focus of federal discrimination laws, in the view of the commission, to a more preventive approach and towards actions that better support the fulfilment of rights. Four major reform areas were identified in that position paper: building a preventive culture; modernising the regulatory framework; enhancing access to justice; and improving the practical operations of the laws. Under each of those major reform areas there were specific reforms that were suggested. I'm not going to go through all of them, but I want to make the point that one of the specific proposals under improving the practical operations of the laws was to specify that all commissioner appointments can only be made following a clear, transparent, merit based and participatory selection and appointment process. That's in a paper published in December 2021, well and truly within time for the previous Liberal government to have brought forward the legislation that the current Attorney-General has brought forward today to take up that suggestion. I want to endorse what the commission said in that position paper, as follows: 'Above all, reform should be seen as a shared endeavour, in which individuals, businesses, organisations and governments each actively contributes to and is assisted in reaching this outcome' of improving our discrimination and human rights laws and justice system. It is so pleasing to see the current Attorney-General acting so swiftly to bring this legislation forward. As the Attorney-General has said, this is necessary to bring forward trust and transparency in the process, and, as the member for Berowra pointed out, reaccreditation of the commission as an A-status national human rights institution, which is so important for our international reputation. But this legislation is also part of a commitment by the current Albanese Labor government, and those of us who are members of it, to being a government that respects, protects and enhances institutions which are central to or important for a functioning democracy, a democracy that, firstly, works for the people of Australia and, secondly, holds the trust of the people of Australia. It's something many of us on this side of the chamber have been talking about since our first speeches in this place—that one of the responsibilities we have as members of this parliament, as leaders in our community and in the nation, is to respect, reform and protect the institutions that are central to a functioning democracy and which have been battered all over the place under previous governments. There is much work to be done, and, as I've pointed out, in the human rights antidiscrimination space, many suggestions are in the position paper published in December last year. I want to end this brief contribution by saying, as I've said a number of times, that it is also important that we have in this country a conversation about a national bill or charter of human rights and responsibilities, which we don't have. If we needed any greater impetus for why that conversation is necessary, perhaps some of the discussions about what our rights and responsibilities are during COVID should ring the alarm bells, because of the way some of our rights and responsibilities are misunderstood in this country. Many people don't know that we don't have a national bill of rights and talk about American rights as if they're Australian rights. They don't know that these rights aren't in our Constitution and they don't know where to go to find out what their rights and responsibilities are. We also need, in my view, a national bill or charter of rights so that we have the necessary legislative framework to discuss, consider, weigh and give effect to rights and responsibilities—which often jut up against each other, sometimes are compatible and sometimes have to be weighed against each other—so that we can stop considering human rights in silos or as the political topic of the day and we can consider them in a legislative framework, and members of this place and members of our broader community can have the language in which to have constructive conversations about what human rights and responsibilities are. 12:35 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to speak on the Australian Human Rights Commission Legislation Amendment (Selection and Appointment) Bill 2022 as per the member for Berowra's position. We in the opposition are supporting the passage of this bill. It has been outlined what the bill achieves through putting in place some statutory measures around appointments, a merit based system of appointments, in a structured and statutory way within the act, which we believe will restore an accreditation to the national human rights institutions body, as has been foreshadowed in previous contributions. I would like to just make sure that this bill is not in any way a reflection on people who have been appointed to the Human Rights Commission under the existing provisions and that this change is not in any way seen to be a criticism of people who currently hold or have previously held office at the Human Rights Commission. The member for Berowra mentioned appointments made by the previous government, and I endorse his comments. I'd particularly like to take the opportunity to thank the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins, for the work that she does and has done, particularly the body of work that she did in the previous parliament around this workplace, because we really owe her an enormous debt of gratitude for that and the opportunity it provides us to change this place. I was surprised and very disappointed at some of the elements of that report into the parliament as a workplace. I think everyone in this chamber would share that perspective, particularly those who are new to the chamber and weren't here when that body of work was undertaken. There are a lot of people who have had different experiences with this building over the years, serving as members of parliament or staff members or political volunteers et cetera. A lot of people have had interaction with this place. It should set the highest standard for any workplace in the rest of our nation, and people should look to the parliament with pride as to as how we are respectful and provide a respectful workplace, although the people here won't agree. We shouldn't agree. We should disagree. We should have good debates in this chamber and in the other fora that are presented to us within this building, because we're engaging in a contest of ideas and we're talking about the future of our nation. It's vitally important that we have debates and discussions and bring different perspectives to those processes in this building. But it is equally important that the people who serve here, and the people who work for the people who serve here—not just staff members but the people who are engaged in a whole variety of ways to support this building to function—know that they are coming to serve in a safe and respectful workplace. Disappointingly there were submissions to that process that Kate Jenkins undertook that clearly demonstrated that, for a long period of time, in some cases that hasn't been the case. That is appalling and completely unacceptable, and we should make whatever changes are necessary—and we will, obviously, as a parliament, and we already have done things. But we should do absolutely anything we need to to make sure that we are safeguarding this building and this workplace as a place that is safe and respectful to everyone who is here. I really do thank commissioner Jenkins for that process. I thought it was very thorough and inclusive. Everyone had the opportunity to participate in providing confidential feedback and submissions into that process. I think she ran a very respectful process that made people feel comfortable and safe in sharing their experiences and bringing forward not only things that had not been pleasant, but also things that had, and also constructive proposals to how we could make changes based on those experiences. She developed an excellent report and some of the elements of that have already been put in place, and others will be in the near future. I think the most important thing about it—and I believe that I have noticed in the last 18 months or so that this has been something that we've heavily engaged in as a topic—which no legislative change or rule change can bring about, is a culture change in this building. I believe that I have noticed that there's a culture change in some subtle ways as well as some clearer ways. I think it is an excellent thing that a spotlight has been shone on the need to ensure that the workplace here in this parliament is safe and respectful, and that came about because of the work of Kate Jenkins, so I pay tribute to her and other people who have been appointed to the Human Rights Commission. I don't believe that this legislation should in any way be seen as a criticism of people who have already served and been appointed prior to these changes being brought about, but I am equally very happy to support these changes to increase the robustness. We in the Liberal Party are very much in favour of meritocracy and merit based appointments. Perhaps I could suggest to the government that you don't only need to a have good, strong merit based approach to appointments to the Human Rights Commission, but in all of the appointments that you're making as an executive you might choose to reflect on running a particularly similar process to the one that's outlined through this legislation—advertising of roles, having a robust process in place to select the best candidate for any appointment that you get to make as a government. Clearly we will have bipartisan support to these changes, which achieve the objective of ensuring that we are seen on the international stage to have the very best and most robust Human Rights Commission that meets all of those international tests that are put in place for the membership of the peak body and also that all Australians can have a confidence in. With those brief words, I commend the bill to the House. 12:42 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein Well, process—wow! What a great thing to see: people being appointed based on merit rather than ideology. This bill, as I understand it, would ensure that the Attorney-General must hold an open and accountable, advertised recruitment process to ensure that appointments are made on merit and not through party political largesse, and that's a good thing. I think the bill should be supported, but it also represents an opportunity to raise a key issue in relation to commissioners that we don't have, and specifically a commissioner that I think is well overdue and that's an LGBTQI+ human rights commissioner. Specifically, there are currently commissioners on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social justice issues, age discrimination, disability discrimination, children, race discrimination, sex discrimination and human rights. These are standalone commissioners with a statutory mandate and resources for their area of expertise and experience, but there is no commissioner for our LGBTQI+ community. I think the arrangements under the commission for that community are inadequate. Traditionally the human rights of the LGBTQI+ community were part of the Human Rights Commissioner's portfolio, but with that portfolio also holding religious freedom in recent history I think there's been a conflict between those two areas. We know that in the last parliament this led to a toxic debate that caused great distress to members of the LGBTQI+ community, particularly transpeople, compounding mental health issues for children in this community particularly. For that reason, I think that direct representation is needed. The absence of this specific commissioner diminishes the reality of the community I'm talking about and the discrimination these members of our community experience day-to-day. Not having a specific commissioner presents this community as a low priority and overshadowed by other forms of discrimination, which do have a dedicated commissioner under this commission. The absence of a specific role means that no-one at the Human Rights Commission has the resources or the specific experience to advocate and articulate the concerns of this community in terms of legislation, policy reform or public education. It also means that people who are members of our LGBTIQA+ community have no-one specific that they can go to if they experience discrimination or may be confused or deterred from lodging a complaint as they feel they are not specifically catered for. We see evidence internationally that culture wars against the LGBTIQA+ community are getting worse and in this country we've seen it too: debates in this place around transgender women in sport, debates in the public arena about Pride jumpers in the NRL, about books in schools and about sacking teachers in faith school environments, and in recent events in the public arena—for example, in Victoria and a plan for a rainbow light exhibition at the war memorial had to be cancelled because of threats against the staff. All of these things lend weight to the cause for having a specific commissioner to cater for this community. I note a recent survey by Just Equal of 2½ thousand LGBTIQA+ people across Australia showed that 84 per cent supported a direct commissioner and allies of the community, 81 per cent, also supported a specific commissioner. This, I think, is an opportunity to achieve that through this legislation. With respect to members of the Goldstein community who have advocated for this, I stand here on your behalf today. I also would like to acknowledge, as a mark of respect, my colleague, the member for Brisbane, who has also advocated on this and, I believe, will move a second reading amendment. 12:47 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise to speak on this Australian Human Rights Commission Legislation Amendment (Selection and Appointment) Bill 2022. For those not familiar with the provisions of the bill, it seeks to establish a merits based process for the selection of commissioners and senior executives of the Australian Human Rights Commission, consistent with the United Nations General Assembly principles. This is an element that has been lacking in the past and has led to concerns raised by Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions subcommittee and a deferral of the reaccreditation as an A-status national human rights institution—so clearly something that is urgent and necessary to remedy. The Australian Human Rights Commission is one of many public bodies that have been the subject of politicisation in their appointments. Anyone in New South Wales could not fail to know the discussion that is occurring at the moment around that issue of politicisation of appointments. It really does need to stop because the Australian public need to have confidence in appointments to such important bodies, to ensure that it is merit based, that it is the right people doing these jobs. We need to have confidence in the process. In fact, the new member for Goldstein would be aware that concerns were repeatedly raised in relation to the former member for Goldstein around his appointment of the current commissioner, given their links to parties appointing them. There cannot be politicisation around these appointments. It really is incredibly important. Of course, this is not the only body where it has occurred. A report was released by the Grattan Institute recently. Its published report showed that political appointees occupied 21 per cent of federal government board positions that are well paid, powerful, prestigious and influential. More than one in five federal government business boards have a political connection. In contrast, just two per cent of ASX 100 company board members who exercise similar responsibilities have a political connection. In the lead-up to the last election we saw great criticism of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal appointments. This is one body amongst so many others. Locally in Warringah we have the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust, which has great responsibility for the management and conservation of iconic sites around our harbour, particularly 10 Terminal and the North Head ex-military sites. It's so important that we have boards and organisations that are equipped with skilled people to actually do the job that needs to be done. We need to put an end to the jobs for mates, the cronyism. There should be transparent, merit based selection processes for all public appointments. This bill is a good start. I commend the government for their swift action in addressing the issue here, but we need to extend these provisions across the board to all public appointments. I support the call for a new public appointments commissioner, who could be appointed to oversee the transition process and maintain a watchful eye on developments in this space overall. We need to restore trust in the public for the appointments that come from this place and for appointments in institutions that underpin our way of life and support management and decision-making on the ground. The Australian Human Rights Commission conducts such important work. It really is essential that those appointed to the commission are of the highest calibre. In that sense I'd like to commend Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins for the incredible work she has done over the last few years in relation to the Respect@Work report and the Set the standard review in relation to this workplace. It's clear that commissioners play a really important role. I need to take note of an amendment proposed by the member for Brisbane because it is clear that in Warringah during the election we had very inflammatory debates about members of our community and their opportunity for inclusion. I have to say that it did raise concerns for me. There was a lack of information in the public domain about the real status of the law when it came to transgender rights and issues within the LGBTQI community. I am concerned that issues that are specific to members of the LGBTQI community do at times get overlooked or submerged into the greater responsibilities of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, so I do think there is merit in there being a more specific mandate for addressing those issues. I certainly know in the case of the federal election campaign in Warringah there was a huge amount of misinformation when it came to transgender women's participation in sport. I really felt that there was a lack of leadership coming from the Human Rights Commission to really establish clearly the true facts and where the law actually sits. I do believe for many groups in our society it is important there is a human rights commissioner taking care of the specific issues that are addressed. I commend the member for Brisbane for his proposed amendment and I commend the government for this bill, which is the first step in the right direction. 12:54 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong I speak to support the suggestion of the member for Goldstein for the creation of a specific human rights commissioner for the LGBTQI community. It's a measure I wholeheartedly support. The LGBTQI+ community has been urging for a dedicated commissioner for decades, without any support from government. The creation of this role with the Human Rights Commission would see LGBTIQA+ communities afforded the same representation on the commission as Australians marginalised by their race, disability, gender, age and their status as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders. There is a clear and urgent need for a dedicated LGBTIQA+ human rights commissioner. The absence of such diminishes the reality of discrimination against this group of individuals. The absence of such means that no-one at the AHRC has the resources or experience to advocate and articulate the concerns of the community in legislation, policy reform or public education. The absence of such means that LGBTIQA+ people who are experiencing discrimination can be deterred from lodging a complaint as it appears that they're not catered for. This perception is often reinforced in older individuals through their historical experience of being ignored and neglected. It is not ideal for LGBTIQA+ issues to be dealt with by another commissioner or the president, because of potential conflicts with their portfolios. Recent debates around transgender women in sport, pride jumpers in the NRL, books in schools, banning conversion practices and sacking teachers in faith schools all illustrate the need for a clear and dedicated voice at the AHRC. Some states have weak, inadequate and outdated provisions for addressing LGBTIQA+ discrimination. In these cases, complainants will often look to the Commonwealth to redress the issue. 12:56 Mr BATES 300246 Brisbane I would like to start by saying thank you so much to the members for Goldstein, Kooyong and Warringah for their support. The Greens seek to amend the Australian Human Rights Commission Legislation Amendment (Selection and Appointment) Bill 2022 to provide for a LGBTQIA+ human rights commissioner. We've been approached by Just.Equal, who raised the very real issue that this reform does not go far enough. We will move for the well overdue appointment of a stand alone LGBTQIA+ human rights commissioner. I realised, I forgot to move this amendment—apologies. I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House calls on the Government to establish a Human Rights Commissioner for LGBTIQA+ people within the Australian Human Rights Commission". The lack of such a commissioner is an obvious oversight that we can remedy here today. This remedy would send a strong and clear message to the LGBTIQA+ community that the era of the homophobia and transphobia from the previous government has come to an end, and signal a new approach in engaging with and protecting communities that have suffered systemic oppression for centuries. The community is not asking for anything unreasonable. There already exists commissioners for race discrimination, disability discrimination and so many others. It is vitally important that the LGBTQIA+ community have the same protection of our rights afforded to us. A substantial number of LGBTQIA+ people call my electorate of Brisbane home. I move this amendment to give greater security not only to my electorate but also to the hundreds of thousands of people across this country who identify as LGBTQIA+. As a community, we experience higher rates of homelessness than our straight counterparts; lesbian and gay individuals are twice as likely to stay in crisis accommodation or sleep rough. One in five trans and gender diverse people have experienced homelessness at some point in their lives. This story continues into mental health as well. Young queer people between 16 and 27 are five times more likely than their straight counterparts to attempt suicide. Young trans people are 15 times more likely. This cannot wait. Our communities are already in crisis and suffering at the hands of government inaction. It is fundamental that we examine the impacts of the policy decisions and laws we pass and make in this place on the LGBTIQA+ community. We have seen the awful treatment of the queer community through the marriage equality plebiscite, the Religious Discrimination Bill, the rise of authoritarianism around the world and through the platforming of hateful transphobic views by the previous government in particular. The model proposed for this commissioner has similar functions to the existing Human Rights Commissioner but with a special focus on the queer community. This includes raising awareness of human rights impacts, research and education, and examining existing and proposed laws to assess their likely impact on LGBTQIA+ people. The need for the commissioner is clear. If not now, when? Our communities are calling out for it. It is our duty to get this done. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Is the amendment seconded? Mr Chandler-Mather 300121 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 13:00 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I thank the honourable members for their contributions to the debate on this bill. This bill will restore integrity to appointments to the Australian Human Rights Commission and help maintain the commission's international credibility, as part of our broader commitment to the international rules based order. This bill is an essential part of the government's integrity agenda and will implement our election commitment to ensure that appointments to the commission are made through a merit based and transparent selection process. In addition, this bill will address the concerns raised by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions Sub-Committee on Accreditation when it deferred the commission's reaccreditation as an A-status national human rights institution. The effective functioning of our antidiscrimination system is dependent on the proper functioning of the Australian Human Rights Commission. It is essential that the commission is able to function as an independent statutory body and that the public has confidence that the commissioners that represent their communities are appointed solely on the basis of merit. To address these concerns, the bill legislates a merit based and transparent appointments process for members of the commission by amending relevant provisions of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, the Age Discrimination Act 2004, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, the Racial Discrimination Act 1995 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. The bill will remove the ability of direct appointments to the commission without a merit based and publicly advertised selection process. Further, to address concerns raised by the Sub-Committee on Accreditation, the bill also addresses the tenure of members of the commission. The bill amends these acts to clarify that the total term of the president and commissioners is seven years, inclusive of any reappointment. Finally, the bill will make minor amendments to ensure consistency in the qualification requirements for the president and the statutory commissioners. A number of honourable members have raised broader concerns about the Australian Human Rights Commission, including the member for Brisbane, who has moved a second reading amendment calling for the creation of a new statutory position of LGBTIQA+ commissioner at the Human Rights Commission. The government will not support that second reading amendment. Let's be clear about this: the effect of the second reading amendment, if it succeeds, would be to negate the bill, to stop these important measures that are contained in this bill from coming into effect. The House should reject this second reading amendment. This bill solely concerns the process for the selection and appointment of existing statutory members of the commission. The bill is being progressed as a priority in order to urgently and directly address the concerns raised by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions in its deferral of the reaccreditation of the commission as an A-status national human rights institution. While we of course understand the strong sentiment expressed by members of the community in support of a dedicated LGBTIQA+ commissioner, this bill is not the vehicle to create such a position. The government recognises that it is important to consider how best the commission can operate to promote and protect the human rights of all members of the Australian community, including LGBTIQA+ people. I acknowledge and commend the work that the commission already undertakes in relation to LGBTIQA+ rights, which is led by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins. There will no doubt be further discussion on this proposal, as well as, I hope, discussion on other opportunities to strengthen the work of the commission in the future. The critical issue that this bill will address is restoring the international standing of the commission by urgently addressing the specific issues around transparent and merit based appointments raised by the global alliance to support the commission's reaccreditation. Broader concerns regarding the structure and operation of the commission should be considered separately to this important bill. I note that the opposition and crossbench members who have spoken have said that they support the bill. I thank the shadow Attorney-General for his support and for his contribution to the debate and thank those crossbench members for their expressed support for the bill. An independent human rights commission is fundamental to Australia's human rights agenda, both internationally and domestically. This government strongly supports the work of the Australian Human Rights Commission and is committed to restoring integrity to the process of commissioner appointments. As I've said, the bill will support the commission's reaccreditation as an A-status human rights institution, which is necessary for its international legitimacy and credibility. Most importantly, the bill reaffirms our commitments to restoring integrity to government. I do thank again all honourable members of the House for their contributions to the debate and commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Brisbane has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be disagreed to. A division being required, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until the discussion of the matter of public importance. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022 13

Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022

Second Reading 13 13:07 Mr BURKE DYW Watson For the information of the House, before you call the shadow Treasurer, I'd reported privately to members, and had also made clear on the floor of the House yesterday, that we needed to get a bill across to the Senate before question time. At that time, I was unaware of the second reading amendment being moved to the previous bill, which members are entitled to move, but I was unaware until this morning of that happening. I didn't realise a division was going to be called. That being said, after the shadow Treasurer speaks, because I'll allow that, I will probably be in a position where I have to move that the question be put on this bill, otherwise we will get to question time without having actually sent any legislation across to the Senate. 13:08 Mr 231027 Hume TAYLOR () (): The opposition welcomes this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022, to the extent that it extends and implements the key measures of the former government's economic plan. The bill delivers key measures of this commitment to provide cost-of-living relief to disaster affected communities, to support women's sport and to cut red tape for businesses. The bill brings together a number of treasury measures which were included in bills that lapsed at the election. It covers measures that include schedule 1, implementing important protections around recovery grants for Cyclone Seroja; schedule 2, supporting transitional provisions relating to the repeal of the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993; schedule 3, implementing the income tax and withholding exemptions for the FIFA Women's World Cup; and schedule 4, making a number of minor and technical amendments, including tidying up drafting errors and consequential amendments in previous legislation and extending the automatic commencement date for the Modernising Business Registers bill. This is an uncontroversial bill which wouldn't normally be debated, and the fact we are debating it points to the lack of economic plan from this government. We could be debating cost-of-living relief measures to support families and businesses, but we are debating this instead. Schedule 4, among many minor and technical changes, extends the automatic commencement date for Modernising Business Registers. A lot's been written about this in recent days. All decisions taken with regard to the Modernising Business Registers program were included in the coalition's 2022-23 budget and independently confirmed by the secretaries of Treasury and Finance at the 2022 Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook. Noting the minister's comments in his second reading speech, I must add that the government's attempt to politicise this would have more credibility if they weren't running ahead with a plan to further drive up debt and government spending. The fact is that this government went to the election proposing to run bigger deficits. That's what they went to the election with. This was confirmed by the independent Parliamentary Budget Office, which showed the platform this government took to the election would make the budget bottom line worse. In contrast, the PBO confirmed that the coalition were the only parties that went to the election with a pathway to improve the budget bottom line. So, while the opposition will be supporting this bill, the attempted politicisation of this measure by the government, despite their supposed support of it, is a damning example of their approach to economic policy. Modernising Business Registers is a key deregulation measure that will cut red tape, reduce the compliance burden and support small businesses around Australia to manage their own affairs. This will support small business owners to save time, making it easier to deal with government and cutting red tape that's a drag on productivity. business owners' time and the resources of government. The Modernising Business Registers program will unify the systems and data, allowing users to manage their registrations and compliance in one location. We took action in government to reduce business costs and make interactions with government simpler and quicker by modernising our business registers. While we welcome the government's commitment to continue the program, it is astounding that they have delayed this measure until next year or the year after or the year after that. Indeed, for a key productivity measure, the government seem happy to kick it into the long grass all the way to 2026. So, while we do not oppose this bill, as it continues a lot of good work of the previous coalition government, we call upon the government once again to outline a plan to address the challenges facing Australia's economy. The government can make choices to address these pressures. The opposition can, and will, hold them to account for how they respond to those pressures. The risk for Australia is that this government will make a bad situation worse. At the moment, the only plan the government has is to make Australians poorer. 13:12 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That the question be now put. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The question is that the question be now put. Question agreed to. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The question is that the bill be now read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Third Reading 14 13:14 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. BILLS 14 BILLS Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022 14

Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022

Second Reading 14 13:16 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin Can I, at the outset, make very clear to the House that the opposition opposes this bill? There are few times in opposing a bill when we so clearly and with so much certainty know what the consequences of the bill will be. It's very clear that the consequences of this bill will be devastating for so many communities around our nation—in fact, for a number of communities that suffer from the most antisocial behaviour that any of us could imagine. There is a consequence of this bill that I would be shocked that members of the government are not aware of. We know it will lead to some of the gravest situations you could imagine. By abolishing the cashless debit card we know that the flood of alcohol and drugs into the communities of Ceduna, East Kimberley and the Goldfields in WA, and Bundaberg and Hervey Bay in Queensland will increase. The flood of alcohol and drugs into those communities will be unleashed. There are very few times when we can say with so much certainty what the consequences of a government decision will be, but here the evidence is clear: more alcohol and more drugs in these communities will lead to misery—and misery for the most vulnerable people, misery for the children who will be neglected by those who will now have more ready access to alcohol and drugs. There will be more children who will be abused in circumstances of drug-affected individuals perpetrating that violence, including sexual violence, on those children. We know that the incidence of domestic violence as a result of the additional alcohol and drugs in these communities will be borne by the most vulnerable, predominantly women, in those communities. I know that we often come to this chamber and very critically look at the motives and intentions of our political opponents. In my nine years here I've been a person who has found very few members on either side of the chamber who don't generally have good intentions. What shocks me about this bill is that otherwise decent people in the government that I know personally would support something that is going to have such an obvious and devastating consequence for countless individuals: people who won't be organising marches in the street, people who won't be organised and able to voice the misery that they will face. This will be borne by the most vulnerable people. We know of instances of children in these communities locking themselves in shipping containers overnight to ensure that they are safe from sexual violence and other violence and the perpetrators, and so the outcome of this bill, which is to flood these communities with more alcohol and drugs, is a shocking thing that I am just utterly surprised that members opposite could support or, indeed, a credible party could take to an election. Let's look at some of the examples of people in these communities and what they say about the cashless debit card. These are not people in Canberra, but people in the communities who have used the cashless debit card or have seen the benefits of it. A community paramedic in Ceduna said, 'Since the CDC we've definitely seen a decline in domestic violence, alcohol consumption and numbers of people presenting to ED at the hospital.' That's from a community paramedic. Or we can listen to a community elder in Ceduna who said: 'Our people are coming home in boxes due to alcohol and drugs. We go on the CDC to support our people.' Indeed, we should listen to them rather than listening to the minister who has not consulted with these communities. I was on a phone call with capital city mayors from the goldfields who have not heard from the minister or the assistant minister. They've been forgotten in this process. We keep hearing about the consultation. Has the assistant minister consulted with capital city mayors in the goldfields? Are they lying? Is that what the assistant minister is saying, that they are lying? Those people who weren't consulted say this: 'I like the CDC because I save more money. It lasts longer and I can buy clothes.' Another CDC participate said the following: 'Women like it. It's good for kids. I am on it. It's better. No hassles.' Now, you wouldn't have to dig too deep to find these examples. You wouldn't have to go too far to find out what people are saying or hear from a counsellor and a former police prosecutor: 'The numbers of people presenting to court have declined. We used to hold court once a month. This has now declined to once every two months, to a decline in numbers.' Or listen to a collaboration project coordinator, 'The CDC has been terrific for the town in reducing violence, increasing tourism, improving safety for women.' Or listen to the CEO of the shire of Ceduna: 'Don't take it away. Look out the window. Take a walk around. See the difference for yourself.' These are direct quotes from people who are either living in communities where the CDC operates or have been placed on the CDC themselves. I can tell members opposite that each of the communities that are now staring down the barrel of losing the CDC are waiting with trepidation and fear—trepidation and fear of what is going to be unleashed. You don't need to be a Rhodes scholar to work out that if you pump more alcohol and more drugs into these communities, the outcomes can never be good. You don't need to be a genius to work that out. The Prime Minister, showing his remarkable blind ideology, used as a rationale in question time for removing the CDC that it was utilising the services of a private provider in our welfare system. Who operated the BasicsCard that the Labor Party put in place? It was Indue, a private provider. So those ministers and assistant ministers on their training wheels with L-plates on need to get their staff to dig a bit more, because they clearly don't know what they are talking about. In any event, how could otherwise decent people support something that you know is going to deliver misery? I'm not a person who would often come into this chamber and made those sorts of accusations, because I do believe most people in this chamber are inherently decent individuals, whom we happen to disagree with from time to time on issues. This is clear-cut. We know what the consequences are going to be. The coalition is very proud of the cashless debit card. It emanated from the Forrest Review, which we put in place in 2013. A huge amount of work went into putting this in place. To see a government willing to sacrifice the most vulnerable people in those communities is shocking to so many Australians, and shocking and hurtful to the people in these communities who will suffer the most. As of 1 July, there are just under 18,000 participants using this card. To outline some of its basic features for those who might be listening who don't know enough about it: it's a Visa debit card that's issued by a payments company— Mr SUKKAR 242515 Well, with Indue, whom you put in place to control the BasicsCard, so you might want to get your researchers to look at that. The L-plate assistant minister should get her staff looking at that to help her Prime Minister in question time, who made a fool of himself. It reduces the amount of cash that can be withdrawn to use for illicit purposes, such as alcohol and drugs. Cardholders can use the card at any physical and online store that accepts Visa—it's user-friendly—and 80 per cent of the recipient's welfare payment is quarantined onto the card. Mr Deputy Speaker, you might ask where the 80 per cent came from. The 80 per cent was initially the recommendation of Indigenous groups. That was where the 80 per cent came from. This CDC has had a long history, but that is where it commenced. The 80 per cent quarantine amount came from those Indigenous groups. The remaining 20 per cent of the recipient's social security payments are transferred into the recipient's bank account and can be withdrawn and used without restriction. It's been operating since 15 March 2016 in the east Kimberley of Western Australia; from 26 April in the Goldfields in WA; from 26 March 2018 in Bundaberg; and in Hervey Bay since 29 January 2019. It was part of a suite of measures to provide support to these communities, not only removing the scourge of drug and alcohol-affected violence in these communities but also adding a $30 million jobs fund, a Job-ready initiative and $50 million for drug and alcohol residential rehabilitation facilities. This led to the WA police commissioner, Col Blanch, saying at the time: It gives opportunity for the more senior people in families and the Elders and some of the Aboriginal communities to use the money on food for the kids and other things … It just seems to settle the community down and gives them better opportunity to spend their money on priority needs. In reflecting on, again, the people who will suffer— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 16 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Corangamite Electorate: Climate Change 16 13:30 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite Congratulations on your role, Deputy Speaker Claydon. I am proud to announce that I'm running a climate project for students in my region for the second year in a row. The Corangamite Schools Climate Change Challenge is a project I started in 2021 to help schools reduce their carbon emissions. I have been delighted to see the passion and enthusiasm of primary and secondary students in my region who last year undertook to reduce waste, increase recycling efforts in their schools and raise awareness about climate change and the impact it's having on our planet. I was impressed to see how dedicated students were to this project and the level of detail they provided. Some students collected data on energy use in their schools and calculated how many tonnes of CO2 they could save if they implemented some simple measures like walking to school and composting food waste. This year, I have invited all secondary and primary students to register to participate in the next challenge, which will run throughout term 3 and end with a prize for the best project in each division. I encourage all schools in my electorate to take part in this challenge. It's a great way to integrate climate initiatives into subjects like maths, science, English, communications, arts and design, and it's a fantastic way for students to feel empowered and to encourage their families to get involved too. Biosecurity: Foot-and-Mouth Disease 16 13:31 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest Farmers right around Australia are very concerned about foot-and-mouth disease. The government really needs to increase the resources to assist Indonesia to manage foot-and-mouth disease at its source in that country. They need to increase the resources at our border, and I would ask that every passenger and every bit of luggage be checked because every returning passenger is a potential risk. We heard in a briefing that the government's been relying on a risk based approach to this with incoming passenger cards. We know that not everybody tells the truth on those cards. We saw that with the burger issue in Darwin yesterday. Everyone returning is a potential risk to Australia and our agricultural and regional communities. So I want to see every passenger screened and every bit of luggage checked, along with the other resources we need to put in place to manage this. How many passengers have actually returned from Indonesia post the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak? How many have actually been screened and had their luggage checked? One positive case, anywhere in Australia, will stop all meat exports for at least two years. That's what we heard. We know that 70 per cent of Australia's livestock production is exported and, certainly, 90 per cent of Western Australia's livestock production is exported. This is very, very serious to our farming and regional communities. Robertson Electorate: Free Trade Day 17 13:33 Dr REID 300126 Robertson Congratulations on your new role, Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon. Since 2017, Free Trade Day has been assisting residents in my electorate of Robertson and across Australia with household repairs and maintenance free of charge. These residents may have otherwise gone without assistance if not for the annual program, which brings together Central Coast tradespeople for a day of supporting residents affected by financial barriers. The founder of Free Trade Day, Ryan Wilson, started the program because he saw, far too often, residents who were unable to get essential household repairs and maintenance work completed because they could not afford to organise assistance. COVID-19 did put a stop to the program for the past three years, but it's back for 2022 and ready to help residents of the Central Coast again. This year's program will take place on 26 August, and residents can nominate a family member or friend for assistance by visiting the website, freetradeday.com.au. I also encourage any tradespeople who are willing to contribute to making this day a success to reach out and get involved. I would like to thank, from the bottom of my heart, Ryan Wilson, the Lions Club of Terrigal-Wamberal and all the businesses that are involved in this year's program. Well done. Regional Funding 17 13:34 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina The absolute benefit of federal funding was brought home to me again on Saturday, when I attended the home game for the Narrandera Imperial Eagles against the Mangoplah Cookardinia United Eastlakes Goannas. Narrandera is not in my electorate; it's in Farrer, and I commend Sussan Ley for what she's done for that electorate. Two million dollars has gone into the home of football's new clubhouse and change room facility. If ever there was a project that benefits all of Riverina, even though it's not in my electorate, it is this—certainly for sport. When I think of federal funding, I look around my electorate and I see the main street upgrades at Cootamundra, Cowra, Forbes, Grenfell, Gundagai and Parkes—it sounds like one of those 'I've been everywhere, man'. But you can't over-emphasise the benefit of this federal funding. I know that the mayor of Temora, Councillor Rick Firman OAM, extolls the virtues of the Temora Airport upgrade. It received significant funding—$5.353 million—and included the Temora aerodrome, runway and associated main apron and taxiways, which were made safer, and that wonderful facility, that museum—if you haven't been there, you need to visit. Temora is a showpiece when it comes to aviation excellence. I can't commend enough the regional funding that we previously provided as a coalition government. It makes such a difference to building community capacity in those country communities. Hasluck Electorate: Environment 17 13:36 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck I congratulate you, Deputy Speaker Claydon, on your new position. I rise today to inform the House of a passionate community volunteer group in my electorate of Hasluck: Save Perth Hills. Save Perth Hills are absolutely committed to fighting for their local community, the environment and the many species that inhabit the region. Of particular concern to Save Perth Hills is the proposed North Stoneville development. This proposed development has been rejected by the Shire of Mundaring, by the WA Planning Commission and, importantly, by our community. In my view, the shire and the WAPC made the right decision, and I congratulate and support the contributions Save Perth Hills made to secure this outcome for our community. The decisions on planning and development are primarily for the state government, but where the federal government can act, I want to restate my commitment to advocate for my community and to ensure that local voices are heard on these issues. This government has already demonstrated a desire to strengthen protections for our natural environment and to act on climate change. As my colleague the Minister for the Environment and Water outlined in her speech to the National Press Club, we will be guided by three goals in relation to the environment—to protect, to restore and to manage. This includes reform of our environment laws and the empowerment of a new environmental regulation agency to enforce them. COVID-19: Higher School Certificate Students 18 13:38 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney I rise today to wish all the students sitting their HSC trials in both this and the coming weeks all the very best of luck, especially the 6,000 or more students studying across 15 secondary campuses in my electorate of North Sydney. We may still be referring to these as extraordinary times; however, the reality is that this is the third year of disrupted learning due to COVID-19 and young Australians need our support more than ever. A survey recently published in the Sydney Morning Herald showed that 82 per cent of 16- to 24-year-olds reported that they had experienced mental health issues during the COVID-19 pandemic and that 42 per cent of their mental health issues had become worse in that time. We can and must do more to support our kids by increasing early intervention services on the ground in communities where young people need them and then ensuring we are focusing on implementing evidence-based platforms of care in our communities. Like many of the challenges currently facing us in Australia, having spoken to a number of people across our country, I'm confident that it is not the case that we don't know what we should be doing. Rather, up until this point in time, we've lacked the political nuance to drive solutions here. Ultimately, to all the students out there, I say to you: good luck. You've got this. Hold your heads high and know that, no matter what the results, we are proud of you, and you are part of an extraordinary generation that does have the capacity to reshape our world for the better. Hall, Ms Cathy 18 13:39 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle I want to say a few words in celebration of the life and activism of Cathy Hall, an influential and irrepressible member of the Fremantle community. It is true to say that in the last three or four decades there has been no area of community wellbeing to which Cathy has not applied wholehearted effort. She worked as a nurse at Fremantle Hospital. She served as a member and office bearer for critical organisations like the Fremantle Society and the Fremantle Historical Society. She put her heart and soul into causes and entities as varied as Deckchair Theatre, stopping Roe 8 and the One Stop Shop for over-55s. She fought for environmental protection, for refugee rights and for the health of Fremantle's arts and cultural scene. She was arrested more than once protesting on the urgent need for climate change action. In 2012, Cathy was awarded the Premier's Active Citizenship Award for her outstanding community service. I'm one of the many people who benefited from Cathy's encouragement on various issues, which she often delivered with a big smile, and occasionally with flinty-eyed insistence. Steve Grant, with whom Cathy organised the South Fremantle Kite Festival, was spot-on when he wrote in the Freo Herald this most recent weekend that Cathy 'will be remembered most for her tireless love of Fremantle and its community,' and for always fighting for what she knew was right. Canice's Kitchen 18 13:41 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth I want to tell you a quick story about Canice's Kitchen, a wonderful organisation in my electorate. Canice's Kitchen, in Rushcutters Bay, is a kitchen that provides free meals and clothing to vulnerable people. But also, importantly, it provides a growing list of support and training services to help vulnerable people in our community get jobs and stand on their own two feet. I met Carrie Deane, who runs Canice's Kitchen, during the election campaign, and I was impressed by her and the organisation. Last year, Canice's Kitchen was helping a woman who was looking for work after 25 years on Centrelink benefits. The organisation spent 10 weeks getting her ready for a job interview. The team helped her prepare a resume, found her the right clothes and conducted practice interviews. She got the job. Then, two weeks ago, Carrie got a call from the same woman. She was now the hiring manager at the job she started in last year and she wanted to see if there were any other people Carrie knew of who could come in and interview for a job. It's a wonderful story—a great example of what Canice's Kitchen does—and addresses a fundamental issue that we have in long-term unemployment even when we have strong employment more generally. The organisation continues to grow. It recently partnered with St Vincent's Health Network Sydney to create its new hospital on wheels, which provides mobile wound care and diabetes check-ups, amongst other services. Canice's Kitchen is always looking for new partnerships with businesses and organisations, so if you'd like to get in touch, contact me in the office. Thank you, Carrie and the wonderful Canice's Kitchen staff. Road Safety 18 13:42 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean Last week I met with a delegation of TWU members and officials, joined by employers, employer associations and families members affected by road accidents. There were workers from the gig economy, food delivery couriers and owner-drivers, along with supportive employers. There've been over 1,000 truck deaths since the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal was shut down in 2016. Surveys of truck drivers across the industry have revealed that 42 per cent of owner-drivers didn't raise safety concerns out of a fear they'd lose pay, and 52 per cent of drivers have experienced wage theft. Drivers experience pressure from the top and now, more perniciously, from the bottom, where unregulated gig companies like Amazon push workers into precarious work with low rates of pay and no workplace rights or entitlements. This combination of undercutting, outsourcing and piece rates is making our transport industry more and more dangerous. As the member for Spence put it eloquently in his first speech last night, it's why we need a tribunal to set minimum rates and standards to protect both employees and employers, ensuring our roads are safe, our skies are safe and, above all, our people are safe. I cannot be any clearer when I say this: safe rates save lives. New South Wales: Floods 19 13:44 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay I often speak about the resilience of my community of Lindsay. And, gosh, haven't they had to be resilient over the last two years—again, experiencing floods. These are communities that are getting impacted time and time again. Four times now in two years families have had to save their homes, properties and small businesses from floods. In my region, over 3,000 people were subject to evacuation orders recently. I want to thank the SES and all the local volunteers and community groups that came out and helped those people in our community when they needed it most. The toll and strain have been enormous. Donna from Londonderry, who is a small business owner, told me that the community of Londonderry is on edge and scared about when the next flood might hit. I want to draw attention to the increase in significant mental health impacts these floods are having on communities. Researchers from the University of Sydney based in Lismore say that floods in northern New South Wales are resulting in a potential epidemic of mental health problems, including depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress. This study has found that the more sites that were impacted the greater the mental health outcomes. So I'm calling on the government, as the shadow minister for mental health and suicide prevention, to consider flood impacted communities for additional support services. Werriwa Electorate: Lao New Year 19 13:45 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa There are lots of great things about representing my part of the world and the electorate of Werriwa, particularly the fact that it is such a diverse community and it celebrates new year almost all of the year. On 16 April I was humbled to attend the Lao Buddhist temple in Edensor Park to celebrate the Lao New Year, a traditional celebration marking the entry of the sun into the constellation of Aries. The celebration goes back thousands of years and is strong and rich in cultural and religious significance for the people of Laos. The tradition is celebrated by the community throughout the world, with over 10,000 Australians of Lao descent in Australia—more than half of whom live in my part of the world. I'd like to thank the Australian South-East Asian Network for the invitation and hosting the wonderful and joyous event. I would especially like thank the Lao community for their amazing efforts in raising over $10,000 for flood victims of the devastating 2022 New South Wales floods. Events like this remind me of the strength of our community. As we celebrate the diversity of culture and the volunteers in my part of the world, it is just a wonderful place to live and work. Burdett, Mr Kevin John, OAM 19 13:47 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker Almost two weeks ago the Karoonda East Murray community lost a great gentleman. Kevin John Burdett OAM was born and lived his whole life in the Karoonda East Murray district. A true community leader, a farmer, a family man, Kevin served on many local organisations including the Karoonda Area School; the Karoonda Perponda and Copeville sports clubs, the Karoonda bowling club, the Karoonda and District Historical Society, the CFS, the Karoonda Farm Fair Committee, the Uniting Church and the Karoonda Lions Club. In 2015 he was rightfully recognised for community services as part of the Queen's Birthday Honours program. Kevin was also a returned serviceman, having served his country in Vietnam. I first got to know Kevin in his role as mayor of the district council of Karoonda East Murray. First selected in 1995, he was appointed deputy mayor the same year. He was elected to the position of mayor in 2000 and continued uninterrupted in that role for 18 years. After stepping down as mayor, despite his health challenges, Kevin continued as an active elected member on council. Last year he received his 25-year service award from the local government association. Kevin was a man of faith. He had a wickedly dry wit and an innate ability to strike up a conversation with anyone. Everything Kevin did was about improving the lives of those living in the Karoonda East Murray community and his community is better for his contribution to it. My deepest condolences to his wife, Robyn; his three children and his 10 grandchildren. Vale Kevin Burdett OAM. New South Wales: Floods 20 13:48 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson Dorothea Mackellar was so right in talking about a land of droughts and flooding rains. We've seen so much of both of those things—and let's include bushfires in that in recent years. I want to acknowledge and thank the members of my community in the magnificent Hunter Valley of which, Deputy Speaker, you are a part as well, where we have seen so much rainfall. In fact, unprecedented amounts of rainfall, even collaring those of the 1955 floods in Maitland. I want to say thank you to people like Sonia Gannon. Sonia held her community of Gillieston Heights together. Some 3,500 people were stranded. They were not able to get off what is now, tongue-in-cheek, being referred to as 'Gillieston Island'. I also want to thank Harley, who used his fishing boat to run food, nappies, water and people backwards and forwards, and all of their mates, who nearly burnt out the motors on their boats. I also want to say a big thanks to the Woodberry Warriors, who helped the clean-up around Millers Forest and that area, where homes were just inundated with floodwater—but it's not the water, it's the mud. I want to say a great big thanks to the Hunter Food Relief Centre and the Grine girls. Collectively, you have done a great job. Thank you one and all. Tasmania: Agriculture, Biosecurity: Foot-And-Mouth Disease 20 13:50 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon The latest Tasmanian Agribusiness Insights Report has confirmed that our state's agricultural sector continues to be world leading. Farming directly employs 7½ thousand Tasmanians and contributes around $3½ billion to our Tasmanian gross state product. This report has also noticed that our agricultural exporters have again had a stellar 12 months. Agriculture forms the backbone, the lifeblood and the heart of many local communities in the electorate of Braddon, and it is without doubt that the No. 1 issue that I'm hearing loud and clear from our agriculture sector is the biosecurity issue. Keeping our strait and our nation free from animal pests, diseases and pathogens is important. It's important to note that you cannot have a small-scale outbreak of these diseases. It's an absolute thing. Just one case of foot-and-mouth would result in us losing our entire export market access—cattle, dairy, chicken, pigs, goats, wool and many more. For a nation that currently exports around 70 per cent of all its animal produce to over 160 countries, the cost would be well in excess of $80 billion over 10 years. Braddon's farmers are amongst the best in the world at what they do. They are deeply protective of our food production future. What our farmers are so desperately seeking is an insurance from this government on biosecurity measures that will protect the future of food production in the great state of Tasmania. Sport, Citizenship 20 13:51 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo I'm proud to stand here today to share with the House that Silver Bell Morris, a talented football player in Bendigo, has made the junior Australian women's football team. It's very exciting that she's made the Junior Matildas. She's been invited to join the team for many years, but because of her citizenship, she wasn't able to. See, Silver Bell and her family came to Australia from the Thai-Burma border. She was born as a refugee, had the opportunity to move to Australia and, from day one, everybody knew she was a talented footballer. She continued to get asked to play for the Junior Matildas, but because the previous government was so slow at processing citizenship applications, she didn't get the chance. It just didn't happen. Despite the advocacy of many people from across the electorate, from her school, from Football Australia and from me, the previous government was just so slow that she didn't get the opportunity. It is great news that, at the end of last year, her citizenship was approved, her parents paid to fast-track her passport and she got to play. Last week she got to represent Australia, which is her dream. There are so many young women and men like Silver Bell wanting that opportunity. I'm proud to be part of a Labor government that is getting on with the job of processing these citizenship applications. Palliative Care 20 13:53 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay In a cottage in Doonan, set in beautiful grounds, people at end of life are comforted in the embrace of loved ones, their pain eased with specialist palliative care. In three years, Katie Rose Cottage Hospice has cared for more than 250 people, easing the load on both patients and families during those precious final hours together. In January this year, I announced a $1.5 million federal funding grant to help this vital service expand from three to five rooms to give more people end-of-life care. At Katie Rose, dying mums hear their children playing in the pool and watch their sons wed on the balcony. Terminally ill kids can cuddle their pets. Families truly are supported. On behalf of a passionate community of fundraisers, 280 volunteers, chair Carol Raye and her committee of palliative doctors, nurses and carers, and the patients and families, I've written to the Treasurer seeking that this grant be honoured. I call on the government to deliver this funding. Darwin Festival 21 13:54 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I'm incredibly excited to be getting home to Darwin on Thursday evening as the Darwin Festival kicks off. It's a fantastic fortnight of theatre, music, dance and art. This weekend Darwin hosts the prestigious NATSIAAs, the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Art Awards, and the NIMAs, the National Indigenous Music Awards. The Territory punches so far above its weight with our world-class arts scene that will be on show. We were the only festival running worldwide in 2020 in the midst of a pandemic. Last year they were very agile as the southern lockdowns hit—which everyone's trying to forget—cancelling, postponing and rebooking performances so that Territorians wouldn't miss out. I'd like to congratulate outgoing artistic director Felix Preval, who's done a great job of steering the ship of the festival for six years during a really challenging climate for artists, and to welcome the incoming artistic director, Kate Fell. She has big shoes to fill, but I'm sure she'll fill them very well. I'd like to encourage all of my colleagues, all the staffers, all the staff here at Parliament House, to come up to Darwin. It's the dry season. The weather is stellar. We have the best performances that you could possibly believe. It will blow your mind. Feel free to come up and visit us in the Top End for the Darwin Festival. (Time expired) Forde Electorate: Meadowbrook Golf Club 21 13:56 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde We have all looked on at times at various legal disputes that have dragged on for years and years, and I'm sad to share with the House one such dispute going on between a local club—actually, it's in the member for Rankin's electorate, but many of the members are from my part of the world—Meadowbrook Golf Club and Logan City Council. I've had the pleasure of playing golf at the Meadowbrook Golf Club regularly over the past 30 years and also have a membership at the club. But the ongoing saga of the sewer pipeline that was put through the course—the work started in 2011—its impact on the course over many, many years and the ongoing differences in terms of what should have been compensation between the council and the golf course are yet to be resolved. I would ask both parties involved in this matter to take the time to sit down and have a constructive discussion and to bring these matters to finalisation, in the interests of the members of the golf club and in the interests of the ratepayers of Logan City Council. I call on both parties to do that. Aged Care 21 13:57 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley This morning I met with some amazing women who are aged-care workers, nurses and unionists, who came to talk to me about their enthusiasm and hope for the future of the care economy and their workplaces because of the Albanese Labor government—about the difference that the increase to the minimum wage has already made to their lives, about the changes the reforms that the Minister for Aged Care is bringing into aged care are going to make to the way they can deliver care, and about the changes that need to be made so that TAFE teachers aren't being casuals for eight years and missing out on all of the things they need from permanent work. These women, these workers, are why everyone in this government is here—to make sure that their lives and their workplaces are better and to make sure that the work they do, caring for some of the most vulnerable people in this country, can be done to the best of their ability. They now have a government for the first time in a decade that has their back. We feel that responsibility and we are proud to take it on, because it's the reason we on this side of the chamber are here. We're here to make sure that workers get the pay and the conditions they deserve and that people who are cared for by those workers, who are predominantly women, get the care they deserve. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 21 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE US Air Strike in Afghanistan 21 13:59 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler As the President of the United States of America confirmed earlier today, the al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri has been killed in a US air strike. The operation was carried out on Saturday in Kabul Afghanistan. No civilian casualties have been reported. Al-Zawahiri was indicted by the United States for the part he paid in the August 1998 bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, attacks which left 224 people dead and over 4½ thousand wounded. He has long been suspected of plotting the attack on USS Cole in 2000 in which 17 US sailors died and dozens more were injured. In 2001, conspiring with Osama bin-Laden, he coordinated the September 11 hijackings that levelled the World Trade Center and murdered nearly 3,000 innocent people, including Australians on American soil, in that day that will live in infamy. The world changed that day. So many lives have been lost, and so much blood has been spilled since, including all those Australians who served, sacrificed and gave their lives in Afghanistan. For two decades this man fled the consequences of his crimes. Our thoughts today are with the loved ones of all of his victims. May they find some small solace in the knowledge that he cannot cause more grief through his acts of terror, and let terrorists see that Afghanistan will never ever be a safe haven for their hatred, their terrorism and their attacks on our humanity. 14:01 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I join with the Prime Minister and his fine words. The death of al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, a key planner of the 9/11 terror attacks, is yet another success in the enduring battle against terrorism. Persistence prevails. Evil may lurk in the shadows but it cannot hide in the darkness. On 9/11 al-Zawahiri was one of many responsible for murdering almost 3,000 innocent people, including 10 Australians. He has been responsible for masterminding many more attacks resulting in the death and the slaughter of many innocent men, women and children. For over two decades, some 39,000 men and women of the Australian Defence Force served with other nations in Afghanistan, thwarting terrorism and preventing further attacks. Tragically, 41 Australians made the ultimate sacrifice. I pay tribute again today to those 39,000 men and women of the ADF who, through their actions in the Middle East, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, prevented terrorist attacks on our allies, against our Australian citizens both here and abroad. The pain of Australian families who lost loved ones on 9/11 or in service in Afghanistan will of course never dull. But al-Zawahiri's death may provide some solace in the knowledge that the planners and perpetrators of terrorism will always be relentlessly pursued and hunted. For them, neither place nor time will provide a sanctuary from the forces of justice. Ayman al-Zawahiri's death also reinforces to free people that we must always be vigilant, must always prepare for and confront threats from a position of strength, not weakness, be it terrorism, radical ideology, foreign interference crime or authoritarianism. I thank the House. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 22 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Energy 22 14:03 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, your website currently states a Labor government will cut power bills for families and businesses by $275 a year. Is this still your policy? 14:03 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I could just refer to my answer of yesterday but that wouldn't be as much fun as going through what our policy is because our policy is very clear. Our Powering Australia plan is indeed up on the website. And something that might be unfamiliar to those opposite is the concept of putting out an energy policy that you are going to actually implement, because those opposite had 22 energy policies and didn't implement any of them. The other thing that might be confusing for those opposite is the concept of putting out a policy that's fully costed and that has detailed economic analysis, in this case by RepuTex, Australia's leading energy economists. And what Australia's leading energy economists said is that if you embrace the changes that we're advancing—including fixing transmission through our Rewiring the Nation plan, making sure we bring the electricity grid into the 21st century—if you have a policy that upgrades— Mr Dutton 00AKI A point of order— Mr ALBANESE R36 Well, if you're not interested— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister is being relevant, specifically about the policy that he was asked about. I will give the call to the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Dutton 00AKI Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Well, it is on relevance, and I refer to the many statements of former Speaker Smith in relation to the construction of questions. The question is very clear. On the Prime Minister's website it states that a Labor government 'will cut power bills for families and businesses by $275 a year'— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister is answering the question. He is referring to the policy— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister is being entirely relevant, and I give him the call. Mr ALBANESE R36 Thank you, Mr Speaker. Those opposite— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Opposition asked his question in silence. The Prime Minister will be heard in silence. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Opposition! Mr ALBANESE R36 Thanks, Mr Speaker. Those opposite are confused by the idea that you could put out a comprehensive policy plan to deal with energy in this country and that you would have proper modelling that was put out last December and wasn't questioned in January, not in February, not in March, not in April and not in May. But of course what was not known at that time is that those opposite had actually sat on and changed the rules to hide from the Australian people the increase in energy costs that occurred on 1 July. They went, as I outlined yesterday, in a series of moves to deliberately stop the Australian people knowing before 21 May that they had baked in an increase. That is their responsibility. (Time expired) Skills and Training 23 14:08 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney My question is to the Minister for Skills and Training. After a decade of inaction we are experiencing a skill shortage crisis in Australia. How will the Albanese Labor government address acute skills shortages? 14:08 Mr O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton Thank you very much to the member for asking a very important question, and congratulations to you on your election to this place, Member for Tangney—a remarkable result in Western Australia. Very well done, and you'll make a fine contribution to this place. Can I say, wherever you look across the labour market there are skill shortages, whether that be in the care sector, teaching, engineering, advanced manufacturing, tourism, hospitality—so many areas—even the traditional trades, like bricklayers, and personal care services, like hairdressers. Wherever we look across the economy and the labour market there are skills shortages. It's true to say that the pandemic had something to contribute to that fact; there is no doubt about that. But so, too, did the failure of the previous government to invest in areas of emerging demand. So, too, did the previous government fail to invest in skills for the vacancies that exist now and areas of emerging demand. For that reason, this government has hit the ground running. We are starting by creating Jobs and Skills Australia, bringing together employers and unions and state and territory governments and others to work on this challenge together. We're convening a jobs and skills summit within a month so that we can work with stakeholders, employers and others about delivering on the training that is needed in this country. It's one of the reasons why my colleagues are unclogging the visa applications. They are clogged up and we have not been able to fill the vacancies that employers are crying out to fill. There's a lot for us to do. It's also why we're providing 465,000 fee-free TAFE places and an additional 45,000 TAFE places, particularly for those industries suffering acute shortages. It's also why we're making sure that we have 10,000 apprentices in the energy sector, which is an energy sector in transition. We will need those apprentices with new skills to deliver and to respond to the changes that are occurring. Providing opportunities to improve one's lot through training and education is core business for Labor, and it always will be. As the Prime Minister said and we've said often here, we don't want to leave anyone behind and we don't want to hold anyone back. Investing in skills and training provides opportunities for people to enter the labour market and also to change and improve upon their skills and knowledge when necessary so that they can work in areas in demand. It's also true to say that a more productive and smarter workforce means cheaper goods and services. So investing in skills in this area is good not only for workers and employers but for everyone who is tackling and struggling with cost-of-living pressures. Energy 23 14:11 Ms 00AMN Farrer LEY (—) (): My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, in April when you were caught not knowing the cash rate you said: I made a mistake. I'm human. But when I make a mistake, I'll fess up to it and I'll set about correcting that mistake. I won't blame someone else, I'll accept responsibility, that's what leaders do. Prime Minister, given you've dumped your promise to cut power bills by $275, will you fess up and correct your mistake? Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister will be heard. Members on my right! I give the call to the Prime Minister. 14:12 Mr ALBAN R36 Grayndler ESE (—) (): I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her question. I don't seek to have a point of order on irony to rule it out, given the record of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who made a bit of a mistake that led to her resignation from the front bench of the Liberal Party. But now she's back. Mr Fletcher L6B Mr Speaker— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left! The Manager of Opposition Business will be heard in silence. Mr Fletcher L6B Reflection on a member, Mr Speaker: that was quite inappropriate. The Prime Minister should answer the specific question: does he stand by his promise on a $275 reduction or not? The SPEAKER 53517 Thank you. Resume your seat. I'm listening to the Prime Minister carefully. I ask him to return to the question. Mr ALBANESE R36 The fact is that those opposite knew that power prices were going up but they kept Australians in the dark. That's what they did. They knew about the price increase in March. They hid the increase in the default retail price for electricity, which for a small businesses in New South Wales increased by up to 19.7 per cent—in New South Wales alone. This is what our policy is aimed at—and we completely stand by the modelling that we put out by RepuTex. It showed—and this isn't a difficult concept—renewables are cheaper; if you have cheaper energy inputs, you get cheaper prices. RepuTex modelled the impact of Labor's plan on rewiring the nation, our plan on other elements of the grid, including using the safeguards mechanism that was established by the Abbott government when they were in government— Ms Ley 00AMN Mr Speaker— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will take a break. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will state the point of order, and I'm listening carefully. Ms Ley 00AMN We know the Prime Minister has a bad memory— The SPEAKER 53517 No, resume your seat. I want to be very clear. I'm giving the courtesy to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition because of her title, and she's earnt that title. If I'm asking you to state a point of order, I ask you to state it and not give a statement. The Prime Minister will continue. Mr ALBANESE R36 It's a pretty simple principle here. Everyone understands that, and no amount of bluster from those opposite will replace their failure of over a decade of inaction—over a decade of inaction. And the truth is that, if you have a plan for more renewables in the system because they are cheaper, you will have cheaper energy prices. That's what RepuTex modelled, but those opposite couldn't grasp that. That's why they produced 22 different policies, 22 shots at lowering prices and didn't nail any of them. The worst of all the ministers was the member for Hume, who failed completely and then, during an election campaign, went to the Governor-General to change the rules in order to hide the fact that prices would be going up on 1 July. Energy 24 14:16 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to address rising energy costs caused by a decade of climate and energy policy failure? 14:16 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the member for Chisholm for her question and congratulate her on a win. We look forward to a long and substantial contribution in this House. The answer to dealing with rising power prices is the same as the answer to reducing emissions—that is, more renewable energy, because we know on this side of the House that clean energy is cheap energy. We know the sun doesn't send a bill, and the wind doesn't send an invoice—something that the honourable members opposite haven't worked out. Normally, I'd say the opposition doesn't have any ideas. But, to be fair—we always try to be fair on this side—they've got one today. Their answer to rising energy prices is to put more of the most expensive form of energy, nuclear, into the system. That's their answer. That's the Leader of the Opposition's big announcement today—that he supports the most expensive form of energy available: nuclear energy. Well done, well done. Another part of our agenda, of course, is the climate bill before the House. This is the bill which locks in our emissions reductions target, makes them the law of the land and, importantly, sends the signal to the investors around the world that the 22 failed energy policy era is over. The country has one energy policy, and it is the policy in the law of the land. There's been a very wide range of support to legislate. We've got the Business Council of Australia calling for the legislation to pass and the Australian Industry Group, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors—a range of groups, from Greenpeace to Rio Tinto, are all calling for the legislation to pass. A very broad coalition is calling for the legislation to pass. There's a very narrow coalition opposing it though, and that's the coalition opposite. After nine years of denial and delay, they want to continue. They want to keep those nine years going longer. It just goes to show that you can change the face at the front of the shop, but they're still selling the same old dud product. This is the modern Liberal Party. What you see is what you get. They haven't changed. You can change from the member for Cook to the member for Dickson—maybe you could change again—but the product hasn't changed. They still don't accept the science of climate change. They still believe in denial and delay. The SPEAKER 53517 The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order. Mr Fletcher L6B The minister was asked about what the Albanese Labor government is doing to address the power prices. Instead, we've heard this unstructured spray against the record of this side of the House. The SPEA 53517 The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. Mr Burke DYW To the point of order, Mr Speaker: if I may complete the sentence that the Manager of Opposition Business cut short: 'What is the Albanese Labor government doing to address rising energy costs caused by a decade of climate and energy policy failure?' I think that makes it relevant. The SPEAKER 53517 Further to the point of order, the Manager of Opposition Business? Mr Fletcher L6B Mr Speaker, the question is really one for you: is it the case that simply by putting in— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. I understand your point. It is a question for me. Thank you for that. The question was: what is the government doing to address rising power costs given a decade of failure? I want to be clear on this. If that is the phrasing of the question, then it is entirely relevant for a minister to refer to previous decisions, to what has led to this decision. I am calling him in order. Mr BOWEN DZS The fact of the matter is that this is the modern Liberal Party—out of touch with the challenges of today. The biggest challenge facing our world is climate change. The biggest economic opportunity facing our nation is climate change. These guys didn't get it for nine years, and they still don't get it. You can change the face at the front of the shop; they're still selling the same old dud products. Aged Care 25 14:21 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein My question is to the Minister for Aged Care and Minister for Sport. Why does the government's new aged-care legislation grant immunity from liability for engaging in restrictive practices? Will the minister reconsider this and offer an indemnity rather than immunity to aged-care providers, as proposed by the Australian Lawyers Alliance and other experts? There are many fine aged-care facilities, including several within Goldstein; however, per the royal commission, there are far too many instances of mistreatment of residents. 14:21 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley I thank the member for Goldstein for her question. May I congratulate her on her election victory and welcome her to this place. She is very welcome indeed. And I congratulate her on her first speech, which we heard earlier. Can I also acknowledge the way that she has asked this question, in good faith. I welcome the opportunity to assuage some of the concerns. I know that this issue was ventilated last night in the Senate and that some of the stakeholder groups within aged care are worried about it, so let's use this opportunity to be clear. The immunity will only apply where restrictive practices are used as a last resort, only to the extent that they are necessary, for the shortest time possible, in the least restrictive form and—crucially, I think, here—to prevent harm to the care recipient. It is a temporary measure. We take that on board. And it is just to clarify a gap in the legislation between the Commonwealth legislation and some of the state and territory legislative requirements with respect to the use of restrictive practices, specifically until—you asked about revisiting it—we bring in the new Aged Care Act, which the royal commission has asked us to do by 1 July next year. So this is a sunset clause that gets us to the opportunity to consult fully with all of our advocacy groups to make sure that the new Aged Care Act is as good as it could possibly be. This is reform that has to last for decades. We want to do it once. We want to do it well. I'd also note that there are stakeholder groups that support the way that we have done this temporary measure. The Council on the Ageing has come out in support, particularly in favour of the particular wording of the measure we've used, and so has the Older Persons Advocacy Network. I want to note that they support the specific amendment because, without it, harm to older Australians and harm to aged-care workers could occur. That's why we've done it for the next 12 months. In my remaining time, may I update the member for Goldstein that, of the 20 residential aged-care facilities in her electorate, four currently have outbreaks, but—above the national average—you have 79.3 per cent with their fourth dose, and more than 99 per cent of aged-care workers working in facilities in Goldstein have their fourth dose. So congratulations and thanks for your advocacy on that. Cost of Living 26 14:24 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong My question is to the Prime Minister. Tackling the rising costs of living in Australia requires a comprehensive response. How is the government helping Australians manage the cost-of-living crisis it inherited? 14:24 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Thanks very much to the member for Bennelong for that important question. We do know that people are doing it tough out there and they're under cost-of-living pressure. We know that the costs of ordinary supermarket goods and other cost-of-living expenses are going up, but for a decade we had wages that weren't going up and weren't keeping up with the cost of living. That's why the government has an economic plan to deal with the cost-of-living pressures and to lift the speed limit on our economy. The first of those is helping Australians with the cost of living through measures like our plans to cut childcare costs, our plans to cut the costs of medicines by up to $12.50 a script, our plan to make more work more secure by giving Australians greater financial certainty from one week to the next. That will be a focus of our Jobs and Skills Summit. The second part of the plan is growing wages over time. We successfully argued for a decent pay rise for the lowest paid, some 2.8 million, workers. Remember some arguing that the sky would fall in if people on the minimum wage of $20.33 an hour got a dollar increase per hour in their wage? The Fair Work Commission made the assessment that a 5.2 per cent increase should be granted, and we welcomed that. We indeed welcomed that absolutely, because that is important for people to not fall behind. We also want to train people for higher wage opportunities and to grow the economy, in particular the new economy, through our National Reconstruction Fund, to invest in industries, delivering more secure, well-paid jobs. But the third element of our plan is also untangling our supply chains and dealing with the supply side of the inflation challenge, by investing in cheaper, cleaner, more reliable energy—I know those opposite still don't get that fact, that renewables are the cheapest form of energy—but also addressing skills and labour shortages through 465,000 fee-free TAFE places, an additional 20,000 university places, 10,000 apprenticeships in new energy jobs. But also our establishing the National Reconstruction Fund, our Buy Australian Plan, our dealing with infrastructure projects that actually boost productivity rather than looking at the electoral map—together these three measures, helping with the cost of living, growing wages over time, untangling our supply chain issues, will all lead to higher economic growth, more security and higher living standards for Australians. That's our economic plan, and we intend to pursue it in partnership with business and unions and civil society at the Jobs and Skills Summit next month. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 26 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Northern Territory Legislative Assembly 26 14:27 The SPEAKER 53517 I'm pleased to inform the House that present in the gallery today we have two members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory: Hon. Selena Uibo, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and Hon. Lauren Moss, Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water Security. I extend a warm welcome to you both. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 26 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Workplace Safety 26 14:27 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of reports of CFMMEU picketers verbally abusing and mobbing a female employee at an Adelaide building site, to the extent that she was unable to leave the site for fear of her personal safety? The CFMMEU has given over $10 million to the Labor Party since the last watchdog was abolished. So why is this Prime Minister prioritising the interests of the CFMMEU over the safety of women? 14:28 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Lindsay for her question, and I make this very clear point: all workplaces should be safe workplaces. I'm not aware of the specific example that the member raises, but it certainly sounds, on the face of it, as being completely unacceptable—completely unacceptable. The fact is that unacceptable behaviour in all workplaces, including Parliament House, should be acted upon by appropriate authorities. If someone is being involved— The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 Well, they're talking about cops over there. The truth is— The SPEAKER 53517 The deputy leader will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 Those opposite know that, in fact, the ABCC does not have the power—does not have the power—or the jurisdiction to act on crimes. That is not the role of the ABCC. Those opposite know that that's the case, but they continue to pretend that there's some connection between those two elements. There is not. All workplaces should be safe. That's principle No. 1. Opposition members: They're not. Mr ALBANESE R36 No, they're not, and this workplace hasn't always been safe either. All workplaces should be— The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition. M R36 I wouldn't have thought this was a controversial statement. To actually stand at this dispatch box, I was asked a serious question and I'm giving a serious answer, which is that all workplaces should be safe. Whether they be white collar, whether they blue collar, whether they be in construction, whether they be FIFO workers, whether they be at an accountancy firm, whether they be at a legal firm, all workplaces should be safe places. We should work towards that, which is why we will implement all 50 recommendations of the Jenkins report when it comes to making workplaces safe. The SPEAKER 53517 Leader of the Opposition. Mr ALBANESE R36 I look forward to the opposition voting for that legislation when it comes before the parliament. Economy 27 14:30 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean My question is to the Treasurer. What are the implications of the Reserve Bank's decision on interest rates today? 14:30 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin It's another difficult day for Australian homeowners with a mortgage. The independent Reserve Bank has just announced its decision to increase interest rates by another half a per cent, bringing the cash rate to 1.85 per cent. Australians knew that this was coming, but it won't make it any easier for them to handle. This cycle of interest rate rises began before the election in response to inflationary pressures that began accelerating at the beginning of this year. Average homeowners with a $330,000 outstanding balance will have to find about $90 a month more for repayments as a consequence of this decision today on top of around $220 extra in repayments since early May. For Australians with a $500,000 mortgage, it's about an extra $140 a month, in addition to the extra $335 they've had to find since early May. As I said, this decision doesn't come as a surprise. It's not a shock to anybody, but it will still sting. Families will now have to make more hard decisions about how to balance the household budget in the face of other pressures, like higher grocery prices and higher power prices and the costs of other essentials. Obviously, higher interest rates primarily affect mortgage holders, but there's a broader economic impact as well. There's an impact on economic growth, which I talked about in the ministerial statement last week. There's also an impact on the budget. It means that the trillion dollars of debt that the previous government left us gets even more expensive for us to service. We've been up-front on this side of the House about the growing economic challenges in our economy, because that's what Australians expect from us. They know that government changed hands at a time of high and rising inflation, rising interest rates, growing economic storm clouds and a trillion dollars of debt. Our job isn't to try to influence the Reserve Bank or to second-guess their decisions. Our job is to focus on what we can responsibly influence as a new government at the national level. That's why the economic plan that the Prime Minister ran through a moment ago is a direct and deliberate response to these challenges that we have inherited: responsible cost-of-living relief, addressing those issues on the supply side of the economy and beginning to trim the budget of the rorts and the waste which are becoming more and more expensive for the Australian people to fund. Australians know that we are in for a difficult time ahead when it comes to the storm clouds in our economy, but we are confident that we will emerge on the other side of this stronger than before, and that's partly because of the economic plan that we will implement. Murray-Darling Basin 27 14:34 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. Is the minister aware that 80 per cent of water under the original Murray-Darling Basin Plan has already been returned to the environment, and, given the minister's pledge to recover the extra 470 gigalitres of that plan, will the minister honour the agreement with the states requiring a neutral or positive socioeconomic impact on regional communities to recover the water? If not, how will the minister take the water from farmers? 14:34 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I think the member for Nicholls for his question. It's a great opportunity for me to speak a little bit about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the position of those opposite. What we have is a Murray-Darling Basin Plan that has been in place for almost a decade now. The reason that we introduced the plan was that we saw, as demand for water increased, the pressure on communities along the river system—on towns, cities, farmers, irrigators and the environment—was increasing. In fact, in 2019 we saw the driest year on record for the Murray-Darling Basin system. The fact that we had the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in place then saved the river system from catastrophe. It was still very, very tough, but it saved the river system from catastrophe. That's important. We're talking about a million square kilometres, with 2.3 million people relying on that river system. The member opposite has asked about the 450 gigalitres of additional environmental water that was a condition for South Australia signing on to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. On this side, we fully support returning that 450 gigalitres of water to the system. I'm curious about whether those opposite support this. I know the honourable member doesn't support it; he's already tweeted saying that he doesn't support it. Mr Littleproud 265585 Mr Speaker, I have a point of order on relevance. It goes to the heart of whether the minister will honour the agreement with states requiring neutrality or a positive socioeconomic impact for regional communities in relation to the 450 gigalitres. She has not got to the specifics of whether she will adhere and agree to that. The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. Thank you for the point of order. The minister is halfway through— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Nationals was just asked to resume his seat. I'm calling the minister. She's halfway through her answer. She's being entirely relevant. I will ask her to return back to the question. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M I was saying that we on this side are clear supporters of the 450 gigalitres of additional environmental water being returned to the river system. I answered a very good question from the member for Mayo about this the other day. Those opposite have some members, including the Leader of the Nationals, who don't support this. We've got the shadow minister for water saying she doesn't support the 450 gigalitres being returned to the river system. Senator McKenzie has said that she doesn't support it. But hang on a minute. The member for Sturt said in August last year that he fully supports it. He said: 'I support the plan. I stand up for the plan. I say we must work together to ensure we are securing and guaranteeing the future.' We had Senator Ruston in June last year saying she supported the plan. She said, 'We will not stop trying because we are committed to the delivery of the plan.' We had Senator Birmingham saying, 'We support it in full and on time.' After question time, the members opposite might be interested in knowing I will be tabling the Water for the Environment Special Account report. I will be tabling that report that shows that they were never going to achieve the 450 gigalitres—never meant to, never wanted to and never would have. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 28 14:38 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur My question is for the Minister for Health and Aged Care. What are the Albanese Labor government's plans to continue listing life-changing medications on the PBS and to make medicines cheaper for millions of Australians? 14:38 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I'm delighted to get this question from the member for Macarthur because the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, or PBS, is one of Labor's proudest legacies. Just like with Medicare, it was vigorously opposed for many years by the Liberal Party, but it has become one of the world's best medicine systems, balancing fiscal sustainability, timely access to new medicines and patient affordability. We are getting on with the job of listing new life-saving and life-changing medicines on the PBS for Australians. Already our government has approved six new listings on the PBS, including a listing yesterday of Spinraza for adults with spinal muscular atrophy, SMA, a rare condition which affects the motor neurons in the spinal cord, causing difficulty with basic functions like breathing or swallowing or causing paralysis or even death. This is the first listed treatment for adults with SMA, and, without it, Spinraza would cost patients a whopping $300,000 every year. Now around 100 patient also pay no more than $42.50 for this life-changing medicine. We are all lucky to be living through a turbocharged period of discovery which is constantly producing treatments for conditions that not long ago were thought to be untreatable. Our government is committed to the PBS delivering Australian patients affordable access to these extraordinary new medicines. And we'll make them even more affordable, slashing the maximum price of medicines for millions of general patients by $12.50 a script. Not only will this be great for Australian household budgets but it will be good for Australians' health, too, because we know from the ABS that around a million Australians every year are deciding not to fill a script that their doctor has said is important for their health because they simply can't afford it. Pharmacists tell me and other members on this side, and probably on the other side, about customers asking for their advice about which of their medicines is the most important, because they can't afford to buy them all, perhaps choosing a medicine that gives them more instant relief but forgoing one that's actually really important for their longer-term health. This government will help prevent Australians from having to short-change their own health. General patients who fill two scripts a month will save $300 a year under our government, while also getting access to innovative new treatments like Spinraza. We are getting on with the job, delivering better health care and cost-of-living relief to Australian households. Employment 29 14:41 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the government support the coalition's policy to help pensioners and veterans who may choose to work more hours to help fill vacancies in sectors like tourism, agriculture, hospitality and home care? 14:42 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for his question. One of the things the Jobs and Skills Summit is going to do is bring unions, employers and civil society together to discuss how we address the acute skills shortages impacting on business. One way we can do it: I'm pleased I can refer the shadow minister to my ageing vision statement, given at the beginning of 2020 in Brisbane, where I referred to exactly the sort of idea of constructively working through ways to encourage older Australians to participate more in the workforce. That's something I proposed way back in 2020. It's something that is going to be considered, along with a whole range of measures about how we can deal with the acute skills shortages in our economy which are holding people back, holding businesses back. One of the things that occurred at the time of the outbreak of the pandemic was that Australia told all temporary visa holders to go. That's had a real impact, because what's occurred now in critical areas, including the hospitality sector, is that around the country there are restaurants that can't open seven days a week—can't open five days a week—because they simply can't get the staff that are available. It's having an impact in agriculture. It's having an impact in the construction and infrastructure sector. And of course it's also feeding into inflation, because if there is a failure to be able to access the labour market then that can increase your costs. So, this government is determined to have comprehensive plans. We're determined to consult with business and unions on these ideas. And I'm pleased to recommend—there's actually a book of the vision statements all together, which I recommend to the shadow minister. There are lots of ideas there. We put together a whole range of those ideas, with fully costed policies, during the election campaign. We'll be feeding those ideas into the Jobs and Skills Summit. I'm not sure what the opposition's position is. Some have called for the Jobs and Skills Summit to not go ahead; others have sought an invite. I'm not quite sure what their position is on it. But we'll be consulting with the business community, with unions and with civil society on how we address these great challenges, and I'm pleased that my ministerial colleague Minister O'Connor is working hard in the lead-up to the summit and, as well, on a series of local events that will also take those ideas. (Time expired) Early Childhood Education 29 14:45 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to make early childhood education more accessible and affordable, boosting our economy by unlocking workforce participation for women? 14:45 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I thank the member for Hawke for the question. I know that the member for Hawke has a long and ongoing commitment to early childhood education and to women's economic empowerment. It was great to hear the member for Hawke speak yesterday, through his first speech, so passionately about education and the role of women in his life. For too long, these important issues around the early childhood sector and women's economic empowerment and the connection between the two have been undervalued and underappreciated. This morning, my Labor colleagues and I heard from a delegation of early childhood education workers who are up in the gallery today. We heard from them the issues that they have and that have impacted on them, on the sector, on women's workforce participation and, importantly, on children's wellbeing. So I'm really pleased to be able to speak about what an Anthony Albanese Labor government is doing in this space. As I've advised the chamber before, right now early childhood education is more expensive than ever before. I remember how, as a young single mother, I had to rely on early childhood education and just what that meant for me to be able to raise myself and my family out of poverty. I can't imagine how much more difficult it is now for somebody in that situation, given how much the cost of early childhood education has increased. That's why the Albanese Labor government is acting to ensure that early childhood education is more affordable for 1.26 million Australians, with our election commitment to increase the childcare subsidy. We're also asking the ACCC to design a price regulation mechanism for early childhood education, aimed at making it more affordable and more accessible across the country. And we're going to be asking the Productivity Commission to review the sector. We know that, while making early childhood education more accessible is a noble goal, we also need to be able to support and expand our vital workforce in this space. There is a worryingly high turnover in the sector that leads to issues of quality, and we heard that very clearly from the early childhood educators who we met with earlier today. We're committed to developing, recognising and supporting a high-quality early education workforce, and the Minister for Education—Minister Clare—and I have in front of us a fairly rigorous agenda of meeting with the sector through sector roundtables to feed into the Jobs and Skills Summit next month. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge that hard work that those who are currently in this sector do and to thank them for everything that they've done. (Time expired) Climate Change 30 14:48 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth My question is for the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Minister, many people in my community are concerned about climate change. Climate scientists are telling us we need a 2030 emissions reduction target of at least 50 per cent to prevent catastrophic climate change, and the Business Council of Australia has said that Australian businesses can thrive under a 46 to 50 per cent reduction by 2030. So my question is: what are the scientific or business reasons for the government's 2030 target of 43 per cent? 14:49 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable member for her question and for her engagement in her time so far in this place. I will make a number of comments about the government's 43 per cent emissions reduction target. As the Prime Minister has made clear repeatedly, we went to the election with that target and sought a mandate from the Australian people for that target, and we received that mandate. That's important to the Prime Minister. It's important to this side of the House to maintain and honour the commitments that we made at the election. Secondly, for example, as Professor Mark Howden, Director of the Institute for Climate, Energy and Disaster Solutions at the ANU and Vice-Chair of the IPCC has said, the 43 per cent emissions reduction target is entirely consistent with the obligations set out at the Glasgow conference last year and entirely consistent with Australia's obligations under the Glasgow conference. Another point I would make, and this is an important one, is that targets are very important. But even more important than the targets are the policies underpinning them. When we released the 43 per cent emissions reduction target, it was the modelled result of the range of policies we committed to at the same time. Targets are important but they are easier set than met. It's important to accompany those targets with the policies. Whether it is our safeguards reforms, our Rewiring the Nation policy, our electric vehicle tax cut, our electric vehicle strategy—which will give Australians the choice and chance to buy electric vehicles and enjoy the weekend at the same time—whether it is our community batteries policy or our solar banks policy, the range of policies is important. We're getting on and implementing them all. The other thing that is important to get the investment in renewable energy, to get the targets under way, is certainty, and policy frameworks being legislated. I thank the member for Wentworth for her public announcement that she will be supporting our legislation in the House because that is important. It sends the message that not only does Australia now have a government that gets it, we have a parliament that gets it too. We will provide that policy certainty and framework for investors right around the world, who see Australia as an opportunity for that investment, because we want Australia to be a renewable energy powerhouse. We want Australia to take advantage of those economic opportunities because we see the world's climate emergency, and there is one, as Australia's jobs opportunity. Pacific Australia Labour Mobility Scheme 30 14:51 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair My question is to the Minister for International Development and the Pacific. How will the Albanese Labor government's Pacific Labour Mobility policies tackle skills shortages in regional Australia? 14:51 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland I thank the member for the question and congratulate you, Speaker, on your election last week. Labour mobility is central to the government's agenda for engaging with the Pacific. It is also central to engaging with the government's agenda to tackle the skills shortage in regional Australia. The Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme, or PALM, allows workers from the Pacific countries to come to Australia to work in sectors like horticulture, tourism and hospitality. It helps Australian employers facing skills shortages, it supports Australia's regional economies, it gives Pacific countries a source of remittance income and, vitally, it gives Pacific Islanders the chance to learn new skills. It truly is a win-win for economic development in the Pacific and it deepens Australia's engagement with the region. PALM grew out of the Pacific Seasonal Worker Program established in 2012 by the former Labor government. Now in 2022, the Albanese Labor government is expanding PALM as part of our Pacific policy to repair the damage done by the last government under their Pacific stuff-up. We will make PALM more attractive for employers and workers by reducing the burden of travel costs for employers, allowing Pacific workers to bring in family members and, critically, improving protections against worker exploitation. Importantly, we will also broaden the scheme so it tackles skills shortages not only in traditional areas like agriculture but also in new sectors like aged care, which are suffering due to the disgraceful neglect of the previous government. During the recent very successful Pacific Islands Forum meeting in Fiji, I visited the Australia Pacific Training Coalition facility in Suva with Prime Minister Albanese. We met around 40 enthusiastic women who were training to work in aged-care centres in regional Queensland, from Mackay to Toowoomba. They were studying the theory and carrying out the practical training for certificate III qualifications. They were absolutely thrilled to be coming to Australia to look after aged-care residents. As the Prime Minister said, it was a great day because it highlighted the importance of the PALM scheme and it demonstrated the government's commitment to improved aged care is already translating into outcomes in the labour market. The Australia Pacific Training Coalition told us that the government's election commitments were a key driver of why they had stepped up training in aged care. Labor started the Pacific Labor Mobility Program and now the new Labor government is expanding it. This will deliver economic benefits for regional Australia and it will support economic and social development in the Pacific, repairing a damaged relationship that occurred under the last government, where you had a PM who blocked action on climate change, you had an opposition leader who made jokes about rising— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Fletcher L6B Mr Speaker, even on the ruling that you've given, there was nothing in this question inviting the minister to comment on what happened under the previous government, so you should draw him back to the terms of the question. The SPEAKER 53517 I'll hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, he's probably got a point on this one. The SPEAKER 53517 My job is done. I call the minister to be relevant. I will uphold the Manager of Opposition Business's point of order: for 15 seconds, be relevant. Mr 249127 I tried to get away with it, Mr Speaker. But the truth is that the PALM is vital to help address the skills shortages in regional Australia and to repair the disgraceful impact of the neglect of those opposite on the aged-care sector. Cashless Debit Card Program 31 14:55 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin My question is to the Prime Minister. The cashless debit card presently restricts 80 per cent of working-age welfare payments in vulnerable communities from being spent on alcohol, drugs and gambling. Will you, Prime Minister, guarantee there'll be no increase in the number of drunken, violent acts suffered by women and children when you cancel the card, as you've promised? 14:56 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I thank the member for the question, because there has been a lot of rhetoric heard in the debate from the shadow minister, and also in the debate last night, but not a lot of evidence. The evidence is very clear. Ms HWA It was laid out in the ANAO report, and I remind the House— Honourable members interjecting— Ms RISHWORTH HWA I remind the House that the government did not demonstrate— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will resume her seat. Questions have been heard in silence. Answers will be heard in silence. This is question time, and it is answer time as well. Ms RISHWORTH HWA I remind the House that the government was not able to demonstrate that the CDC program was meeting its intended objectives. That is from the ANAO report. But I continued reading the ANAO report and I found some other interesting information, in table 1.2. It is that in 2020 the former government reduced the objectives of the act. It actually references violence and harm and the reduction in trial sites. That was point b). It actually removed that from the objectives. So, in the new objectives, there was no reference to trying to determine whether violence or harm was reducing. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will pause. Mr Sukkar 242515 Point of order, Mr Speaker, on relevance. The question was: will the Prime Minister, or the minister in his stead, promise that there won't be more violence inflicted on women and children as a result of putting— The SPEAKER 53517 The member will resume his seat. The minister is being completely relevant in referring to the program and the ANAO report regarding the outcomes. I give the call to the minister, who will be heard in silence. Ms RISHWORTH HWA In 2015, the former government was then interested in whether or not the cashless debit card reduced violence or harm in the trial areas, but by 2020 they were no longer interested. Why? You might wonder. It is because they could not provide any evidence to suggest there was a reduction in harm and violence in communities. We've heard a lot from those on the other side about the University of Adelaide report, and I want to go to the part of the report that talks about safety, crime and family violence, where it said that 60 per cent of CDC participants reported that they did not feel safer since the introduction of the CDC card and 28 per cent— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker will cease interjecting. Ms RISHWORTH HWA that's more than one in four participants—reported their safety had reduced since the introduction of the CDC. So, if we go to the evidence and ignore the ideological rhetoric from those opposite, we see that this program did not make a difference when it came to safety and harm. Indeed, what it did for participants was make discrimination normalised in communities and stigma normalised in communities, and it had practical problems that meant that people couldn't buy a second-hand fridge, because they didn't have enough cash. It meant that families couldn't take their children to the football, because they didn't have enough cash. This has meant real problems in communities, and we are acting to fix it. The SPEAKER 53517 I give the call to the member for Bruce. Honourable members interjec ting— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Bruce will be heard in silence. Youpla Group 32 15:00 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce My question is to the Minister for Financial Services. What steps is the government taking to ensure that Indigenous families and communities affected by the collapse of Youpla are being assisted as quickly as possible to be able to move forward with their lives? 15:00 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I thank the member for Bruce for his question. I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your elevation to the Speaker's chair. I want to start by acknowledging that in the Speaker's gallery today are representatives of the Save Sorry Business Coalition. They've travelled from the Kimberley, Moree, Ballarat, New England and other places around the country so that their voices can be heard by members of this place. They have a sorry story to tell. The collapse of the Youpla Group has affected thousands of First Nations families around Australia who are relying on this funeral benefit insurance to allow them to mourn their loved ones and to conduct sorry business. The Albanese Labor government recognises the sorrow, grief and anguish that the collapse of this business has caused these communities. I thank the Minister for Indigenous Australians, the First Nations members of the Labor caucus and other members of this House who have made representations to me and the Minister for Indigenous Australians on this matter. The government recognises the significant distress. Investigations are underway into the behaviour of the directors and the company, but our first and immediate priority is the bodies that are today sitting in morgues because families cannot afford to bury them and conduct the important cultural business of sorry business. We will allow that to go ahead. As a short-term measure, the program the government has put in place will ensure that claims received between 1 April last year and 30 November next year will be honoured. We will stand in the shoes of the insurer. We estimate that this will benefit up to 500 First Nations families around Australia who would otherwise be left without funeral benefits. More work needs to be done to ensure that we can resolve all the other issues associated with this collapse, but we must ask ourselves: if there had been a voice to parliament prior to 2020, would it have told us that we needed to change the law to ensure that these dodgy insurance products are not sold to vulnerable communities? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will be heard in silence. Mr JONES A9B If there had been a voice to parliament in 2020, would it have told us that the collapse of this company was going to cause to these communities and these families the sort of harm that we've described? The answer is yes. Economy 33 15:03 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's answer yesterday when he couldn't say how much the cash rate had increased since those opposite came to government. Given the Reserve Bank's decision today, how much higher is the cash rate compared to when those opposite came to government? What is the impact on the average mortgage payment? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left and right! The SPEAKER 53517 The Minister for Resources is not helping. I give the call to the Prime Minister. 15:04 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler The cash rate went up by 0.5 today, as it went up by 0.5 last month and it went up by 0.5 the month before. Building Better Regions Fund 33 15:04 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. As the government considers its approach to grants programs, what lessons can be learned from the recent Australian National Audit Office report into the Building Better Regions Fund? 15:05 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat As we as a parliament contemplate the legacy of a trillion dollars of debt that has been left to us by those opposite, and we contemplate how we manage that as an economy, it is very enlightening to have a bit of an insight into the way in which the previous government decided to spend taxpayers' money. The Australian National Audit Office tabled an audit report last Thursday that is scathing of the way in which the previous government spent taxpayers' money. This is a decade of rorts that we saw from the previous government. Let's just have a look at what the Australian National Audit Office had to say. And what it actually had to say, members—particularly of the Liberal Party, I would point out—was that it wasn't just Labor seats that missed out because of the way in which largely the National Party were benefited; it actually was Liberal Party seats. Many of the regional seats held by the Liberal Party members opposite missed out on meritorious projects because of the way the National Party administered this program. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the National Party! Ms CAT 00AMR What we saw from that audit report was that over 65 per cent of the projects of the infrastructure stream— The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the National Party is warned! Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR which made up almost all of the billion-dollar program were not the ones that were deemed by the department as the most meritorious. In fact, in round 5, as some media reports will tell you, you were more likely to get funded if you had a low score than if you had a high score. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will resume her seat. I will hear from the member for Wannon. Mr Tehan 210911 Point of order, Mr Speaker: hypocrisy. The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. There is no point of order. You do not start a point of order like that. The minister is in order and I give her the call. I warn the House: points of order during questions will not be tolerated if they are to be disruptive. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR They're a little sensitive over on that side of the House about the way in which they administered this program. As I said, 65 per cent of projects— Opposition members interjecting— Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Mr Speaker, could I ask that you ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw that comment, please. The SPEAKER 53517 If the minister heard an unparliamentary term, I'd ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw. Mr Dutton 00AKI I made no such unparliamentary remark. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR What the audit found was that it is more likely that your project would be funded if you had a low score than if you had a high score. That is the legacy of the previous government when it comes to these programs. Not only did the Audit Office find that there was a lack of transparency; what they increasingly did was that they ignored the Commonwealth grants guidelines and then changed the way in which they operated. By the fifth round of this program, what we saw was that the previous government actually requested that the department didn't give them any recommendations so that they didn't have to report when they counteracted the department of infrastructure. That's what we saw. There isn't a National Party member who wouldn't like to get their hands on a dollar for their seat at the expense of— (Time expired). Early Childhood Education 34 15:09 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education and Minister for Youth. With around 7,000 vacancies in the early childhood education sector, I ask the minister: how many workers will be needed under Labor's universal childcare policy? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The question was heard in silence. The member on my left, the Leader of the Nationals, is on a warning. 15:09 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I thank the member for Moncrieff for her question. I also take this opportunity to congratulate the member for Moncrieff on being appointed as the opposition shadow spokesperson on this issue and thank her for her interest in early childhood education. We know that more needs to be done to develop and recognise the workforce. We recognise that there are serious workforce issues. As I mentioned in my last response, I and my Labor colleagues met earlier today with members from the early childhood education sector, and primarily a lot of the issues that they were raising were around workforce issues. We recognise that there is a shortage in the workforce and the workforce needed now to fill in the vacancies for early childhood education. This shortage is not just in the workforce itself; it may interest the member to know that the retention rates for early childhood educators in certificate III and in diploma are also very low and have reduced quite significantly over the last two years. But even before COVID those retention rates were very low. To go to the member's question—before the Deputy Leader of the Opposition stands up to interject—about workforce requirements: the figures that were published earlier this week that quote, I think, around 6½ thousand vacancies are correct, and we do anticipate that those vacancies will increase not just as a result of a Labor government making it more affordable and more accessible for children to access early childhood education— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister is answering the question. I will ask her to pause for a moment. The member for Moncrieff? Ms Bell 282981 It's a point of order on relevance. The minister's not outlining— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. The minister is being entirely relevant. You asked about the workforce needed in early childhood. She is referring exactly to that point. I give the call to the minister. Dr ALY 13050 In response to what we're doing about the workforce issues that have persisted for many years, including for the last nine years in which the previous government resided over these issues in the workforce, there are a number of things that we're doing. As I mentioned in my previous answer, the Minister for Education and I are conducting a rigorous agenda of consultation with the sector. We have been consulting with the sector and continue to consult with the sector in the lead-up to the Jobs and Skills Summit. But there are a number of other Labor government policies that are going to help that issue as well—we've got the fee-free TAFE policy and we've got free education university places—that we know will help to resolve some of those issues in the workforce sector. I'm not underestimating the challenge ahead of us in this, and I assure the member for Moncrieff that we have not underestimated the challenge ahead of us in addressing these workforce issues. I will say that they are not just in the early childhood education sector but across the care sector generally. I can also assure those opposite that it is only a Labor government that's going to do something about it. Ukraine 34 15:13 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. How will the government continue to support displaced Ukrainian nationals and their immediate family members until Ukraine is victorious against the brutal invasion? 15:13 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I thank the member for her question, and I congratulate her on her election to this place and her magnificent first speech last week. I also take this opportunity to congratulate you on your elevation, Mr Speaker. The illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine by Mr Putin has seen cities devastated, reduced to rubble; immense loss of life and untold damage to the people of Ukraine. I want to be very clear that the Australian government's support for Ukrainian sovereignty is unwavering, as most particularly shown by the visit of our Prime Minister to Kiev. Also, the Australian government stands in solidarity with the people of Ukraine, and we will support them as long as it takes for Ukraine to emerge victorious from this brutal invasion. I'm sure that is a sentiment shared by everyone in this place. This government is committed to ensuring that Ukrainians both inside and outside of Australia can not only find safety in the Australian community but also access appropriate visas to enable them and their families to thrive in Australia. I note that since 23 February of this year, the Australian government has granted more than 8,600 visas to Ukrainians in Ukraine and hundreds more to Ukrainians elsewhere. In late June, I was advised that the temporary humanitarian offer for Ukrainian nationals had a deadline imposed by the former government of 30 June. This was done so without updating the website or informing the Ukrainian Australian community. However, this government understands how important communicating important information like this is to the community. Accordingly, I extended the offer to allow those unaware of this hidden deadline to take advantage of the important temporary humanitarian stay offer. I also extended the offer to the immediate family members of Ukrainian nationals who did not hold Ukrainian citizenship, so families fleeing this invasion were not unnecessarily split. I am sure that is a decision welcomed by all members of this place. However—and the shadow minister may pay attention at this point—the offer, which was established by members opposite, bars recipients from being able to leave this country whilst holding that visa and from ever being able to apply for a permanent protection visa. These were crucial facts, like the decline imposed on the program, that were not communicated to the Australian Ukrainian community, leaving Ukrainian nationals in the dark. This oversight has been of great concern to me and the government, and the community which is why I have been negotiating with the community to ensure that these oversights, which I'm sure were not intended, have been attended to, so that community members can be given the support that they deserve and which I think every member of this place agrees they are entitled to while this invasion, this brutal invasion, continues and they deserve our help. 15:17 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the minister for immigration for that answer and so do the Ukrainian Australian community. This entire parliament stands with you at this difficult time, given the ongoing brutality of the Russian invasion. 15:17 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I join with the Prime Minister and the minister in pledging our support to provide every effort to help the country through its darkest hour. When we were in government, we provided over $280 million worth of defence equipment and aid to the Ukrainian government to try to save the lives of men, women and children, and to push back the oppressors. This illegal invasion of the Ukraine has gone on for way too long and, sadly, there's no end in sight. We hope that peace can prevail at some point. The fact that we've been able to extend, on a bipartisan basis, support to the Ukrainian people and provide a new home and a new start for them and their families in significant numbers is something our nation should be very proud of. Mr Albanese R36 I also ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 35 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Member for Bruce 35 15:18 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash Mr Speaker, you asked that the member for Bruce be heard in silence. As the member for Bruce has never offered that to any member of this House in the whole of his career, why are you offering such witness protection at this time? 15:18 The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the member for the question. I will be looking very closely at the member for Bruce going forward. Standing And Sessional Orders 35 15:18 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I seek your guidance under standing orders 89 and 90 that deal with disorder, offensive words and imputations of improper motives. I specifically refer to the term 'rort' and the use of that term during question time in the last couple of weeks. The Treasurer has used the term on a frequent basis and, today, the minister for infrastructure used the term to refer to those opposite. Interjections from this side then referred to the member for 'Ballarort'—again, the use of that term. Honourable members interjecting— Mr CHESTER IPZ Mr Speaker, it's a serious question to you. Mr Speaker, the word 'rort' refers to fraudulent or dishonest acts. I'm not sure how it assists the orderly conduct of this chamber to have unsubstantiated claims of fraudulent or dishonest acts when there are mechanisms in the House for dealing with those matters, so I'm seeking your ruling on the specific use of the word 'rort' in future question times. Mr Burke DYW Just to that question, when you're considering the use of the word 'rort', I ask that you also consider the history of the word being used in this place. My understanding is it first started to be used a lot by Peter Costello and was put to him by his then staffer Tony Smith, who turned out to be a pretty good authority for what's reasonable in this place 15:20 The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the Leader and I thank the member for his question. I will take that into consideration and get back to him. But on the question of titles, if someone uses the incorrect title, I will call them up on that. STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 36 STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER Member for Maranoa 36 15:20 The SPEAKER 53517 I have a statement to make regarding the member for Maranoa, who raised an issue around standing order 68 yesterday when I endeavoured to get back to him. Standing order 68 provides an opportunity for a member to correct a misrepresentation, whether during proceedings or otherwise, through a personal explanation to the House. Should another member repeat a matter complained of as a misrepresentation, standing order 68 states that the Speaker may intervene. The challenges of such action have been recognised by speakers since the inclusion of that clause in the standing orders in around 2013. One of the challenges I have, and it was also acknowledged by Speaker Bishop in 2014, is the need for the chair 'to be satisfied that the matter complained of is an exact repetition of the matter responded to by way of personal explanation.' That would be a difficult task for the chair, but as Speaker I have a role to enable the free flow of speech and debate in the House. An approach available to the Speaker in a situation where a member has made a personal explanation is to correct a specific personal matter claiming a misrepresentation and then complain to the chair that the misrepresentation has been repeated by the use of the same words. The chair may ask the offending member to refrain from again repeating the misrepresentation, while noting that, in asking a member to so refrain, the chair is not making any judgement as to the truth or otherwise of the alleged misrepresentation of the correction. I note that, should the chair intervene in this matter, the member making the complaint will not have the opportunity to subsequently make a personal explanation on that matter. In the case raised by the member for Maranoa, the Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government have referred in question time to a tweet from 9 May 2022. The member for Maranoa has complained that by not using the full text of the tweet he has been misrepresented. As Speaker it is not my role to adjudicate on the truth or otherwise of what is said in the House, and I remind all members of the need to be careful with the language they use in proceedings. DOCUMENTS 36 DOCUMENTS Presentation 36 15:22 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 36 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Economy 36 15:23 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Fadden proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The impact of rising interest rates and inflation on family budgets. I call upon those 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— 15:23 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden Australians are worried. They're worried about how they're going to afford their next mortgage payment. They're worried about their next electricity bill. Frankly, they're worried about putting food on the table. Small businesses owners are worried about the cost of doing business. This is a cost-of-living crisis that, frankly, this Labor government is putting in the too-hard basket. We had the Treasurer last week supposedly trying to paint us a picture. It seemed more like a blank canvas than a veritable Mona Lisa. We have seen more action from the Labor government on looking after union mates, their donors and campaign helpers in the very first months of this government than we have seen in them looking after the Australian people. In fact, the very first act from Treasury, the very first act under Prime Minister Albanese, was to water down transparency for super funds hiding, as has been reported in the media, over $85 million in donations and other payments for union picnics and the like before the election—$85 million hidden, not helping Australians with cost of living and looking after union mates. We have a cost-of-living crisis, but Labor's first priority is hiding transparency and lacking integrity. It would be extraordinary if it weren't so true. Back on 9 June, just after the election, the Prime Minister told the Guardian that a cabinet meeting being held that week was to consider how best to respond to the cost-of-living crisis facing Australians. That would seem a reasonable reason for a cabinet meeting. This cabinet meeting was held with great fanfare, with the Prime Minister saying that his government would have a policy of doing what they could to assist with the cost-of-living pressures. I ask the House: what came out of this fabled cabinet meeting? Nothing. Not a sausage. I don't even remember seeing a press release. There were crickets out of a cabinet meeting that was apparently going to assist Australians with the cost of living. This is what happens when you talk the big platitudes during an election campaign and get into government without a plan. This Labor government has no direction. It frankly has no clue, and everyday Australians are paying the price. This government can't even get right a commitment to save $275 for every Australian's power bill, a commitment that lasted barely weeks before the government broke that promise. Government is about tough decisions in tough circumstances. The risk for Australia is that Prime Minister Albanese and Labor's inaction will, frankly, make a bad situation a lot worse. Australians need a plan from this government. Did they get one after that fabled cabinet meeting in June? Goodness no—nothing at all. Did we get one after the Treasurer's much-hyped statement in parliament last week? No—nothing at all. The Prime Minister needs to start putting words into action. Frankly, he is he all talk and no delivery. Before the last election, when Australia was coming out of the pandemic, we came out with the lowest unemployment in almost 50 years, very strong GDP growth, low interest rates and our AAA credit rating intact. An unemployment rate at 3.9 subsequently dropped to 3.5 per cent. The economy was 3.4 per cent bigger than before the pandemic. More of our citizens were employed post pandemic than pre, one of only a few nations in the OECD to claim that. We had a cash rate at 0.35 per cent. We had started the hard yards on budget repair without increasing taxes. Our last budget saw a record improvement of $100 billion to the budget bottom line. In the most recent financial statement, the budget deficit had more than halved from what was forecast in May. We delivered cost-of-living relief in our last budget. The Treasury confirmed at Senate estimates it was responsible, measured and did not add to inflationary pressures. Even before the pandemic and before global pressures on inflation, the coalition took action to reduce and relieve the cost-of-living pressures with tax cuts for families. We didn't need a cost-of-living crisis to act. We reduced the small businesses tax rate. We didn't need what we are seeing now to move forward on that. We balanced the budget before the pandemic. We didn't need a cost-of-living crisis to do that. We did these things because they were good proactive policies—good for the economy and good for the Australian people. This is what a good government does and looks like. These are the proud achievements of the former coalition government, with, frankly, no thanks to those opposite. Labor opposed bigger tax cuts for families and had to be dragged kicking and screaming to accept the stage 3 tax cut after years of saying they would abolish it. Labor opposed the small businesses tax cuts. Labor fought tooth and nail against every single bit of restrained government spending. And Labor wanted to spend even more. Labor's yet to outline a detailed plan to address the immediate cost-of-living pressures. The Labor Party went to the last election promising to run bigger deficits, spending more of taxpayers' money. That will fuel inflation. This was confirmed by the independent Parliamentary Budget Office, which showed Labor's election platform will result in higher debt and higher deficit. By contrast, the PBO also confirmed that the coalition was the only party that went to the election with a pathway to improve the budget bottom line. The coalition's 2022-23 budget was balancing the task of budget repair whilst also providing over $8 billion in assistance to Australians with the rising cost of living. Labor obstructed almost all efforts at budget repair over the last nine years. Remember, we inherited a quarter of a trillion dollars worth of debt. Remember that masterful 2012 budget, when the Treasurer, Mr Swan, stood here and said, 'The four surpluses I announce tonight'? Well, those four surpluses ended up being $200 billion by the time we balanced the budget. That's almost half a trillion dollars of Labor debt—be in no doubt, it was Labor debt—and the final expenditure of some $350 billion as we confronted a one-in-100-year pandemic. That is the truth of the sum $850 billion when it comes to gross debt. That is the truth, and, for those opposite, the truth will set you free. Over the last two years, as a statement of fact, those opposite wanted to spend $81 billion more on additional expenditure during COVID—$81 billion more—and that is a fact. Those opposite wanted to spend $6 billion giving money to Australians who'd already had the jab to get the jab. That's how incomprehensible their degree of expenditure was. We know that the Labor Party platform, their wish list for government, as we saw in previous election campaigns, will require over $300 billion in more expenditure. Those opposite, as the Labor government, have set themselves three tests. These are the tests set by the Labor Party, tests that the Australian people were told about—at least they were upfront—tests that were promised and tests that are expected to be delivered. Those opposite all agreed to these three tests, and we will hold those opposite accountable for them: lower power prices—well, that's going exceptionally well, isn't it? $275 was promised, and nowhere—broken; lower cost of living—well, that's going exceptionally well, isn't it, for those opposite; and higher wages. They are the three tests. They are the three accountable standards that we will hold those opposite to. Unfortunately, Labor's priorities are elsewhere—priorities that will drive up the cost of construction, putting further pressure on inflation. Labor's policy in terms of abolishing the ABCC is not about helping individual Australians with the cost of living. In fact it will have the opposite effect. We know from economic analysis that this will be an over $40 billion hit to the economy and the cost of building homes, schools, hospitals and roads. This is Labor's priority. It is not the cost of living. It's not the stability of interest rates. These are not the actions of a government that is acting responsibly. They're making a bad situation worse. 15:33 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner In 1952 Marvin Minsky invented the 'useless machine'. It was a little machine with a box with one switch on it, in the off position. If you turned it on then a little hand came out of the machine to turn it back off again. That was its only purpose. As Arthur C Clarke put it: There is something unspeakably sinister about a machine that does nothing—absolutely nothing—except switch itself off. And that's what Australians are saying about the last nine years. As the Economist has noted of the British Conservative government, the Liberals were, when they were in government, the political equivalent of a useless machine: they know what they're against, they know what they want to turn off, but they have no idea what they are for. I turn 50 tomorrow, and I'm pleased to be celebrating my birthday in government. But it is a moment to reflect on the fact that I spent the larger part of the last decade going through the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government. Let me just take the House through a few of the lowlights of that period. This is the government that introduced a religious discrimination bill, then, when it was amended in the House, voted against its own bill. It was a government that promised an Integrity Commission then failed to deliver one. It was a government that gave $20 billion of JobKeeper to firms with rising revenues, many of which then paid it to their millionaire CEOs or their billionaire offshore shareholders. It was government which, when the pandemic hit, failed to provide personal protective equipment to aged-care centres. It was a government where at Christmas last year you couldn't get a rapid antigen test, and where approximately a year ago Australia was running dead last in the OECD for our vaccine rollout. Their failures in aged care led to a royal commission report titled Neglect. Under the Liberals Australia slipped to 59th in world in average broadband speed rankings. And maybe if they hadn't stuffed up the National Broadband Network then the member who moved this matter of public importance wouldn't have had to pay $2,000 a month for his home internet bill. The Liberals had 22 energy policies and they failed to land one. They had a Prime Minister who attended a Trump rally, lied to Emmanuel Macron and left our international reputation in tatters. They had Prime Minister who was described by the member for New England as 'a hypocrite and a liar', by Gladys Berejiklian as 'a horrible person', by former Senator Fierravanti-Wells as 'a bully who has no moral compass'. This was not a government; it was a cage fight. By the end they had left us in a situation where the Morrison government's reputation was so bad it made the Abbott government's reintroduction of knights and dames look positively futuristic and visionary. Nine years and so little to show for it. What was the point of the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments? They were the political equivalent of Seinfeld, a government about nothing. Now this government is getting on with the job. The Treasurer and the finance minister are instituting a waste and rorts audit, which is absolutely essential when we look back over some of the waste and the rorts of the last government. We had the Department of Home Affairs give a $423 million contract to Paladin, a company with its headquarters as a shack on a beach. We had the environment department give $444 million of taxpayer money to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, which only had six full-time staff and had never managed more than $10 million. The money, not surprisingly for that government, was given without a tender process. They paid $80 million—at least twice the fair value—for water entitlements, to Eastern Australia Agriculture, a firm that was founded by the shadow Treasurer and located in the Cayman Islands. They allocated money through sports rorts, using colour-coded spreadsheets—a scandal so egregious that, even by the low standards of the former government, the minister was forced to resign. They handed out money through the Urban Congestion Fund, 83 per cent of which went to coalition or marginal seats; through the Community Development Grants, which saw over 75 per cent go to coalition seats; and through the Building Better Regions Fund, which, as the minister has just noted, led to an Australian National Audit Office report which showed that you were more likely to get funded the lower your score was, and in which it is very clear that the government just wanted the department to stop making recommendations so they could get on with political pork-barrelling. Australia today faces serious challenges. We face a cost-of-living crisis, the roots of which are primarily global but which has been worsened by a range of supply-side blockages left in place by the former government—by the failure to invest in skills, by the visa backlog that has led to so many firms needing key employees. This cost-of-living crisis is toughest on low-income families. Labor is committed to acting. One of our first actions in government was to make a recommendation to the Fair Work Commission for minimum wage workers to get a pay rise. That led to a 5.2 per cent pay rise for minimum wage workers. Our childcare plan will provide cheaper child care for 1.26 million Australian families—again, dealing with a core cost-of-living issue for many Australians. We're getting more renewables into the grid after the nine years of wasted time in which Australia has failed to make sufficient investment in renewables. We still have people sitting on the other side of the House who say, 'Well, you can't invest in solar and wind because the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow'—members who must be flabbergasted on days when it's not raining and they turn on the tap and water comes out of it. Extraordinarily, it turns out there's a technology called batteries. There are innovations such as joining up the grid, through Labor's Rewiring the Nation plan, that allow us to make the best use of renewables to reduce emissions and take pressure off household power bills. We're investing in boosting productivity and increasing the number of university places and TAFE places. The Minister for Education is tackling that core issue of teacher quality to make sure we increase not just the quantity of education but the quality of education too. We're engaging in competition reform, and I'm pleased to have the small business minister here in the House and to be working with her on things like making unfair contract terms illegal so small business aren't put at a competitive disadvantage by large firms. The minister for immigration is hard at work clearing the visa backlog. The Jobs and Skills Summit, inspired by Curtin's full employment white paper, will bring together business, unions and the community sector to focus on the core skills and jobs challenges facing the Australian economy. What do the opposition want? Well, they'd like us to cancel the event and for them to come along as well, I guess, so they can sit in an empty room and talk about jobs and skills. That's where the opposition is at when it comes to the core challenges facing the nation. We're acting on multinational tax, not just to return money to the budget bottom line through cracking down on debt deduction and misuse of royalty payments but because it's just not fair for small firms to be placed at a competitive disadvantage by large firms that are using their double Irish with a Dutch sandwich, or leprechaun economics, or stashing profits in an offshore tax haven. These are the sort of lurks and perks that are available to multinationals but that are unavailable to small business. Labor stands on the side of fairness. We want a level playing field in the economy. That's a core reason why we're setting about swiftly implementing the OECD/G20 two-pillar agreement and closing debt deduction and royalty repayment loopholes in order to improve fairness. Australia faces significant inflation challenges with our 6.1 per cent inflation, as do other countries like the US with 9.1 per cent inflation, the UK with 9.4 per cent, the euro area with its 8.6 per cent inflation and New Zealand with 7.3 per cent inflation. Inflation is forecast by Treasury to come back into the target band by 2024. In the meantime, the Reserve Bank is focusing on the demand side and the government is focusing on the supply side. We're working with the monetary policy regulator to make sure that everything we do goes directly to the cost-of-living challenges. I started talking about the useless machine, but the members of the opposition really want another machine. They need the 'neuralyzer' that the Men in Black used to wipe the minds of everyone watching. They want to wipe the Australian people's minds of the nine wasted years that we've seen. 15:43 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin The government scrupulously avoided talking about the economy during the election campaign, and we've seen why since they've come into government. This is a government without a plan, without any knowledge, with a group of L-plate Treasury ministers who have got no idea what they're doing and with a Prime Minister who has never held an economic portfolio. We are seeing quite early how lacking his experience, in his very long time in parliament, has been. The government has already broken faith with the Australian people, at a time when the Australian people are facing cost-of-living pressures on a range of fronts like high inflation. I would agree with and accept the assistant minister's statement that global factors are predominantly responsible. We're seeing high fuel prices, now with increasing interest rates and an environment of tightening monetary policy. What is the answer from the government to the Australian people on one of the solemn commitments they made prior to the election to give some cost-of-living relief, which was that they would reduce power prices by $275? What is the outcome of that? They have walked away from that commitment within weeks. The government would like to hope that we will forget about that commitment, that we will forget about the endless array of Facebook tiles that we saw from members opposite and candidates that they would deliver a $275 reduction. They will not deliver it. The Prime Minister won't even say the words '$275'—won't even utter the words. At a time when Australians are facing such cost-of-living pressures, the Labor Party are now walking away from the only source of relief that they promised. In addition, they've got a very critical decision to make. In response to those cost-of-living pressures, when I was around the ERC table, we took a decision to pause the fuel excise. It was a very big decision and one that we thought about deeply. There were two factors in our minds when we took that decision to reduce the excise to save people about 24c a litre when you include the GST. That's 24c a litre that Australians have been enjoying since we took that decision. There were two primary factors: the price of oil, largely as a response to the war in Ukraine; and, of course, the cost-of-living pressures that Australians were facing in a tightening environment of monetary policy. Those two factors are still in play and indeed are worse now. There is no end in sight—sadly and regrettably—to the conflict in the Ukraine and no requisite outcome on oil prices in sight. Monetary policy is tightening even further. The two factors that caused us to take that decision are worse now than they were then. So the government have got a very big decision to make. Do they say to Australians, 'We will reinstate that fuel excise, that additional 22c'—or 24c once you take into account the GST—'per litre'? Will members opposite go back to their electorates and tell their people: 'I'm sorry; bad luck. Whatever you see now, add another 24c'? Or will they extend it? That's a decision for the government, ultimately. That's a decision that governments have to make, and blaming the former government, the opposition, cannot be a substitute for a very critical decision that they will have to take. We are in an environment where we've got tightening monetary policy. Again we have had a rise of 50 basis points today, or $700 a month in additional payments for a household with a mortgage of $800,000. The Prime Minister didn't know that number. That's in addition to what people were already facing with higher fuel costs and higher prices at the supermarket. Will this government say, 'You can pay an extra 22c plus GST per litre on your fuel,' or will they take a contrary decision? That's a very big decision for them, but I would suggest that the government are all at sea on that question, as they are with every question around the economy. They didn't want to mention it before the election, and we now see why. 15:48 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke This is a difficult day for Australian households in terms of their household budgets, with the Reserve Bank's announcement of a 0.5-point interest rate rise. We can expect that banks will probably pass that on. I think that adds to a broader set of conditions that are challenging household budgets. Fuel, food and energy prices are at an all-time high, and that's largely driven by international circumstances, particularly the war in Ukraine, which has certainly put global supply chains under extraordinary pressure and driven up those costs accordingly. The reality is, we face a time of significant economic challenge in our country generally, thanks to nearly a decade of squandered opportunities, wrong priorities and rorts from the previous Liberal government. An honourable member: Rorts? Mr RAE 300122 Rorts from the previous Liberal government. These rate rises began before the election. The cruel, harsh reality is that the Reserve Bank have been relatively clear that they expect that there will be more to come. There is no point in pretending that these rate rises don't hurt households; they do. They particularly hurt households in my electorate of Hawke, where many people have bought their first homes or have bought a home that could be there forever home and have leveraged themselves accordingly. We have inherited a decade of the former coalition's neglect. We have a skills crisis, a cost of living crisis and a trillion dollars of debt that will take generations for us to pay off. Of course, we now understand that as interest rates rise the cost of repaying that debt, the interest repayments on it, are the fastest growing part of the Australian budget. The issue for households is on the expense side of their household budgets, but it's not only on the expense side of household budgets. The income side of household budgets has been wilfully neglected throughout the decade of the former government. 'Neglected' might even be the wrong term, because those opposite have been very clear; they have admitted this. The former finance minister, Mathias Cormann, was clear that deliberate wage suppression was, in fact, a deliberate design feature of their economic management. They purposely suppressed wages growth for working people. They deliberately put our households and our families across the country in financial distress, and left us exposed to these international circumstances once prices started to rise. This deliberate decision to maximise returns for corporate interests at the expense of working Australians has left households very much exposed to the inflationary pressures and the consequent actions that we see the Reserve Bank taking in order to deal with them today. The decision will make life a lot harder for Australians who are already paying more for energy and groceries. We are focused on tackling these cost of living challenges rather than exacerbating them by suppressing their wages on an ongoing basis. We have a plan to help everyday Australians who are struggling as a result of the wasted decade from the former Liberal government. Our economic plan is about responsible cost of living relief and growing the economy without adding to inflation. Labor will deliver cheaper childcare and cheaper medicines. We will invest in skills and productivity, and cleaner and cheaper energy. We will invest in education. Importantly, we will get wages moving again. We will start to deal with the income side of household budgets and we will ensure that Australian households get a real wages rise. The coming October budget will be all about responsible cost of living relief, implementing our economic plan and redirecting money wasted by our predecessors to more productive investments. Our nation is paying the price for that wasted decade under the former Liberal government. But Australia has voted for a better future under an Albanese Labor government and that has given us the opportunity to restore prosperity and growth to our country. Australian workers now have a government with an economic plan—(time expired) 15:53 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina You'll actually keep. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I'm just going to stop all the interjections and say you have the right to be heard in silence. Mr McCORMACK 219646 I hadn't even started and he was interjecting. Taree, Bathurst, Orange, Cranbourne, Tamworth, Kalgoorlie, Shepparton—what do they have in common? They are all around a population of 40,000. That is the number of people that, when in government, the coalition saved through our policies and our spending initiatives during the worst of COVID global pandemic—40,000 people. I hear the Treasurer often ask: what does Australia have to show for all the spending by the coalition government? I'll tell you what it has to show? It is people's lives. It was 700,000 livelihoods, the jobs of Australians that were at risk. I was in the meetings at the outbreak of COVID-19. On 1 March I can remember James Kwan, a tourism operator in Perth, had passed away. He was the first of many thousands of Australians who lost their lives. We mourn for him now as we mourned for his family then. We put in place measures, through JobKeeper and all the other provisions, to make sure that people's lives and livelihoods were protected and preserved. That's what we did, and 40,000 lives have been protected. The Treasurer, the member for Hawke and others on that side ask: what did your spending provide? Mr McCORMACK 219646 'Nothing,' I hear from the member for McEwen! That's 40,000 lives. That's what it was. We don't apologise for the fact that we saved people's lives. Mr McCORMACK 219646 Stop pointing at me and yelling at me. Deputy Speaker, I ask you to pull him into order. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Order! Mr McCORMACK 219646 Forty thousand lives. That's what we saved. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Excuse me, Member for McEwen. Dial it down, Member for Riverina. I'd like you to take a breath and calm this down for a moment. Mr McCORMACK 219646 The Sydney Morning Herald in its editorial on 29 July 2022 said that the Treasurer should end his 'sob story' and outline his policies. I couldn't agree more. It continued: While Chalmers'— the member for Rankin— economic statement drips with rhetorical empathy for battlers, it fails to explain how he plans to reconcile these conflicting priorities. Of course, the Sydney Morning Herald is right. It was not just the Sydney Morning Herald, other publications and other media asking that question and demanding an answer; ordinary everyday Australians were doing the same. Indeed, as we know, today is another tough day for the 3½ million families who have a mortgage and are struggling with the cost of living. They are looking to the government for answers, and what we're getting is the blame game. What we're getting is, 'It's all the fault of those opposite.' When we were in government we made sure that we navigated this nation's workers, this nation's battlers and this nation's families through drought, fires, floods and the worst global pandemic in 100 years. And what have we got to show for it? Forty thousand people are alive today because of the policies that we put in place. Some 700,000 jobs were saved because of the economic policies that we enacted, that we put in place. I'm proud of that record, and I know those on this side are proud too, because the job of the government is to protect Australians. The job of the government in Australia is to look after the interests of families, workers, battlers and everybody who calls this country home. We know that during our government more than 1.2 million jobs were created since the pandemic. There are 11½ million Australians benefitting from tax relief. That was the policy that we put in place. There were 220,000 trade apprentices. I appreciate that the government are going to have a skills and jobs summit. Good on them. I hope it's successful. I truly do. But we had 220,000 trade apprentices, a record high. There were more than 5,200 grants worth $2.7 billion to support manufacturing businesses. We want more business to be done here in Australia. We want more products built in Australia. Again I commend the government for its Buy Australian policy. That's fantastic. I truly hope it succeeds. But don't trash the legacy of the previous government. Outline your plan for what you will do in the future. We saved the lives of 40,000 people and we saved jobs. What are you going to do? 15:59 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan 'Unprecedented times' is a phrase that we've heard over and over again recently. We have a confluence of issues: a global pandemic, catastrophic climate disasters and a war in Ukraine, coupled with an energy crisis and an increased cost of living. The national inflation rate is 6.1 per cent, but in Perth it's 7.4 per cent. Of course, under the coalition we know that we saw no real wage growth in a decade. I know that families are doing it tough. As an engineer, you build foundations for the future so you can weather the hard times, and this is what the parliament should do. We've had a decade of neglect and negligence. This parliament should be the engine room of the country, but the coalition was asleep at the wheel. But, because Labor cares and is in touch, we have a plan. It's a multifaceted plan. We want to make child care and health care more affordable. We have a coherent energy policy. We want to see wages rise while making the economy more productive. In growing the economy, we want to grow the pie; we want to make it bigger. We also want to diversify our economy. This means that we can have apple pie, blueberry pie, meat pies and even vegan pies. To diversify our economy, this will also include using our National Reconstruction Fund, and that will play an important role. What we want is a future made in Australia. Productivity is something that's bread and butter for professional businesses, but, again, this is something that the coalition did not have a focus on. Process engineers live productivity and efficiency. On a mine site, this means you achieve steady state, you then increase recovery and throughput, and the final step is that you use new technology to break through to the next barrier. Again, the National Reconstruction Fund and the Jobs and Skills Summit will help unlock our nation's potential. Action on energy and climate change will save households. It will also save lives and save the nation. However, the previous government did not have a plan to manage energy and the climate. That's why they've had 30 attempts to create a coherent energy policy, and they have nothing to show for it. Inaction has a cost. This is something that the nation is dealing with right now. Under a coalition business-as-usual scenario, which the nation knows means 'do nothing', energy prices would go up even higher. Labor has a comprehensive plan to power Australia. We conducted the most sophisticated modelling that an opposition has ever done. I'm lucky that I'm from the West and that we're not connected to the National Electricity Market. The coalition have left the NEM horrendously exposed. The war in Ukraine and the increased gas prices have exposed this. But, wait, there's an exception in the NEM! It's here in the ACT, who have chosen renewables and energy storage to reduce dependency on fossil fuels and keep energy prices lower. That sounds familiar. This is why Labor wants to increase renewables in the grid by 82 per cent by 2030. It will help insulate electricity prices against supply shocks. Like the Minister for Climate Change and Energy said, 'While the sun shines and the wind blows, it won't be sending us separate invoices.' On child care, barriers to work mean barriers to earning an income. For families, the cost of child care can sometimes be the same as a private school education. If you want to work more than three days a week or if you have more than one child in child care, it can become really challenging. Because of this, we know that the female workforce participation rate drops off when people have kids. Meaningful action on addressing the cost of living relies on meaningful action to increase participation rates of parents in the workforce, particularly women. Labor's childcare policy does precisely this. Parents shouldn't have to choose between affordable child care and full-time work. Our childcare policy doesn't punish parents for returning to work. Instead, it expands access to the rates of childcare subsidies to more families. Often one parent, typically the mother, has to forego extra hours or forego a promotion. On health care, we're making prescriptions more affordable. This government will cut the maximum co-payment under the PBS from the current $42.50 to $30. This is a $12.50 saving. 16:04 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt It's a very tough day for the millions of Australians that have a mortgage. Those in my electorate of Sturt and those across the country will be becoming aware, through the course of this afternoon and this evening, that interest rates have again gone up by another 0.5 per cent. That's three 0.5 per cent interest rate rises in the last three months. Unfortunately there is no suggestion that this is the end of interest rates increasing. This is going to make things very difficult for families that have purchased homes and made assumptions about what the burden is going to be on their household budget to service that mortgage, now to find that whenever they're renegotiating or refinancing their mortgage that'll see a significant increase in the burden of that budget. For those that are saving to buy a home to get into the property market, that is also going to make things more difficult as they've been planning and saving, expecting a certain cost to service mortgage debt financing and then have that go up. This, of course, is only one part of our economy that's putting cost-of-living pressures on the people of Australia. Electricity prices are again increasing significantly. We've just seen major decisions by the big three retailers commencing from 1 July for big increases, some in double-digits in different parts of the National Energy Market. Unfortunately, a cursory glance at the Australian Energy Market Operator's website, if you look at where wholesale spot price averages have been since then, they're only higher still. The burdens on the household budgets of the average Australians are only continuing to increase. We've seen recent inflation numbers from the June quarter, and we've seen prices go up further since then. At the end of September, of course, this government will be removing the fuel excise rebate, so fuel, whatever price it happens to be at by then, will be increasing by another 22c a litre. Now, all of these things are putting enormous pressure on the household budget, and it's very easy for those opposite to say these are all linked to factors outside of their control. Let's think about what is in their control. What's in their control is what they said before the election in order to win votes from the people of Australia. All these factors were absolutely there and known to the then opposition when they made promises to the Australian people that they would lower electricity prices by $275 for an average household, a commitment they won't repeat in this House. Certainly, the Prime Minister won't repeat it. Some have got the old talking points and are still using the plan that they took to the election, which is clearly redundant because their ministers and their Prime Minister won't defend it, won't honour it, won't now say in this place during question time that they will still keep that promise. It will be absolutely impossible for them to achieve a $275 reduction in household electricity prices. That's clear from AEMO's data already. The Prime Minister knows it; the ministers know it. Some on the backbench haven't been told about it yet, because they know what sort of impact it is going to have on their electability come the next election. But they said to the people of this nation, 'We've got a plan that is going to reduce your electricity prices.' And the absolute opposite is happening. We've got record increases in the wholesale electricity market in South Australia and almost all of the other jurisdictions within the National Electricity Market. And that unfortunately is going to flow on to consumers. Petrol prices are going up in September, electricity prices are going up, and today we've seen, unfortunately, another announcement from the Reserve Bank that mortgages are going up. On every cost that has a significant impact on the household budget, prices are out of control. And the Treasurer has now admitted—after the election, quite a different turn of phrase than before the election—that real wages in the foreseeable future are going down. Every key cost-of-living commitment that Labor took to the election is now proving to be complete and utter junk. The reverse is happening. The pressure on household budgets is absolutely out of control, and unfortunately today's interest rate increase, which could be only one of many more to come in the future, is going to put more pressure on struggling families across the country. And the Labor Party are responsible for how they misled the people of this country during the election campaign, when all the factors that are influencing these things were well and truly known. We're talking about last April and May, when they said: 'We're going to lower your cost of living. We're going to increase real wages.' Both those things are clearly not happening, and the Labor Party is utterly responsible for misleading the people of Australia. Let me tell you this: they do not like being lied to. They do not like being told, in exchange for their vote, that you are going to do something and then the opposite occurs. You just wait for what is going to happen to you when they get a chance to tell you what they think about your lies to them in the last election campaign. 16:09 Ms SI 298121 Reid TOU () (): I will agree with those opposite on two points: firstly, inflation affects us all. There is no-one untouched by rising costs. They are going to feel it at the grocery checkout, at the bowser, when they go to pay their childcare fees, undoubtedly, and those who are on our lowest incomes will feel it the most because they have very little left in their budget to be able to stretch to meet rising costs. Families are struggling at the moment, and there is a difficult road ahead. We heard from the Treasurer about inflation being likely to get worse over coming months, and we are in the midst of a perfect storm. There's no doubt about that. A war in the Ukraine, stretched global supply chains, rising energy costs and the recent floods in New South Wales have all had an impact on the price of food, electricity and petrol. The other thing I'll agree with those opposite on is that, yes, interest rates have increased. The RBA has increased the cash rate by 0.5 per cent and we're now looking at 1.85 per cent. This will again have a real impact on the budgets of families. In my electorate of Reid, almost 30 per cent of households have a mortgage. So they are going to feel that interest rate increase. With rising costs of groceries, electricity, gas prices, childcare fees and mortgage repayments, families are absolutely feeling the pinch, something that those opposite have finally started to recognise. I think where I differ from those opposite is that I think much of what we see happening at the moment has been a long time brewing. It is something that they oversaw for the last nine years. A decade without an energy policy means that we had an energy sector without the certainty to be able to invest in renewable energy, one of the cheapest forms of energy. Wage suppression was a deliberate strategy of the previous government, and it worked. It was one of the few things the previous government was able to achieve. They wanted to keep wages low. That means that the burden of increased prices falls most heavily on those on lowest incomes. Our teachers, nurses, aged-care workers and childcare workers are going to be feeling the brunt of rising costs. They have not seen a real wage increase in years. The other challenge to this equation is the increasingly precarious nature of our job market. Job insecurity is now a hallmark of our job market. Again, that's something those opposite deliberately made part of their strategy. During the campaign, I had the privilege of meeting Ashley when I went out doorknocking. She spoke to me about the difficulty her family had in trying to plan long term for their future because her partner had worked at the same company for 27 years as a casual and had never been offered a permanent position. That meant that her family were unable to plan for the future and unable to save because they did not know what income he would be bringing in week to week. They've got two young kids and she was in tears describing the situation to me. Today, as I speak on this matter of public importance, I think about Ashley and her family. I want to say to Ashley: we have listened and we care about the challenges that you're going through. While we can't fix a decade of mismanagement overnight, there are practical measures that we can take to reduce the burden on families. They're not getting to be short-term measures to win us an election like those opposite introduced. These are going to be long-term measures that are going to have a real impact on families' budgets—for example, making child care more affordable and making medicines cheaper. But, importantly, we are also taking steps to improve job security for all working Australians. When my parents came to this country more than four decades ago, they were able to find good, secure jobs in factories with good conditions and they were able to thrive here. But, as I think about their story, I wonder if it would have been possible if they had come to this country four decades later. I don't think it would have been possible at all. They wouldn't have been able to find those jobs in factories, they wouldn't have been able to have that job security and our family wouldn't have been able to thrive here. In part, that is because of decisions that governments have made, decisions that those opposite made. 16:14 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde I congratulate the member for Reid on her election to this place and I take this opportunity to maybe correct her on some of her comments. I can assure the member for Reid that if you go to virtually any factory or manufacturing facility in my electorate of Forde there are good, secure, long-term, high-skilled jobs available. It's not an issue; I can assure the member for Reid. I would also point out to the member for Reid that I appreciate the work and the effort and the sacrifice that our teachers, doctors and nurses put in each and every day for our communities but I would remind the member for Reid that the vast majority of those people are employed by state Labor governments through employment contracts by those state Labor governments, so the wage increases can be dealt with through their negotiations with their state Labor counterparts. I'm pleased to stand in this House today and speak on the matter raised by the member for Fadden in bringing up this crucially important point. Slightly over 30 per cent of the electorate of Forde has a mortgage, and I've got no doubt they are looking at the latest interest rate rise today with trepidation and fear for managing their household budgets. The reason they're doing that is because of many other factors over the last six or nine months that have been brought to bear on those budgets, not only the consequences of the invasion by Russia of Ukraine and the global economic impact that that has raised through higher fuel prices and higher gas prices but also the impact of the floods in Queensland and in New South Wales, particularly in Queensland. I look at the impact of the floods on the Lockyer Valley, as the member for Groom, sitting next to me, would know well, as the member for Bowman would know well, representing an area that was once the food bowl of South East Queensland but now sadly is more housing than food bowl. Sitting opposite, the member for Blair's community also would have been significantly impacted. We have to look at all of these factors. They are all impacting on an increase in living costs for everyday Australians, and this latest interest rate rise does nothing to ease that. As we look a little bit further down the track we come to the end of September, when the fuel excise will be restored to its full amount and Australian households will have to pay another 22 cents a litre. But importantly, the reasons for reducing that fuel excise in the first place, the recognition of the consequences of the conflict in Ukraine and other global economic factors, haven't changed. At the time we thought they may change over the course of six months but they haven't changed, so we now face the situation where the same rationale for introducing that reduction in the fuel excise still exists. I think it's a fair question of government, why they don't, given those circumstances still exist, seek to extend the life of that reduction in the fuel excise. Now I'll hear those opposite say, 'We can't do it because there's a trillion dollars of debt or there is this or there is that.' I don't lose a single moment's sleep over the amount of debt we have as a nation, as a government. I do lose plenty of sleep over the amount of debt we have personally in our households via household mortgage debt or credit card debt, whatever the case may be. But I'm proud of the fact that when we were in government, we kept people in jobs, we kept businesses open, we kept a roof over people's heads and we gave them certainty through 2½ very difficult years of the pandemic, and I'll never apologise for the decisions that were made in that space to achieve those outcomes. We have some of the best economic conditions in the world as a result—3.5 per cent unemployment, economic growth that's the envy of the world. We had a track record in government that we're proud to stand on. I commend this motion to the House. 16:19 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby I was interested in the comments of the member for Forde about almost a trillion dollars' worth of debt and not being at all concerned about that. We know that Australian families are doing it tough—there's certainly no doubt about that; I talked about poverty in my first speech the other night—and today's decision by the Reserve Bank to lift interest rates by 50 basis points will only make things tougher for Australian households. I know that families of Boothby are doing it tough. I know that because, over 10 months, they told me about it and, over the last two months, as their member, they're continuing to tell me about it. You only have to set foot in a supermarket or a pharmacy to see that the cost of essentials has gone up. The Albanese government is going to level with the Australian people. We will be honest with them about the challenges that lie ahead—challenges that were left to us by those opposite, who have wasted nine years racking up almost a trillion dollars in debt so far with far too little to show for it. We also face challenges internationally and domestically. We understand the global inflationary pressures stemming from the conflict in Europe and disrupted supply chains due to the ongoing pandemic. We also know that the recent floods that have ravaged the east coast of Australia have added to higher food prices. It's clear that high inflation is hurting everyday Australians in Boothby and beyond, and this is made worse because, as the members for Hawke and Reid so eloquently described, it follows a decade of stagnant wages growth—deliberately low wages. Unfortunately, there isn't a quick fix to fight inflation. In fact, the previous government failed to prepare the country for these tough economic times. Our challenge—the challenge facing Australian households and households across Boothby—has been made tougher by almost a decade of missed opportunities and wrong priorities. But while we know it is tough right now, the Albanese Labor government is already going about the hard work of delivering the policies and reforms that will put long-term downward pressure on the cost-of-living issues. In my electorate of Boothby, one of the key drivers of rising costs of living that I heard about was the skyrocketing costs for health care under the previous government. During the life of the previous government, out-of-pocket costs to see a GP in Boothby went up by 35 per cent. Labor has a plan to rein in these price increases and ease pressures on household budgets by investing in our health system. Opening a Medicare urgent care clinic in Bedford Park to take pressure off emergency departments will make it easier to see a GP. We're cutting the cost of medicines and making more older Australians, including many of those in my area, eligible for the Commonwealth seniors health card. Labor has a plan to drive down the cost of child care for families in Boothby. Under our plan for cheaper child care, 96 per cent of Australian families using child care will be better off. That's 1.26 million families. We're implementing our plan to fix almost 10 years of neglect from those opposite when it comes to skills, resulting in a skills crisis that I hear about wherever I go in Boothby. Every small business I speak to talks to me about the lack of skilled labour and the impact that has on their ability to do their business. We're getting on with getting more renewable energy into our energy system to lower prices, cut emissions and drive economic growth into the future. Renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy. As the Treasurer said in his statement to the House last week, the task before this new Labor government is a serious one, and what I hear from people in Boothby is that they respect his honesty, his straight talking and his clarity when he tells them what is actually happening and what the future will look like. After nine years of waste and mismanagement, there's a lot of work to do. There is a trillion dollars of debt and rising interest rates. Wages have been deliberately kept low. But we are setting out to do the hard work of reforming our economy—the hard work of implementing productivity-boosting reforms that will truly change our nation and deliver a better future for all of us. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The discussion has concluded. BILLS 46 BILLS Australian Human Rights Commission Legislation Amendment (Selection and Appointment) Bill 2022 46

Australian Human Rights Commission Legislation Amendment (Selection and Appointment) Bill 2022

Second Reading 46

The House divided. [16:29]
(The Speaker—Mr Dick)

 118 AYES Aly, A. Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Bowen, C. E. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chester, D. J. Chesters, L. M. Clare J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Coulton, M. M. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Entsch, W. G. Fernando, C. Fletcher, P. W. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Gee, A. R. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hill, J. C. Hogan, K. J. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Joyce, B. T. G. Katter, R. C. Keogh, M. J. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Le, D. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Lim, S. B. C. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Morrison, S. J. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. Neumann, S. K. O'Brien, E. L. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Phillips, F. E. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Plibersek, T. J. Price, M. L. Rae, S. T. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Robert, S. R. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sharkie, R. C. C. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Swanson, M. J. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thompson, P. Tudge, A. E. Vamvakinou, M. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Watts, T. G. Webster, A. E. Wells, A. S. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. Zappia, A. 11 NOES Bandt, A. P. (Teller) Bates, S. J. Chandler-Mather, M. Daniel, Z. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. (Teller) Tink, K. J. Watson-Brown, E. Wilkie, A. D. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 Third Reading 47 16:40 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022 47

Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022

Returned from Senate 47 Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022 47

Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022

Second Reading 47 16:40 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I will continue my remarks from earlier and reiterate that we will be opposing this very destructive bill that, as I said in my earlier remarks, are unlike few bills we see in this place, where we know what the consequences will be. We know that abolishing the cashless debit card is going to unleash a tsunami of alcohol and drugs into vulnerable communities. We know that the people who will suffer the most from that tsunami of additional alcohol and drugs will be defenceless children who will be neglected and—predominantly—women who will suffer domestic violence. It was very telling in question time when I asked the Prime Minister if he would guarantee that repealing the cashless debit card would not lead to more women and children suffering from violence. He wouldn't answer it and nor would his minister, who he referred the question to. The question was beneath him as Prime Minister to answer. As I said earlier in my remarks, I'm not a person in this House who has imputed motives against people who I think predominantly come to this chamber to do the right thing. But members opposite must know in the fibre of their beings that unleashing alcohol and drugs into these communities will be destructive, so I appeal to all members of the government—I suspect they're too far down this path now—to reflect on their own conscience. If the members of the government that want to repeal the cashless debit card don't believe me, let me refer to some more comments from those who are in these communities or who are indeed people on the cashless debit card themselves. Here is from a CDC participant in Kalgoorlie: 'I'm on the CDC and it works fine. I have more money for food and I get my Woolworths groceries online.' Another participant and services worker said, 'Kids are no longer hungry. They are at school with lunches and school uniforms.' A community elder in East Kimberley said, 'My son had a long-term problem with grog for five years. After the CDC came in, it helped him get sober and now he's working with a well-known Indigenous TV personality as a cultural adviser. It's changed his life. His wife is also working now.' From a women's refuge worker in the East Kimberley: 'Since the CDC, the seriousness of assaults seen by the refuge has declined.' From a CDC participant in East Kimberley: 'Grog not going to get your mob nowhere. Mothers and kids should stay on the cards, as kids are no longer looking for food like they used to'. Now what ideology drives members opposite to say to that woman, who has said, 'the kids are no longer looking for food like they used to', that it is okay if that child has to search for food again and is neglected again? What ideology drives members opposite to say to the worker in a women's refuge: 'It's okay. You will return back to see even more women suffering violence'? There's no way to really politely have this discussion and to brush over what's happening. Predominantly women will suffer violence because of this. Children will suffer violence. Children will suffer from neglect or, as one CDC participant said, 'will go hungry'. I know these communities in Ceduna, East Kimberley and other places around the country are a long way from Canberra, but I would say to the members of the government: this is now on you; this is on you. Now, I know why the Prime Minister refused to give an assurance that more women and children wouldn't suffer from violence when the CDC is removed, because he must know. His minister must know. How heartless and cruel and how driven by ideology must you otherwise-decent people be to do that? I'm appealing to the Labor Party. I'm appealing to their conscience. This bill will lead to devastating consequences in these communities. It gives me no joy to be here speaking about this. It gives me no joy being here criticising the government. People, I'm sure, in the gallery and watching on TV think that the opposition gets off on just bashing the government. I wish that I did not have to criticise the government about this. I wish that there was unity in this parliament today that said 'More drugs, more alcohol in these communities is a bad thing,' and what those opposite are saying is that they don't care. The minister in question time has now, on successive occasions, used the ANAO report as some sort of shield for her decision. She's selectively quoted from it. Let me take the House to what I think is the most striking part of this report. It's on page 48 of the Auditor-General's report into the implementation and performance of the cashless debit card trial, table 3.4, 'Assessment of 2020-21 performance measures for the Cashless Debit Card'. The minister has quoted from this report a couple of times in question time now, so she should have the courage to come in and rebut what this table says. The performance measure in table 3.4 is the 'extent to which the CDC supports a reduction in social harm in our communities.' The conclusion from the ANAO is that it 'fully and/or mostly meets' these requirements. The data's reliable. There's been a measurable, verifiable method, and it's free from bias. The consequences are that it supports a reduction of social harm in communities. What I've tried to do in my remarks today is get away from the ANAO report or the University of Adelaide report, which shows a succession of improvements in communities where the CDC trials have been—reduced alcohol, reduced drugs, higher classroom attendance from children, lower neglect of children. I might say the voiceless in this debate are the children. The children don't get interviewed. No-one interviews the children and asks them: 'Are you suffering less neglect? Do you have breakfast, lunch and dinner? Do you have to lock yourself in a shipping container overnight?' Children are locking themselves in shipping containers, barricading themselves in shipping containers overnight, to save themselves from being sexually abused. Ms Burney 8GH Where does that happen? Mr SUKKAR 242515 I'll explain that to the member. Ms Burney 8GH Thank you. I've heard that a bit. Mr SUKKAR 242515 Yes, you should've heard it and you should know it. The fact that you're going to vote for this is an absolute disgrace. Children are locking themselves in shipping containers to save themselves from being sexually abused, and what's the government going to do? Pour more alcohol and pour more drugs into these communities. The participant I spoke about earlier said, 'The children no longer go hungry.' Ministers and members over there might be wilfully blind, but you don't need a University of Adelaide report and you don't need an ANAO report that says that the CDC supports a reduction in social harm. If you asked your average Australian on the street, 'Is taking alcohol and drugs out of these vulnerable communities going to help women and children predominantly?' 99 out of 100 would say: 'Of course. I don't need a university report to tell me that. I don't need the Australian National Audit Office to tell me that.' Australians have a lot of common sense and have much more sense than this government thinks. It was very telling that the Prime Minister and the minister would not make the commitment that removing the CDC would not lead to more women and children being harmed. Clearly that means that every additional woman who suffers domestic violence and every additional child who is neglected, doesn't get to school, doesn't have food and suffers sexual or other violence—every additional person who suffers—will be as a result of a decision taken by those opposite. Quite frankly, that's on their conscience. They are otherwise decent people, but that will be on their conscience. On this side of the House we will sleep easy knowing that we stood with those communities. I'll sleep very easy knowing we protected those children, but I won't sleep easy tonight thinking about the children who are going to suffer, because, regardless of the political games that go on in this place, it breaks my heart—and I really mean it—to think that children will probably be the people who suffer the most. Guess what? The children don't get interviewed for the ANAO report and the children don't get interviewed by the University of Adelaide. The Assistant Minister for Social Services and Assistant Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence, who is guffawing opposite me, hasn't even visited the Goldfields, where they are shuddering at the prospect of this. It's on those opposite. It will give me no joy to see the carnage that will follow from this decision. It will give me no joy. It will be my obligation to highlight it and it will be my obligation to ensure that Australians see the consequences of this craven decision, but it will give me absolutely no joy, because, as a father, I think about this policy that is going to leave children hungry. This is not me; these are not my words—these are from a community elder. 'The kids are not going hungry,' that community elder said. The inverse of that is that more children will now go hungry. There will be more violence perpetrated against women and more violence perpetrated against children. That is not something that the coalition could ever support or would ever support and, therefore, we will be opposing this terrible bill. 16:54 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I rise today to speak on the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022. It is both an absolute honour and a privilege to be speaking on this bill, because it delivers on the Albanese Labor government's election commitment to abolish the cashless debit card. We were very proud to make that commitment, and we are proud now to be abolishing the cashless debit card for all of the devastation it has brought across the country. On day one of this new parliament, the Minister for Social Services introduced this bill into the House. This bill, which is the product of extensive community consultation, will end the cashless debit card and allow approximately 17,300 participants to transition off the card. We also announced last week that, as part of abolishing the scheme, the government will close the cashless debit card program to all new entrants from 1 August. So, as of today, no new people will be forced onto the card. The fact is the cashless debit card is privatised welfare. There is something deeply, deeply wrong when private, for-profit companies control people's income support payments or determine where people can actually spend their money. We know the former government spent $170 million on the cashless debit card program—money which could have been better invested in the support services that local communities need. The cashless debit card has been operating across Australia for six years in those trial sites. The former government introduced the card in Ceduna in 2016, but over time it was expanded to the East Kimberley, Goldfields, Bundaberg and Hervey Bay areas, and, most recently, to the Northern Territory and Cape York as well. The concerns that many people raised were that the previous government actually intended to roll it out even further—much further. An opposition member: Yes! Mrs ELLIOT DZW It's good to now hear the opposition confirm their plans and confirm that they were going to roll out the cashless debit card across the country. Labor shared all of those concerns. The cashless debit card was wrong and destructive. We know the former government wanted to roll it out further—even to age pensioners, who were very concerned about that. The cashless debit card has been a complete failure and it has destroyed lives. There has never been evidence to show that the cashless debit card is actually working. There have been so many evaluations, inquiries and audits that have repeatedly shown, in clear data, that the card does not work. It just does not work. Just recently, the Australian National Audit Office released its latest audit on the performance of the cashless debit card, highlighting once more the lack of evidence available to demonstrate any success of the card at all. I was recently in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay, and I met with many people who were forced onto the card—people like Kerryn Griffis, who, in fact, was then rejoicing that she was finally able to get off the card after being forced onto it for an incredibly traumatic three years. Kerryn's a mother of five and is one of the thousands of Australians whose spending was restricted, as she lived in one of those trial sites. As Kerryn said: 'It has massively negatively impacted mine and my kids' lives. It has been a nightmare being on the card. It's been traumatic. There just isn't a better word.' Kerryn said that life without the card meant her family would have their freedom back. 'I cannot wait', she said. 'I'm going to be able to have flexibility with my finances. I'm not going to be restricted by which bill I will and won't pay, and my kids are looking forward to having pocket money again.' Being forced onto the card meant that those people had 80 per cent of their government payments placed onto the Indue controlled cashless debit card, which could only be used in approved locations for approved purchases and could not be used to withdraw cash. In opposition, we established the Protecting Pensioners Taskforce. As the chair, I was inundated with heartbreaking stories from those people who had already been forced onto the card, people who were cruelly directed by the previous government about where and when they could actually spend their own money. Today I'd like to especially acknowledge the secretary of that task force, my good friend the member for Bruce, who also worked tirelessly to get rid of this cruel card. For many months we campaigned on this issue. We committed to abolish the card, because of how destructive it has been. And now we are delivering on this. We listened and we're acting. We know that the former government wanted to roll the cashless card out nationally. We heard them say it many, many times, and they wanted to extend the card's operation to many more pensioners, including age pensioners. Our seniors built this nation. They worked hard, paid their taxes and raised their families, and they deserve to be treated with respect, and that's exactly what they get under an Albanese Labor government. They are being treated with respect. Many individuals and community groups have worked incredibly hard for years to get rid of this card. I would like to especially thank groups like No Cashless Debit Card Australia and Say No Seven for your tireless work. I want to acknowledge Kathryn Wilkes and Amanda Smith. Your commitment and hard work is inspirational. Groups like Say No Seven and No Cashless Debit Card Australia have worked so hard for so long for this to happen. They have been advocating everywhere for years to get rid of this card. They have been collecting stories and evidence from across the nation. Thanks to both of you. You are wonderful. And thanks so much to the more than 50,000 people across the country who signed our petition to get rid of this card. I have spoken with so many people who have described the impact of being on the card and how it stigmatises them and makes their lives so incredibly difficult. Examples such as: 'Usage of the card is actually extremely restricted at the locations that it can be used at. The card is often declined.' Many people are not able to buy basic food or groceries. Families often have to leave their groceries at the store. They're not able to buy them. Their card is so often declined. Many families are unable to pay their rent. Many people have been forced into bankruptcy. Many have been unable to make car repayments. In so many cases, they're not able to buy second-hand clothes or school uniforms because they can't access cash to buy them. A lot of people buy them through Facebook groups by using cash to buy second-hand uniforms. They can't afford to buy them. So this has had a devastating effect on individuals. It is degrading. And this card has stripped away many people's rights and in many cases their dignity. I'd like to highlight again a case I've told the House before, the case of Bianca. Bianca has to wear plus-size bras—size 16H. She can only afford to this buy this specific bra on eBay, which is a blocked merchant under this scheme. So what did Indue make Bianca do? They insisted she send photos of the bra. Then she had to get permission to do it. Then show proof of purchase. She was completely humiliated buying a bra that she could've bought on eBay. Instead she had to go through this really degrading process. There is also the case of Joslyn, who is 65 years old and on a disability pension, who was forced on to the cashless welfare card just because of where she lives. She has always managed her own finances. As Joslyn says, 'I don't need anyone else to do it for me or to know what I am spending my money on. It's hard enough being on a pension without 80 per cent of it being put on a card you can't use everywhere.' This card is insulting and demeaning. It is downright wrong. Pending the passage of this legislation, this bill will enable more than 17,300 existing cashless debit card participants to be transitioned off the card, which we aim to be from September this year. It will also ensure that the Family Responsibilities Commission can continue to support community members by placing them on income management where the need exists or they do want to be on it. I want to make it clear that for participants transitioning off there is no requirement, after this bill passes, for a participant to prove anything in order to move off the card. Secondly, every participant will be transitioned off the card once this bill passes the parliament. The CDC will be abolished; it will no longer exist. Of course, where participants require continued assistance with budgeting, transferring direct debits from the cashless debit card or referrals to other support services, there will be help available. We want to ensure we provide that support to people as they transition off the card. We are consulting with them to make sure there are support services for them, unlike when they were placed onto the card. It just happened. Part of that support includes the option for voluntary income management if people choose. That's what voluntary income management is. They have to choose that. And when it comes to income management, the primary principles around it should be that it's voluntary, that it is not privatised, that it's supported by evidence and that it's subject to ongoing evaluation. We respect the rights of some individuals or communities who may want to voluntarily be on income management. But it is being approached in a very different way by this government, as opposed to the former government, who forced so many people onto the card. Our government is committed to ensuring communities and individuals are properly supported to transition off the card. We will continue to keep consulting with those people on the cashless debit card in those communities about the future of the support services that had been funded through this program. We do want to provide that individual support to people who may need assistance with processing issues, particularly around moving payments and where they may be taken from. We have listened to many people. We have listened to First Nations community leaders, we have listened to service providers and, very importantly, we have listened to cashless debit card participants in these communities. We have heard them loud and clear. Thousands and thousands of people that have been on this card have made their views incredibly clear to us over a very long period of time. The fact is, as I said early on in my contribution, privatised welfare does not work. I think nothing highlights that more than the disaster of the cashless debit card. So many people have told me, have told us, about the shame and anguish the card brings, and it makes them feel like they are constantly being punished and demonised. Well, the Albanese government has said enough is enough. We are calling time on the cashless debit card. We have listened. We know what people have been through. The fact is that there is a better way. That's why the Prime Minister said that removing the card would be absolutely central to our agenda if we were elected to government. We have moved very decisively to abolish the cashless debit card in the first week of the new parliament. As I said, the minister introduced this on day one of the 47th parliament. We did that because we have listened to what people have said across the country. We know how harmful this card has been. It would not have been without the loud voices of people across the country, particularly, as I said, No Cashless Debit Card Australia and Say No Seven, who made their voices so clear and made this happen, and the Australian people who voted for change for a number of reasons. One of those reasons was to get rid of the cashless debit card. Now we're doing that. We're doing all of that because our government, the Albanese Labor government, believes no-one should be left behind at all, and these people had been left behind by the previous government. We are looking out for the most disadvantaged and the most vulnerable in our country. It's for that reason that I am very privileged to be speaking today on abolishing the cashless debit card. I commend the bill to the House. 17:09 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise today to oppose the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022. I want to put on the record, firstly, my acknowledgement of the courageous and compassionate members of my Goldfields community who have fought so hard since 2015 to secure and retain the cashless debit card trial in the city of Kalgoorlie-Boulder and the shires of Coolgardie, Menzies, Leonora and Laverton. I stand proud of the achievements of community leaders like John Bowler, shire presidents Mal Cullen, Peter Craig, Pat Hill, Greg and Jill Dwyer and their CEOs and elected councillors and the longstanding residents, strong advocates for the communities they love. I herald the bravery of Indigenous elders and leaders who spoke out about the realities of how grog, drugs and gambling were ruining their daily lives, eroding their culture and robbing their children and youth not only of their youth but also of hope. I've spoken many times in this House about how the cashless debit card came to the goldfields, and one of the things that I find most offensive about the minister's second reading speech and also her answer to the dorothy dixer in question time last week is that the cashless debit card was imposed because of some ideological bent of the coalition. In November 2015 I travelled to the town of Leonora, 236 kilometres north of Kalgoorlie-Boulder, to attend the end-of-year school presentations. I arrived in town to find the people absolutely devastated because that week two 16-year-old girls had taken their own life. No-one will ever know those girls' stories, but what I was told by the people there was that repeated sexual abuse was the most likely reason that those beautiful young people decided that their life wasn't worth living. That evening I was having dinner in the Central Hotel, and one of the local elders, Nana Gay Harris, came up to my table and sat down. She poured out her frustration, her despair, at the situation that their community found themselves in. I said to her: 'I'm sorry, but I don't have an answer that's going to solve your problems. But I have heard about a cashless debit card trial that we're running in Ceduna which quarantines some income to a card and some income to your normal bank account.' I actually didn't know much about the detail of it at the time, but I said to Nana Gay, 'Would you be interested in learning more about this?' She said, 'Absolutely we would be.' So I rang Minister Alan Tudge, who was then Assistant Minister for Social Services, and I explained the situation. Within two weeks Minister Tudge was sitting in the shire chambers in Leonora with Nana Gay Harris, other Indigenous leaders and the local shire council to discuss and explain what the cashless debit card meant and how it might work to help their community. This was in December 2015. What followed then was a process of consultation across the goldfields. The other goldfields communities said, 'We'd be interested in learning more about this.' The Department of Social Services carried out consultations, and 270 consultations later—I attended some of them, not all, but everybody had an opportunity to come along and listen, hear what was on offer, hear what the implications of having a card were—at the end of the day they were pretty keen to give it a go because their communities were suffering. I gave a commitment, as the member for O'Connor, that no community would have the cashless debit card enforced on them. In the community of Tjuntjuntjara, which is 600 kilometres east of Kalgoorlie and is part of the Menzies shire, they didn't want to have the card. I flew out there with the DSS, and we sat under a tree in 42 degree heat. We discussed the card, and at the end of that discussion one of the local elders, Deb, stood up and said: 'We don't want this fella here. We don't want the card.' I said, 'That's fine, you're not going to have the card.' Tjuntjuntjara is in the shire of Menzies, 600 kilometres away, and in the town of Menzies the late Mr Tucker, the Indigenous leader there, insisted that they wanted the card in the town of Menzies. So as part of the legislation, as we drew it up, Tjuntjuntjara was exempted and the town of Menzies was in. We went to every length possible to make sure that those communities who didn't want to be on the card weren't forced to be on the card and those communities who asked to be on the card, after consultation over 270 times, were given the opportunity. After listening to the speech by the Assistant Minister for Social Services, I wasn't sure whether I was in the right chamber or whether we were talking about the same thing. This is a cashless debit card. It's a Visa debit card. I had one. I used it for two years everywhere around Western Australia. I used it in Canberra. You use it to go and buy any product at any store, except at a till that sells alcohol, where it won't work. You can't go online and buy gambling products either, just quietly. A trial participant has 80 per cent of their payment put into this account and 20 per cent of their payment put into their normal bank account. For a single parent with three children, their fortnightly payment—when I checked about three years ago—was about $1,500. It's probably considerably more now. That means that $300 a fortnight cash goes into their normal bank account and $1,200 goes into this account, and, through Centrepay and other mechanisms, they can set up direct debits so the rent is paid and the utilities are paid. If they've got a car payment, some people have been using a wonderful service that we've got in WA, a no-interest loan service. There is no interest on the product as long as a direct debit is set up to make the repayments. That is how the card works in practice for many, many people. It's a great account, I've got to tell you. If you make a transaction, you get a text message immediately: 'You've just spent $23 at the IGA.' I have used my card all over Australia. It works everywhere, unless you're trying to buy alcohol with it. I've not tried to buy any online gambling products. So that's a cashless debit card. That's how it works. This one actually belongs to one of my staff members. It's still active and it will work anywhere. Today the Minister for Social Services had an op-ed in the West Australian newspaper. It starts by asking people to imagine being a parent and not being able to buy your kids shoes because you're on the cashless debit card. I don't know who wrote that for her—actually I do know who wrote it for her—but they obviously didn't understand how the card works. You can walk into any shoe shop anywhere in the world, probably, and buy a pair of shoes with it. So we have a minister here who doesn't understand how the card even works, who is working overtime at the moment to remove the card. One of the claims by the Assistant Minister for Social Services and others who have spoken on this is that there is no evidence that it works. Well, firstly, there is the evidence that I've seen and the people that I speak to have seen—like the owners of the Coolgardie IGA, the only grocery store in town, which also happens to have a section that sells liquor. There are two aisles, one for the liquor shop and one for the grocery store. Anecdotally they tell me that the amount of trade that has shifted from the liquor aisle to the grocery aisle since the introduction of the debit card is unbelievable. That's what they tell me. We've had the ORIMA report and the University of Adelaide report. They ask a series of questions. Are you better off? If you're an alcoholic and you're on the card, maybe you're not better off. Maybe you've got to work a bit harder to find the cash to buy your booze. So the answer to that question might be no. Does that mean the card is not working? I wouldn't be 100 per cent sure that that would be an accurate representation. But the ORIMA report did say that 41 per cent of participants were drinking less alcohol after the card was introduced than previously. It said that 48 per cent of participants surveyed who used drugs reported using drugs less frequently, and 48 per cent of those who gambled before the trial reported gambling less. The University of Adelaide have a more contemporary report. Their findings said that 45 per cent of cashless debit card participants believed the cashless debit card had improved things for themselves and their families. For 45 per cent life had improved. So I have to say to those opposite: are you really prepared to take that away from that 45 per cent? Do you really believe that you can sleep easy at night knowing that almost half the people across the Goldfields trial of 3,200 were better off but you're going to take that away from them? The consequences will be severe. The ANAO report has been widely quoted by the minister. But, as the shadow minister reported, on page 48, in table 3.4, it states that performance measures for the cashless debit card had reliably met requirements to support a reduction in social harm in the communities and participants were reliably using their cashless debit card to redirect income support payments to essential goods and services, including the support and wellbeing of participants. What's the opposite of that? If you take the card away and you get the opposite of that, it means an increase in social harm. That's the opposite of a reduction. If you take this away then logically you'll get an increase. If income support payments for essential goods and services, including the support and wellbeing of participants, is a consequence of having the card, the opposite of that is that their wellbeing will be diminished. But here we have the Labor Party proudly inflicting this on the people of the Goldfields. I can go on and talk about evidence in 2019. The Kalgoorlie-Boulder Chamber of Commerce and Industry did a survey and found, 12 months after the introduction of the card, 72 per cent of the respondents to the survey had seen a decrease in antisocial behaviour in the CBD of Kalgoorlie, 86 per cent of respondents felt the cashless debit card had made positive changes throughout the Goldfields and 86 per cent would have liked the cashless debit card to continue. I was speaking earlier about the minister's completely ill-founded comments about no consultation. I can tell you one area that hasn't been consulted about the removal of this card, and that's the Goldfields. There has been no visit and no contact. I believe that the assistant minister is scheduled to travel to the Goldfields some time in the next few weeks, but the legislation has been introduced. It's an urgency motion. It's going to be dealt with in the next 24 hours. So why bother going to consult with those people? You have made up your minds. You are not going to listen to anything that they say. I'm just appalled at the way my people have been treated and the consequences that are going to flow from this decision. In the remaining time that I've got my question to those on the other side is: what happens next? What happens to the people of the Goldfields and my communities when this card, which has led to dramatically reduced social harm and antisocial behaviour and has had all these positives flowing from it, is taken away? What's plan B? As I said, the assistant minister is travelling to the Goldfields next week or the following week. I think my people deserve to hear what the Labor Party are going to do for the people and the community of the Goldfields to rectify the damage and the tsunami of antisocial behaviour, alcohol abuse and harm that is going to be inflicted on my communities as a result of this legislation. 17:24 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy I would recommend to the parliament of Australia the reading of The Colonial Fantasy: why white Australia can't solve black problems. I couldn't put it down. I read it in two nights. It sure would be nice if you went out and listened to the people and what they want, not telling them what you want. All the politicians of Australia, everyone who has spoken tonight—I heard it all—ever do is suppress the symptoms. We deal with the symptoms, right? I was, by mischance, appointed the minister in Queensland—the state that has the biggest First Australian population of any state in Australia, by a fair way, actually—and I would say that the relationships between the Bjelke-Petersen government and First Australians, my brother cousins, could not have been worse. If you went near any communities, there'd be rioting. It couldn't have been worse. But every morning of my life I said: 'Put on the blinkers, just see the light and go to it. Don't see what the reality is. Just see the light and go to it.' So do you know what I did? It's really radical stuff. I went out and said: 'Look, we run the show. Every single person here that's got power at Yarrabah is a white fella. He's from the government, right? Now, we don't want to do this anymore, so you tell us what you want.' So they wanted 'self-management', as they called it, but it was a lot more power than the local government had—for example, there were no regulations at all. They had a responsibility to deliver three services: sewage, garbage, water and transportation, roads and that sort of thing. That was all. Let them do what they like, you know? You make the decisions. Now, the state government in Queensland, when my government fell, introduced Mr Fitzgerald, a white fella, who was going to go out and tell them what they'd got to do. So a white fella lawyer from an elitist school in Brisbane was going to solve the problems, and this is what this brilliant fellow came up with. He said, 'The problem is drink,' and, 'You've got to ban alcohol.' Oh, geez, he got $3½ million for telling us that! I mean, how profound, how erudite! By the way, he's the same bloke who had the Fitzgerald inquiry, and that Tony Murphy, who was responsible for the murder of 43 people in Queensland—he wasn't going to go near Murphy. There were three books to delineate his cowardice. We suffered as a government, and of course the rest is history. The bloke that was responsible got clean away with it because of the cowardice of this person. Anyway, let's move on. I've just got a quick story about a bloke and a vacant piece of land on a river in western Queensland. This bloke took up three hectares of this vacant land. He was a young bloke. The council took the position of, 'Yeah, give him a go,' so they recommended to government that he got the three hectares freehold. So when he got the three hectares freehold, he put a fence up and he put a shed up. He was a pretty incompetent bastard. It was a hopeless shed, but, anyway, he put it up. Some racehorse trainer wanted to lease the land off him for his racehorses, and he put a bit of water on it and he made a quid out of it. Then he borrowed money on it and bought some moo cows and he borrowed some money and opened up a copper mine with his partner. Now, it's rather interesting, the copper mine, because his partner was 50 per cent Kalkadoon and 50 per cent white fella. Now, three surrounding mines were owned by—and I'll name them—Mr Fowler, Mr Cummins and another Mr Cummins. They were all First Australians. Three of the five mines that surrounded him and half of his mine were owned by Kalkadoons. The station property, upon which these mines were, was owned by a Kalkadoon. Now there are no mines owned by anyone of Aboriginal descent in that area. There are no cattle stations owned by anyone of Aboriginal descent in that area. To go back to the young bloke that got the three hectares of freehold title on the river, he got a few head together and he got a few more head together and he produced some copper from his copper mine and, within 13 years, he owned 250,000 acres, had no debt and had about $6 million worth of copper reserves. Now, I know these things to be true because, as probably a lot of you would have worked out, that fellow was me. All I needed was three hectares of freehold title. There are, in North Queensland, three million hectares supposedly owned by my people, the First Australians. They are not allowed to run a moo cow. They are not allowed to put a pot plant in the ground. They are not allowed to do anything with the land. The whitefellas are keeping it to preserve it for our cultural heritage. Well, we'd like to make a quid out of it. We'd like to be able to make food to keep our families alive. What is not a happy thing to say here is that the life expectancy in the communities in Queensland is around 56 years of age. In the Torres Strait, you live 20 years less if you are a Torres Strait Islander than if you are an Australian in the Australian population. Greg Wallace, who ran for us in the Senate, was the person who got Work for the Dole going. He's very famous in Australian history. He was there the first time 60 Minutes ever did a repeat program, and he said: 'When I was CEO at Napranum, we blackfellas had 30,000 head of cattle in the peninsula. Now we've got none. When I was CEO at Napranum, every CEO was a blackfella. Now they're all whitefellas. All house builders were local blackfellas. Now all the house builders are fly-in whitefellas. I could take up a freehold title and become an owner of land. Now I can't. Every single community had market gardens, which gave us the nutritional value we needed to stay alive, because we can't afford to get fruit and vegetables that go from Cairns to Brisbane and back to Cairns—heaven only knows why—and then by the time they get out to Kowanyama or Pormpuraaw, they've got no shelf life left and they cost a bloody fortune.' This is what he said. Why don't you just allow them to own a piece of land and do with it what they want? I've got news for you. Please, God, in the next three months, before Christmas, we will be issuing freehold title deeds, because it is our land. We've been there for 40,000 years, and we will issue the title deeds. And, if you don't recognise it, then we will see you in the High Court. We'll have Mabo 2. And we will win. I'm serving notice now that that is what is going to happen. I'm hoping I'm dealing with an enlightened government that will give us the same rights as everyone else on earth. That's what I hope. In this place I would say we have spent thousands of hours, since I've been a member of the federal parliament, talking about the symptoms. I doubt whether we have ever discussed the causes, but I know this: when I went Yarrabah I said, 'You know, there are no engine drivers, there are no miners, there are no farms, there's no anything, and it's all whitefellas running everything here. What's going on here?' If I were to limit that to a single issue, I would say it is the right to own land. I think one of the most important books in recent world history was written by Hernando de Soto. His cousin is head of Rio Tinto, the second-biggest mining company in the world. De Soto was an economist with the World Bank. In that book, he said, 'Why are Peru'—his home country—'the Philippines and Egypt the poorest countries on earth? It's pretty simple. To get a piece of land in any of those three countries will take you an average of 6½ years and 237 legal processes.' In other words, you can't own land in those countries. What is the difference between Mexico and the United States? Check on the land ownership. De Soto very controversially did not get the Nobel Prize for that year, and he most certainly should have got it. There was international controversy about that. When I wrote my own history of Australia, I agonised for 3½ years over how I would start it. Then it suddenly occurred to me: where does the story of the modern settlement of Australia start? It starts with the whitefellas coming in. That's how it starts. Of all the places in Australia where it should start, it's in my homeland, my little town of Cloncurry. They talk about the Kalkatungu as being a tribe, but I think it was a generic name for all the tribes, as far as I can make out. Dick Roughsey and Lindsay Roughsey were the greatest keepers of the lore. They went through boring and they had scars across their chest. They were very famous for their kids books and First Australian illustrations. They said that Mornington Island was Kalkatungu, and no-one would argue their knowledge of the lore. Cloncurry is Kalkatungu, and that's 500 kilometres. The Kalkatungu held the British occupation at bay for 60 years. The fighting went on and continued for 60 straight years. I didn't choose to depict them as a conquered, persecuted race; I chose to depict them as great guerrilla fighters who were able to hold the most powerful nation on Earth, the British Empire, at bay for 60 years. I will conclude on this note, which is very relevant to the current discussions. When we had a smooth-talking ex-official from the teachers union and ALP failed member of parliament come up to Doomadgee, I was there that day. I sat in the audience. He told us that he had talked to the representatives of the people and they had unanimously decided to ban grog in Doomadgee. There were about 150 people there, and they started screaming out a lot of words I wouldn't use in front of ladies. There were five old missionary ladies. I'm a great supporter of the missions. My brother-cousins would have been wiped out if it hadn't been for the protection the missions gave when they put the market gardens in which enabled us to survive to the nineties. They yelled out. I want to conclude on this note, because this is where I started my book. Clarence Waldron is an outstanding spokesman for the people of Australia—not only the First Australians but the people of Australia. He just quietly said, 'You don't come here and say what's what, and that's that. This is my land. This is my land.' That's how the book starts: 'This is my land.' Would that the people in this place recognised and gave those people a right to put some moo cows there so they could make a quid. Would that they had the right to take up a little bit of land so they could have a farm there to feed themselves and their family. Would that you gave them a future instead of discriminatory laws such as banning alcohol and all your other discriminatory laws. We're looking after your cultural heritage for you. Yes, we're sick of being looked after. We're sick and tired of being looked after. Just get out of our way and let us look after ourselves. This is my land. This is my land. 17:38 Mr BURKE DYW Watson A few things before I move a procedural motion. First of all, I've been asked by a number of members to clarify the standing order that allows a minister after 6.30 pm to move a motion that would still bring on a division. That's a standard principle that has been in debate management motions for a very long time, and accordingly it was into the standing orders. I do want to assure the House that the reason we have the 6.30 pm rule is, in response to the Jenkins report, we want people to be able to leave the building if they have cause to do so. With previous Leaders of the House, whether it was the now Leader of the Opposition or Christian Porter before him or Christopher Pyne before that, there was always an understanding that contact would be made if there were any intention of using that. I give the same undertaking. I give it privately. And I thought, on the floor of the parliament, it would be helpful for members if I'd given it publicly, so that every night on the opposition benches people don't have to worry after 6.30 pm, 'Can I go or not?' Obviously, I'm not trying to get in the way of their whip. It's their whip's call to provide that advice. But I want there to be absolutely no doubt that the government will not be playing games with that 6.30 pm rule. It's there as a standard thing. It has been in motions for the House for a very long time. If it ever were to be used there would be plenty of notice. It would be in a cooperative fashion. It's not there for any other reason. I just want to provide that assurance to the House first. Secondly, I gave an undertaking, with respect to whether or not bills would be declared urgent, that I would explain to the House why before I made such a declaration. I previously explained to the House one of the challenges with the bill that is now before us is that if it is to be carried by both houses, for the deadline on the card, which is within the bill, there needs to be a phase down period. The phase down period is required because—and I'm not sure how this has happened, and I don't want to engage too much with the debate—it has been possible with this particular card for people to connect it to Afterpay accounts. As a result of that, you can't just suddenly end it on a set date without there being a staged down period. For that reason, for the bill to be able to work, the government requires when we return in the next sitting fortnight for the Senate to pass it at that point. Those familiar with the Senate, which I suspect is none of us—but I know enough to know that overwhelmingly their government business occurs on a Monday, which means even though we're only on Tuesday at the moment, given what will happen with the climate bills tomorrow, the only way we can make sure that the legislation before us has a chance of being implemented in an orderly fashion is for this bill to go through tonight. Originally, as of this morning when I looked at the speaking list, we were going to finish before 7.30 pm. If I were to negate the adjournment and just let the speeches go, at the moment we're going to finish at 11.30 pm. In terms of the Jenkins report I think I have responsibility to not allow that. The other alternative would be to simply gag the debate and for me to now move—and I'm not moving this; I'm saying the words that I'm not moving—that the question be put, which would simply mean everybody on that speaking list would knocked off straightaway. So, with that in mind, I think the most practical way to deal with the urgency of the bill but to still provide a reasonable opportunity for members to speak is to declare the bill urgent. And with that in mind, I declare that the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022 is urgent. The SPEAKER 53517 The matter before the House is that the bill be considered urgent.    

The House divided. [17:47]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 82 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Daniel, Z. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Ryan, M. M. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Swanson, M. J. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Tink, K. J. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 58 NOES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Chester, D. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Dutton, P. C. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gee, A. R. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Le, D. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. Morrison, S. J. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Robert, S. R. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Tudge, A. E. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 17:59 The SPEAKER 53517 As the House has declared the bill urgent, I remind members standing order 85 provides principles for proceedings, which include standing order 31 will not apply and a second reading debate may continue from 7.30 until 10 pm or earlier if no member rises to speak. Each member will have a maximum of 10 minutes of speaking time. At 10 pm or earlier the Speaker shall interrupt the debate and immediately adjourn the House until 9 am tomorrow. After prayers tomorrow, the question on the bill will be put without further amendment or debate. BILLS 57 BILLS Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022 57

Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022

Second Reading 57 18:00 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler What an appalling attack on democracy—an appalling attack on democracy—an automatic gag at 10 o'clock. There are 151 members in this House who have just been gagged by the Labor government. This is outrageous. This is Australia's democratic right. We are elected to come here to speak. I will go on to speak about the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill, but this is an outrage, an absolute outrage. The SPEAKER 53517 The Minister for Resources is interjecting not from her seat. Mr PITT 148150 We have four cashless debit card sites around the country, and in my electorate of Hinkler is the biggest site in the country. There were some 6,552 individuals on the card at this site as of 1 July 2022, and it's making a difference—it is making a big difference. My site is significantly different to the other three. We do not have a majority of Indigenous or Aboriginal descent in my patch. It is only on four payments: Newstart, youth allowance other, parenting payment single and parenting payment partnered. That is all. It has worked, and that has been demonstrated by the evidence. But what we've seen tonight is a move to urgency because they want to meet their own deadline. It has been in place for years. The cashless debit card has been in the trial sites for years, operating successfully. Another two weeks, three weeks, four weeks, six weeks, will make no substantial difference, apart from the fact that it affects the agenda of those opposite. Firstly, can I thank those individuals who are willing to go out and support the cashless debit card locally: the former member for Bundaberg David Batt; the member for Burnett, Stephen Bennett; the now retired member for Hervey Bay Ted Sorensen; our two mayors—one mayor was opposed, and I understand that, the mayor of Fraser Coast, George Seymour, was ideologically opposed. He's also opposed to pokies. I thought this was a pretty good solution, but I've always respected George for being consistent. The Bundaberg mayor, Jack Dempsey, gave an absolutely fantastic letter of support, and I seek leave to table this letter, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Georganas. Leave not granted. Mr PITT 148150 It's not granted? Very well, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, thank you so much. This is correspondence between the Bundaberg mayor and me providing support for the cashless debit card, and we can't even allow a tabling of this document in the parliament. If it were any more ridiculous, it would be funny. But let's come back to the cashless debit card once again. It's an 80 per cent, 20 per cent split. It is a debit card that can be used on any EFTPOS machine, except to buy alcohol, except to buy gambling products. It works. The concept being put forward by those opposite is that these 6,552 participants in my electorate can't pay their rent, can't buy things, can't get their kids to school. I would have a queue outside my office that I couldn't see the end of if that were the case. It is just complete nonsense. On a more serious note, these are all very serious discussions. I want to read out a statistic and I think everyone in the House should hear this and be ashamed, absolutely ashamed. When the electorate was announced as the fourth region for the cashless debit card, of those individuals who were under 30 and on welfare, 90 per cent had a parent who was also on welfare during the past 15 years, the majority of whom were on welfare for at least nine of the last 15 years, and without any intervention it has projected that 57 per cent of those under 30 on welfare would still be on income support in 10 years time. That is appalling; it is absolutely appalling. This is the youth of our nation who are finding themselves in difficult circumstances and unable to get out of them. Surely our job as politicians, as MPs, as representatives, is to do things that make a difference. These are tough decisions—I've always acknowledged that—and what do we see from those opposite? They continue to remain silent on what they'll do afterwards, because the answer is nothing. They will take away what works, and they will do nothing. And not only that, but we cannot get a commitment from the minister on the $30 million of support that is going into the four trial sites to make sure we can provide more assistance. This is on top of what was already provided. So I say once again to the minister, and I'm sure the minister's staff are watching: just give us a commitment to maintain this money, because it makes a difference. It helps kids get into work, it helps them get a job and it helps them pay their own way. Thirty million dollars is not that much. It's in the budget. Please do not cut it, because we need it. I'll repeat what I said in a speech to parliament in May 2017: Change is difficult. Change will be hard. Change will be controversial. But change is absolutely necessary. It is absolutely worth the attempt. We have an opportunity with the cashless debit card to make change for our community. That is why our community elected us. For two elections in a row, this has been front and centre of the Labor campaign, and we have continued to receive support from the people of Hinkler, because they know we are trying to make a difference and make change. There is no silver bullet in this area. There simply is not. But this is a tool in a toolbox that actually works, and that is backed up by the ANAO report. I'll go to table 3.4, which shows the performance measures for the cashless debit card. The first one is 'Extent to which the CDC supports a reduction in social harm in communities'. It fully and/or mostly meets requirements for data, verifiable data, being free from bias, how it was measured and everything else that's related—all of it. On the second measure, two out of the four are met. The ANAO report was scathing about the department, because the department did not do what the minister asked or expected in terms of gathering the data that was necessary. I'll acknowledge that it's been incredibly difficult, particularly in Queensland, to get data. The Queensland Labor government simply won't participate. They will not provide direct data around crime, health services or education. But what I can tell you is that every single schoolteacher I've spoken to has been supportive. In fact, a school principal, who I will not name, went to the community reference group for the cashless debit card and said that after its introduction their breakfast club halved and the number of kids doing extracurricular activities almost doubled. If that is not a good outcome, I don't know what we're doing here. I really don't. These are kids who find themselves in really tough positions. They have parents who are welfare dependent and, in a lot of cases, multigenerationally welfare dependent. These are tough issues to deal with, and they require tough policies to get an outcome. This was a tough policy, but it was the right policy. Right across the trial sites, it has been absolutely successful. You don't have to listen to me. I'll read just a couple of quotes from constituents, given the shortage of time that we now have: 'I would like to express my continued support for the cashless card. Being a taxpaying professional, I like to see our tax dollars supporting health, roads, security, pensioners and the disabled, but, being 30 years old myself, I believe able-bodied young people should be earning their own way. I don't know if one email can make any difference to the card's future, but, if it can, I hope this contributes in some way. Please continue to do the work.' Another says: 'We are constituents of Hinkler and very much support the work you're doing to help people in our area to use their support from the government in the manner it is meant for. We have such high numbers of unemployed whilst having hundreds of backpackers, but our farmers are saying they are unable to find local people to fill these jobs. Keep up the good work.' Everywhere I go, people raise this issue with me. But here is what we have seen from those opposite. They said they would consult. We did over 100 meetings for consultation in my electorate, but they went and talked to some activists who don't live in the area—in fact, they're not in the electorate of Hinkler—who are opposed because, well, they're activists, and that's no real surprise. I'll go to an editorial from one of the local papers. It is from Jessica Grewal and it's entitled 'Hunting for villains in all the wrong places'. It says: 'From the moment the cashless card debate began, some of the opinions expressed in this space have seen a villain cast in one of the most polarising chapters in the region's history. But much of the contempt expressed on social media and at forums appears to be fuelled by completely false assumptions.' This is an editor and journalist: 'Comment is routinely sought from politicians, members of the public and anti-card lobbyists who are also encouraged to direct their members to the media but are yet to produce any proof that more than a handful of locals have had any issues accessing necessities or paying rent.' This was brought to the journalists over and over and over. This is the answer from an independent editor. There was no evidence whatsoever that that was happening. They put it in the local paper. In the last few seconds that I have to talk about this issue, I want to come back to one of our local police officers, who has now moved on, unfortunately. When the proposition that this would have an impact on crime was brought forward, he said, 'Top cop backs cashless card and has a message for criminals: we will come for you.' This has not been the case whatsoever. This is wrong. The decision that Labor is making is wrong. It has been supported in the communities where the rollout has occurred because they know that it works, and the Labor Party will replace it with absolutely nothing. 18:10 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston Make no mistake: the removal of the cashless debit card from remote communities will lead to hundreds more women being assaulted and children being neglected. Now, I'm not exaggerating in saying this. It is the inevitable outcome of putting hundreds of thousands of dollars of welfare cash into these grog-soaked communities. Labor knows this. They've been to these damaged places; nevertheless they have made the repeal of the cashless debit card one of their first acts of government. To say that I am disgusted with the Labor Party on this bill is an understatement. It is classic ideology trumping the safety of women and children. I was the architect of the cashless debit card, designing it and implementing it in concert with Indigenous and non-Indigenous leaders in both Ceduna and the East Kimberley. But this is not the reason that I am so passionately against the card's repeal. Rather, my passion comes from having worked in and around Indigenous issues for over 20 years now, including having worked as Noel Pearson's deputy director before coming to this place, and having seen the devastating impact on the ground that welfare-fuelled alcohol abuse has in these places. It comes about because I've seen so many other programs deliver just so little. My passion comes about because this initiative, unlike almost all other initiatives in remote Indigenous communities, was having an impact. That's why I'm so devastated that the Labor Party prioritises repealing this, knowing the damage it's going to cause when it is repealed. Alcohol paid for by the taxpayer through welfare payments is the absolute poison that runs through remote communities, and anybody who has been to these places knows exactly that. But take a look at the data if you don't believe me. Now, consider this: in the Northern Territory one in 27 Indigenous women is assaulted each year. Overall in Australia, one in 35 Indigenous women is hospitalised from assault every two years. Think about that. One in 35 Indigenous women every two years is hospitalised from assault, and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare says that 75 per cent of that violence is connected to alcohol and other substance abuse. I've been told that in some communities almost every single girl has been sexually abused. I know that there are some communities where one in four babies is born effectively brain damaged from fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. All of this is paid for by the taxpayer dollar. We often use the word 'crisis' in this place, but the greatest crisis that I know of in this country is what is occurring in remote communities at the moment, particularly in relation to the safety, or lack of safety, for women and children. We've all been complicit in this carnage that I've been describing—those hospitalisation rates, those assault rates, the neglect of children, the fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. We have all been complicit because we've been aware of what has been occurring, yet we have continued to hand over the welfare cash, knowing that it will go to alcohol abuse, to drug abuse, to other abuse and therefore to kids going hungry, to violence occurring and to communities being unsafe. The cashless debit card changed that equation. It was deliberately designed to stop the flow of welfare cash being spent on alcohol, drugs and gambling. And it did this through quite clever technology—through a Visa debit card, like everybody else's Visa debit card that you may have in your pocket right now. It worked at every single shop across the country but it didn't work at two places. It didn't work at your bottle shops or your gambling houses and you couldn't take cash out from it and, consequently, couldn't purchase illicit substances. But otherwise, it is like any other Visa debit card, and 80 per cent of a person's welfare payment was placed on that card. We complemented that card with a suite of additional support services including drug and alcohol services. This card and the services were designed hand-in-glove with the leaders particularly from Ceduna and the East Kimberley. Nothing went ahead without those elders signing off on it. Every element of the card, from the percentage placed on the card down to the colour of the card, was agreed by the local leaders in those communities. When you reflect back on this card and how well it has been going, it has been getting results, unlike almost any other initiative that has ever been tried in these remote Indigenous communities. So many countless services and initiatives that we tried failed to make a difference but this one did. It's been evaluated so many times and every single evaluation shows it was making an impact. The most recent evaluation was the University of Adelaide one. I'm going to quote just a couple of its findings in the executive summary. The evaluation '… found consistent and clear evidence that alcohol consumption has reduced since the introduction of the CDC in the trial sites.' It '… found that the CDC has been helping to reduce gambling, with positive impacts especially in the context of family and broader social life.' And it '… found that safety had been improving since the introduction of the cashless debit card.' That was the University of Adelaide at the beginning of last year. The people that I've spoken to in these communities say when they go to the supermarkets now in, say, Kununurra, they see families who trolley loads of grocery rather than just a couple of bag loads of groceries because of the additional cash they have to spend on the food. The mayor of Ceduna says the town has never been so good since the introduction of it. Places like Leanora and Laverton, which are very troubled communities, are now completely different because of the reduction alcohol abuse which has occurred there. All this is going if this bill goes ahead and, what's more, it's not just that those benefits are going but you can guarantee that carnage will be unleashed when the welfare cash comes at these communities like a road train. We have seen it before. We know that this happens when there's big royalty payments which occur. Exactly the same is going to happen here and this will be on the Labor Party's head. They know this. But what they lack is the courage to go and properly consult and speak to the people who actually stood up and said we want this card in our community. I will never forget Betty Logan, an Indigenous leader from the Goldfields, who is an inspiration, saying to us, 'If you don't believe we need the cashless debit card, just have a look in the eyes of a 10-year-old girl that's been abused and then tell me we don't need a cashless debit card.' Or go and speak to Ian truss, one of the most inspirational leaders in Western Australia or Corey McLennan in Ceduna, strong leaders who stood up and who wanted to bring control to their communities. We are supposed to be a parliament which backs Indigenous leaders. So what happens, Labor Party? Why aren't you listening to those leaders who want to take responsibility? I think this is disgraceful. I am angry about this. I am angry because we found something which was working and I'm angry because I know the impact which is going to be unleashed when this cash flows into these communities. The Labor Party, they're oh so righteous at the moment about the abolition of this card. And it's very easy for them to be righteous, knowing that their own children are sleeping soundly tonight in their nice suburban homes. Meanwhile, they'll be unleashing carnage on hundreds of children hundreds of kilometres away. I think that's a shame on the Labor Party. This is ideology trumping the safety of women and children. This is what's at stake. I hope the Senate rejects this, because this has been an initiative which has been making a difference, and it needs to continue. 18:20 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I'd like to join the member for Aston in saying that this is a sad day for this parliament, and he's right to be angry. All of us are angry and sad on this side because good public policymaking is being thrown out the window today and ideology is winning. That is really, really sad for the communities that will be impacted. I had the great honour of being social services minister for eight months. I would have loved to have continued on in that role, but I was given the great honour of being education minister. The thing that struck me, and the thing that still sticks with me, from my time as social services minister is how important this cashless debit card was. And for those members here, in particular, whose electorates house the communities that the cashless debit card has benefited from, they have a right to be bitterly, bitterly disappointed. I'd like to thank those members, their communities and the leaders in their communities for standing up for what is right and for being able to say no to those who tried to pile on to make sure that this policy wasn't put in place. This policy has saved lives. This policy has protected the vulnerable. The sad reality now is that, with the cashless debit card going, we will see lives ruined. We will see lives damaged and, in particular, we will see young children impacted. That's why this is so sad. The public policy that set the cashless debit card up has been good public policymaking. All the way through it, there has been analysis done, and the Australian National Audit Office has been called in to examine what has been occurring. I know that, from my time as minister, that occurred. This is what the ANAO report found that the Department of Social Services had done in setting up the cashless debit card: Social Services established appropriate arrangements for consultation, communicating with communities and for governance of the implementation of CDCT. Social Services was responsive to operational issues as they arose during the trial. The report also identified room for improvement, and that is what we did. We took on board all the recommendations to make sure that it was continuing to be built on and continuing to be improved. The sad reality now is that all that work, over many, many years, is now being thrown out the window. It's being thrown out the window without the government sending ministers in to listen to communities. Not only is all the public policy development and analysis that's gone into this being thrown out; it's being done so without any proper consultation. In the time I was minister, I went to Kalgoorlie, I went to Boulder, I went to Coolgardie, I went to Port Augusta, I went to Ceduna and I went to Bundaberg because I wanted to know what was happening on the ground. I wanted to be able to listen to those communities and hear whether the card was being effective, whether it needed improving and whether it could be built on. I must say, from my point of view, I think the card was such an overwhelming success that we should have continued to roll it out further into additional communities. I am happy and proud to stand by the record of the cashless debit card, because everything that I heard and saw said that it was changing lives. I remember going to Coolgardie. I remember visiting the IGA supermarket there and the owner of the supermarket saying that, as a result of the card, mothers were coming into the supermarket with their young children and were able to provide healthy lunches for them to take to school because they were not being pressured to come into that supermarket and buy alcohol for people who wanted to abuse it and who, sadly, had no care or no responsibility for their loved ones—in particular, their young children—and that it was changing lives. I can still remember that conversation as clear as day. I remember talking to Betty Logan, an absolute inspiration. I remember Betty Logan saying that if you really wanted to understand the impact that the cashless debit card was having then you needed to look into the eyes of the young whose lives it was improving, was making better. It was allowing them to go to school not having been awake all night. Not only that; they were able to go to school knowing that they would have food in their stomachs so that they could study and get the type of education that we want all Australians to have. One of the things the government was absolutely determined to do was make sure that this card, no matter where you lived or what your background was, was going to be there to help and support you. That's why we looked to move it and expand the trial to Bundaberg. There had been erroneous criticism that we were using this card and targeting it. We've already heard from the member for Hinkler of the outcomes and results of the trial in Bundaberg. The sad reality is that no-one from the government has spoken to any of the members of parliament on our side who host these trial sites to ask them how they have viewed the card. No-one has properly consulted with any of the communities where this card has been rolled out to discuss what the impacts have been and what the response has been. If they did that, they would have seen that there has been remarkable success—in particular, in making sure that money wasn't being spent on gambling, on alcohol and on drugs but was being spent on improving the lives of the people who lived in those communities and were beneficiaries of the public policy decision-making that has built the cashless debit card up to be a card that is getting meaningful and impactful results on the ground. I say to those opposite: you should reconsider this legislation. You should halt what you are doing, you should go out and you should properly consult. You've said that this is going to be a new parliament—you're going to let the sunshine come in, and it's somehow going to be different to what has taken place before. If you are true to your word, then you would not be putting this legislation through this House in the manner that you are at the moment: gagging debate and rushing it through this parliament so that proper consultation will not take place. And the sad reality is that, as a result, people's lives will be changed for the worse—people's lives will be changed for the worse. This is a really, really sad day for this parliament and this country, because a problem that we've all grappled with for over 100 years was starting to be fixed, and now it will go backwards. It's a shameful day, it's a sad day, and I feel sorry for all those communities that are going to be impacted by it. 18:30 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt Yes, this, indeed, is a tragic situation that we find ourselves in, in this House, this evening. We all, I hope, have ambitions to come and serve in this place to do good things for the people of Australia, for our constituents, to make positive change to people's lives, to come here and be a part of taking our country forward, of growing our economy, of improving the lives and welfare of people and giving them a better future. Instead, tonight, we are debating a measure that, whilst opposed by this side of the House, will undoubtedly take some of the most vulnerable people in this nation backwards. We are here fighting in vain against a circumstance where this House, tomorrow, when we vote on this, may well be supporting a measure that is going to be demonstrably bad for some of the most vulnerable people in some of the most disadvantaged communities in our nation. It is truly depressing and distressing to be helpless in standing here in a gagged debate, being given a precious 10 minutes to speak about something so significant, knowing that tomorrow morning this bill will progress, no doubt, through this House, and, despite our best endeavours, we will be confronted with a situation where the government progresses something that will undoubtedly lead to harm of vulnerable people, particularly women and children. When there are other matters before this House that I am looking forward to supporting that will bring about a positive change for women and children in particular, it is so depressing that in that same environment we are confronted with this circumstance where we're going to see a measure that will be demonstrably bad for them. One of the great things about this chamber is that people from all 150 electorates across our nation come together, and the point of that, apart from the important democratic processes and the principle of one vote and one value, is that all different communities from across our nation can bring their perspectives into this chamber via their locally elected member. What is extremely significant in this debate is listening to the local members of parliament who have communities that are participating in this program in their electorates. That's the whole point of local members speaking in this chamber. It's so they can say: 'Hey, we're having this debate. Let me bring you a perspective from my own electorate that will inform the decision-making process.' We have heard from the member for O'Connor, the member for Hinkler and the member for Grey—I've spoken, too, about this many times—all members that have this cashless debit card operating in their electorates and doing so much good in their electorate, and they have brought a perspective to this debate that I can't, because this is not a program that is operating in my constituency. Their stories are the most important and significant to me and should be the most important and significant to anyone that is genuinely thinking through the consequences of the proposition currently before the House. Some of their stories, their firsthand stories, are confronting and powerful. Some of them are very sad circumstances that relate to sexual abuse, suicide and a whole range of other awful things happening in communities. The common thread in all of their reports to this House and in these debates is the positive change that this measure has brought about in those communities since it was introduced. The fear that they have, as local members of parliament, is that if this bill passes, and if this important tool is taken away from those communities who are desperately trying to address significant challenges around alcohol abuse and other issues, unfortunately—what they report to us—they will see a repeat of the circumstances that occurred in those communities before this measure was available to them, and that positive change will completely reverse around. There are some of my colleagues who have talked about the motivations of the government in doing this. Many talk about putting ideology ahead of practicality and listening to people on the ground. I do think that that is an element of the government's approach here. They are deciding ideologically that they don't support this. Therefore, despite the evidence, despite the position of leaders in communities—a wide variety of leaders, not just one category of leaders, but all different leaders from these communities that have been a part of these programs, that have been a part of the problems beforehand, that have seen the good work that has been done, that have seen the solutions that this measure brought about. Despite those stories being brought forward briefly in this debate—because it is a truncated debate. We don't have the opportunity to give as much compelling information to the House as we should have on such a significant issue, because we're having to finish this debate tonight and vote on it in the morning. I think ideology is one motivation. I will be blunt, I think another motivation by the Labor Party throughout this has been politics, and particularly the appalling, disgraceful, disgusting scare campaigns that they have sought to run for an extended period of time around this program and the proposition that there was some kind of motivation to extend it more broadly. On a regular occurrence I had my own constituents contact me in fearful circumstances. Pensioners in my electorate were saying they had been led to believe by certain members of the Labor Party that all pensioners were going to be put on to a scheme like this. Obviously the Labor Party saw this as an opportunity to lie, mislead and trick people into supporting them. To have that avenue of a political attack, of course, they had to hold the policy position that they were going to abolish the whole thing. And because they were abolishing the whole thing that meant that they were the only ones who weren't going to put every single pensioner in this country on to this scheme, which was obviously complete rubbish. The Labor Party will always prioritise winning votes over what is in the best interests, from a good policy outcome point of view, of the people of this country. The consequence, unfortunately, on the other side of an election is that they have to follow through. They got the value of the politics around those lies that were told to pensioners in particular. But in order to tell the lie they had to have this position that they're now enacting, and that is to the great detriment of some of the most vulnerable communities in our nation. I find it absolutely disgusting and appalling—to hold a position that you will put at risk the most vulnerable in our society, particularly women and children—that you will proactively return the capacity of people, within their communities, to bring alcoholism, drug abuse and other addictive issues that this scheme was able to curtail. You will put those problems back into these communities and the collateral associated outcomes, which include sexual abuse and domestic violence. I find that absolutely appalling. Yes, congratulations, you were able, I suspect, to trick some people into voting for you, because of the way you misled them about this scheme. Congratulations on the politics there. You probably did trick people, incorrectly, into voting for you. You scared them. You frightened them. People like myself did my best to correct the lies. But it is probably the case that politically you got a dividend from this disgraceful policy and now you're implementing it. You got the political benefit. You frightened and tricked certain people into supporting you and now you are implementing a policy which will lead to devastating outcomes in some of the most vulnerable communities in our nation. It is absolutely shameful and I am appalled at the whole thing, particularly this requirement that we ram this thing through tonight in this curtailed debate and that we won't get the opportunity to do our very best to reason with people, some of whom on the other side of this chamber might possibly have a conscience on this matter and might accept the evidence on the ground about this. We can't do that; this debate is being curtailed. It is one of the most shameful examples of the disgraceful tactics the Labor Party will use to frighten people into voting for them at the expense of some of the most vulnerable in our society. It is a disgrace. 18:40 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes I'll start by reinforcing the member for Sturt's last comments. Scaring people with false information is about one of the lowest forms of politics there is. I can confirm what he said because I was dealing with the emails and phone calls myself. The issue tonight is the cashless debit card, and I've had a bit to do with this. I was very keen in the early stages for a town in my electorate to be one of the trial sites. So, with the member for Grey, I visited Ceduna and met with the community leadership there, including the council and leaders of the Aboriginal community. I was very impressed with their resolve to do something practical about the serious issues in Ceduna to do with excessive alcohol use and lawlessness in that town. I feel particularly sad tonight because those community leaders showed incredible courage to back this. This was a courageous act by the local community, and they've had the rug pulled out from under them at the moment. I feel very sad about that. You've heard the member for Grey's contributions in here about the changes that card has made in the town of Ceduna. I and the minister responsible for this at the time, the member for Aston, looked at the town of Moree in my electorate. I got verbal approval from the local mayor at the time that it might be an issue that they would be supportive of. Members of the department spent some time in that town consulting with various members of the community. Word got out amongst some that this was a racist card and that it was going to be bad for them, and they started a protest. It got to a stage where, at one of the heated meetings with the councillors, basically there were threats of harm—of vehicles being burnt, of houses being burnt and the like—if there was support. Sadly, under that pressure, the council backed down. The other form of pressure and the major charges against this, which were particularly telling and the bit that upset me most—and the publicans that were in town then aren't there now, so I can say this—were from the publicans in town. When you think about it, taking money that was meant to buy food, clothing and school supplies for kids and putting it through poker machines was part of the business model of those pubs. One of the publicans came into my office and wanted to know how much compensation there would be for his business if this card came in. Another one who employed at the time, I think, 22 people said that he'd be laying people off and the renovations that he was planning for his pub wouldn't go ahead if this card came in. That in itself really explains why this card was needed. Why did I want to do this in Moree? It's pretty well my hometown, the closest large centre, and I've got an office there. I wanted to do it because the people on welfare in Moree are about 50-50 Indigenous and non-Indigenous. I think this should be seen as a welfare card, not an Aboriginal welfare card. As far as those things go, we should be colour blind in this House. Moree was a good example because it wouldn't have just been the Aboriginal community that was part of this trial; it would have been everyone. I think it's a similar situation in the Hinkler area, where there's not a high proportion of Aboriginal people. As a result, part of the mindset of the minister and government at the time was that this wouldn't be forced on any community, so as a result we backed off and it didn't go into Moree, much to my disappointment. What's interesting is that probably some time later some of these same hotheads who were calling it the race card and screaming about this terrible card said to me: 'Maybe we should have a crack at this. We've still got a lot of our younger people not being fed because of the cash that comes into the family being taken. We're still seeing some of our elders are getting pressure for their money because there's cash in the house.' That's part of the misinformation that came out before the election, because elders weren't part of this card. They could choose to be if they wanted. Many of them, I think in other places in Ceduna, the goldfields and up in Hinkler, probably did, because they liked the idea of not having the cash. Just in round figures, off the top of my head from memory, a couple with three school aged children, with all the payments for the children and family assistance, got roughly $1,700 a fortnight. There was 20 per cent in cash and they could do what they liked with it. You could take it out the backyard, set it on fire, buy grog, gamble, whatever. That's like $340 of cash that you could do what you want with. The rest was on the card, and the card would be used at the tuckshop at school, would pay for school excursions, could be used down at the supermarket, the coffee shop, to get a taxi. All of that, this card would have been used for. I'm terribly sad about the lost opportunity in my electorate, because I think it was worthwhile. We're in politics, and being a member of parliament should not be a popularity contest. I know at times it is; you've got to get re-elected. But, quite frankly, sometimes you have to make courageous decisions because quite often the easiest path is not the best path. I had other towns in my electorate where the Aboriginal leadership was saying, 'Why don't you bring them here?' The time had elapsed, and we missed the opportunity. I think this is an incredibly bad decision by this government. I think people will be harmed by this decision. What is interesting is it's symbolic, because, back to the popularity thing, none of these trials were in Labor held seats. It's not like they need to do this to win the next election. What we see more and more is the virtue signalling. I was speaking about the virtue signalling last night with the change of distribution priority areas for medicines, and now we have doctors moving from more remote and isolated towns to more highly populated areas because of a decision that was made without thinking through the ramifications. Obviously, this change is going to happen. The numbers in the House are aligned that way. But I really wish the members of the government would have a bit of a think about what they're doing here. You know, there's a lot of hubris at the moment. I understand that; I spent time in opposition and came into government. There's a lot of hubris, but, please, when you want to change the world in two weeks, just think about the real lives of people that you're impacting, and this is going to impact on a lot. 18:50 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass A few years ago I stood here in this House and made very clear my thoughts on the cashless debit card. Simply, I see the debit card program as a punitive measure enacted on the presumption that all welfare recipients in the trial sites are incapable of managing their finances and require government assistance. I acknowledged at the time that, while some communities are more likely to experience generational disadvantage and have generally poorer outcomes in several areas, forced government control on finances is not the solution to addressing some of the many systemic issues that exist in communities across Australia. At the time, I made it clear that, although I would like to see the end of the cashless debit card, I chose to abstain from my own party's legislation to make the trial sites permanent rather than vote against it, due to my serious reservations about the lack of transition plans in place—a decision that resulted in a deluge of vile, hateful messages directed towards me and horrific threats against my family, including my young children. At times, I did wonder if it would have been easier to not have spoken up at all, but I reminded myself then, as I have done since, that I never want to make a decision based on what will be popular over what is in the best interests of the community. It must be the right decision, however difficult that may be. I stand by that decision to abstain, and today I'm choosing to withhold my vote on Labor's legislation to abolish the card. I want to be very clear, in case my decision is misrepresented, as it was in 2020, that I'm choosing to abstain, as, although I want to see the end of this system, I still have significant reservations that the transitions proposed by Labor do not sufficiently support those that they're seeking to assist as they move away from the card. While they may be, once again, seeking to take the moral high ground, the cynical politics that Labor have played with this issue must be pointed out, including making it a cornerstone of their recent election strategy. This was evident in my own seat of Bass, where, despite their best efforts, the blatant scare campaign to terrify vulnerable pensioners into thinking that they would be forced onto the card, including a forum directly targeting lower socioeconomic areas, fell flat. Even after COTA called out Labor last year for the misinformation campaign, they persisted with their strategy. I do believe it is only right that we look to give back financial autonomy to those who have endured the card. As I said in 2020, as a Liberal I have a fundamental issue with how the program aligns with my belief in personal and individual responsibility, which is the very foundation of our party's principles. One of our guiding principles is to minimise the interference of the government in the daily lives of our constituents, which is why a program that controls the financial lives of a particular segment of society unless or until they can prove to the government that they can manage their own finances is antithetical to these principles. I want to acknowledge my colleagues who represent the communities where the current sites exist. They are good, caring and decent people who have a deep understanding of their communities and what is needed. I'm not disputing nor am I seeking to be in any way dismissive of the significant challenges that persist in these communities, and I understand the intentions of what the card is seeking to do. We fundamentally agree on the problems; however well intentioned, though, the scheme has not definitively demonstrated that it achieved what it set out to do. As set out in the University of Adelaide report into the scheme, which was commissioned by our own party when in government, the evidence was mixed and, while there were some reported improvements—a reduction in alcohol consumption, for example—it wasn't possible to attribute the changes to the cashless debit card alone. Furthermore, there was no definitive conclusion about whether the CDC influenced the personal or social harm caused by illicit drugs and little consensus about whether and how children's welfare had changed since the introduction of the CDC in the trial areas. When you restrict somebody's income, of course it will lead to a decrease in the purchase of alcohol or illicit drugs, but there's no evidence that the measure has done anything to improve addictive or destructive behaviours, or created systemic change, as there is no long-term behavioural change support there. After I gave my speech, I received a few calls from community leaders upset with the stance that I had taken, commenting that I didn't understand the challenges faced in their regions. While I certainly would not claim to fully understand their regions, I do know that some of the same challenges persist in my own electorate and I don't believe that they are able to be solved in the long term simply by taking away a citizen's right to have control over their own finances, no matter how much we may disagree with the decisions they make. Many individuals living in these areas are forced onto this card, no matter their circumstances, simply because of where they live. I recently read the story of Kerryn Griffis, who spoke of the negative impact the card has had on her life and the lives of her five children. 'It has been a nightmare,' she said. According to Ms Griffis, the stigma of the card has led to difficulty finding a rental, forcing her and her five children under the age of 12 to move into her mother's three-bedroom home. For Ms Griffis the end of the card signals freedom. She said: 'I can't wait. I'm going to be able to have flexibility with my finances, I'm not going to be restricted by which bill I will and won't pay, and my kids are looking forward to having pocket money again.' At the end of the day, no matter how well intentioned, this scheme doesn't fix the number of complex challenges that drive disadvantage. I have spoken a number of times on the need for trauma-informed responses as a starting point to address the many layered challenges, but what is needed in the short term—circling back to my points made previously in this speech—is the need for significant wraparound transitional and long-term services to support anyone who the current program is intended to help. This is where I fall short of giving my support to this legislation. Despite the failure of the cashless debit card to meet its intended outcomes, removing the card without appropriate support will not fix the very problem that it's trying to address. It seems both the government and the opposition agree on the problem; they don't agree on the solutions. The government's plan for a closure and repeal date expected to be around February-March next year leaves me with a number of concerns around how quickly the program is closing and that there's a lack of detail on programs or funding to assist the communities with the issues that the cashless debit card was designed to address, because they don't just magically go away with the elimination of the card. The minister has said the transition will include information and education sessions with culturally appropriate information and support, and individually targeted transitional support interviews for those who need them. Where participants require continued assistance with budgeting, transferring direct debits from the cashless debit card or referrals to further support services, there will be help available, including the option of voluntary income management. I hold significant concerns about the ambiguity of these plans outlined by the minister. While the government has committed to consulting more widely with the communities where the cashless debit card exists, it does concern me that the implemented outcomes of the consultation will likely not happen until well after the cessation of the program, missing a chance to ensure that those coming off the card avoid falling through the gaps. Of course, I do recognise that the current legislation sunsets at the end of this year, but I think in the rush to play politics with the issue in the lead-up to the election the government has backed itself into rushing this legislation through rather than looking for a way to allow for a proper and just transition that would ensure the community gains financial freedom while being supported where needed and necessary. The systemic dismantling of the income management system is the right thing to do, but this needs to be done carefully and by building long-term supports going forward. Where is the solid plan to invest in long-term solutions that will provide individuals with the tools and skills to improve their life, address long-term trauma and empower them to make the right financial decisions? Finally, while making a lot of noise about the amount of money cancelling this program will save, I believe it will take an investment by the government to ensure that the right programs and services are in place over many years. Anything less would be virtue signalling. I'm disappointed that, after all the public statements on the need to abolish the program, the details on how these communities will be properly supported is lacking. What I see in front of me is nothing short of walking away from the very communities Labor is professing to help. I call on the government to address these issues as a matter of urgency. 18:59 Mr BOYCE 299498 Flynn I would just like to begin by taking the opportunity to tell you, Deputy Speaker Freelander, that this is my first opportunity to speak after my first speech earlier last week. What we have seen tonight is an appalling display of arrogance by the Labor government in guillotining this debate on a very, very important issue. It is an attack on the democracy of Australia. The people of Australia put people like me here to speak on these things and for the Labor government to guillotine this debate by calling it an emergency bill is just absolutely appalling. Having said that, I rise to oppose the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022. As of 1 July 2022, there were 17,795 participants using the cashless debit card. The cashless debit card looks and operates like a regular bank card. It cannot be used to buy alcohol, gambling products, some gift cards or to withdraw cash. Eighty per cent of the recipient's welfare payment is quarantined into the card. The remaining 20 per cent of the recipient's social security payments are transferred into the recipient's bank account and can be withdrawn and used without restriction. The cashless debit card was an important recommendation in the Forrest review report Creating Parity as a means of reducing social harm caused by welfare-fuelled alcohol, gambling and drug abuse. Evaluations of the cashless debit card show the program is working. The first independent valuation released in late 2017 showed that the card has shown considerable positive impact in the initial trial sites, including 41 per cent of participants surveyed who drank alcohol reported less drinking, 80 per cent of participants surveyed who used drugs reported using drugs less frequently and 48 per cent of those who gambled before the trial reported gambling less often. There have been more than a dozen evaluations of the cashless debit card that have provided consistent evidence about welfare quarantining policies that show decreases in drug and alcohol issues; decreases in crime, violence and antisocial behaviour; improvements in child health and wellbeing; improved financial management, and ongoing and even strengthened community support. In January 2021 the evaluation of the cashless debit card, the CDC, was released after research was conducted by the Future of Employment and Skills research centre at the University of Adelaide. The evaluation was extensive, with quantitative survey contacting 4,424 CDC participants and receiving 2,041 responses. I wanted to use some of the time of today's speech to specifically mention some of the key findings in this evaluation. The evaluation found that alcohol consumption was reported to have been reduced since the introduction of the cashless debit card. Between one-third and a half of the cashless debit card participants who drink reported frequency of drinking was down by 11 per cent, the amount of drinking was down by 14 per cent, and both frequency and the amount were down by 11 per cent. Around 20 per cent of all cashless debit card recipients reported the cashless debit card had helped decrease illicit drug use for themselves, family, friends, community in all trial sites. One in five cashless debit card participants reported that the cashless debit card has helped reduce gambling problems in at least one of the following dimensions: for themselves, for their family, for their friends and where they live. Cash previously used for gambling was directed towards spending on essentials such as food. This evaluation proves that the cashless debit card has helped address longstanding issues in their communities. What I want to know is how the Labor government will help people in their communities if the cashless debit program is removed. Quite simply, what is their alternative? How do they plan to address the complex social issues that each of the cashless debit card trial sites face? What I also want answered is what the Labor government intends to do with the job programs that help individuals into work, including cashless debit card participants. Just this year the former coalition government opened proposals for new projects that will provide employment and training opportunities for cashless debit card participants within their communities. The $10 million Jobs and Infrastructure open competitive grant opportunity was part of the former coalition government's $30 million Job Ready package. The grant opportunity was to fund infrastructure projects and other support services to provide cashless debit card participants with training and job opportunities. The funding round was responding to the feedback from communities who were seeking to be empowered to create jobs that will help break the cycle of welfare dependence and support their communities to thrive. Once again, what does the Labor government intend to do with these programs? Nobody knows. If the government put aside its ideological opposition to the cashless debit card, it would again hear firsthand how the cashless debit card is making a real positive difference in these communities. For any major reforms, community consultation is critical. Community consultation enables communities to articulate their own concerns and identify the appropriate responses and solutions to problems that affect them. Do I believe that the Labor government has completed extensive community consultation? The answer is no. Do I believe that the new Minister for Social Services has gone to the communities that have participated in the program and spoken to them about how the cashless debit card has helped address social issues in their communities, including alcohol abuse, illicit drug abuse and gambling? The answer to that is no. Is the Labor government willing to see social issues worsen in these communities if the cashless debit card is scrapped? This is something that I believe will happen if this bill passes. In conclusion, I want to quote a section of Senator Price's maiden speech. Senator Price is a proud Territorian and Australian, a former business owner and former director of Indigenous research at the Centre for Independent Studies. Senator Price said: … we see the removal of the cashless debit card, which allowed countless families on welfare to feed their children rather than seeing the money claimed by kinship demand from alcoholics, substance abusers and gamblers in their own family group. If that's not a reason to continue the cashless debit card trial, I don't know what is. I urge the House to oppose this bill. 19:07 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I rise in opposition to the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022. This is a shameless, needless destruction of a really life-changing set of policies that have been rolled out in regions with some of the most vulnerable people, people with huge problems. I don't know how many on the other side who have been advocating for this have actually visited any of these sites or spoken to local practitioners, local mayors or people who are involved in the trial who were willingly and quite happily involved in it. It has been a major benefit to all the communities. I've had the opportunity to visit two of those sites, first of all with the good member at the dispatch box, who is now the assistant shadow minister, the member for O'Connor, who himself has a cashless debit card and uses it, just to demonstrate it. I think he's probably got other cashless debit cards. He and other users of it in Kalgoorlie showed me how it works. It specifically limits payment for alcohol, gambling and drugs. And there are a lot of people on the card who have those problems and who used to get their funds ripped off by other family members with alcohol, drug and other problems. It looks like a Visa debit card and it acts like one. It's so specific and so sophisticated. If you walk into a hotel, you can buy a meal and pay for it, but you can't buy alcohol in the same hotel. People don't know. There's no stigma with it. You're just using it like normal. I met with Indigenous groups. I met with people who are willingly and happily going onto it in Kalgoorlie. I got so much positive feedback from the local peer leaders in this situation. In Hervey Bay and Bundaberg, the good member for Hinkler, who I've been with, has many people who have benefited from it. Youth unemployment has gone down in the short time it's been there. In that area, it isn't predominantly in the Indigenous community; it's among general community members. Anyone under the age of 35 on JobSeeker, youth allowance or parenting payment single or partners goes onto it and, if they demonstrate their success in managing their affairs over a period of time, they can apply to come off. If people really have mental health issues, they can apply to come off it. But it has been very well received by quite prominent members of social services in that region. There are 6,552 people, all young people of working age, who are getting a better outcome because they are on it. People in the Northern Territory, up until this bill, have had the right to transfer over from the BasicsCard, which is also run by Indue. In Far North Queensland, those on income management have had the right to go onto it. There are roughly 17,000 people using it to manage their affairs. They still get a cash component, but the amount they get is exactly the same as for anyone who's not on the card. It is very usable and very handy. Why is it that there is this ridiculous ideological obsession that it is restricting the rights of people? People who are being supported by the community, by taxpayers, have a duty to try and get off welfare. All the stories that I was hearing about this income management were the same: there's less drug and alcohol violence and there are fewer presentations to accident and emergency. The police like it because they have less violence, and even the mayors in some of these towns have vouchsafed their views on the genuine improvement from it. As I said, the actual people on it were happy because they were facing less pressure from their families to hand over money that would be wasted on alcohol and/or drugs—or gambling, for that matter, too. I have some other specific examples. I spoke to the member for Grey, whose electorate includes the town of Ceduna, which is another site. He's been to two elections with a 62 per cent favourability in Ceduna. He was very disappointed that the now Minister for Indigenous Affairs visited Ceduna but didn't meet with any of the people who are proponents of and supporting the system. She just refused to be taken by him to meet these people. The cashless debit card also had other measures attached to it. There was a $30 million jobs fund to get people job ready, and there was support for local support services. There was $50 million for drug and alcohol residential rehabilitation facilities. The Western Australian police commissioner, Col Blanch, said the card has been beneficial in remote communities, and you've seen all the dysfunction that has happened in those areas. In fact, when I served in the parliament two parliaments before this one, the 45th, I was Assistant Minister for Children and Families, and we saw a lot of this violence in the East Kimberley, up in the Northern Territory and in North Queensland. This was a great initiative. One of the ministers speaking on this said it is privatising social welfare. What a load of hogwash! The BasicsCard, the Indue card, is also run by private enterprise. Is there a push from members in the Department of Social Services? Are they thinking that some business would like to take over social security? Are they dreaming? It's not a business; it is a government service. It's just that we wanted a card, just like what was developed, to be seamless and not appear to be different from any other credit card and it was working so well. So it's very disappointing that the first thing this incoming government does is destroy something that has delivered huge social benefits, has empowered a lot of people who have had a disorganised life to get some sense of regularity in feeding their kids, getting off alcohol and drugs. School attendance of their children improves. Some of them have transitioned to work. As I said, in the seat of Hinkler youth unemployment, which has been double the national average, has gone down. It has helped these young people because the money is not so available. They can't just go and spend it on Sportsbet or other forms of gambling or load up on alcohol, drink to excess or use cash, which is the way you get drugs. If everyone that I visited was tallied up here in this room, they would all be shouting from the bleachers, 'Keep it, keep it, keep it.' It's working, and you will see there will be an outbreak of all those things that have been reduced. So what's the plan? In the second reading speech, the minister mentioned he is going to transition people back to income management and back to the other cards. Well, what's the point? I mean, seriously. But to get rid of it altogether is just a tragedy, so I'm not in favour of it. It wasn't a sinister plan to privatise social welfare in Australia, as the minister outlined in his speech. It was a great initiative that had the runs on the board in the East Kimberley. The member for Durack has spoken in favour of it as has the member for O'Connor, the member for Grey, the member for Hinkler, mayors, individuals, social services; it's universal. It just doesn't make sense for this government to come in and destroy something that has been improving people's lives and that's why I'm against the bill. 19:17 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra One of the things I wanted to do when I was appointed the shadow minister for Indigenous Australians was to get out of Sydney where I live and out of Canberra and go and see some people in Indigenous communities, to come and see the joys, the culture and the challenges that Indigenous people face around the country. I know I am sitting here at the table, as is the member for O'Connor, who represents large Indigenous communities in his electorate, my friend from Wide Bay with his community in Cherbourg. One of the things I was very keen to do was to visit communities in particular where the cashless debit card had been so I can have a first-hand experience of talking to people about how life was like and about how the cashless debit card has affected and changed things for them. I'm sorry that the government has brought this legislation in so quickly because it hasn't enabled me in the time available to get around to more communities but I will be visiting more communities. The community I did have the privilege of visiting was the community of Ceduna, which is very, very well represented by the very popular member for Grey, Rowan Ramsey. Unfortunately, although the member for Grey had organised a terrific experience for us in Ceduna meeting a wide range of different stakeholders and people, he had COVID in the time visiting but I was very delighted that our new Senate colleague Senator Kerrynne Liddle joined me on that visit. Indeed, she knew a number of people from the Indigenous community that we met on that particular visit. Ceduna sits on the west coast of the Eyre Peninsula. It is about halfway between Sydney and Perth. It is a very small community. About 2,000 people live there and about 20 per cent or more are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. When I went to Ceduna as the shadow minister, I listened to different people in the community. I met with the council. I met with a range of people of social service stakeholders. I met with Indigenous people. I wanted to find out from the people of Ceduna what affect the cashless debit card had had on that community. I think it's important to remember, in the context of Ceduna, the reasons for the introduction of the cashless debit card. This occurred in the aftermath of a 2011 South Australian coroner's inquest into the untimely deaths of six Indigenous Australians in and around the township over a five-year period. Each of these individuals died well before their time, aged between 36 and 42. The inquest into the six deaths found that alcohol abuse had played a significant part both in their lives and in their deaths. These six Australians represented the profound hardships that the community in which they lived had to contend with and for the most part that was due to alcohol abuse. The impact of alcohol abuse can be devastating not just for the person who is addicted, but for the community in which they live and for the service providers who have to respond. One of the images seared in my mind is from the visit to Ceduna. I was talking to one of the local officials who said that before the cashless debit card, when alcohol was more freely available, the activities of people in broad daylight were quite shocking. He told a story of a man who had taken a triangular fence post from a farm and was beating a woman in broad daylight in front of the council chambers. Just think of the horrendous injuries that would have been caused to that woman as a result of what was happening there— Mr LEESER 109556 I will take the interjection there from the member for O'Connor who said, 'It will happen again.' The feeling, very strongly, from people there, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, that we spoke to was that the cashless debit card—in limiting the amount of cash that was around, in limiting the discretion of people to spend money on alcohol and on gambling—had had a significant effect in making Ceduna a much more liveable place. It had actually given people who were on the card freedom, because they had their own money that wasn't being taken off them. It gave people a chance to dry out and a chance to get their lives in order. It made the community a much happier and more liveable place. In Ceduna in particular they have a wide range of people from communities outside Ceduna coming to visit at different times. And because of the people coming to visit from time to time you can tell when some of the issues of violence and alcohol abuse go up, because there are outsiders who have come in. The cashless debit card has been a very important mechanism in terms of improving the lives of everyone in Ceduna. When the cashless debit card was trialled in Ceduna in 2016 it markedly reduced the purchase of alcohol and gambling products, because only 20 per cent of the welfare payments could be withdrawn as cash. The card wasn't introduced without deep thought and extensive consultation. It had extensive consultation. It was a trial. The cashless debit card was an important recommendation of the Forrest review report Creating Parity. It was regarded as a realistic means of reducing the social harm caused by welfare fuelled alcohol, gambling and drug abuse. I make the point that the cashless debit card was never about punishing people who were on it. Any participant could apply to exit the program at any time by demonstrating a reasonable and responsible management of their financial affairs. The cashless debit card was part of a suite of measures to help improve people's lives and their circumstances. The Morrison government invested more than $110 million in support services for those communities that were using cashless debit cards. This included a $30 million jobs fund; a job ready initiative to strengthen local services and to help participants in cashless debit card communities to upskill, to become job ready and to join pathways to employment; and a $50 million investment in drug and alcohol residence facilities. The coalition's focus has always been to help those out of work prepare themselves to get into the workforce. Under the Morrison government the unemployment rate fell to 3.9 per cent—the lowest in 48 years. The cashless debit card was just one of the important policy tools which allowed the coalition government to achieve this figure. Everybody who moves from welfare to work achieves a personal victory in terms of self-esteem, a sense of contribution and, of course, improving their financial position. If Labor seeks to remove the cashless debit card it should at least be managed with the same care and consultation that underpinned its initial implementation. The feedback I had from locals in Ceduna was that in opposition the Labor Party was not visiting a full range of stakeholders to get a real sense of the nature of the benefit of the cashless debit card and how it had contributed to a safer Ceduna. Again, in government, they felt that they weren't being listened to, because people in the community realise that, as there's more money for the purchase of alcohol, the situation in Ceduna will become worse. Yet this bill before the House removes access for new entrants to join the cashless debit card program. In time, it will force more than 17,000 existing participants off the card, terminating a very effective support mechanism for income management. The fears expressed by the Ceduna community, that more available cash means more access to alcohol, which in turn leads to more alcohol fuelled violence and antisocial behaviour on and off the streets, are shared by communities across Australia. As declared in the coronial inquest report I referred to earlier, the culture of excessive alcohol consumption deeply damages those who abuse it, but it also scars the families and children faced with the destructive behaviours that so often arise from it. The card doesn't solely apply to Indigenous Australians, and there are many non-Indigenous Australians who use the cashless debit cards to access welfare payments. As at 2021, Indigenous Australians accounted for 76 per cent of participants in Ceduna, 82 per cent in the East Kimberley, 48 per cent in the Goldfields and 18 per cent in the Bundaberg-Hervey Bay region. A crucial outcome of the cashless debit card was raised with me by so many women in the Ceduna community. They benefited from the quarantining of welfare payments, as, instead of having to share their welfare payments or watch family payments squandered on alcohol and gambling, those payments were available for the essentials for which they were intended. The cashless debit card protected vulnerable women and children in communities. For many women, it meant a reduction in alcohol fuelled violence. For children, it reduced their exposure to alcoholism and helped to ensure they got to school with full stomachs. Other members of the community who didn't drink alcohol told us they welcomed the card because it protected their income from the desperate pressure for loans from relatives affected by alcoholism. Allan Suter was the mayor of Ceduna from 2006 to 2018. Like many in his community, Allan is incredibly distressed by Labor's attempt to remove the cashless debit card. Allan shared a story with me that should be heard by all my colleagues in the House. Prior to the implementation of the cashless debit card, on any given night anywhere between 50 and 100 children could be found walking the dark streets of Ceduna. When Allan asked a few of the children what they were doing out so late, their answer was heartbreaking. It was safer for these children to be out on the street than in their homes, confronted with alcohol fuelled violence, abuse and neglect. Once the effects of the card were felt by the community, the streets were quiet. There were no longer children wandering the streets, because, with limited access to alcohol or drugs, these children had a safe place to call home. The biggest beneficiaries, Allan confirmed, were the vulnerable members of the community—the children, the mothers and the women—who had previously been exposed to neglectful parenting, domestic violence or alcoholism. They now have a safe place to call home. All of that is under threat by the government's bill, which I oppose. 19:27 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I am very mindful of the time constraints this evening, but I want to add my voice to the members of the coalition who have already spoken this evening, and those who will follow me in speaking this evening to oppose the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022. I also have to say that I find it quite astonishing that Labor could only find one willing speaker for this bill's debate. They could only find one person who was prepared to argue in defence of this really bad legislation that Labor has introduced into the House. Perhaps that's because deep down they know that, while they have to support this for ideological reasons, it will cause great harm for the most vulnerable members of Australia's community. The bottom line is that not enough consultation has taken place with the communities currently using the cashless debit cards. Not enough consideration has been given to the potentially devastating impact from a rise in violence, antisocial behaviour and crime in these communities. I would particularly like to add my comments to those that have just been made by the member for Berowra, who went through, in quite a lot of detail, the positive impact that this card has had in a number of communities, particularly Ceduna, and the impacts that are likely when that card is removed. Effectively, what will happen is that Labor's bill will allow for more alcohol and drug abuse in at-risk communities, and that means an increase in violence and in antisocial behaviour. My deep concern is for Australians in those communities who may need to flee domestic and family violence. Very often they have children with them, and I fear that they will be inadvertently caught in a cycle of abuse through the Labor government's haphazard repeal of the cashless debit card. I wish to draw attention to the cohort of people who are on income management, which the Labor government has said they are not removing—in particular, those who are currently using the cashless debit card to manage their finances across the Northern Territory, in Ceduna, the East Kimberley, the Goldfields, Bundaberg and Hervey Bay and Cape York. We know that the cashless debit card provided more flexibility because it effectively works like a visa debit card, allowing users to make purchases in more shops across Australia that accept visa or EFTPOS, as well as online, with the exception of alcohol and gambling products. The previous BasicsCard allowed users to spend their welfare payments only in select stores, which is limited to around 15,000 shops and businesses across the nation. The cashless debit card provided upgraded technology to expand shopping options for those using the card. It's important that Labor considers the potential impact that removing the cashless debit card as a knee-jerk reaction will have on a lot of people. Women and children making the decision to flee instances of domestic violence could be impacted by being forced to spend time in a limited geographic area where there are approved stores that accept BasicsCard payments. This is the last thing that they should have to worry about in a situation where they are fleeing violence and abuse. This could have tragic consequences. We know that Labor can't be trusted to provide honest accounts of the cashless debit card. During the election campaign, those opposite engaged in a shameful scare campaign aimed at age pensioners. Labor falsely claimed a re-elected coalition government would introduce a cashless pension card, which was never true, not at all. They engaged in baseless scaremongering for their own political gain. What they should have been doing is getting out into these at-risk communities and consulting directly about how to best manage issues in their communities. They should have been listening to those who use the cashless debit card about the difference it has made for them. They should have been talking about how to reduce the social harm caused by welfare fuelled alcohol, gambling and drug abuse. It's important to note that some of the findings in relation to the cashless debit card have provided information about the improved impact on family stability. The second independent impact evaluation, by the University of Adelaide, reported that 45 percent of cashless debit card participants reported the cashless debit card had improved things for themselves and their family. This is clearly unnecessary legislation. It's being rushed into this place not to fix a problem but to create one. The Labor government still don't get that decisions have consequences. They will be responsible for every additional violent crime and neglected child that will inevitably occur as a result of the removal of this important income management tool. I oppose the bill. 19:33 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie The opposition opposes the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022. We believe Labor has recklessly walked away from the communities of Ceduna in South Australia; East Kimberley and the Goldfields in Western Australia; and Bundaberg and Hervey Bay in Queensland. There are so many questions hanging in the ether about the consultation done by Labor prior to the election about this harm minimisation program. Questions like: Who did Labor consult? Who did the government consult? Where did they go? What communities did they meet with? When did you meet people ? We know that they didn't do much consultation at all; that's the reality. That's on the record. The Kalgoorlie-Boulder mayor, John Bowler, expressed his frustration when he said: It almost seems they— Labor— are putting the cart before the horse. I would have liked for them to come here, consult with us, consult with the community, and then make a decision. Communities like Kalgoorlie-Boulder have every right to feel abandoned by the Albanese government. The cashless debit card was an important recommendation in the Forrest review report, Creating parity, as a means of reducing the social harm caused by welfare fuelled alcohol, gambling and drug abuse and to deal with deep-seated social and economic problems in many communities across Australia. As of 1 July 2022, 17,795 participants were using the cashless debit card—nearly 18,000 participants. As reported in the media: WA Police Commissioner Col Blanch said the card had been beneficial in remote communities. "It gives opportunity for the more senior people in families and the Elders and some of the Aboriginal communities to use the money on food for the kids and other things," he said. "It just seems to settle the community down and gives them better opportunity to spend their money on priority needs." If the government put aside its ideological opposition to the cashless debit card it would again hear firsthand how the cashless debit card is making a real positive difference in the community. After all, that's what we, as elected federal members of parliament, are here to do. The Wunan Foundation, a leading community organisation in the East Kimberley region, in its submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee stated: … more than four years on from the beginning of the CDC trial, circumstances in the East Kimberley today represent an improvement on the lived experience of people before the trial began in April 2016. Generation One reiterated its support for the cashless debit card in its submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, stating: Our support is grounded by our ongoing community consultations with trial sites since the establishment of the CDC. We continue to see the incredible positive impacts the CDC is making for individuals, families, and communities, and wish to see this continue. Evaluations of the cashless debit card show that the program is working. The first independent evaluation, released in late 2017, showed that the card has shown 'considerable positive impact' in the initial trial sites. Is the government going to keep the BasicsCard in place? Are the government aware that the technology that sits behind the BasicsCard is outdated? The cashless debit card is a visa debit card issued by payments by the company Indue, with cardholders using the card at most shops that accept visa or EFTPOS for maximum convenience. The technology behind the cashless debit card is the most advanced in the marketplace and the card looks exactly the same as yours and my debit card. Actually, it looks better than my debit card because I just have a plain red one, a Westpac one. The cashless debit card is dark grey or even black. It looks like an upmarket card. It doesn't have 'cashless debit card' on it; it's completely inconspicuous. No-one standing next to you would know it was a certain card. It looks exactly the same as any high-end card. You just can't buy alcohol or drugs with it and you can't gamble with it. Under the coalition government, you still received 20 per cent in cash. We're hearing stories about people not being able to send $20 to their grandchild. It's ridiculous. Even if you are on a basic $300 a week, you still are going to have $60 in cash every week. If you are on $400 a week, you are going to have $80 in cash. The reality is that the only thing this can't be spent on is alcohol, drugs and gambling. Why is it that Labor is so determined to keep these people in the situation they're in? That's the question that I have. We know the questions that I've already put forward. They haven't done any consultation at all. We know that when the Minister for Indigenous Australians was the shadow minister and went into the seat of Grey she met only with the people who agreed with her. She didn't want to meet with anyone who did not agree with her. Why would the government want to unwind this when it's actually helping people? Numerous reports have come forward. We've heard from members in whose electorates this card has been rolled out about the positive impact it is having. I don't tend to tell the member for Cowan what's best for her electorate, because, frankly, I don't know. I'm not from Western Australia. I know what's best for the people of Petrie. It amazes me that some people in this place want to tell the member for Hinkler, the member for Grey and others what's best for their electorate. That's the reality. In my opinion, the Albanese government is making a mistake in doing this. I think there will be consequences. A number of members on our side have outlined what they will be. I seek leave to table a document from the Bundaberg council, if that is alright with the government. Leave not granted. Mr HOWARTH 247742 Come on! It is just a document from the mayor basically saying the mayor supports the card and the mayor is aware of widespread community support for the card. That's all I wanted to table. I don't know what's— Dr Aly 13050 Read it then. Mr HOWARTH 247742 It's quite long, Member for Cowan. I don't know why you didn't allow that. I was very nice and asked if you would give me leave to do so, but obviously the Government Whip came in and overruled you—whatever; okay. The card does look exactly the same as ours, except you can't buy alcohol or drugs or gamble with it. Reducing the amount of cash that can be withdrawn also reduces the card user's ability to spend welfare payments on illegal drugs. Eighty per cent of the recipient's welfare payment is on the card and 20 per cent is in cash. The Morrison government combined the CDC with other measures to help people improve their circumstances, including a $30 million jobs fund to help people become job ready and get on pathways to employment, because we do have a labour shortage in this country and we saw the lowest levels of unemployment in 50 years under the Morrison government. As this comes off, the test will be where the unemployment rate will go with Labor. As a former Assistant Minister for Youth and Employment Services I'll be looking at this closely. There have been more than a dozen evaluations of the cashless debit card that have provided consistent evidence about the welfare quarantining policies. They show that there are (1) decreases in drug and alcohol issues; (2) decreases in crime violence and antisocial behaviour; (3) improvements in child health and wellbeing; (4) improved financial management; and (5) ongoing community support. I ask again—and I ask the minister to supply answers: Who did you consult? Where did you go? Did you meet with the people who were opposed to your view? What communities did you meet with? When did you meet with the people? Who, where, what and when? All I'm hearing are crickets. 19:43 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, congratulations on the deputy speakership role. I stand here today in absolute disbelief. Labor's relentless pursuit of damaging remote and regional Australia is consistently present in their words and their actions. Federal Labor have consistently demonstrated that they don't understand or, worse, don't care about regional Australia, particularly the very remote parts of our country. In the first sitting after the election, Labor has decided to scrap the cashless debit card. In doing so we'll see thousands of Australian families revert to a life of financial uncertainty. This will put many families in an incredibly dangerous situation. Labor has recklessly walked away from the communities of Ceduna in South Australia, Bundaberg and Hervey Bay in Queensland and the Goldfields. The card is also being scrapped in O'Connor, my dear friend Rick Wilson's electorate, and in my seat of Durack in the East Kimberley. Labor has told the nearly 18,000 participants that are currently using the cashless debit card, including the 1,335 people in the East Kimberley, that it is no longer here to support them. We should not be very surprised that Labor is happy to walk away from these communities. This is the sadness of it, because, after all, they're just regional communities, aren't they? Labor doesn't care about regional communities. The shire president of Wyndham-East Kimberley, David Menzel, recently commented that he expects to see an increase in social issues after the card trial ends. Local Kununurra community leader Des Hill has expressed concerns over the scrapping of the cashless debit card. Mr Hill understands that certain individuals were abusing their money on alcohol, gambling and drugs. Mr Hill also understands that solutions such as the cashless debit card can provide assistance to local families in dealing with these endemic issues. Executive Chair of the Wunan Foundation in East Kimberley, Ian Trust, said that, although the cashless debit card was not a silver bullet, it was 'something that could have been improved and made better. Going back just to cash welfare is going back to a status quo—and we have had that for 40 or 50 years and that hasn't worked'. He is a very, very respectful and respected man in the Kimberley and he speaks the truth. This is just commentary from leaders on the ground who have to deal with the issues of remote and regional communities every single day. They are a long way from Canberra. Support for the cashless debit card does not stop there. WA Police Commissioner Col Blanch said the trial had been beneficial for communities. He said: It gives opportunity for the more senior people in families and the elders and some of the Aboriginal communities to use the money on food for the kids and other things. It just seems to settle the community down and gives them better opportunity to spend their money on priority needs. This is Western Australia's most senior law enforcer, who, I have no doubt, knows the issues being faced on the ground in the East Kimberley. If Labor actually took the time to truly consult with law enforcement and Indigenous and community leaders, then they'd be aware of the benefits of the cashless debit card, especially in my electorate of Durack and across the sites that I mentioned earlier. They would be aware that 41 per cent of participants surveyed who drank alcohol reported drinking less frequently. They would be aware that 48 per cent of participants surveyed who used drugs reported using drugs less frequently. They would be aware that 48 per cent of those who gambled before the trial reported gambling less often. Instead, Labor have chosen to ignore the facts in order to appease their virtue-signalling base. They are not interested in making the difficult decisions to make Australian lives better. They are only interested in playing politics and pandering to the city elite. The federal Minister for Social Services, Amanda Rishworth, insultingly referred to the cashless debit card as a Liberal Party ideological obsession. Well, let me say this very clearly: if doing your best to help the most vulnerable people in your community is nothing more than a Liberal Party ideological obsession, then I will take that moniker any day you like. We are coming to expect this sort of rhetoric from the new Labor government. Those opposite have made reference to a recent report from the Australian National Audit Office which details the implementation and performance of the cashless debit card trial. Labor claim that this report highlighted a lack of evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of the cashless debit card. Maybe you could call that gilding the lily or being disingenuous, as this could not be further from the truth. The ANAO report clearly outlines how the cashless debit card's first performance indicator—how well the card supports a reduction in social harm in communities—was related and measurable. The second performance indicator—the extent to which participants are using their cashless debit card to direct income support payments to essential goods and services—was also found to be related but not measurable at this time. The ANAO report made two specific recommendations, and neither of them was to abolish the cashless debit card, because even the ANAO—and I don't always agree with what they say—know that removing this measure hastily and without proper consultation with communities and leaders on the ground is irresponsible, and it's purely dangerous. The abolishment of this card will flood the affected communities with welfare cash, in turn exacerbating the issues we have spent so many years working to curb: alcohol abuse, drug abuse, gamble addiction, children going without food, family violence. Now, I agree that the cashless debit card is by no means a silver bullet; we have never claimed that it is that. But we do know that the cashless debit card is having a positive impact on the lives of Australians who need it most. And let me tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough: these Australians are some of our most vulnerable. If this bill, the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022, is passed, the Albanese government will be directly responsible for whatever horrible circumstances our most vulnerable are left to live with. Shame on Labor! 19:51 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest I commend to the House the words and the contributions of the members in the electorates in which this card has been working. I've listened to each one of them speak. They have been profound in their comments on the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022, but none of them have been consulted in this process about what Labor is planning to do here. The member for Durack spoke very eloquently just now from a point of actual experience, not ideology, in her community, which she knows very, very well. We've seen the same thing from the member for O'Connor and his experience in the Goldfields of Western Australia. Both of these are Western Australian electorates and both of you have spoken directly of the impacts that this particular measure has had in your communities. Of all people who would know, it's these members, as well as the member for Grey from South Australia, who has also had a community using the cashless debit card and has seen profound impacts from that. Also, we heard earlier from the member for Hinkler. I commend everyone who's watching this now to go back and have a look at the Hansard or have a look at the contributions by each one of these members who can speak from experience of what access to the cashless debit card has done in their communities. They actually know because they live it. They're there with their communities and they care most about their communities. I'd also like to recommend the contribution by the member for Aston, the shadow minister for education. He made just a profound and important contribution on this. Like, I hope, all members in this House, certainly the members that I've spoken about, we are profoundly concerned for the most vulnerable: the ones who expect the members who've just spoken to speak on their behalf—and they have—those vulnerable children, families and women. In one of the communities that I visited some time ago in my previous role, I met some Aboriginal elder women. They were doing amazing work in their community, but they were forthright with me about the challenges their community faced, and I can only say to the member for Durack how important this card is as part of that and the response to that. Equally, there was a group—some wonderful Indigenous people—who would drive around at night. They would spend their evening driving around, collecting young children from wherever they were in their community and taking them home. Also, it was interesting how often they would wait so that the young people could look in the windows or doors of those premises and decide whether they would go in or get back on the bus because of what was going on. That's the real world for these young people and for women in these communities. I would say that this government bill gives an absolute green light to more alcohol, more drug abuse and more violence in at-risk communities, which the members have spoken about so eloquently tonight. This now sits with Labor. This is a very profound decision that they have made, and I would say to them that they need to be very directly aware of the impact of this decision and what harm this will bring to those communities. We've seen the benefits that these have brought, and previous members spoke on this. Forty-one per cent of participants surveyed who drank alcohol reported drinking less frequently. That's a very good result. Forty-eight per cent of participants surveyed who used drugs reported using drugs less frequently. There were lots, dozens, of evaluations of the cashless debit card, and they provided consistent evidence about quarantining policies that show a decrease in drug and alcohol issues, decreases in crime violence and antisocial behaviour, and improvements in child health and wellbeing. What a fantastic outcome: an improvement in child health and wellbeing. I'm sure the member for Durack and the members present are part of that, being a reason why this cashless debit card is so important and is making a difference. There has been improvement in financial management and—here's a wonderful result—ongoing and even strengthened community support. What a great set of outcomes. Here we have a Labor government ripping that away, saying: 'That does not matter. That is not important.' Yes, to us, it is. The members I have spoken about, who have been so supportive of this and worked so hard to get the card into their communities, understand very well how important this is and what a difference it's made. It's made a real difference to real lives, particularly to children and women. They're the people who are going to suffer most. I am absolutely appalled by that decision—absolutely appalled. We haven't seen the consultation. There's been no consultation, to my knowledge, in the Goldfields—no consultation at all. We're going to see what happens from here. I don't know what the government are going to do in relation to alcohol, gambling and illegal drugs—it sits with them now—and how they're actually going to manage from here. I know the member for Grey has spoken out very strongly on this issue and the difference it's made to his community in Ceduna. He has spoken very strongly about this. He is very, very concerned about the impact, and rightly so. He did say that his community, as we've heard repeatedly in this place, were consulted and were very much part of it. I think the member for Aston spoke very strongly about this and the difference that had made in the design and delivery. The member for O'Connor also said that the mayors in the Goldfields are bracing themselves for an increase in antisocial behaviour. I quote the member for O'Connor in a previous speech. He represents the constituents of the Goldfields, and he said that it's accepted by far more retailers and that nothing could be further from the truth in saying that it was stigmatising, because it was able to be used and used very effectively. I understand that not one Labor MP or senator has engaged with the Goldfields. The member for O'Connor said that neither he nor the member for Durack nor the member for Grey nor the member for Hinkler were asked about the actual impacts of this card that operates in their particular electorates. I find that astounding when they are making such a profound decision that affects the lives of our most vulnerable, women and children. This is something this parliament should never forget: the most vulnerable are at greater risk now because of the removal of this cashless debit card. I think all of us would agree that reducing alcohol, reducing drugs, increased school attendance, more food for children are great ideas. I know the member for Durack thinks that is a great idea for the young people in her electorate. A reduction in domestic and sexual violence, what a fantastic outcome. That's why we're here in this place. They are exactly the issues that we are here to deal with on behalf of our communities. The government is now responsible for any increase in harm to children and families in the communities that currently have access to the cashless debit card. This now sits with the government. I speak in this House to represent those who aren't being heard, those who will be most impacted by any change to the CDC in the electorates we have spoken about tonight. Those of you who have not read or listened to the contributions by the members here who have the CDC in their electorates, can I encourage you to do so? The member for Durack, the member for O'Connor, the member for Grey, the member for Hinkler and of course the shadow minister for education, I commend their contributions to you all and encourage you to read and listen to those. 20:01 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright As I stand on my feet, I offer you affirmation on your elevation to high office as the Second Deputy Speaker, a well-deserved position for a member from Western Australia deservedly received by you. As we come to the hour of eight o'clock, the parliament in its neutrality would normally be rising at this time of the night but we are not. There is a bill before the House which is of particular attention to this side of the House. As a result, I want to acknowledge the government for allowing debate to pursue until 10 o'clock tonight. As you well know, there's a list of speakers who want to make a contribution to this debate because we believe that it's worth debating. We believe that this bill will have ramifications in communities and we need to make sure this government are accountable for the actions that they are about to undertake as a result of their actions. The opposition opposes the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022 and will oppose it vigorously. Evidence of that is the number of speakers who are prepared to stay after the parliament has finished to put their case. We will put our case because we were the architects of this bill and there are reasons we put it in place. It's worth remembering that the introduction of this card didn't come from any political grandstanding in regional communities. It didn't come from woke communities trying to put forward a better way of life. It didn't come from state governments. The genesis of this card, the genesis of trying to make Indigenous communities and regional communities better came from where? These aren't in the speaking points that would have been handed out to both sides of the House tonight. It came from a coroner's report. It comes from the death after death after death of those who lost their lives in communities through drugs, alcohol, illicit substances or whatever it might be, those who lost their lives due to family abuse, domestic violence. It's worth remembering the introduction of this card came about as a part of the response to the South Australian coroner's report delivered by Anthony Schappell in 2011 and, as a result, this government acted. It came about because there were six Indigenous people, as it turned out, who had died prior to that. As I look around at the chamber I see members from South Australia. I see the member for Barker in the chamber, who would be only too well aware of coroner's reports, coming from his legal background. The decision for us to introduce the cashless debit card was not made on a political whim. It was made as a result of the coroner's report by Anthony Chappelle in 2011. In the five years leading up to 2011, there'd been six deaths in Ceduna. While he was deliberating, there was another. How would history have treated us as a government if we didn't act? So we acted. During the course of this debate, you have heard overwhelming contributions from members on this side of the House citing personal experience where they have sat with families. In contrast, on the other side, you have heard similar debating points. One of the debating points that I can bring to memory was that we needed to get rid of the cashless debit card because there was a person in a regional community who couldn't buy the right brassiere size on the cashless debit card. Please tell me that that's not why the Australian Labor Party is doing this. I don't want to embarrass the member by reciting it, but, if you want to travel back through Hansard, you will find the member, who resides in the southern part of our country, on an island. Anyway, the reason I stand today is not that I have an Indigenous community in my area. Whilst mine is a regional seat, I don't have members of my community who access the cashless debit card. But I stand tonight to support my fellow members in this chamber who, as a government, collectively worked towards bringing a cashless debit card to change lives and save lives on the back of a coroner's report that, for all intents and purposes, I have not heard a single word about from the other side. None of them have refuted the coroner's report in explaining why this has come about. There will be unintended consequences from the removal of this cashless debit card, and those consequences will be owned by those who sit on the other side of the chamber. During the election campaign, we heard ad nauseam that those on the other side had a plan. Tell me: what's the plan for when we replace the cashless debit card? What is the financial management tool that the Australian Labor Party is going to replace this with? There is no plan. There never was a plan. What's unfolding in front of us—unfolding for the Australian public—is that the Australian Labor Party's plan only seems to be to join the conga line of ministers who walk out and say; 'Everything that happened before the election is your fault; everything good that happens in front of us is a result of our good management.' I could go over the speaking points, but I don't think the Australian public would appreciate the repetitive nature of that. They have heard my point. The coroner made the recommendations. During the debate, there were a number of points made on the other side about the University of Adelaide's report. In closing, I want to cite the Auditor-General's report, which made two recommendations on the cashless debit card. Recommendation 1, in paragraph 3.20, says: Department of Social Services develops internal performance measures and targets to better monitor CDC program implementation and impact. In short, what that means is there is no recommendation before the House from any university or from the Auditor-General's office which indicates that this should be abolished, other than simply that there should be greater measures to better monitor its performance. Guess what. When people are safe at home because, as a result of the cashless debit card, they're not being abused, they're not being subjected to alcohol abuse, no-one rings up an authority and says: 'I'm safe. Don't worry about me tonight. All things are good here on the home front. I can sleep knowing that I'm going to wake up without being abused.' Those incidents are not reported. The Auditor's report says that, as a No. 1 priority, there needs to be greater monitoring of the CDC program's implementation and its impact. Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to offer a few short comments in this debate. 20:10 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey Deputy Speaker Goodenough, I congratulate you on your new role. It is really important, when we have the discussion and look at this challenge, that we look back at first principles and understand why this cashless debit card was introduced. As the member for Wright correctly articulated, the coroner's report from 2011 was a key pillar of the decision to save lives—and we need to remember that this is about saving lives. The cashless debit card was also an important recommendation from the Forrest review report, Creating parity. It was developed as a means of reducing social harm caused by welfare-fuelled alcohol, gambling and drug abuse. This is not about politics. It comes from independent reports, coroner's reports. It is to reduce alcohol consumption, gambling and drug abuse. For me, the worst part of the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022 is that the minister introduced the bill, spoke on the bill and sat here today and offered no alternative to the card. The challenges and problems in these communities still exist, and the minister does not have a solution. But she is prepared to take away a mechanism that is working. I'll quote the minister's own words: Extensive community consultation will continue on the broader question of income management, to explore the future of this and other supports that are needed in communities in line with our core principles. …   …   … These diverse perspective on local needs will strongly inform our next steps. Consultation is central to everything we will do as a government. We want to ensure changes or measures we implement are actually helping. We have heard from many members today that this consultation has not occurred, but the most damning thing about these statements is an admission that the minister and the government do not have a plan to solve these challenges of alcohol abuse, drug abuse and gambling. So why are the government rushing through this bill, using their new urgent powers within 48 hours to rush it through, when they don't even have a plan to solve this? This is the challenge that we face. In government, you're supposed to have a plan to make people's lives better, not rush through legislation because it suits your ideology. It's interesting to note, as a new member in this House, that no government members are prepared to speak on this bill. For me, it speaks volumes that they're gagging the bill and no-one is prepared to defend the bill. It's important we understand the numbers: 1 July 2022; 17,795 participants. These aren't statistics; these are people. We've heard how this policy has saved families and prevented abuse. This policy has saved lives. Given this government has articulated no plan other than more consultation, why are we rushing this through if we know lives are being saved? Surely our role in this House is to improve every life and take the time to get these policies right. The minister has spoken about consultation and acknowledged she needs to do more. And I know that our role in this House is to listen. Many new members have talked about how important it is to listen and represent their communities. Many members on this side of the House have shared their stories. So I want to share some of the stories of voices that the government have not listened to, like the Kalgoorlie-Boulder mayor, John Bowler, who expressed his frustration: I would have liked for them to come here, consult with us, consult with the community, and then make a decision. This government is making decisions without consultation. Their words do not match their actions. As I have said, people's lives are going to be negatively impacted, and I will continue to repeat that, because it is so important that we understand the magnitude of the decisions we make in this House. The WA police commissioner, Col Blanch, in speaking about the card, has said: It gives opportunity for the more senior people in families and the Elders and some of the Aboriginal communities to use the money on food for the kids and other things. Further, he said: It just seems to settle the community down and gives them better opportunity to spend their money on priority needs. This is the consultation the minister has not taken. The Wunan Foundation, a leading community organisation in the East Kimberley region, in their submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, stated: … more than four years on from the beginning of the CDC trial, circumstances in the East Kimberley today represent an improvement on the lived experience of people before the trial began in April 2016. That is more evidence of people's lives being positively impacted by this card. Generation One reiterated its support for the cashless debit card in its submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, stating: Our support is grounded by our ongoing community consultations with trial sites since the establishment of the CDC. We continue to see the incredible positive impacts the CDC is making for individuals, families, and communities, and wish to see this continue. It staggers me that the minister would sit here with no plan other than more consultation and that the government would rush this bill through, gag debate, use their new urgent powers, when they've got no other alternatives but more consultation. I say again: why the rush on a policy that impacts people's lives and that we know makes people's lives better? Forty-one per cent of participants surveyed who drank alcohol reported drinking less frequently. Forty-eight per cent of participants surveyed who used drugs reported using drugs less frequently. And 48 per cent of those who gambled before the trial reported gambling less. That is more evidence that this card is working and saving and improving lives. The other thing I found interesting today was that, when the minister was asked, she said that this doesn't work, that there's no evidence, and she referenced a report that said that 60 per cent of people did not see an improvement. For me, in one sentence, she has summed up everything that is wrong with this, because that means that 40 per cent of people have found a benefit to this card and this program. Forty per cent of people have had their lives improved, have had their families improved. How many lives have been saved that are not reported in the statistics? That's 8,000 people and 8,000 families that have had their lives improved by this card. Yet the minister is prepared to rip it away from those people and their families and communities. For what? More consultation. We're rushing through an urgent bill for more consultation. It's staggering that the government can sit here and say they're all about not leaving people behind. They're very happy to leave behind these communities and these people, with no plan but more consultation. So I'm proud to speak out against this bill and stand with my fellow members who have been impacted. I hope the minister will take the time to reconsider and understand that there are people who are impacted: 40 per cent—8,000 people, 8,000 families and many communities impacted by this decision. 20:20 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I have been one of perhaps a handful of people in this place—perhaps fewer—who have not only spoken on this bill and researched it in depth and talked about the card many, many times in this place but also visited Ceduna and spent time in Hervey Bay with NGOs and participants to really get a very good understanding of this card. Now we have before us a bill, the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022, that will impact more than 17,000 people, who will have the opportunity to leave the cashless debit card. I think we need to go back to the point of the card. The point of the card was to trial it at a number of isolated areas to see the impact of quarantining 80 per cent of a person's Centrelink payment—working-age Centrelink payment, not pensioners; there was a real scare campaign in the last election that pensioners were going to be put on this card, and I saw no evidence of that at all—and, with that, to encourage people who are on the card to spend their money on needs that they have and not on alcohol and drugs or on gambling. Twenty per cent they could spend on alcohol and drugs and gambling, but it was really to encourage people to make positive choices with the Centrelink funds that they had. It's important to note that not everybody has a drug and alcohol issue or a gambling issue. But the point of the card was really to address antisocial behaviours in many communities. I think it's also really important to note that, while we have this bill before us, those in the Northern Territory and Cape York will still remain on mandatory income management, whereas the income management will move to a voluntary basis for those on the cashless debit card. I don't quite understand that, because both of the cards are managed by Indue, but there we go. That is what we have before us. I thought what I would do is perhaps talk a little bit about when I went to Ceduna and spent time in that community to get a good understanding of the experience there and also about when I was in Hervey Bay. In Ceduna, when I went there, the results were mixed. What is important to note, though, was that there was a 12 per cent reduction in poker machine revenue in Ceduna and the surrounding local government areas. That, to me, is a real positive effect. I tried to get some updated information on that, and unfortunately it was really difficult to get that data, but I did hear anecdotally from many members of the community that in the past, in the Ceduna pub, people would be overflowing out of the pokies room. When I popped my head in to have a look, there were many, many empty chairs. When I met with the District Council of Ceduna, they said that the card had been transformational and had fundamentally changed the community, in a positive sense. The foreshore was no longer littered with bottles and four-litre casks and antisocial behaviour. People weren't carrying around casks of wine and drinking during the day. One of the challenges that I saw in Ceduna was that, while there was a plethora of services available—I also visited the town camp and the sobering up unit, and I met with the Red Cross—they didn't have, at the time, some long-stay drug and alcohol services. People had to go to Port Augusta for that. There was also a lack of training facilities. I think what we wanted to see with this card was that people had actually moved off Centrelink, that they were able to address their barriers and to gain employment. Overall in Ceduna it was mixed. It was difficult. We couldn't meet with SAPOL. I think part of that was perhaps that the state government at the time was discouraging those of us who were interested to see how effective the card really was. But, anecdotally, when I talked with community members, it was supportive. It had a positive effect. Tourism had gone back into Ceduna. For those in this place—it's not in my electorate; it's in the member for Grey's electorate—Ceduna is a beautiful part of South Australia. I hope that if you are travelling through South Australia you have a chance to get there, particularly if you're heading over to Western Australia. I'll talk briefly about my time in Hervey Bay. I met with councils. I met with the police. I met with a round table of participants. I met with organisations right across the region. I also went to headspace. Participants felt that their rights had been infringed. However, police said that it had been overwhelmingly positive, despite initially having concerns in the Hinkler electorate before the trial commenced. When I sat with St Vincent de Paul they wanted the trial to continue, because they saw positive signs. They saw fewer people getting emergency food relief. They saw more people coming in and buying clothes. We Care 2 provide emergency food relief and have a bit of a supermarket—a bit like Foodbank. They saw an increase in people purchasing food at their low-cost supermarket and a decrease in people seeking emergency relief. That's what we wanted to see. Participants felt stigma with the Indue word written on the card and so the government removed that. New cards that were issued didn't have the word on it. Essentially it looked just like any other credit card. I have not been ideological on this in any way. I've been looking at how we can positively affect the lives of people. I would like to see these trials extended. The Australian National Audit Office report doesn't say to end the trial in any way. The two recommendations were with respect to internal performance measures and for the Department of Social Services to conduct an external review of the second impact evaluation of the card. What we should be looking for here though is concrete evidence that this works. Unfortunately, many of the reports that were done were flawed from the beginning. They didn't have baseline data. They were largely subjective. They were asking people if they wanted to be on the card, rather than asking the police whether there had been a drop in alcohol fuelled violence, whether there had been a drop in assaults, whether there had been a drop in drug possession offences, whether rates of domestic violence and family violence had reduced. Positively—had there been an increase in school attendance and community engagement and an increase in people moving from the card into employment? I think it's important that we allow this to continue. I'm disappointed that this bill has been rushed through the House. We seem to have these urgent emergency powers now for nearly every bill that's before this place. I would urge the minister to sit down and spend time with the regional councils, who will bear the brunt of antisocial behaviour. The purpose for the card, while it was originally rolled out, was to address that antisocial behaviour. I want to end with what I see as a broader concern. We now have, in our nation, third generation welfare dependent Australians where no-one in three successive generations has had a job. To me this is a terrible loss of opportunity for the individual, for the family and for our broader community. I still believe that this card had tremendous potential to turn that around, for people to move from poverty to prosperity. The card alone would not do that; you would need to have a range of support services around it. But I do very much fear for the communities of Ceduna and Hervey Bay that I went to if the card is ended with absolutely no supports and no plan for the future. 20:30 Mr JOYCE e5d New England I know about the Auditor-General's report, but I don't know the particulars of the people who did it, so I'm going to give a report, the Barnaby Joyce report. I'm going to give the report on the premise of someone who lives in Danglemar. I've lived in Werris Creek, Moree, Charleville, where we used to play against Kununurra and Quilpie, Augathella when I lived in St George. I'm going to give a report on my work for years with St Vincent de Paul Society. I'm going to give a report and go right back to my time—I hate to say it because I'm not proud of it—as a bouncer and saying to a lady lying on the ground, 'Pretend you're unconscious because if you get up, you're dead.' I'm going to give a report on exactly what happens when the executive function of a person's brain is taken over by alcohol and they lose all inhibitions, they lose the capacity to put on the brakes, and what they do to other people. I can tell you right now what will happen if you bring grog back into these communities—and I know these communities; you might read reports about them; I know them because I've lived and still live in these communities where these people will be affected. What will happen? Children are going to get raped. There are no problems about that, when the issue becomes so sordid, so clouded in the fog of alcoholism; this will happen. Blokes will get beaten up, but women will be smashed to pieces. Do you know what it looks like when someone is really beaten up badly? Do you know what they look like when they have their teeth knocked out? Have you ever seen someone who's been kicked? Do you know what the bruises look like? They're like a football sized thing in their stomach, on their legs, on their head. This is what happens to people when you bring the grog back in. Do you realise that ladies will get raped? You might say, 'But that's not in the Auditor-General report.' I can tell you that's in the reality report and that's what actually happens, so anything that can reduce that is a good thing. The people who wanted the grog taken out of these communities by taking away the money were overwhelmingly the women. They wanted it taken away. Their lives were an absolute misery. Tonight you are taking the hell back to them, and it is a hell. It's not a hell you're going to experience in this place. You're pretty forthright and you've got control of your faculties, but I can tell you that in communities around Alice Springs hell is about to come back when the grog comes back. We're sitting back tonight pontificating, talking about the Auditor-General's report and page 344, paragraph 4. Come out of that and start thinking about what you're going to do. You're really going to hurt people in the most profound way, in a way that you would find abhorrent and in a way that you would scream from the rafters if you could see it in front of your face. But you can't because it's out there. Our job is to try to bring back what's in here. How are you going to look after the women? What's your plan? I've been to St Vincent de Paul and I've worked there for years. I worked in a thing called the night conference. If you come into the St Vincent de Paul shop three times, you get a visit from St Vincent de Paul. Do you know what it is like when the grog turns up, when the executive function and the capacity to deal with money isn't there—they don't have it? Do you know what the house looks like? Do you know what it's like to walk into a house and see human faeces on the ground? Do you know what it's like for the kids who live in that house? Do you know what it's like to walk into the house and just see everyone inebriated and lying around the walls? Do you know how dangerous it is for those kids? Do you know how dangerous their life is? If there's anything you can do to help them, you should be doing it. You should take away the scourge, and it’s the grog. It's the VB cans in the front lawn, it's the goon they bring into the house. Now it's worse; it's meth and it's the ice. Have you ever been to people's funerals who have died of ice? I have. Good people. I remember going to her funeral—good girl, buried her. Do you know why? Because the access to cash brings the access to problems. We had something here. It might not have been politically correct. It was probably terribly politically incorrect, probably massively politically incorrect but it worked. It worked beyond the Auditor-General's report. And if it worked for one, it worked. But it worked for far more than that. There are about 18,000 people on this. It's working for a lot of those people. It has brought sanity back into their house—sanity. With grog, with ice, with meth comes poverty. Poverty is a horrible thing. When they come into Vinnie's because they have no food, that means the kids have no food. Do you know what it's like when kids go to school without food? I tell you what we do. We set up pie vans and pretend that every kid can go there and they can all get a feed. But we know full well there is a group of kids for whom there is insanity in their houses and we know that it is really there for them to get breakfast because we are trying to help them. That's the reality of how this works. Did you know that people's brains develop until about their mid-20s? Anything we can do to try to wind this down we should be doing. I don't know why this is such an imperative of the new government. I wish the new government all the very best. They hold our nation in their hands, and I wish them all the very best. But for goodness' sake, do you realise what you're doing when you do this? They say, 'Oh, it's racist.' I don't care whether you are black, white, brindle, what colour or what faith you are. It's a relevant. I want you to be safe. I want you to be secure. I tell you what is incredibly redemptive. When people who have been on the grog or been on the drugs get off them, guess what? Many of the times, not all of the times, they are quite a nice person. They are quite a decent person. They just have to deal with the scourge. In many of these remote communities, which, in a way, Danglemah is remote enough and certainly Charleville is. I know these areas. There's a thing called boredom and boredom is filled with whatever you can put into the day to get you through to the end. If you've got boredom, you've got spare time and spare time is filled by whatever gets you through to dinner time. In many instances spare cash allows you to buy the kicker, buy the VB, buy the ice, buy the meth to give you that kicker, to give you that thrill, to give some reason to the day to get it to the end. But then the day doesn't stop. See the day and the night blur into one. It just blurs into chaos. A house is no longer a house and the family is no longer a family; it's a location. The safest place for the kids in that house, for the young girls in the house, is to get the hell out of that house—anywhere. Go anywhere you like, just get out of that house. What we in this parliament have to do is get away from this esoteric argument about the Auditor-General's report and actually have a reality check and, rather than look at the Auditor-General's report, look at the logic that resides between our own two ears and reach deep down into our hearts and put aside the parochialism of party politics and ask: What is going to keep that woman save tonight? What is going to keep that child safe tonight? What are my actual responsibilities? How strong am I? Where is my bravery? What am I prepared to do? I hope the answer is not nothing. 20:40 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I congratulate the member for New England on what was a powerful speech to this place. Like the member for New England, I wish the new government every success because, like the member for New England, I know that the fate of our nation over the course of the next three years or so rests with those opposite. But I've got to say that this is an incredibly sad and disappointing way to commence the business of the 47th Parliament of Australia. The first and most important responsibility of government is to keep citizens safe. The repeal of the cashless debit card, proposed tonight as an emergency matter, which I will deal with in a moment, will make Australians less safe. But, worse than that, it will make those amongst the most vulnerable in our nation less safe. So, if you were looking to make things worse, congratulations. I struggle to see why you would want to make a bad situation worse. I think there's some symbolism tonight in the fact that this, the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022, has been brought on as a new emergency matter, as per the minister's declaration, because the reality is that many of those opposite are probably at home tucked up in bed right now, safe as houses, while we debate this motion. I'll tell you who's not safe in many communities tonight. That's why I support, in the fullness of time, if we had the opportunity, the extension of this program more broadly. Many people in Australia, women and children in vulnerable communities, are not safe tonight, and yet we in this place are debating whether or not we should take away this program which works. You heard it from the member for New England, in the member for New England's report, as he framed it. You were hearing there the real-life experience of someone who's been in these communities. You have to ask yourself, as I have: Why are we here tonight? Why are we debating this repeal? I'll tell you why. If during an election campaign and in the lead-up to it you demonise a program like this one and you make false claims about it, including that it is going to be extended to pensioners, which was complete bunk and just another scare campaign of the type like 'Mediscare' that sadly the people of Australia are getting used to from those opposite, you've got to come into this place and repeal it. That's exactly what you have to do, because otherwise you've demonised it during the campaign and then done nothing about it. So that's why we're here. It's politics before people. What does the cashless debit card do? Plenty of others have spoken about this. But for those who might be taking an interest late tonight, perhaps listening to the radio or other broadcasts, the cashless debit card effectively hypothecates 20 per cent of someone's welfare entitlement to their own bank account and the balance, 80 per cent, to a cashless debit card. I'm grateful to the member for O'Connor, who has shown me a card today. Effectively, to all intents and purposes, it looks exactly like the debit card that I, in fact, have got in my own pocket. That debit card can be used to purchase anything and everything, with the exception of two classes of products—namely, alcohol and gambling products. And, of course, it can't be used to access cash. Why would that be important? Well, before coming to this place I worked in criminal law and I had a lot of opportunity to deal with people who were involved in the illicit drug trade. I would look at a lot of evidence collected in drug houses, and I would often see paraphernalia and drugs. I'd never see an EFTPOS tap-and-go card because—you know what?—drug dealers deal in cash. That's what they deal in, and if you give people who have a penchant for illicit substances access to cash then the money goes off the grocery bill and towards those drugs. Mr PASIN 240756 Those opposite might chime in, but I've acted for these criminals. I've sat next to them. I know exactly how they work. It's one of the reasons I was motivated to come to this place. I get it. Mr PASIN 240756 No, I said I acted for these criminals. The reality here is that what we're doing right now in this place is making Australians less safe. Let's be clear to those opposite: women will die as a result of the action you take tonight; children will die because of the action you take tonight; women and children will be sexually abused. The risks of this go off the charts; that's the reality. It's sad that those opposite were so full-throated in their support of this repeal that, even before this matter was declared urgent, there were two speakers from those opposite. If you believe this, stand up and argue it. Own the outcomes. I can tell you that I've had a private conversation with the minister, whom I regard highly. You may find that unusual, but I do. She's a South Australian. She's a good person. Today, on leaving the parliament after question time, I took the opportunity to say, 'Amanda, Member for Kingston,'—the relevant minister—'don't do this. It's wrong, and you will own the outcomes.' Now, as a South Australian, I'm sad to say that it was the death of five young people in the community of Ceduna and the death of a sixth before the coroner, Tony Schapel, could deliver his recommendations that effectively brought the CDC into reality. Today, in South Australia, a special investigation has been authorised to investigate an alleged death as a result of neglect. That didn't happen in the Ceduna community, but I'm here to tell you that we still see instances where young people and children are being put at risk. The minister today said, effectively, that one of the reasons for this repeal is that 60 per cent of people surveyed didn't think this was making a positive impact on their lives. Well, by my calculations, that means that 40 per cent of people indicated that it did. Now, I haven't been here as long as some but I reckon that if every piece of social policy that came out of this place positively impacted 40 per cent of people we would reckon that's a pretty good outcome. The consequences of the action tonight will not be borne by those opposite, by me or by those close to me. They will be bruises on the faces and the arms of people who would have otherwise avoided being impacted by the rivers of grog that will flow back into these communities. And the saddest part of all of this is that nobody has taken the time to sit down with the member for O'Connor, the member for Grey, the member for Durack and the member for Hinkler, who are the strongest proponents of this program that you will find anywhere, not least in this place. 20:50 Mr BATES 300246 Brisbane The cashless debit card is punitive and discriminatory. Since this program was introduced in 2016 it has overwhelmingly caused hurt, distress and humiliation to those forced to used it. The current rates of income support are so meagre and are barely enough for people to survive on. The added layer of compulsory income management makes people's lives even harder than they already are. People subjected to this paternalistic policy face stigma and shame for using the cashless debit card. They are constantly living in fear that they won't be able to access essentials, like groceries, or even pay their rent, because of issues using the card. My Greens colleagues and I have met with people in the communities impacted by this card. We have been contacted by people who have become homeless due to the compulsory income management and have struggled to pay for their health care due to their payments being unnecessarily quarantined. The Liberals constantly talk about a trial and research, but the recent ANAO report was scathing about the lack of policy evidence for this card. We know that this card does not work. Research has shown that this card has had a negative impact on people's financial wellbeing, and an Australian National Audit Office report on the card earlier this year found that the Department of Social Services had not demonstrated that the program had met its objectives. The cashless debit card should never have been introduced, and it has been allowed to harm people for too long. This card serves no purpose other than to punish people living in poverty. The Greens have been opposed to this card since its introduction in parliament, and my colleagues Senator Janet Rice and former Greens senator Rachel Siewert tirelessly advocated against the program and consistently challenged the previous government to prove its effectiveness. We believe that a socially just, democratic and sustainable society rests on the provision of social services to everyone who needs them. Everyone has the right to access high-quality resources to enable them to participate fully in society. Our social security system should work for the people who need it most. It should not be punishing people on income support, and private companies like Indue should not be allowed to profit off it. The Greens welcome the Labor government's commitment to end the compulsory use of the cashless debit card. The end of this discriminatory system has been the work of communities, individuals and groups, such as No Cashless Debit Card Australia, who fought tirelessly against the introduction and subsequent expansion of the card. Abolishing the card is an important step towards social equity and racial justice, but we must not forget the many people who will continue to be subjected to other forms of compulsory income management once the cashless debit card ends. According to the DSS, there are over 20,000 people on the BasicsCard in the Northern Territory and around 1,500 people in other parts of Australia. These people will continue to have their payments forcibly quarantined, despite the end of the cashless debit card, and to feel the stigma and shame of this cruel system. Compulsory income management disproportionately impacts First Nations people and undermines human rights and fundamental freedoms. The cashless debit card and the BasicsCard are a continuation of discriminatory and racist intervention policies. Abolishing all compulsory income management will help generate savings for the government that can go to programs that are actually proven to reduce disadvantages and tackle issues of addiction—like early intervention. We support the broad objectives of the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022 and thank the Labor government and the minister for acting quickly on this urgent issue. But we urge the Labor government to end all forms of compulsory income management with the same urgency. We must not let these racist and discriminatory practices continue. We understand that the process of ending the cashless debit card and compulsory income management is complicated and involves many different communities and individuals with varying perspectives. But prominent community voices should not override an individual's choice to be taken off the card. In the introduction of the cashless debit card, we saw poor consultation from the previous government result in divided communities, where some voices were elevated above others. For this program to end equitably, we cannot allow this to happen again. We must protect people's right to autonomy. The Greens will work with the government to assure that individuals on the card are listened to and that the involuntary transfer of individuals onto this program is urgently stopped. We will also push the government to ensure that First Nations people are front and centre of all decision-making around the cashless debit card and compulsory income management. The cashless debit card has caused widespread harm by punishing recipients of income support. We must use the end of the card as an opportunity to ask and investigate how our social security system became a tool for punishing people experiencing poverty. Too many people in Australia are living in poverty. While the rich get richer, millions of Australians are struggling to afford the most basic living costs. People are facing hunger, eviction and illness. Our income support system should provide support to everyone who needs it, but harsh and punitive measures have made it inaccessible to those who genuinely need to access it. The system is deeply broken, and it must be fixed. The government must abolish all punitive elements from our income support system. It must also raise the rate of all income support payments to above the poverty line. The Greens will continue to advocate for a fairer social security system. We will fight for a guaranteed liveable income where punitive measures like compulsory income management and mutual obligations are abolished, and income support payments are enough for people to live on. 20:57 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I am very pleased to join with my coalition colleagues who have spoken on the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022, expressing our strong opposition to the extremely regrettable and retrograde step which it proposes to take. I think what does characterise the contributions made by many of my coalition colleagues is that they speak from experience. They have seen the way that this card has worked in their own communities, and I draw a distinction between that approach and the presentation based upon a set of ideological talking points that we have just heard. The facts are that this card has made a significant difference in the lives of thousands of people, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, in many communities around Australia. It was introduced and implemented through a careful and comprehensive process. The cashless debit card was part of a suite of measures to help people improve their circumstances, and the coalition government made a total investment for support services of more than $110 million across the cashless debit card sites, including a $30 million jobs fund and job-ready initiative to strengthen local support services and to help participants in cashless debit card communities to upskill, to become job ready and to get on the pathways to employment. We invested $50 million for drug and alcohol residential rehabilitation facilities. Just as one example, in Cape York, for the first time since income management began, there are more people volunteering to take part in the scheme than have been required to, showing once again the positive effect the cashless debit card is having on people's lives. In the Northern Territory there are currently 2,085 people who have volunteered for income management, again demonstrating the empirical, on-the-ground, practical evidence that people do see the personal benefits of a cashless welfare system. The choices made by many people are backed by the formal evidence from the various reviews and assessments that have been conducted. The findings from the second independent impact evaluation by the University of Adelaide include clear and consistent evidence. Twenty-five per cent of people reported they were drinking less since the cashless debit card's introduction. Twenty-one per cent of cashless debit card participants reported gambling less, and evidence found that cash previously used for gambling was being redirected to essentials such as food. Forty-five per cent of cashless debit card participants reported the cashless debit card had improved things for themselves and their families. A dozen evaluations of the cashless debit card have provided consistent evidence about welfare quarantining policies that show decreases in drug and alcohol issues; decreases in crime, violence and antisocial behaviour; improvements in child health and wellbeing; improved financial management; and ongoing, even strengthened, community support. Notwithstanding the many claims that we've heard from the government over the last couple of days and before, the report by the Australian National Audit Office, Implementation and performance of the cashless debit card trial —Follow-on, did not find that the card was bad policy or bad morally and did not call for its abolition. The report confined itself to examining the program's oversight and evaluation systems by the Department of Social Services. That is the proper responsibility of the Australian National Audit Office. It's highly misleading to claim that that report is in some way evidence of flaws in the effectiveness of the cashless debit card itself. During my time as Minister for Social Services in 2018 and 2019, I had the opportunity to visit a number of communities where the cashless debit card was in operation and to hear personally and directly from community members and community leaders as to why the cashless debit card had been such an important reform to our welfare system. I was particularly struck by senior Aboriginal women making it clear to me that they supported the cashless debit card because it meant that women could use social services payments for food, clothing and rent for themselves and their children, rather than being pressured by family members, typically male, to hand over cash to spend on nonessentials like alcohol. In one town, police told me that the number of call-outs for domestic violence had dramatically reduced since the card had been introduced, and staff from the local medical clinic said they were seeing significantly fewer presentations from domestic violence. A chemist said that parents were coming into his shop to buy medicines for their children because they now had the money to do so. I heard senior Aboriginal women and men expressing their support. One told me, 'This is important for our people.' A social worker said that some people supported by the service she works for were now able to save money for the first time. People repeatedly commented that their town felt safer, that there was less public drunkenness and that the streets were quieter at night. The cashless debit card is a powerful and practical tool to fight the scourge of welfare funded drug and alcohol dependency. It means that welfare money goes to pay the rent, put food on the table and provide uniforms for the children, rather than being handed across to grog sellers and drug dealers. In 2019 I observed, 'If Labor gets into power, the cashless debit card is dead.' It wasn't an observation I made with any pleasure, but it was a prediction based upon the regrettably ideological attitude we have seen from the Labor Party, informed by prioritising the perspectives of inner-city leftist activists over what people in remote communities are saying is their practical experience of the benefits in terms of safety and dignity that the cashless debit card has brought. It is deeply disappointing that the Labor Party is pursuing this ideological vendetta against a policy mechanism that works. It is deeply disappointing that they would be doing this, even though the cashless debit card has demonstrably made a positive change in our welfare system and demonstrably delivered better lives and better outcomes for thousands of Australians. I had the opportunity to meet with Ian Trust from the Wunan Foundation, a leading community organisation in the East Kimberley region. He has said: We accept that there are some people with deeply held ideological or political views who reject the CDC— the cashless debit card— 'on-principle' and these people will point to all the things that are still challenges for our community as a justification for their opposition. The reality is that many challenges persist because they have been so many decades in the making and will take decades to turnaround. He said: … more than four years on from the beginning of the CDC trial, circumstances in the East Kimberley today represent an improvement on the lived experience of people before the trial began in April 2016. I want to acknowledge the leadership and courage of Ian Trust and many other leaders around Australia who have been prepared to say publicly what the actual positive outcomes of the cashless debit card are, in the face of an onslaught of ideologically motivated pressure for them not to speak up about the benefits that the cashless debit card is providing—about the fact that the cashless debit card ensures that income support recipients and their children and families can access essential items such as food and housing, and reduces the amount of money being diverted to alcohol, drugs and gambling products. Despite the evidence, despite community leaders still requesting that the cashless debit card stay, despite children dying from malnutrition and despite the Northern Territory government's moves to remove alcohol restrictions, this government, this Albanese Labor government, tragically, is acting based on ideological motivations in the face of clear evidence that this is a policy tool which works and which is making life better—which has succeeded in making life better—for many people, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, who are recipients of social services benefits. Australians, I think, should be deeply disappointed by this ideologically motivated action that the Albanese Labor government is taking, which, sadly, is going to reverse some very significant progress that has been made under the cashless debit card. 21:07 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I must say, as I stand here today as the member for Grey but also the member for Ceduna, how saddened, deeply apprehensive and angry I am about the gutting of the cashless debit card. To understand the origin of the cashless debit card, I think the House needs to know about the South Australian deputy coroner's report in 2011 by Anthony Schapel, investigating the six and then seven deaths close to the Ceduna township, all related to alcohol abuse. He wrote at the time of the 'severe intractable culture of excessive alcohol consumption' amongst transient Aborigines. Further, he said: They bring with them their sicknesses and morbidities, all aggravated by continual self-neglect and the excessive consumption of … cheap alcohol. He said of 18 Tank, near Ceduna, which was the unofficial campsite chosen by the visitors, that it was a 'flat, desolate and pitiless area' with 'numerous discarded plastic wine cask bladders and containers littering the ground'. I can inform you, Deputy Speaker Claydon, that that is not the Ceduna of today. It is a vastly changed community. There were a number of measures introduced in the wake of the deputy coroner's investigation. It was not long after that investigation that, firstly, the blue card was introduced as a voluntary and directed measure in Ceduna, and then, not long after that, there was the cashless debit card. It has undoubtedly made a huge difference. I know the government disputes this. Firstly, let me thank the Minister for Social Services, Amanda Rishworth, for coming to Ceduna at my request and actually speaking to the groups who were proponents of the card, and a number of individuals around the town—not all, but she spoke to most of the ones I suggested she speak to. She allowed me to sit in on the meeting with the council. But, unfortunately, Minister Rishworth did not come to Ceduna—for the first time, on her first trip ever to Ceduna—to discuss whether the card could continue, or whether it was doing a good job; she came to discuss what it was the government would do to wind up the card and what extra services the community thought were needed. In the meeting I sat in on, someone suggested some financial counselling, and she leapt on that, saying, 'Well, yes; that would make a great difference.' I suspect it will not make a great difference; alcoholics and drug addicts aren't particularly interested in financial counselling. But I wish her luck. More concerningly, the Minister for Indigenous Australians, before she was a minister, came to Ceduna on three occasions, and on all of those occasions she made it clear she did not wish to meet with either Ceduna council or the Far West Aboriginal Communities Leaders Group. This is the group of chairmen—elders, if you like—of each of the isolated communities and their CEOs. They have been a tower of strength through this process of introducing the card. Of course, not 100 per cent of their communities have been in favour of it, but they've seen the benefit. They've seen the benefit of the associated programs, and they've walked with the government hand in hand. They are, though, completely fatigued from having to continually fight to keep this card. We've been through two extensions of the card, and, the last time, we—that's the former government—tried to make it permanent. It was denied by the Labor Party, the Greens and a number of crossbenchers in the Senate. So we got a two-year extension. So, regardless of how this bill is decided this evening, the card is actually due to wind up on 31 December anyhow, without an extension. And they have been champions of the cause. They believe in it. But they are exhausted by the process. How do we know what will happen when the card goes? Well, on a couple of occasions—two?—there's been a flush of cash come in. The latest one, of course, was the doubling of the JobSeeker payments during the COVID outbreak, and, while only 20 per cent was coming through to them in cash, it was a doubling in cash. On the other occasions, it was a pensioner bonus that went into the community—$750, if I remember rightly—and that led to an influx of people coming in from the remote communities and doing, as Anthony Schapel said, bringing with them 'their sicknesses and morbidities', and hitting the grog in Ceduna and lying around in a stupor or fighting in the streets—and scaring the tourists away, I must say; that's one of the nasty side-effects. The word goes out pretty quickly, I can tell you: 'Don't go to Ceduna.' Ten years ago in Ceduna, we had bars on most of the windows. We don't have that anymore. Labor, the government, is fond of saying that the latest auditor's report does not give a complimentary review of the scheme. What it does not do, though, is recommend its closure. What it does not do is find that it is not working. In fact, it says that it is meeting the targets on most of the criteria that it was expected to do. What it does find, though, is that it is not sufficiently well assessed to actually verify in numbers that it is working. I think this is a failure of the department that it has not devised tools that are better at measurement. And not enough base-mark measuring was done at the inception of the card. But so many of these things are almost impossible to measure. How do you measure whether children are coming to school better fed or not? How do you measure whether or not their mum or grandma has been beaten up in the last 24 hours to get her money? How do you measure whether there are lower levels of violence in a household? These things are largely not reported. I mean, we know what is reported. Only a fraction is reported, and we know that from a whole lot of studies, not just in Indigenous communities, but it's even more so in Indigenous communities; they are reluctant to go to the police. How do we know what those effects are on the growth of that child and the way they then treat their family in 10 or 20 years? These are almost impossible things to measure. What I do know is when I walk around Ceduna I find trouble finding people who are opposed to the card. I walked into a school recently, and I spoke to three or four people. They were all horrified that the current government was going to stop the card. They thought it would have a serious deleterious effect on the school. I've told the story before of a woman, who was probably middle-aged—I'd say she was elderly; I don't want to offend her! She grabbed my arm one day and she said, 'I didn't want this card, but don't you let them take it away now.' What she was telling me was it was a buffer against the violence in her family and gave her the ability to stand up: 'I don't have money, mate. It's no good beating me.' I have another young gentleman who said to me: 'I've read all the numbers. I've seen the surveys. But I can tell you it just feels like a whole lot better place.' When I went there early on, when we were looking at the introduction of the card and I took a minister to Ceduna, we went to the drying-out centre and the staff were telling me there that a woman was in there last night who was 8½ months pregnant and couldn't stop vomiting for six hours. Imagine how that child is today. I give great credit to the former mayor, Allan Suter. He says the PM and the two responsible ministers will be held accountable for what this will do in our community, especially to women and children. The community is scared about what's going to happen. The Indigenous people in the community are scared. All of the community are very, very tentative about the future. The minister says she will put in different safeguards. I don't know what they are, and I think it would be a good idea if she trotted them out before the House before this bill went through. I'm very sad I've only got 10 minutes to speak about this. I have so much more I could say. 21:17 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I acknowledge and thank the member for Grey, who has just preceded me. I know his electorate very well. In fact, I grew up in the member for Grey's electorate and understand many of the communities that he just spoke about. He just mentioned the emotion of sadness. We come into this place, as members of this chamber, as very lucky people to be able to do this. On many bills, you're not happy with the result or you don't agree with what's happened, especially when you're in opposition, but I must say this is the first bill that I've been involved with where, actually, the emotion that I have most, of any emotion, about this bill passing is sadness. I feel very sad for the communities and the families that will be affected by what is going to happen because of the passing of this bill. So what is it? What is this bill about? It's been well explained, but this is a cashless debit card for people in four communities, three of them quite remote communities. They were the trial sites. These communities were chosen for very good reasons: there were very big and major social dysfunctions in the first two or three communities that were chosen; and they were remote. Why were these communities chosen? They were chosen firstly because of the violence—the sexual violence, the domestic violence, the abuse, and the danger for children and mothers and in some cases fathers as well. They were chosen because they were very dysfunctional communities that had a lot of social issues. The cashless debit card was chosen for the reason that this would be a good way, because of the remoteness and the isolation of these communities, you could trial this to see: what would happen if we did this? In politics, we see fear campaigns all the time, and both sides of politics have done that, but I was really quite disappointed in the fear campaign on this from the government, saying that we were going to do it everywhere for pensioners, which was never the motivation to do this. The motivation to do this cashless debit card was to stop children, basically, being bashed, beaten or raped; mothers being bashed, beaten or raped; and fathers in some cases, too, being bashed and beaten. It was the trauma that these communities were going through. These communities, as I say, were chosen because they were remote. The cashless debit card was introduced. What did that mean? It didn't mean an income cut for any of these people. It didn't mean that they were being neglected for anything that was essential. Let's just step back a bit. What are we saying here? We're saying there's a community with a lot of social dysfunction, a community that's dangerous for children. I've been to some of these communities and grew up near one. It can be dangerous for children to stay at home. As previous speakers have said, in some of these towns you have hundreds of kids roaming the streets at night because it's not safe to be at home. This is not okay. We talk about the fact that we need to make our statistics better and make families and communities safer for everybody. The idea is not that outrageous, and I simply don't understand how this is being sold as a terrible thing to have done to people. This was simply: if we just make it so that people in some isolated communities that have major social dysfunction are not able to spend welfare money—this is money that's given to them by the government—on alcohol, drugs or gambling, let's see what that does. And this has been vilified as a terrible thing that we have done. I say, if we've saved one child from being raped, if we've saved one wife from being bashed, or if we've just done that on a couple of occasions, then this has been a worthwhile trial. But I would say that this hasn't just saved isolated children or isolated women; this has saved communities. I was speaking to a teacher in one of these communities. She was telling me what used to happen when she first arrived, before the cashless welfare card was introduced. There was a certain day—it was welfare day, but she didn't know it was welfare day—when the kids would run out of school really early. She said to one of the other teachers, 'Why do the kids do that?' She said, 'They run home and they try and get some of the money before it all goes, because it will be all gone within a day or two.' So they'd literally run home because they knew there was going to be cash in the house that day, and they would try and get some of it. And they would try and get some of it so they could buy food or support themselves through that day. I ran into her a few years later, and we were speaking about the cashless debit card. She was then not living in that community, and she said, 'That can never be reversed, as far as I'm concerned. As a teacher, what I saw as a result of the cashless debit card in my community was the best thing that I ever saw happen.' When I'm in a debate or an argument, I always try and understand what the other side thinks. Why does the person who does not agree with me not agree with my thought process? You always have to put yourself in someone else's position to try and understand them. Okay, there are civil liberties. I get that. Examples have been brought up of people not having enough money to buy a second-hand fridge. Seriously? There are ways around that. There were things that were agreed to to try and get around things like that. People say that, if you go to a local market, you won't have enough cash to buy whatever. These communities, these mums and dads, weren't going to Sunday markets to buy stuff. In these communities, mum or dad, and sometimes both, were getting drunk, spending far too much of the money on alcohol, drugs and/or gambling, and their children were in danger. The stats support that. I also don't get why the rush with this. Why the rush? The government now have said that they want, as a priority, to bring in this whole new wave of transparency, integrity and everything else they're going to do to make us a better community and a better society. Why is this such a rush? Why is this in the first two weeks of sitting? Why is it so important that you give these people back cash that means that their children are going to be in more danger? Why are you doing this in the first two weeks of sitting? Why are we having an urgency motion to say that this has to go through quickly? I think it is going to be a great shame to this government that the first urgency bill that they are putting through this parliament—'Urgent; we have to rush it'—is to give more money to alcoholics and drug addicts so their children will be in danger. An opposition member: And drug dealers. Mr HOGAN 218019 And drug dealers. So that's the first urgency motion—the first claim to fame—of this government. The first thing they have to gag and ram through this parliament, this bill, will let families and communities who have had great trauma and whose children have been in great danger, have that reinforced and put those children and those women back in danger. I think this is going to go down as a great shame of this government, that this is the first thing they thought they had to rush through. Again, I try to understand the other side of this; I understand the civil liberties side and I understand the fact that you might say that you're taking away people's flexibility to have enough money to go ahead and get a haircut or whatever. I think that all sounds well in theory—I think that might all sound well in a different universe. But I know Ceduna well and I know some of the other communities, and I've certainly met many people from these communities. As I said at the start, I'm quite saddened by what's happening in this parliament today. I'm quite saddened that this government feels that this is something they need to do quickly and rush through. It's the first bill that they'll basically gag. I literally pray for these communities, because when this cashless debit card is lifted and some of these families and people who are alcoholics and drug addicts and what have you start to get cash back into their hands this is going to be a very sad and traumatic day for the communities that are affected. 21:26 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina It is sad that I rise at this hour to speak on the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022—this urgency bill. I agree with everything the member for Page just said. He said it with passion and said it with experience. I know the member for Page, as he just described, has been to many of these communities—as have I. I wonder how many of those opposite, perhaps those new to the parliament, have been to these communities? Have they seen the sorts of things that the member for Page and I have seen in some of these more remote communities, or heard the stories from those people directly affected—and they certainly will be affected—by the repealing of this important provision? The cashless debit card has made a big difference. It has made a difference to the lives of so many—to so many children. If we, as the Parliament of Australia, are to look after one thing, one sector of society, it should be our children. They are our future. I know that sounds glib and I know that sounds trite—perhaps, even, corny. But we have to look after the kids, and the cashless debit card did just that. It looked after the kids who, in many ways—certainly, in many remote communities—are the voiceless. Before the cashless debit card was put in place they did not have a voice. They didn't have food at the table. They went to school hungry, they came home from school and, if it was a good night, often mum didn't bashed. The cashless debit card made such a difference. I know that some of those opposite may well, as the member for Page said very eloquently, see this as a slur on their civil rights and liberties. I understand that. I understand that they come to this motion, this debate—this gag bill; call it what you like—in good faith. But the cashless debit card did, as I said at the outset, make a difference. It has been described variously by members opposite as 'cruel', 'insidious' and 'a cancer', and that it would be liberation day when the bill passed. It won't be liberation day for those children who have gone to school with a full stomach of food, who have gone to school knowing that mum was safe and who went back home from school knowing they were going to get a good night's rest. This cashless debit card worked. It worked in regional Australia. It worked in remote communities. Don't just take my word for it; take Jacinta Price's. Her inaugural speech last week was one of the best I've heard and no doubt all of those in the Senate chamber have heard as well. The member for Parkes said to me, 'They will still be talking about this speech in a hundred years,' and he's right. In her speech the new senator from the Northern Territory talked about how it allowed 'countless families on welfare to feed their children rather than seeing the money claimed by kinship demand from alcoholics, substance abusers and gamblers in their own family group.' I don't suppose and I don't suggest that I know any better than the Country Liberal Party member for the Northern Territory. I know she knows. I know that she has been in those communities. She's seen the dreadful toll that alcoholism, problem gambling and substance abuse have wreaked upon those families and those communities. The cashless debit card worked. It worked in the Ceduna region. I'm glad the member for Grey, who spoke earlier in this debate, is here in the chamber. It worked in the Goldfields and East Kimberley regions in Western Australia. It worked in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay, where I know the member for Hinkler started off this discussion, this debate, the coalition's position on this earlier this evening. It worked in selected Cape York communities, including Doomadgee in Queensland, and the Northern Territory. I've spoken to people in the Doomadgee community. They're good people. They're great folk. I've spoken to women in that community who knew of the benefits of the cashless debit card and who told me how important it was. The cashless debit card program has been operating in the Cape York region of Queensland and across the Northern Territory since March 2021. I can't reiterate this enough: it has worked. If let be, it will continue to work; if taken away, those communities and those families are at risk. What I would implore government members to realise and understand is that we should be here listening to the voices of the voiceless—the children whose lives are going to be so gravely and perhaps sadly and tragically affected by the decision to repeal the cashless debit card. As I say, our children should be our No. 1 priority, particularly in relation to this bill. The member for Page said, 'Be it on Labor's head,' that this is the first urgency motion, the first 'gag' bill if you like, that the Albanese government is putting through the parliament. Whilst I appreciate that the Indigenous affairs minister and others have come to this place in good faith, they too should realise that this is going to have such a profound effect on those families who have benefited from having the cashless debit card in place. The government's bill removes the ability for new entrants to be put on the cashless debit card and enables more than 17,000 existing CDC participants to be transitioned off the card. How sad, how dreadfully sad, for those families who, for the first time in a long time, had had money being spent on the things that families should be spending money on: food, clothing, school provisions for the children. One of the great advantages of the cashless debit card was that it wasn't able to be spent on alcohol, on gambling products, on some gift cards or to withdraw cash. I've heard the argument from those opposite that grandparents couldn't go out and give a few bucks to their grandkids for Christmas. I say poppycock to that, I really do. That's just a silly argument. I know that alcohol is such a dreadful disadvantage to these communities and to these families. Governments are there to make decisions to help all Australians. Not every decision that we reach, take or make is going to be agreed upon by everybody. We know that, and that's why we have members from all sides of politics making up this very diverse chamber. But that is also why we, as a collective, need to make the right decisions to bring about the right outcomes at the right time in the right communities. The cashless debit card did just that with 80 per cent of the recipient's welfare payment quarantined onto the card. The remaining 20 per cent of recipient's social security payments was transferred into the recipient's bank account and could be withdrawn and used without restriction. It has been operated in trial sites, the earliest being March 2016. I know the member for Gray has spoken volumes about what it did for the communities that he represents. These communities extol the virtues of the cashless debit card. I know others have done the same. Again, I say to those opposite: think long and hard about the decision, about the vote, that will be taken probably tomorrow morning. It is one of the most important decisions you will make in this 47th Parliament. It is going to have such a profound effect on those families who have benefited so much from having that cashless debit card. The SPEAKER 53517 There being no further speakers, debate is adjourned and further proceedings on the bill will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. House adjourned at 21:37 NOTICES 88 NOTICES Presentation 88

Tuesday, 2 August 2022

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ) took the chair at 16:00.

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 92 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Tasmania: Home Ownership 92 16:01 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark On Saturday I attend the Hobartians Facing Homelessness rally, where again I was outraged to hear stories from people about the great difficulties they face sleeping rough or finding and keeping a safe and affordable roof over their heads. This dire situation is getting worse, as evidenced by Tasmania's social housing waiting list doubling over the last eight years, with 4,453 applicants now queued up, and priority applicants waiting an average of 67 weeks to be accommodated. But, of course, averages don't tell the whole story. I can think of a particular family who've been on the priority waiting list for almost seven years, despite currently living in a private rental plagued with black mould, holes in the ceiling and cracked windows. To make matters worse, private rentals are no longer an option for many, as they are so scarce and unaffordable, with Hobart's vacancy rate sitting currently at 0.6 per cent. And, for many of the lucky home hunters who are successful and do secure a property, the rent is so high that they face the very real decision of whether to forgo medical appointments, heating, fuel or even food to afford the rent. Indeed, the Rental Affordability Index continues to rate Greater Hobart as the country's least affordable metropolitan area, with the median rent having increased by 50 per cent since 2016. With interest rising, we can expect rents to increase further as rises are handballed on to tenants. The situation really is grim, and we need a hell of a lot more than bandaid solutions if we are to turn things around. For instance, at the local government level, we need to free up land, facilitate sensible developments and applications more efficiently, and rein in the conversion of long-term rentals for short-stay holiday accommodation. At the state level, we need more crisis accommodation, more social housing, more supported accommodation for people with special needs, and rent-to-buy public housing. Of course, at the federal level we need an extension of the National Rental Affordability Scheme, an increase in Commonwealth rent assistance and deep investment property tax reform. On a positive note, though, good on Hobart City Council, which just last night decided to investigate higher rates for homes used as short-stay accommodation. This is a smart move, especially seeing that Hobart has, proportionally, seven times more Airbnbs than Sydney, which is patently unsustainable and unacceptable when locals are being forced into the cold. The housing crisis is the result of years of flawed policymaking at all levels of government. But it can be remedied and sure needs to be, because access to safe, secure and affordable housing is a fundamental human right. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 I thank the member for his wonderful contribution and I give the call to the Leader of the House. An honourable member: Take a breath! Cooks River 92 16:04 Mr BURKE DYW Watson He's not one you can stop! We've worked that out. I rise to talk about the Cooks River in my part of Sydney, running through the Canterbury-Bankstown area but adjacent local councils as well. The Cooks River has been for some time the most polluted river in Australia. While people will often talk about rivers and put forward photographs of beautiful rivers in regional areas, it's important to remember that, for people who live in lower-income areas, that shouldn't determine whether or not they get natural beauty. It shouldn't be the case. We all accept that people with more money will be able to spend more money on their home, but the right to decent, clean public space is something that should be available no matter where you live. In my part of Sydney, the remediation of the Cooks River has been a long-term project for many and certainly something that, locally, I've dedicated a good part of my career to. Effectively, what happened generations ago was that the theory was—initially partly as flooding mitigation—just to get the water moving as quickly as possible. That meant that every natural bank was replaced with concrete and every natural stream became a stormwater drain, and we ended up with large parts of the Cooks River where, if you looked at it, you would not think you were looking at a river at all. You would simply say, 'That now is a stormwater drain.' When Labor were last in government, we started the remediation and we did something really interesting at a place called Cup and Saucer Creek: we intercepted the stormwater. First of all, we put some gross pollutant traps to catch the rubbish, but then we took over a small park and put in some wetlands where the water from the stormwater drain would come in and feed the wetlands. The water would then seep through three different wetlands before returning to the river. Lo and behold: going through a new natural system, the water that would return to the river was crystal-clear, pure water. I am pleased that, with the change of government and the Urban Rivers and Catchments Program—something that I expect to be part of the October budget—the Cooks River has a chance to again get federal government funding so that we can see a situation into the future where your postcode doesn't determine whether the river has natural banks or concrete. We all saw that lots of people, when they got half an hour or an hour of exercise time during the pandemic, didn't have anywhere particularly nice to go within five kilometres. I want to turn that around. It shouldn't be determined by your postcode. Moncrieff Electorate: Burleigh Community Men's Shed 93 16:07 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff I am pleased to rise to talk about the fellas at Burleigh Community Men's Shed in Miami. I joined them on 7 July, just last month, for morning tea. As we know, men's shed plays a really important role in mental health outcomes for our community, and I thank the fellas there at Burleigh men's shed. It was a great opportunity to meet with the members to see what they're working on and hear about the fantastic work that they do in our community. You should see some of the woodwork, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I left, they gave me a beautiful little gift which sits in pride of place in my office in Surfers Paradise. Rob Livett talked about a marvellous partnership program that the Burleigh men's shed has with the Broadbeach State School, which is a beautiful school in my electorate. The deputy principal there, Wayne Jenks, has been a driving force behind this particular partnership, so I take the opportunity to applaud Mr Jenks, as he's known by his student body, for thinking outside the box and always going that extra mile when it comes to his beautiful school there in Broadbeach. The program is still relatively new. It's been named 'Boys to Men', tentatively, and it's so far seen two successful rounds. Boys to Men runs every term and provides opportunity for six to eight impressionable young men, or boys, to visit the shed. It's during those visits that the boys are taught woodwork, machinery safety and, most importantly—certainly at men's shed—the value of mateship, which is so important. The students form lovely relationships with the fellas there, who become, of course, their role models and mentors, which is so important. The shed provides a new and different way to learn and socialise in a setting outside the schoolyard and allows for students to grow and thrive. So far the outcomes and the feedback have been tremendously positive within the school community and at the shed, and I'm told that across the schoolyard, at Broadbeach primary, an increasing number of students are raising their hands to be considered for each new round of the Boys to Men program. They, of course, want to go to Burleigh men's shed. Rob has told me that girls also wish to get involved, which is good news, but the program may need a bit of a name change to be for all genders. I greatly commend both Burleigh Community Men's Shed and Broadbeach State School for launching the beneficial and positive Boys to Men program. I also want to take this chance to give Secretary Jim Caswell, Vice President Stuart Kapper, Shed Coordinator Ray Deverson and all of the fantastic members of Burleigh men's shed a shout-out for welcoming me to their cup of tea on Thursday afternoon. I can't wait to come back and see you fellas soon. Perth Electorate 93 16:10 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth I'm proud that I stood in front of my community asking them to send me back to this place on a platform of bringing people together. They endorsed that, and I'm so grateful to the people of Perth for endorsing that vision. It's a vision of bringing people together by acting on the Uluru Statement from the Heart, making sure that we finally get proper recognition of our first Australians in our Constitution. It's a vision of bringing people together when it comes to acting on climate change, making sure that we walk together towards that path to net zero by 2050. It's a vision of bringing people together when it comes to making sure that people can afford and access child care, making sure that they can access the jobs they need to provide for their families. It's a vision of bringing people together by restoring faith and integrity in government through a proper anticorruption commission. It's a vision of bringing people together on the challenges that we know we have as a country post COVID. It's manufacturing. It's ensuring we have respect at work. It's making sure we invest in our TAFE. It's acting on the economic challenges in front of us. And it's bringing people together in some of the things I'm proud to have put to my community for their endorsement in the Perth electorate. One of these is our $50 million commitment to an Aboriginal cultural centre in the heart of the Perth electorate, making sure that we can tell the millions of stories that have been on this land for more than 60,000 years. I think this project could be the Sydney Opera House of the west coast, something of which we can all be proud. Equally, it's bringing people together in terms of making sure that every Australian has access to the health care they need. On that front, I'm proud of our commitment to a Medicare urgent care clinic in the CBD, the heart of the Perth electorate. It's bringing people together in the places where we love to gather around our rivers. Indeed, the urban rivers platform for the Swan and Canning rivers is about making sure that we preserve these beautiful riverbanks for generations to come. It's our commitment to Bardon Park, to make sure that we continue to remove the weeds that have destroyed otherwise beautiful native bushland. It's our commitment to restoring the Maylands lakes. It's our commitment to a national trust site at Tranby House. It's our commitment to Bassendean Oval, an oval that is well loved by the Perth community, making sure that it has the lights needed for players to be able to play into the night. With the former member for Hasluck, I had the joy of opening the women's change rooms at that site. That was only half the project. The other half of the project is making sure those players can play late into the evening. Equally, I'm proud of the commitment we have. Bringing people together requires people getting to the jobs they do and the places they need to be, and that means investing in our bus infrastructure. On that note, I'll finish by saying how proud I am of the commitment to electric bus manufacturing in Perth for the future. Fuel 94 16:13 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I refer to the previous government's decision to cut the fuel excise in half. It was a decision that saved motorists 22c per litre, at a cost to the budget of some $2.9 billion over a six-month period. I acknowledge that that was intended as a temporary and targeted measure in direct response to the war in Ukraine. It was a direct response to supply pressures and escalating prices for Australian motorists and small-business owners. There was an understanding by the previous government that those circumstances were putting real pressure on households and the small-business community. Those external conditions still exist today, and the new government should extend the excise cut until after the summer school holidays, until at least February 2023. The reason I raise this today is that here on this side of the House, in the coalition, we tend to represent the communities with the lowest household incomes. Our communities, particularly in rural and regional areas, tend to have lower incomes than the electorates represented by those opposite in the metropolitan areas. They have low household incomes, but they also have a disproportionately high percentage of their family budgets taken up by transport costs—personal transport costs, in the case of using family cars—because the people who use their cars the most are the very same people that have the least access to public transport. There is no other choice in most of our regional and rural electorates than to use your own personal vehicle if you want to get around the community. I look around the room here today and I see the member for Leichardt; the member for Dawson; yourself, Deputy Speaker Buchholz; the member for Wright; and the member for Moncrieff. Our communities are very dependent on personal transport but are also very dependent on a tourism recovery. Tourism is quite fragile at the moment. We have seen a reasonable tourism recovery—a reasonable tourism boom—brought about by the COVID pandemic where people couldn't travel overseas, but it is a fragile recovery and it relies very heavily on motoring holidays. The traditional, family motoring holiday, the one that most people can afford, is to put the kids in the car, drive to the Gold Coast, drive to Mackay, drive to Cairns, in my case drive to Gippsland or drive to your beautiful electorate, Deputy Speaker, and spend some time together. Against this background, where the international circumstances—the external circumstances—haven't changed, the pressure on household budgets is enormous and we're also seeing interest rate increases and other cost-of-living pressures, I urge the Treasurer to extend the fuel excise cut and give relief to Australian families. I acknowledge that there are many calls on the budget and this is a difficult decision, but we need to keep families connected and we need to make sure this fragile recovery can continue. Anecdotally, I'm hearing reports of families opting to take their children out of sport because of the travel costs of going to training. The long-distance travel for attending matches in regional areas is getting too hard for those families to sustain. I'm also hearing reports that university students—we think of communities like ours, where kids are often living three and four hours away from home—who, instead of coming home and catching up with their mates and with their families every couple of weeks, are now making the choice to delay it to every four or six weeks. They're rationing their contact with their own families because of fuel costs. The new government has the power to act. Dimos, Mr Mick, Dimos, Mr Steve 94 16:16 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin Today, I rise to pay tribute to Mick and Steve Dimos, two brothers, two true believers, two people who deserve to be remembered in this place. Mick and Steve sadly passed away recently, within weeks of each other—Steve on 11 June at the age of 86 and Mick on 19 July at the age of 89. These brothers migrated here from Macedonia in their very early years and were the third generation of their family to migrate to this country. Mick and Steve raised their families here, instilling in them the same values that guided them throughout their lives—commitment to teamwork, to sharing and to social justice and a desire to see fairness for all. They were soon, in this light, members of the Australian Labor Party, joining the Collingwood branch back in 1964, and were long-standing and active members of the Lalor branch in the Scullin electorate. For Mick and for Steve, I know that one of their proudest moments was when they were awarded their 40-year life membership medallions in 2005. The brothers were well known to four generations of local Labor politicians, and they will be well remembered by each and every one of us as people who attended branch meetings and worked on every election campaign, who had a commitment to our cause that never wavered and who were always ready and willing to give their all to get their party elected. Importantly—this is why it's so important to me that I remember Mick and Steve in this place—they were the very best of the movement that I am proud to serve in this place, because they gave so much while asking for nothing for themselves, save for the opportunity to contribute to a country that had given them something and to a movement that represented their ideal of how society should be. Their contribution did not begin and end with the Labor Party. I want to acknowledge in particular their deep interest in and commitment to the Macedonian Orthodox Church in the northern suburbs and broadly, a commitment that meant a lot to them and gave so much to so many. Their commitment more broadly to community is something that was well remembered, I think, particularly, at Mick's funeral last week, which I was unable to attend due to my commitments in this place, but I know that many community members, as well as party members and union members, attended there in a mark of respect and solidarity. I think of Mick and Steve as two people who brought great meaning to my life through their friendship and their support. They're two people who I will miss greatly, and I know that many more will miss them more. So I say: vale Mick, vale Steve, and thank you for everything. Vietnam Veterans' Day 95 16:19 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson I rise to speak about the importance of Vietnam Veterans' day and a coalition commitment that is close to my heart: a $5 million promise to build a veterans wellness centre in my electorate of Dawson and the adjoining electorate of Capricornia, held by my colleague Michelle Landry. Both electorates have a proud history of service. Vietnam Veterans' Day falls on the 18th of this month, which is also the anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan in 1966. This fierce battle took place in a rubber plantation near Nui Dat in south Vietnam, where a contingent of over 100 Australian soldiers, outnumbered by at least 10 to one, managed to hold off a vastly superior Viet Cong attack, suffering the heaviest Australian casualties in a single engagement in Vietnam. These men showed grit and determination to stand by their mates and uphold the Anzac spirit. We continue this great tradition by standing by our mates today. That is why I'm using this occasion to call on the new government to honour our commitment to provide veterans wellness centres in the Mackay region. These centres will be used by veterans, Defence personnel and their families. They would also be available to first responders seeking some relief from the stressors of their work. Veteran wellbeing centres provide a one-stop shop to connect veterans and first responders with support and advocacy services. We would not have the way of life that we all take for granted today if not for the sacrifices of past and present members of our Defence Force and their families. This is an opportunity to show that Australia is a society that values the idea of mates standing up with their mates. We owe it to our veterans, our first responders and their families to build these centres. The $5 million commitment would go towards two centres in Mackay and a third at Kinchant Dam, west of the city in the Capricornia electorate. Kinchant Dam is a beautiful part of the world. It offers tranquillity and respite for anyone fighting their own battles with conditions like PTSD. I look forward to working with Mackay RSL President Kenny Higgins and Kinchant Dam advocate Peter Wirth to make these vital projects a reality. Our veterans need and deserve these centres. I urge the new Labor government to honour the Anzac spirit and build these centres. We must stand by our mates. Garma Festival 95 16:22 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I first want to associate myself with the words of the former speaker, the member for Dawson, about the importance of looking after our veterans. On the weekend I was privileged to attend the Garma Festival, at Gulkala in north-east Arnhem Land, with the Prime Minister. My first Garma Festival was while I was serving with NORFORCE in north-east Arnhem Land back in 2007, and it was great to catch up with some of the Yolngu soldiers I served with back at that time, on their country. It was great to be on Yolngu land and hear the Prime Minister lay out a clear pathway for establishing an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. Also at Garma were the Minister and Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians; Pat Dodson; the Attorney-General; and the member for Lingiari, Marion Scrymgour. As the Prime Minister pointed out, the Voice is not a matter of special treatment; it's about consulting First Nations people on the decisions that affect them—it's as simple as that. And it's really important for our country to take this step forward together, to be faced with the clear, direct question, Do you support an alteration to the Constitution that establishes an Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander Voice?—and to answer yes. There was a real spirit of joy and optimism at Garma. I think I've been to about eight Garma Festivals over the years, and it was wonderful to sit at the Bungul to watch the Yolngu dancers perform, as they do with such power and grace, and also to see them joined on the Bungul by Ministers Burney and McCarthy, by the member for Lingiari and by the NT Chief Minister, Natasha Fyles, as well as Minister Lawler and Minister Uibo. I briefly entered the Bungul for a quick dance. It is a special place and a special thing to be part of, and I encourage all members to try to get to the Garma Festival at some time. My constituent Thomas Mayor was there as well. He was a delegate to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and he's also written a book called Finding the Heart of Our Nation. This is what Thomas said about our government's commitment to the statement and of the Prime Minister's leadership— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 16 : 25 to 16 : 42 Cullen, Mr Brendan 96 16:42 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes I'd like to bring to the House's attention the incredible achievement of Menindee grazier Brendan Cullen, who just this week has swum the English Channel. What's amazing about Brendan's achievement is that he did all his training in western New South Wales, in the Menindee Lakes. He started this process some years ago, but he hasn't been able to fulfil it till now because of COVID and the travel restrictions. In the drought the Menindee Lakes system shrank back to the smallest lake, Copi Hollow, but there was sufficient water there for him to train in. He has finally joined that very, very exclusive club of people who have actually swum the English Channel. I haven't personally met Brendan—I'm looking forward to doing that—but I do know that he was motivated to start swimming because he wanted to find a way to manage his mental health. It can be pretty grim out there; it hadn't rained for three or four years in western New South Wales, and he found that swimming was of great benefit to his overall physical and mental health. As a result he became an ambassador for Lifeline Broken Hill, an organisation that I'm very familiar with, which provides wonderful services to the people of the Far West. In his swim, Brendan carried the mantle of Lifeline. By doing that, he highlighted the issues around the importance of mental and physical health wellbeing. He also highlighted that Lifeline does such a great job in Broken Hill servicing the Far West. For an extraordinary story—someone who started training in the middle of the worst drought on record in the Far West, training in the Menindee Lakes system—I have to say his last couple of months training have been rather different. The lakes are actually at 100 per cent now, and the countryside looks magnificent. Brendan used those systems, and I believe he did some saltwater swimming in Port Phillip Bay towards the end of his training. On behalf of me and the Australian parliament, I'd like to recognise Brendan Cullen for the great job that he's done. National Homelessness Week 96 16:45 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo I rise to say a few words about the fact that it is National Homelessness Week. It's an opportunity for all of us to recognise the growing crisis that we have not just in our electorates but also across Australia of far too many Australians finding themselves homeless. It is quite extreme what some people are having to go through. Just this week I've had people contact me and my office to share their experiences. A young family that have two children not too much younger than my own, a six-month-old and a two-year-old, are homeless, living with friends, hoping desperately to get a rental. They've applied for over 100 properties and are yet to be successful. This is one of many stories that all of us are hearing far too often. It is to be rare, but these days it's happening more and more. This is a challenge that is complex because the solution is not a simple one. We need to increase the amount of social and community housing that we have, and our government has committed to do so. We have committed to building more housing stock. We need to work with developers and to work on possible schemes where we are looking at a proportion of a development that goes towards low-cost or social and community housing, schemes that have been successful at state government levels. We need to work with local governments who are willing to put forward their own ideas. I have an amazing commitment from the Mount Alexander Shire in my electorate, who want to put forward the possibility of their old car park being turned into accommodation—being able to build small, independent units on that block. They're just hoping that they can pull the state government, the federal government, a developer and a community not-for-profit all together to help make it happen. It's innovative thinking, but the way in which to make that project happen feels really complex. So we do need to get together at the local, state and federal level with community and industry on how we can get more housing stock built. We also need to look at areas like Airbnb and the impact that that has had. Whilst it might be great for people to have more affordable or have a homelike experience on their holidays, it has had an impact on our rental market. How much of an impact is something that I believe we need to investigate. These are issues that I'm raising and that lots of people are raising during National Homelessness Week. The last thing I'll say is that we need to act urgently. Far too many people tonight and this week are homeless. Whether they're couch surfing, staying with friends and family or living rough, more people need a place to call home. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 97 BILLS Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022 97

Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022

Second Reading 97 16:49 Mr 249147 Burt KEOGH (—) (): I rise to make a brief contribution in relation to this important piece of proposed legislation before us, the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022. I speak so that people can understand the position that I bring to this bill, a bill on which all members of this House and the Senate will have a free vote of conscience. I do support the principle of self-determination for a body politic such as our states and our territories. I also support the principle of subsidiarity, something that we see vested in our constitutional arrangements, meaning that decisions should be taken as close to the people who will be affected by them as possible. Certainly, as a Western Australian, I know that is something that we hold close in our conception of a federation here in Australia. But along with that, and in that constitutional arrangement we see, the Commonwealth Constitution does vest certain powers in the Commonwealth, and it does that in such a way that certain powers are exclusive to the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth has power to constrain the exercise of power by the states in certain circumstances. Of course, that is even more so when it comes to our Australian territories, over which this Commonwealth parliament has particular legislative responsibility. When it comes to this particular bill, in the way that I see this legislation, I very much understand the purpose for which it has been brought forward by the members who have brought it forward and why they see this issue as important for their body politic and the people that they represent in their territories. For me, all lives are sacred and, as I have watched and observed the debate on legislation that would bring into effect the ability for people to seek euthanasia, I have not been impressed by the legislation brought forward, both as a matter of principle and also because in my view, from looking at the pieces of legislation in each of the different jurisdictions, they are too risky. The safeguards are insufficient, sometimes in general and sometimes for people at specific risk. I also believe that advancing down this pathway has the potential to put at risk the proper funding and support for palliative care across our various jurisdictions, and I believe that should really be the focus. So, while I support the concept of self-government and actual self-government for our territories, right here today, in respect of this bill, we are being asked, and I am being asked, to exercise a Commonwealth legislative power. That is a responsibility that we all hold as members of parliament and as senators. It's for the reasons that I've mentioned that I, in exercising that power, cannot in good conscience support this bill, so I don't. But I do want to commend the members and senators from the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, for bringing forward this legislation, and the government, for allowing this debate to occur. 16:52 Mr GEE 261393 Calare I rise to speak in support of the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022. At the heart of this legislation is the right of those Australians who live in the territories to decide, through their elected representatives, whether to enact laws with respect to voluntary assisted dying, or euthanasia. I can't see any good reason why they should not have that right. Every state in Australia has passed legislation with respect to voluntary assisted dying. It seems absurd that Australian citizens just a stone's throw away over the border in New South Wales can debate and enact such laws, which they have chosen to do, but here in the ACT that right is denied to their fellow Australian citizens. If this bill is passed, this legislative anomaly will be corrected and the territories will have this right. For over a decade, I've been a strong supporter of the right of citizens, in certain circumstances, to choose to end their lives with dignity and at a time of their own choosing, with appropriate safeguards in place. It was in 2010 that I first really considered this issue in earnest. Towards the end of that year, I was diagnosed with stage 3 melanoma. Back in those days, there was very little in the way of postoperative treatment available. After the operation that I went through, I was told that the chances of the cancer coming back were fifty-fifty and that, if it did so, there would not be very much that could be done. Fifty-fifty is a toss of the coin. I still remember where I was and what I was doing when I got that diagnosis. I can tell you: when you get news like that, it really focuses your mind. The first question you ask yourself is what will happen to your family and what life will be like for your children without you there to help raise them. Another question I asked myself during that time was what the end might look like and whether I would want the ability to choose the time and place of my passing. I decided without doubt that I would like that ability. I may or may not decide to act on it, but I would like to be able to make that choice. Fortunately for me, I have so far ended up on the right side of the ledger. I've had excellent care through Professor John Thompson at Melanoma Institute Australia and participated in a drug trial there for several years. I should add that Professor Thompson and his fellow cancer researchers are unsung heroes of our nation. While I appreciate that there are a wide range of opinions on this issue, my strong view remains that every Australian should have the right to choose the time of their own death in certain controlled circumstances. The New South Wales parliament only recently passed its laws with respect to voluntary assisted dying, and, as I have said, every state in Australia has done so. Both the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory self-government acts provide that their legislative assemblies have the power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of each respective territory. It's not only incongruous but illogical that there should be an exclusion with respect to the issue of voluntary assisted dying. The legislative assemblies of the ACT and the Northern Territory have clearly demonstrated that they are capable of responsively debating, formulating and implementing policies with respect to this issue. Statehood need not be and clearly should not be a precondition for that to occur. I support this bill and, in so doing, the rights of our fellow Australians in the ACT and the Northern Territory to have the same freedom to legislate on this issue that other Australians possess. I commend this bill to the House. 16:57 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair This private member's bill, the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022, removes the limitations imposed by the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997 on the right of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory to consider laws that they might pass in their capacity relating to voluntary assisted dying. All states have passed laws allowing voluntary assisted dying. This private member's bill restores to the ACT and the Northern Territory the power to consider laws in relation to the same. The bill before the chamber today is not about passing a law to impose voluntary assisted dying, also known as euthanasia. If this chamber and the Senate vote for this bill it will not permit people to make decisions to end their lives surrounded by family and friends when suffering terminal illness and the consequent pain experienced. Like so many in this place, I have witnessed the grievous and longstanding suffering of family and friends when pain is awful and unbearable and all personal dignity has been lost. These things are deeply personal, ethically challenging and even spirituality confronting. I have genuine concerns about the prospect of elder abuse and the legal protections necessary to avoid that. These are decisions that have to be made by my colleagues at the state level. We need to do better in this country on palliative care. As long ago as September 2014 the Grattan Institute report Dying well pointed out that 70 per cent of Australians want to die at home but only 14 per cent do so. Dying in Australia is more institutionalised than in any comparable country that we think about, such as New Zealand, the United States, France and Ireland. In Ipswich, my home city, we have good palliative care delivered by charitable institutions in people's homes, the palliative care unit at Ipswich general hospital and the locally beloved institution known as Ipswich Hospice, but we need to do better in this country. We need to do much more when it comes to palliative care. I do not think this bill rules out doing better in palliative care. It would not be our role basically to decide these things on euthanasia or voluntary assisted dying if we passed this bill. This is an act of parliament that seeks to undo something which happened to 25 years ago. It seeks to undo the imposing of a Commonwealth prohibition on the territories. It seems very odd to me that the parliament did this. Our federation is not fossilised; it's living, it's evolving, it's changing all the time. It's changed by referenda, by High Court decisions and by cooperative federalism, historically known as the COAG process and often called the national cabinet these days. This is not to suggest there are not problems with voluntary assisted dying legislation in states and territories. If we were to look at our Constitution when it was first conceived and at people like Barton, Parkes, Deakin and others who were involved in it—at the time they were all blokes by the way; conservative, liberal blokes—we would assume that Western Australia may not join the federation and that New Zealand would be state of Australia. But we know what happened in the end: WA was in as a state and New Zealand is a separate nation to us. Those opposite have long championed states' rights, but to listen to some of their speeches in this place, they support states when convenient but territories scarcely at all. Some of those opposite seem to want to maintain and even expand Commonwealth power. Robert Menzies must be turning in his grave. I say to those opposite: what rights for territorians? What do you wish to prescribe or proscribe? What responsibilities do you wish to strip from the territories now or in the future? In this country now, New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania have the power and the jurisdiction to make laws in relation to assisted dying. In other words, it's a state responsibility. But for Australians living in the ACT or the Northern Territory it's the responsibility of the federal government. This makes no sense at all to me, either in geography or democracy. Section 122 of the Constitution is being invoked by those opposed to this bill, but the federal government does have the power to pass laws in relation to the ACT and the Northern Territory. That is a strange thing to do with our federation. I don't accept the arguments on political maturity, and nor can the absence of an upper house be reason not to return these rights to territorians. My home state of Queensland has not had an upper house for a hundred years, yet members of the Queensland parliament could make these decisions upon mature reflection and debate. Frankly, I don't think the fact that the Commonwealth parliament has a Senate is the best argument against this bill. In any event, for the many, many decades after the upper house was brought into the colonies and into the states, the presence of the landed gentry and business establishment infested the upper houses of the states. They were often elected without a democratic franchise and often without one vote, one value. So don't give me this nonsense about the absence of an upper house in the states and territories. For some, this bill is about euthanasia, to which they have a religious, spiritual or philosophical objection. I do not have such objections, but I do have serious concerns about euthanasia and about the protection of the weak, the vulnerable and the suffering, and how this can be done with full autonomy and cognitive capacity. But this is a matter for those politicians who do or should have the right to make laws in respect of those things. In my faith tradition there are plenty of people who allege belief in absolutes on certain issues, as if there's a litmus test on the veracity and fidelity of faith. Life is sacred, they have said—and I have heard this argued in this place—forgetting the genocide, homicide, infanticide and regicide we see in parts of the Old Testament. Just look at Genesis or Joshua or Judges. I'm more of a New Testament Christian myself. It's possible to believe in the fundamentals of faith without being fundamentalist. I've read the Bible almost every day since I became a Christian at the age of 16 in the back pew of my Baptist church. I do not think this is a matter of spiritual absolutism. The god I believe in is a god of love who wants us to love one another and who tells us, in the words of Saint Paul of Tarsus to live the nine visible attributes of a Christian life: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Those virtues could do with a bit more adherence into this place. With respect, I don't see this as a debate about the sanctity of human life or similar issues. I see this debate for what it is in the pages of this bill. It's about whether people in Darwin or Canberra should have the same right to self-government and self-determination and legislative decision-making as people in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and even in my home city of Ipswich. These Australians, these territorians, should be able to decide this issue for themselves and not be subject to the dictates of people who don't live there—like me, or most of us in this place. In summary, I'm voting for this bill. It's a tough decision for people of faith, I know. It's a conscience vote. I'm voting for territory rights, so that all Australians, no matter where they live, can decide this issue for themselves. They'll have their debates in their chambers, it will be passionate and well thought through and people will no doubt give good arguments one way or the other. But it will be in their legislative assemblies—where it should be—not in this place. I'm a Queenslander. The Queensland parliament has passed laws on this issue. The people of the ACT and the Northern Territory should do so or not do so. It should be their decision. They should decide this for themselves, and for that reason I'm supporting this bill. 17:05 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra This is not the first time I've risen in this place to speak on this matter. Every few years, the old arguments are dusted off and freshened up and someone wants to raise the flag on this issue or thinks the numbers might finally be in their favour to turn the tables. In the last parliament I said that I rose with a heavy heart; today the weight is doubled. I'm sad that we are fighting what I sense will be a losing battle. I think that, in time, we will look upon this as a huge mistake, but even if the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022 is passed I will not regret standing here today and being counted. There are times in your life when doing so is important, and today for me is absolutely one of those days. I'm standing to speak about something that I know, at the very core of my being, is wrong. We've seen in the past that where this goes is monstrous. Nothing about what we're doing today is enlightened or compassionate, even though the proponents' intention may be to do so. As we rip apart these laws, what we are doing is ripping apart the values our society has stood for. I want to directly address the argument that's been made by the mover of this bill, the member for Solomon. He's argued that this is just about territory rights and not about euthanasia. I have great respect for the member for Solomon, but I could not disagree with him more. This bill endorses no other right than the right to kill his fellow Territorians. We hear a lot about territory rights. Well, I can't think of any political movement in history that has asked for rights and freedoms in order to kill people. This is a perversion of what liberty is about, and we should be deeply troubled by the idea that we are crossing this line. Let me be clear: this bill deals with only one right, and that is the right to pass euthanasia laws in the territories. The Northern Territory and the ACT are territories, not states, and there are reasons why the federal parliament has additional responsibility over these places. In 1998 the Northern Territory voted against statehood; it chose to be a territory, and it did so recognising the ongoing supervisory jurisdiction of the Commonwealth. Both the Northern Territory and the ACT have no upper house—no house of review—and laws can be rushed through incredibly quickly. It should not be within the remit of the territory governments to authorise the deaths of their citizens. As the shadow minister for Indigenous Australians, I'm particularly concerned about the implications of euthanasia for Indigenous people. Indigenous Australians facing high rates of disease are particularly vulnerable to euthanasia legislation, and the Northern Territory government cannot be trusted to manage the introduction of something like euthanasia in a way that will have anything near the necessary safeguards. We've seen that the Territory government, at the end of the Stronger Futures legislation, has been completely incapable of managing alcohol restrictions in communities, and the consequences have been devastating. Instead of creating a situation in which restrictions were in place unless opted out of, the Territory removed restrictions automatically. The Northern Territory government's failures are causing massive increases in domestic and sexual violence and hospital admissions. Given the record of the Northern Territory government, how can we expect that something like the introduction of euthanasia will be properly managed, with adequate safeguards, and will not have devastating consequences in these places? Euthanasia also runs counter to the values and beliefs of many Indigenous Australians. Many Aboriginal leaders have been clear that euthanasia is fundamentally at odds with their culture. In 1996, the introduction of the Northern Territory euthanasia laws was met with strong opposition from Indigenous people. As Dr Djiniyini Gondarra OAM told the Senate committee at the time: It does not fit into our customary law. It seems to be seen as a form of sorcery, that you are doing something to somebody else. You cannot create a law within a parliament to take somebody else's life. In 1996 Chips Mackinolty was commissioned by the Northern Territory government's Aboriginal steering committee to go to Aboriginal communities and to record people's views on the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act to feed back to government. Twenty-one community meetings were conducted across the Territory, with about 900 people participating. The results were virtually unanimous. Only two participants expressed support for the legislation, and at every single meeting people were strongly opposed to the legislation. Indigenous leaders also voiced strong opposition when Western Australia introduced euthanasia. Senator Pat Dodson and Mr Ken Wyatt both opposed the law in their state, recognising the significant risk it presents to Indigenous people and the lack of meaningful consultation that had taken place. Anangu Pitjantjatjara woman Melissa Thompson wrote to WA MPs saying she was deeply concerned about the legislation. She said: The last thing we all, Aboriginal people, need is another avenue to death. I don't want another death sentence for all my people and all of Australia. Senator Pat Dodson has rightly argued that we must work harder to achieve stronger health outcomes for Aboriginal Australians instead of introducing laws to help them end their life. In 2018 he told the Senate: … more needs to be done to ensure that First Nations people are receiving palliative care within their communities. Where First Nations people are already overrepresented at every stage of our health system, it is irresponsible to vote in favour of another avenue to death. Paving the way for euthanasia and assisted suicide leaves First Nations people even more vulnerable, when our focus should be on working collectively to create laws that help prolong life and restore their right to enjoy a healthy life. I say, 'We should listen to our elders.' In both the ACT and the NT, more palliative care services are needed. During 2020-21, Western Australia accessed MBS-funded palliative services at 10 times the rate of the Northern Territory and at nearly twice the rate of people of the ACT. As Dr Michael Casey, chief executive of the PM Glynn Institute, says: People say voluntary-assisted dying is about giving patients a choice, but if dying patients cannot access the palliative care services they need, they really don't have a free choice. We need to do more to ensure that everyone who needs good quality palliative care can access it, wherever they are and whatever their circumstances, before considering a momentous step like euthanasia. In my view, no parliament in Australia should have euthanasia on its statute books, and yet since 2017 every state has passed legislation to make euthanasia lawful. Euthanasia laws in Australia are young, but they're already leaving a significant mark. In Victoria, 331 people died in the first two years following the introduction of the law. Advocates there predicted there would only be 12 people a year when the law first came in. In Western Australia, 171 people were euthanased between the commencement of their law, in 2019, and May 2022. In the latest report from Victoria, covering the period January to June 2021, the youngest applicant for euthanasia was 18—eighteen! Every other state has now legalised euthanasia and is waiting for that law to come into effect. In a few short years our definition of what makes life meaningful and our understanding of the value of life have been quietly and significantly altered. One of the catchcries of modern politics is that we should listen to the experts. Why are the same people who chant that mantra, ignoring the Australian Medical Association, which continues to oppose such laws? Very soon it will be normal for Australians to consider the idea that they might end their own life. With this law, we are fundamentally changing the relationship that people have with government and the compact that we have with one another. There is never a time in which a person's life is expendable. The consequences are broader than we would like to believe them to be. When we look at the international experience we see, too, that there's a contagion effect over time, and more people choosing to end their life themself when facing terminal illness. In Oregon, where euthanasia was first legalised, an average of 34 people died each year for the first 10 years. Now an average of 134 people die each year. In the Netherlands, 4.4 per cent of deaths were from euthanasia in 2017, compared to 1.9 per cent of deaths when the law was introduced in 1990. Legalising euthanasia means people who may never have considered ending their life now find themselves presented with that option. Other jurisdictions also show a tendency for the conditions under which it is permitted, to grow looser as time goes on. Today some might accept that terminal illness can make life unbearable, such that it should be ended. Tomorrow, we may start to wonder if perhaps a permanent severe disability of the sort that makes you unable to speak or toilet yourself makes life so unbearable that it should end. Next we will wonder about mental illness. If someone suffers from depression, should that be a reason, too, to say, 'I've had enough'? I'm not talking here about a fantasy world. That road is precisely the one that has been walked in places that legalised euthanasia many years ago. Today in the Netherlands euthanasia is available to children and to people with dementia or mental illness, rather than just physical disabilities. In Canada, within five years the categories of people accessing euthanasia expanded to include people with disabilities even though they don't have a fatal condition. How can we tolerate the idea that a disabled person's life should not be defended with as much fervour as that of an able-bodied person? As Dr John Fox, a disability advocate in New Zealand, argued during that country's recent euthanasia debate, why is it that a 25-year-old fit and healthy rugby player goes to a doctor and says he wants to end his life and is referred to all sorts of services to help him find meaning and hope again, but if a 25-year-old disabled man goes to a doctor and says he wants to end his life, he's offered help to do so? It's not compassionate to tell a suffering person their life is not worth fighting for. It's not a kindness to leave people in the position that they find themselves considering ending their life in order to prevent themselves from being a burden. I know that's not the motivation for those who argue for euthanasia, although I do believe that the consequences are very real. I do want to acknowledge that the motivation for euthanasia legislation is often a deep desire to alleviate suffering. There's enormous strength of feeling in the arguments for euthanasia and the innumerable stories that lie beneath the discussion we are having today. Many people who are sitting through the debate fill their minds with the image of the last days of someone they've loved, someone whose suffering they'd do anything to alleviate. Some of us sitting here know that buried in the code of our own DNA is the potential for a terrifying illness, the sort that would mean a long, slow deterioration, with all our capacities slipping away at a pace that seems too slow to bear. The suffering of life is real and the terror of facing our bodies fall, perhaps slowly, messily and painfully, is real. Yet what we debate today is not just the end of life for ourselves and the people we love; it's a very real decision about how we define how meaningful and valuable a person 's life is when they're at their most vulnerable. I believe our compassion must be stronger and deeper than passing this law would enable. We must commit ourselves to the best care we can manage for those who are sick. We must hold the value of a person 's life even when they can no longer see it for themselves. In Oregon, detailed statistics have been kept for years, including about what has motivated a person to end their own life. The top five reasons do not include pain but do include a feeling that people are a burden on their family and friends. In February this year a woman in Canada with multiple chemical sensitivities, a condition affected by chemicals and smoke, decided to end her life through euthanasia. Eight days before her medically assisted death, she filmed herself saying, 'The government sees me as expendable trash, a complainer, useless.' In Australia we've seen a significant rise in mental illness and suicide over recent years, and we know that many people, particularly older Australians, are vulnerable as they wait for months to receive services. It's not alarmist to acknowledge that legalising euthanasia makes people even more vulnerable. We also know that medical advice can change, treatments can be found and medical assessment about a prognosis can be wrong. While there is life, there is hope. In the last parliament I spoke about how we continue to see the remnants of a life-affirming culture across our Australian society. I've always believed that we are a society with a culture that believes in the sanctity of life and the dignity of the human person based on our Judaeo-Christian values. Such a culture values individual human life and sees it as sacred, as I do. We see the remnants of our life-affirming culture across our society, from the campaign to reduce our road toll to the public and private funding of medical research to find ways to keep people healthy and to prolong life. We see it in the commitments of all governments—$10 billion annually to prevent suicide. We saw it during COVID as we committed ourselves to taking action that would keep people safe and alive no matter their age and health status, shutting down large parts of our country for two years just to save lives. But these remnants of the life-affirming culture are disappearing inch by inch and soul by soul, and the decision they're making with this bill cripples our culture even more. In this regard, and in a very personal sense, I cannot forget what the most civilised and enlightened society in Europe—which wiped out six million of my people in the Holocaust—began their program of industrial murder by euthanising vulnerable disable people who were thought to be in pain. I cannot in good conscience know this history and say nothing. The law impacts who we are and what our culture looks like going forward. It operates as a standard setter and as a teacher, and this law endorses a cultural change that I hoped we would never see. I want to finish with the words of Dylan Thomas that I quoted last time I spoke on these issues in this place. It's galling to me that the proponents of euthanasia have called their organisation Go Gentle to make their case. They're turning on its head, in my view, all that Thomas was saying in his famous poem. Indeed, I think we should rage for life. We must rage for life. As Dylan Thomas wrote: Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light. 17:20 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan The 1997 decision by John Howard's coalition government to prevent territory governments passing assisted dying laws was always cynical, undemocratic and inhuman. In order to shoot down a decision that they were ideologically opposed to, they robbed the territories of basic democratic rights and held back progress on voluntary assisted dying laws, causing needless suffering for so many families for the past 25 years. As with too many decisions made here, there was so little regard for the human cost, so little regard for the misery caused by those elected to serve the people. It's shameful. I want to say that the Greens have a long track record of supporting territory rights. Over a decade ago, the Greens passed a territory rights bill, but it was reversed by the Abbott government. It's a basic question of equity. Currently, residents of the territories are being treated as second-class citizens. If citizens of the states are allowed to access voluntary assisted dying schemes, citizens of the territories should be allowed to do the same—and, I might add, this should also be the case for other constitutional laws passed by democratically elected bodies. How is it that people in, say, the Northern Territory have less capacity to make decisions in their collective interests than people in Queensland or New South Wales? This proposal should not even be controversial. This cynical decision from the Howard years is not compatible with a basic respect for democracy. If people who live in states are allowed access to voluntary assisted dying schemes, the same rights need to be extended to the territories. Territory rights are fundamental Greens values, and it's a core Greens policy that individuals have the right to make self-governing choices. While this bill won't in itself reinstate the Northern Territory's voluntary assisted dying legislation from 1995, which was callously overridden by the Howard government in 1997, it will clear the obstacle for new legislation to be brought to that effect. For years now, the Greens have been at the forefront in states and territories of the fight to deliver on assisted dying laws and give people in unbearable pain choices around their death. On being elected in 2017, my colleague in Queensland state parliament Michael Berkman worked very closely with the community to ensure that VAD was legislated last year in my home state. We've also seen the Greens work with groups like Dying with Dignity and other important community voices to help deliver VAD laws in Victoria, Tasmania, Western Australia and, this year, New South Wales. We do this work because we believe this is a fundamental right for people. Terminally ill people in pain have a right to choose to die with dignity. I want to point out that having a right to voluntary assisted dying simply means giving people a choice. Voluntary assisted dying is just one of many options, and having it on the table can give peace of mind, even though only a tiny minority of patients will actually use it. It means that those in pain have options available to them if and when they need them. This gives reassurance that suffering is not inevitable as well as access to this option where needed. The Victorian parliamentary inquiry into end-of-life choices, in its final report in 2016, acknowledged: … simply having the option to choose assisted dying has a palliative effect in and of itself by enabling people at the end of life to reclaim control of their situation. Importantly, voluntary assisted dying also gives people the chance to say goodbye to family and friends. Finally, regulated VAD gives a clear framework for doctors and healthcare workers when dealing with terminal patients in immense pain who want to die. Of course, appropriate safeguards should be in place. Inbuilt protections in the scheme mean VAD is only available to those who really need it and there are appropriate checks to ensure they are of sound mind. Appropriate safeguards and regulations in this area protect the vulnerable and protect healthcare workers from inappropriate requests. Opponents of these laws will tell you that improved palliative care is the answer, but this is not the view of the medical profession. Doctors and patients have for many years now been advising us that palliative care alone is not sufficient. Regulated VAD with appropriate safeguards is overwhelmingly supported by medical professionals. Of course, palliative care should be expanded, but there will still be cases that are deeply distressing for families and patients, where the pain relief offered and the sheer indignity of the illness will not be meaningfully ameliorated by palliative care. So there's no medical, moral or political argument for holding back VAD legislation. It's been introduced in most states across Australia now. It's high time the territories were given back the right to pass this kind of crucial legislation. We're in a situation now where, in the Northern Territory, a person in unbearable suffering must have this suffering prolonged against their express wishes, all because politicians in this place 25 years ago made a cynical political decision, and the Territory government has no recourse to change this situation. This bill finally gives Australia the chance to correct this wrong and give the people of the territories the ability to put and pass new legislation on crucial issues like voluntary assisted dying. 17:26 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise to give support to the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022. Having recently observed the passing of the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act in my home state of New South Wales, I was relieved to note that all states in our country, Australia, have now embraced some form of voluntary assisted dying legislation for people dealing with the most painful of illnesses and the resulting undignified final moments of their lives. However, as amendments to the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 and the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 established, the autonomous governing of our territories was restricted to prevent any potential for either the ACT or the Northern Territory to ever enact similar voluntary assisted dying legislation without a resolution of this parliament. In my first speech—delivered in the House last Thursday, 28 July—I spoke of the liberal philosophies of John Stuart Mill and the harm principle. I realise that I will not be the only member of this place making reference to Mr Mill, but I believe his principles warrant mention nonetheless. It is the job of government to clear the way for its citizens to act in whatever way they may choose, so long as those actions do not negatively affect the lives of others. We all have stories of friends, family members and other loved ones whom we have seen live through a terminal illness—one whose suffering creates such a painful condition that it cannot be tolerably relieved. We witness our parents and grandparents spending the last months of their lives in dreadful pain with no prospects of recovery. The memories of the suffering of these people will be forever etched in the minds of their families as the last ounce of their dignity drifts away. I make note that this bill does not require any new legislation to be enacted by either of the territories. Accordingly, I believe in self-determination. Constituents of the ACT and the Northern Territory are responsible enough to elect their own territory parliamentary representatives. They presumably should be deemed responsible enough to enact legislation relevant to the needs and desires of their people. All states throughout this country have set a safe, rational and controlled example of voluntary assisted dying provisions, which would undoubtedly be deemed persuasive by territory legislatures in crafting their own reforms. This bill is not, and never will be, in support of state sanctioned murder. As displayed by the legislation passed by every state in this country, individual decision-making by the patient is paramount. The patient must have capacity. They must be free from external coercion. All of the safeguards, which include appropriate assistance and consultation with medical practitioners, must be in place. Voluntary assisted dying legislation enshrines freedom. It is the freedom of a person facing imminent death to seek support in their decision. It is also the freedom of a medical practitioner to refrain from offering that support, and the freedom of institutions, now and into the future, to refuse to provide assistance to assisted dying. Indeed, passing legislation related to voluntary assisted dying will not impinge on the rights of those that don't want to choose this pathway. However, not supporting such legislation will deny that option to those that do. Vigorous yet respectful debates have been held in the various states of our country around voluntary assisted dying. It is now appropriate that our territory parliamentarians be similarly able to avail themselves of the opportunity to discuss, debate and, if appropriate, enact legislation regarding voluntary assisted dying. I have been inundated over the past week or so by people within my electorate of Hughes asking that I endorse this bill. In those circumstances, I commend this bill to the House. 17:31 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey This bill purports to be about territory rights. It is, in my view, a very clean handball. It is in fact about voluntary euthanasia. I think there is only one outstanding issue around state rights, or territory rights in this case, and it is voluntary euthanasia. As you would well know, Madam Deputy Speaker Sharkie, this job we have entails us meeting hundreds of people. Most of them are good. The vast majority of them are good. But not all of them are. Sadly, in this job we meet some of the worst. I'm always appalled when I see families squabbling over inheritances from deaths that have not yet occurred. They do come to our office from time to time, families lined up to get their hands on mum or dad's money. Some children have got themselves into a position of having power of attorney, or even enduring power of attorney, over mum or dad and actually sell up mum's house without letting her know. I've had that. It makes you really question the fundamental goodness of people, whether it is there in every character. I do know that those people that are offended should be protected at every possibility. Others convince mum and dad to underwrite their latest business venture—I'm sure you've come across that one—then the business venture goes south, and mum and dad lose their house. They lose the lot, and siblings are already positioning themselves for the carve-up. This thing within the euthanasia acts around Australia, which says that the person choosing euthanasia should be of sound mind and able to exercise their own judgement without being influenced by others in that judgement, is sound thinking. That makes sense. But how hard is it to say to an elderly parent: 'Maybe it's not worth all the trouble, Mum. You know how your last operation went. Helen and I had to come up here and see you. It's a long way for us to travel. We've got families. You know how much pain you had. Something else is probably going to go wrong with you if you have this operation.' Make no mistake: as I said, this bill we're facing here—and I thank Peter Dutton and our leadership team for making this a conscience vote in the coalition party room—is about voluntary euthanasia. I lay on the table that I am a practising Christian. I don't go to church quite as often as I should, but I try to get there. In fact, I went to St Peter's Cathedral, the Anglican cathedral in Adelaide last Sunday. I'm not an Anglican, but I remember being inside that wonderful cathedral. This really isn't the time for levity, but I can tell you: when you sit in there on a winter's morning you're as far from the fires of hell as one can possibly imagine. It was freezing. As I said, I'm a practising Christian, but I don't actually bring a particular religious view to this debate about voluntary euthanasia. I'm not sure what the Bible said to us about this, and I don't bring that judgement. I understand that many people don't see the Bible as their guiding force in life, so I take it, really, just as an issue of human rights and trying to protect the rights of those who I think need protection as they get older. I think it is a dishonesty in this bill to claim that it's about the territory rights. On that issue of territory rights, section 122 of the Constitution provides that the Commonwealth has the plenary power to legislate for the territories. I make the point that in the case of the Northern Territory it was in 1995 that this bill was enacted but in fact in 1998 the citizens of the NT actually rejected the right to become a state. They rejected the opportunity in a referendum. So perhaps they didn't want to make this decision and a lot of other decisions that go with statehood, and it was ceded to the Commonwealth. They knew that the Commonwealth had taken this position of saying, 'On these issues we will have the say here in Canberra,' and in 1998 the people of the Territory had an opportunity to say, 'Well, we'll reject that and become a state in our own right,' but they chose not to. So the power does reside here, because they chose not to take that pathway to statehood. On euthanasia in particular, I have to say that voluntary euthanasia is something I thought was a good idea when I was younger. I would have argued the case for voluntary euthanasia, probably many times, at two o'clock in the morning after I'd consumed a couple of bottles of red with some mates. The point is that we didn't have the responsibility for the decision within that debate. It's part of growing up, isn't it? Maybe becoming a member of the Parliament of Australia is a major step in our growing up, because you know that the decisions we make here actually make a difference on people's lives and you have to own the result. A little later on this evening I will be speaking about the government's intention to abolish the cashless debit card, to all intents and purposes. They will have to own whatever results come from that decision. So, if we make a decision in this place which is, as I said, a de facto decision to allow for voluntary euthanasia in the territories, in fact we have to take ownership of that decision. It's not an ownership that I'm prepared to take. You can't be on the right side of every argument. I mean that in an individual sense. I know there are people who have been through this terrible situation of watching a loved one die, and they will say to people like me: 'You wouldn't let a dog live through this existence. Why don't you allow for the said person to issue an instruction to end their life?' In those terms, I don't disagree with that argument, and I understand why they reach that position, just as I've pointed out that we see the other side of it as well. I find it difficult to be a hundred per cent confident that we won't see a distortion of that decision. So we need to take that responsibility for people who maybe aren't as in control of their lives as they might say they are, who maybe have been coerced. I think the risks are too high, because, if there is one person taken from this world against their will under legislation that we are basically voting for or against in the parliament, today, tomorrow or wherever it comes, that will be an error that is obviously irreversible. I will not be supporting the bill. I suspect it will pass—I think it will probably pass quite well—but I'll be able to sleep with my conscience intact. 17:40 Mr JOYCE e5d New England I rise to also say this bill, the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022, is a bill about euthanasia, however you want to put it, from a territory that chose not to be a state. I also note that the territories are where you will most likely find those who are the most vulnerable to mistakes that become part of this process. I have a very strong philosophical position; I have never hidden it. I don't think that anybody has the right to kill another person. Whether a person is aware of their rights or not, you do not have the right to kill another person, unless they're a clear and imminent threat to yourself, such as what we see in times of conflict with the Defence Force or with a police man or woman. But to say to a person, 'My objective now in life is to make sure that I kill you'—and that is what they are doing; they are killing—I think debases who we are. I have just gone through the process of nursing, with my family, my father, who passed away last week. He was 98½ years old. He was bedridden. We looked after dad for four years. Prior to that, my mother had a stroke, and we looked after mum. It's my own personal view that that added to my life; it didn't detract from it. My father was an incredible asset. Obviously, I miss him dearly. At times, yes, it was hard work—really, really hard work. Obviously, with issues of personal hygiene, it's tough. It can be really tough. I want to acknowledge the work done especially by Rebecca, who was almost a saint looking after him, and my sister and brothers. It would have been so easy, though—because sometimes your loved ones are not so loving, and, as they are not so loving, they can be— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 17 : 43 to 18 : 03 Mr JOYCE e5d One of the issues we have with euthanasia is that sometimes patient's loved ones are not that lovely. This is an issue, especially in a place like the Northern Territory, where duress will come into play. What do I base that on? I base it on the experience of places such as the Netherlands. Here is a quote about one of the issues in the Netherlands—and I got this from the Guardian, so I'm not getting it from some crazy right-wing scribe. It says: Van Baarsen's scruples have crystallised in the country's first euthanasia malpractice case, which prosecutors are now preparing— Three further cases are now under investigation— It involves a dementia sufferer who asked to be killed when the time was right, but when her doctor judged this to be the case, she resisted. The patient had to be drugged and restrained by her family before she finally submitted to the doctor's fatal injection. The doctor who administered the dose, who has not been identified, has defended her actions by saying that she was fulfilling her patient's request and that, since the patient was incompetent, her protests before her death were irrelevant. We don't think of the Netherlands as a backwater. We don't think of it as an unsophisticated country. They were one of the first in this area. This shows quite clearly the progression of where these issues end up. The whole point of medicine is the preservation of life, not the destruction of life. In other reports, you can see this extended into other areas. Euthanasia is a very cheap form of palliative care. It also inherently will give rise to people basically putting words into other people's mouths: 'Of course, when you're ready to go, just let us know. Life must be hard for you. It must be tough. You must feel like you're a burden.' I'm very blessed and very lucky to have a great family, but I can imagine in other areas, to be quite frank—my father's life would have been one that people would have put pressure on. They'd say: 'You're in the house all day. People have to stay in the house with you. It locks up finances. Things can't go anywhere.' We have to focus, and we have to also remember that the views of people at a certain point in their life—it has been noted by the previous speaker—may not be their views at a later time in their life. The view of the person is contingent on the mercurial nature of human conscience, and that can change over time in how they perceive life. I think it's really important that our endeavours in a medical area do not have as an option that a facility will assist you to kill yourself, because one of the biggest problems with that is that someone has to assist you. That inherently goes down a path where we become arbitrary and, I think, hard. We lose a section of our humanity. Given the issues with palliative care now, there are so many things that we can do to aid a person at the final stages of their life, which will happen to all of us, of course. But this is where our endeavours must be focused, not on a shortcut of, 'We'll kill you.' Also, in part of the European experience with psychiatric disorders, euthanasia is now being deemed as a mechanism for removing the hardship of life. Schizophrenia can be a reason for euthanasia. There was one case where it was obesity. These are not circumstances that bring unbearable pain, but they can be determined and be utilised as a mechanism for a person to bring about the termination of a person's life: Between October 2007 and December 2011, 100 people went to a clinic in Belgium's Dutch-speaking region with depression, or schizophrenia, or, in several cases, Asperger's syndrome, seeking euthanasia. The doctors, satisfied that 48 of the patients were in earnest, and that their conditions were "untreatable" and "unbearable," … How do you end up at that point? I hope that that shocks people and they say, 'That's an absurdity; that's wrong.' They started from the extreme cases of terminal cancer. But that's where it starts. All these things start in a spot; where they end up is somewhere entirely different. To stop that boulder rolling down a hill, you don't give it a push at the start. When you go down the path of euthanasia, you've given the boulder a little push, and where it ends up is entirely different to where your aspirations are later on. Why this is more pertinent to the Northern Territory, of course, is that we have so many problems there that we've got to manage. We have child molestation, a problem that has to be fixed, as well as alcoholism, drug addiction, unemployment and extreme violence in communities. What do they all point to? Why do these social maladies exist? They exist because there is a febrile insecurity and vulnerability there. Why would you insert into that the option of euthanasia? Anybody should be able to diagnose that you're opening yourself up to something at some stage where, inevitably, someone who is vulnerable will be killed. If you really look into that person's heart at that moment and say—I've been there before and said to a person, my brother, as they had the PAP mask on and wanted to take it off: 'Tim, do you want to die?' He looked at me and went, 'No, I don't.' I said, 'That's the answer.' The answer is no, I don't. If that meant another half hour of life, another hour of life, another day of life—but you don't want the pressure on that person. It's got to be not an alternative. You don't want that pressure, because it will happen. People will be killed who don't want to die, but under the pressure of people surrounding them they will convince themselves that they are an inconvenience. By a wink, by a nod, by inference, by innuendo, by a whole range of mechanisms, they will be convinced that they're an inconvenience, and so to help other people out they will give up the most precious thing that they have, their life. In any way, shape or form, no matter what form it comes into this parliament, I will fight against euthanasia as an alternative, not so much for it starts but for where I know it will finish. If anybody can show me an example in Europe where it is not the case then let's hear it, because I certainly show you cases where it is. They all started from a righteous position, and now the discussions are something entirely different. If someone says, 'We are wiser in Australia and we'll put the covariates in place so this will not happen,' no you won't. Australia is just like everywhere else. It will follow the same track and end in the same position that it ends in everywhere else. Human nature is ubiquitous. This is something we have to be careful of. I know how parliament works. This is the issue du jour and has been for a few years. It will get up—I'm not a fool—but it's wrong. Just because things get through this parliament, it doesn't mean they are right. This will get up, but it's wrong. It shouldn't. The fruit of the labour and the intention is that people will die. Inevitably, people will die who don't want to die, and that will be sanctioned death by the state against the wishes of the person. The next debate will be about what extensions are to happen to the euthanasia debate—how it can be broadened—when there are so many other things. Shouldn't this parliament be paramount in wanting to maintain life, not destroy life? I have a faith. It's not premised on faith—everyone says that—but it's not. It's premised on logic. When you close your eyes and think, 'Do I want to die?' The answer generally is no. A government member interjecting— Mr JOYCE e5d Don't interrupt. Inevitably it's about euthanasia being the paramount issue within this. You've got to make a statement. It is certainly a consequence of this. As a consequence of this, there needs to be brought into the light what outcomes there are. I'm putting on the record what I truly believe is one of the paramount outcomes. A euthanasia bill will go through the territory parliament, and if the territory wanted to be honest on another issue—they did have a vote as to whether they wanted to be a state, and they voted against it, so they're a territory. If you want to be a state, make yourself a state. If you're going to be a territory, acknowledge that territories, by their very nature, have the oversight of the Commonwealth. In closing, I do not support this, because ultimately it's convenient for more palliative care, which has the capacity to go into a very evil corner. It will inevitably drift from the certain to the grey, because that always happens. Its clear path, as clearly prescribed in other countries, is that where this starts is not where it finishes. I've identified clear cases of where this has gone into a very sullied and evil place where people are being killed against their wishes. It's not something made up. It's there. One of the main reasons I'm in this parliament is to do my very best to preserve life and to make people's lives better, not to be a party to anything that kills people. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 1 August this year, the bill is returned to the House for further consideration. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 107 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Asylum Seekers 107 18:16 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong This morning I had the great honour of meeting three extraordinary young people: Thanush, Ismail and Betelhem. They came and sat in my office, shook my hand and thanked me for my time, the same way that every other meeting since I came to parliament has begun. But this meeting was different. Even just sitting in their presence was profound. For a long time, the government of Australia kept Thanush, Ismail and Betelhem a hidden secret. They were flown out of the country, housed in makeshift camps and referred to by numbers. They were detained first on Manus Island and Nauru and then in hotel rooms, forced out of sight of the Australian public with the hope that they would be out of our minds. But here they were, Thanush, Ismail and Betelhem, sitting in my office. They came to give the ongoing impacts of Australia's offshore detention regime a human face, their human face, and to do everything in their power to bring the refugees who remain trapped on Nauru and in Papua New Guinea, who they call their brothers and sisters, here to safety. They came to see me because they know that the people of Kooyong stand with them and have sent me to represent Kooyong's call for humane treatment of refugees and people seeking asylum. I heard that call from the people of Kooyong almost every day as I sought their support to become their member during the recent election. Many of the volunteers who generously gave their time to the campaign are about as passionate as you can get about the rights of refugees and asylum seekers. I was inspired in particular by the indefatigable Grandmothers for Refugees, who for many years have gathered outside the former member for Kooyong's office, pleading with him to hear their passionate advocacy. I hear them. I'm in parliament for them. This morning, Betelhem, who came to Australia from Ethiopia, urged me to call on the government to immediately evacuate all people on Nauru and PNG. She said: 'It has been 10 years. People need a life, and rest, and peace.' Thanush, who fled Sri Lanka, told me: 'Ten years ago this brutal policy was introduced, and still—still—we are in limbo. I cannot find a house, because most people want a permanent visa, and most workplaces reject my applications because I have a temporary visa. I can't see my family, because this visa won't let me.' Ismail, who fled Somalia nearly 10 years ago, has been free for just four months after seven years on Manus Island and two years in the Mantra and Park hotels. He said that his brothers on PNG can't wait any longer, and that's why he can't rest until they're also free. Together they asked me as the member for Kooyong to call on the government to immediately enact three simple things: to immediately evacuate all remaining refugees currently held offshore in Nauru and Papua New Guinea and allow them to live in the community while Australia sorts out the third country they're supposedly being resettled in; to allow the people who are here, waiting in limbo for their asylum claims to be heard, the right to work, to earn an income, to pay taxes and to contribute to the communities that they're part of; and to give permanent protection to the 31,000 people who have been in this country for close to a decade and make up what has been referred to as the legacy case load of the failed and shameful 'fast-track' processes of the previous government. Close to 20,000 of these people are on the arbitrarily punitive temporary protection visas and safe haven enterprise visas, which hold people in a cycle of constant uncertainty, unable to begin to rebuild their lives as members of our communities and, most cruelly, kept separated from their families, with no prospect of reuniting in sight. For a decade, Australia's refugee policy has been one of punishment, punishing people who ask for our protection by detaining them indefinitely. Australia's refugee policy has been one of deterrence, a concept appropriated from criminal sentencing, reducing human beings to cautionary tales—to living examples of the suffering that Australia would exact from anyone else who might come to us for help. For too long, Australia's policy has been cruelty—abject brutalisation and cruelty. This must end. The 47th parliament of Australia has an opportunity to end this shameful chapter of our nation's history. We have an opportunity to transform Australia's response to the global refugee crisis by increasing our humanitarian intake by 50 per cent, speeding up the processing of asylum seekers' claims so that they aren't left in limbo for years, and providing safe corridors for people fleeing conflict and persecution. We have an opportunity to prepare for what could be a new global humanitarian crisis: people being displaced from their homelands by the impacts of climate change. We have an opportunity to put an end to offshore processing and indefinite detention and to give a new beginning to the 30,000 people stuck on precarious temporary visas, welcoming them with permanent protection. We have an opportunity to meet the people who come to our shores seeking safety with dignity, compassion and fairness. I'm proud to be one of a record number of members of parliament who are here not as members of a major party that has been responsible for Australia's policies of cruelty and humiliation but as Independents sent directly by their electorates to try and dismantle these policies and give refugees the chance to rebuild their lives here with us in Australian communities. While I am here representing the people of Kooyong, I'll do everything I can to help give protection, freedom, safety and humanity for refugees and for people seeking asylum. Indigenous Australians, Environment 108 18:22 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I am proud to acknowledge, as this parliament does every morning, that I am speaking on the land of the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people; to pay my respects to their elders past, present and emerging; and to thank them for the incredible contribution they make to our city and our region, as they have done for tens of thousands of years. I would also like to acknowledge the next generations of First Nations Australians, who will carry forward the incredible diversity of culture and language of the oldest continuous civilisation long into the future. I sincerely hope that our future, and the future of First Nations peoples, is one defined by successful reconciliation, a fully closed gap and a fully implemented Uluru Statement from the Heart, including a constitutionally enshrined voice to this parliament, the successful signing of treaty and treaties, and the undertaking of the important truth-telling process. I'm proud to be a member of a government that is committed to this future and committed to righting the wrongs of the past. I'm proud to be a member of a government that in this term of parliament will put to the Australian people a referendum to change the Constitution, to recognise First Nations Australians in the nation's birth certificate and to establish the voice to parliament. We're doing this—we're pursuing this important reform—because the Uluru Statement from the Heart was a gift from First Nations people to the people of Australia. It was a clear, consensus-driven statement that does not ask for much, from a community that could have asked for so much more. As the Prime Minister said at the Garma Festival on the weekend: The Uluru Statement is a hand outstretched, a moving show of faith in Australian decency and Australian fairness from people who have been given every reason to forsake their hope in both. I'm proud that the government is getting on with implementing the Uluru Statement from the Heart, as we have been committed to since it was given in 2017. The Prime Minister also outlined at Garma what the likely question put to the Australian people will be, namely and simply: Do you support an alteration to the Constitution that establishes an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice? I believe that Australians will wholeheartedly embrace this proposal because, in the words of the Prime Minister: I believe there is room in Australian hearts for the Statement from the Heart. Uluru is vitally important to reconciliation and to give First Nations Australians a voice on matters that affect them. But this is not an either-or. It's not about addressing closing the gap or the voice to parliament. We need to do both, and they are important in supporting each other. This is not the only thing that the Albanese government is doing to improve outcomes for First Nations peoples. The Albanese government is completely committed to the doubling of the Indigenous rangers program and to boosting funding to the Indigenous Protected Areas by $10 million a year. We will deliver the promised cultural flows of water in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. We're doing this because we know that First Nations land and water management leads to better environmental, social and economic outcomes. The Labor government will invest in justice reinvestment to turn the tide on incarceration and deaths in custody. Australia has seen the tragic deaths of over 500 First Nations Australians while in custody since the royal commission more than 30 years ago, and we are committed to ending this crisis. We're going to scrap the punitive and failing Community Development Program, and, right now in this House, we're in the process of getting rid of the cashless debit card. The process of reconciliation is a long one, but Labor is completely committed to ensuring it is done and done right. Whether it be the full implementation of the Uluru statement or the numerous policies we committed to before the election, it's incumbent upon us to do the work, and that's exactly what we will do. I'd also like to speak in this grievance debate about the State of the environment report, which was recently made public by the new Minister for the Environment, Tanya Plibersek. The report showed that the general outlook for the environment in Australia is poor and deteriorating. It is an environment suffering from increasing pressure from climate change, habitat loss, invasive species, pollution and resource extraction. It's an environment that, as the report says, 'holds the key to our survival and wellbeing', and its decline will affect us all. As the report notes: The natural world is not separate from the human world—it is the source of our food, water, air and raw materials. Our culture and wellbeing are interwoven with the places where we live and walk. Ongoing environmental decline also has negative … impacts on industries, businesses, regions and individuals. It has been devastating to read these report findings, which were hidden from us by the previous government, including findings that we have lost more mammal species to extinction than any other continent; that Australia now has more foreign plant species than native species; that the Murray-Darling experienced its lowest water level on record in 2019; that the Black Summer bushfires burnt out more than eight million hectares of native vegetation; and that in the past five years alone an extra 202 plant and animal species and 14 ecological communities were added to the threatened list. The report was buried by the Morrison government. It was handed to the then Minister for the Environment, Sussan Ley, in December, but it took the new Minister for the Environment and Water, Tanya Plibersek, to release it following the election. It was the same with the second Water for the Environment Special Account report, which was handed to the Morrison government in December and buried. Minister Plibersek released it today, and it shows that the 450-gigalitre target cannot be achieved under the current program settings and that the Morrison government had no intention to deliver on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. We know that Australians want better for our unique environment. I know this because my constituents contact me about climate action and environmental protection more than any other issue. The election made it clear that Australians are sick of excuses, and they want action to protect our environment. This morning I had the privilege of visiting the Red Hill Nature Reserve to meet with Landcare volunteers the Red Hill Regenerators. I am always struck by the work of these Landcare volunteers. Many in our community would not be aware of just how hard they work to look after our natural areas—which, in Canberra, our bush capital, are many, in amongst our suburbs. This group was formed 30 years ago and has transformed the reserve from one covered in weeds and rubbish to being a nationally significant woodland which is home to more than 50 regionally rare or threatened species and 12 nationally threatened species. There are amazing groups like this all over the country, and that shows what can be achieved. Imagine what could be done with national leadership. I am proud that Labor will provide that national leadership on the environment. That's why we have introduced legislation for a more ambitious 2030 emissions target as one of our top priorities in this first sittings. That's why we are establishing an environmental protection agency and making it easier for First Nations Australians to protect their cultural heritage. That's why we will set a national goal of protecting 30 per cent of our land and 30 per cent of our oceans by 2030, joining the global push to safeguard biodiversity. That's why, importantly, we will respond by the end of this year to the Samuel review into the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, which has failed to protect our unique natural environment and conserve our precious diversity, as it was originally intended to do. This is a really important part of environmental protection. In the last parliament we campaigned against and voted against the then government's legislation. In response to the Samuel review, they wanted to rush through legislation to actually weaken those laws. It is vitally important that these laws protect our environment in a meaningful way, and this is what people in Canberra, including the Conservation Council, talk to me about on a regular basis. In particular, they're very concerned at the moment about the Lawson grasslands, which are currently under review. There's no point in these reviews if these laws do not actually protect our environment. I'm very pleased that Labor is going to seriously reform those laws and respond to the Samuels review in a proper manner by the end of this year, as is required. Protecting our environment is core business for Labor, and I am very proud that this government will deliver on this for Australians. Albanese Government 109 18:32 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson As I was a minister in the previous government, it's been some years since I have participated in a grievance debate. On contemplating what issue to raise in this place, it struck me that perhaps it's not so much a single concern but rather the government's approach to solving the issues that needs to be examined. I want to be very clear: I'm not blaming the incoming government for all the problems that we currently face. But I do believe that their approach is going to make a challenging situation even harder and have real impacts on the lives of Australians. I'm an engineer by profession. I like to figure out how things work. It's in my nature to analyse a situation carefully. I see a problem and I want to work out the best way to fix it. Some used to call that a commonsense approach; I think it's just practical. I believe this sort of approach is the foundation of the progress of humans. It's the basis of invention and design implementation. But I am deeply concerned that this practical problem-solving approach is being substituted by ideology and symbolism, with little regard for whether the outcome is a problem solved or a problem created. Let me provide a few examples from this incoming Labor government and their ideological partners, the Greens. First up is the ideological drive to prematurely end the use of coal and, now, gas before we have other energy sources that are capable of providing reliable baseload power. As an engineer, I have worked in power stations. I understand the imperative of baseload power. I'm also very clearly on the record as saying we should stop debating whether climate change is real and what degree of impact it is having, and we should get on with developing the technology to address it. So I'm very much in favour of transitioning to cleaner energy sources as soon as possible, and I believe that we will, through ingenuity and investment in technology, reach that point. But I'm not in favour of jeopardising the power supply we all rely on in order to tick a box that says we've abolished the use of coal by a date that is arbitrary. What is the sense in that? And I can't for the life of me understand the Greens ideological obsession with moving away from gas. The reality is that, like most of the world, Australia relies on coal and gas to heat our homes, to power our businesses and to keep our hospitals, schools and essential services operating. I spent a lot of time in the last parliament putting in place protections for our critical infrastructure to ensure that they are safe from cyberattack and other threats. An unreliable or intermittent power supply presents an enormous challenge for critical infrastructure and systems of national significance. But how often is this consequence discussed? I clearly and definitively support the move to cleaner energy sources for the future of our planet. The coalition has worked hard and Australia has achieved greater outcomes when it comes to reducing emissions than many other nations over the past decade, including those who claim the symbolism of being climate warriors. Between 2005 and 2019 Australia reduced our emissions more quickly than Canada, Japan, New Zealand and the United States. Australia has a strong record of meeting our targets, having beaten our 2020 Kyoto target by 459 million tons. On this side of the House we believe we can achieve net zero through technology, not taxes. We are committed to ongoing practical action, not empty symbolism. Symbolism should not be pursued at a pace that puts lives, livelihoods or our national security at risk. It should not be pursued at a pace that means pensioners can't afford to heat their homes in winter or turn on their air conditioning in summer. It should not be pursued at a pace that means our manufacturers decide to relocate offshore. And let's make no mistake: if we drive up energy costs here or create an unreliable supply, our manufacturers will have little to no choice but to take their production to countries that do not have such a punitive ideological approach to energy supply. This is the last thing we need, especially after the pandemic revealed the need to bolster our sovereign capability rather than remain reliant on international supply chains. I am deeply concerned that we have lost all sense of rationality and common sense when it comes to the climate debate. We are being driven by emotive arguments that don't examine practical outcomes. We have terrified young people into a religious activism of sorts. Many of these kids have no concept of how electricity is produced, what baseload power is and why it's necessary. We've substituted logic for emotion, action for symbolism, and the outcome of this will be a range of unintended, ill-considered consequences that will impact our way of life and our future prosperity. We are seeing the same symbolism, with little regard for analysis, in the way the government is bullishly pursuing enshrining an Indigenous Voice in the Constitution. They are actually insisting that they won't tell us how it will operate and what it will mean for the way our nation is governed. They tell us we should not worry about the practical details, because it feels like the right thing to do. That is no way to make a serious decision. It's certainly no way to run a country. We're seeing ideology trump common sense in Labor's move to abolish the cashless debit card, which has benefited some of our most vulnerable Australians. We are seeing ideology prioritised over border security in Labor's policy to abolish temporary protection visas—one of the three key pillars of Operation Sovereign Borders. And the ridiculous thing is that they abolished them last time they were in government, and more than 800 boats and 50,000 people arrived illegally. We are still paying for and dealing with the consequences of that emotive, ideological decision. So tonight my grievance is with the emotive, ideological approach that this government is taking to some of the serious issues that we face as a nation. At a time of great challenge, we need clear thinking, practical action and sensible outcomes. This parliament must be dedicated to fixing problems, not creating bigger ones, no matter the good intentions and the motives. As the old saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I'd also point out that ideology alone doesn't put food on the table, and it doesn't keep the lights on. Ultimately, while it might feel good, it also doesn't lift people out of poverty or make our community stronger. I look forward to working constructively to point out the practical consequences of this government's agenda and what it means for the future of our nation. Gilmore Electorate: NAIDOC Week, Gilmore Electorate: Community Events, Australian Constitution: First Nations Voice 110 18:40 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore On the week of 3 to 10 July we celebrated NAIDOC Week. I want to take the opportunity to tell the House about a couple of fantastic events I attended recently to celebrate NAIDOC Week and our local Indigenous community and why they were so important. The Mogo Aboriginal community in my electorate of Gilmore has been through a lot. Mogo was absolutely devastated by the bushfires that ripped through the South Coast on New Year's Eve 2019. So much of the village was destroyed by fire, including the Mogo Local Aboriginal Land Council office. The site has only recently been cleaned enough to look at rebuilding, and that work is slowly starting. Many local Aboriginal people lost their homes and were forced to relocate for some time while they rebuilt. Many chose to stay and live however they could because they just couldn't face moving away from their community support. Then came COVID-19 and things got worse for a lot of people. So it was really wonderful to come together with the local community to celebrate the Mogo NAIDOC Big Day Out event during NAIDOC Week. This was the first time the community had been able to celebrate a big day out since the bushfires, so it's fair to say it was a really special occasion and very much needed. It was truly heartwarming to see the community come together to celebrate culture in the greatest of ways. There was a traditional smoking ceremony and a welcome to country performed by Walbunja elder Aunty Gloria Nye; cultural dancing by Muladha Gamara, which was a real hit with the community; live music; and community stalls. There were even free native plants for people to take home. There was fun for the whole family, complete with carnival rides, a jumping castle and lots of kids activities. It was truly beautiful to see local families enjoying their time together, enjoying the local arts and crafts, chatting to local services and just coming back together to enjoy and celebrate cultural heritage, to celebrate community. I would like to sincerely thank the Mogo NAIDOC committee for organising and hosting the day, as well as all the local government and community services and contributors—far too many to name here. Thank you, everyone, and thank you to the community for supporting this most wonderful day. I know, like many others, we certainly thoroughly enjoyed it. I have been really humbled to help the Mogo community rebuild after the bushfires in as many ways as I can, and cultural heritage is such an important part of that. Before the bushfires destroyed much of the Mogo Public School's grounds, I secured the school a $15,000 grant to build a yarning circle. I was really pleased in the months after the bushfires to see the amazing work being done by volunteers, like The Block crewmembers and suppliers from local businesses, who joined together to rebuild the school's outdoor area with the support of Westpac bank and selfless donations from the Mogo community. When the yarning circle was finally complete, in April 2021, after not only the bushfires but also the floods and then COVID-19, it was another really special moment to celebrate its opening with the school community. Thank you again to everyone who made that possible. I can't wait to celebrate so many more beautiful community days with this wonderful community as we continue working together to rebuild. This Sunday I had the absolute honour of attending the Boongaree Reconciliation Garden tree-planting day at Bundewallah Creek, near Berry. The event was to mark National Tree Day and to start the building of a reconciliation garden on Jerrinja tribal country. This is a joint venture with the community, Boongaree Bush Care, the Jerrinja tribe, Berry Landcare, sponsors, government, the Jerrinja Local Aboriginal Land Council and the Nowra Local Aboriginal Land Council. Even the local Berry Public School's plant propagation unit helped grow many of the trees so that we can preserve our local biodiversity. At the event, there was a traditional Jerrinja tribal welcome to country by Aunty Grace Crossley—thank you, Aunty Grace—and the planting of a ceremonial tree, followed by the planting of 600 trees and by a wonderful community barbecue. The purpose of the Boongaree Reconciliation Garden is to provide an inspiring space for the community to connect with our local Indigenous culture. The garden is just the latest stage in the Boongaree development, which has been transforming this part of Berry, making it a wonderful community space. Shoalhaven City Council has been working with the local community to develop the concept design, and that work is ongoing. I truly cannot wait to see how this garden develops. I just know it is going to be an absolutely spectacular and special place. I'd like to thank Boongaree Bush Care and, in particular, the site coordinator, Hugh; the Jerrinja Local Aboriginal Land Council and the Jerrinja community—in particular Jerrinja tribal elder Ron Carberry, for his instrumental work on the garden; Nowra Local Aboriginal Land Council; Berry Landcare; Shoalhaven City Council; and all of the partners that made this day such a beautiful celebration of culture, reconciliation and understanding. You see, wonderful community events like Boongaree's National Tree Day and Mogo's Big Day Out have so many special purposes. Of course, they are a chance for the local Indigenous community to join together and create that cultural connection and sense of belonging. I know separation was something the community really struggled with during COVID-19. These events give these communities the chance to celebrate heritage, to see their traditions live on and to pass them down to the next generation. Cultural ceremony is such an important thing for our Indigenous communities. But there is another purpose as well. It also gives the broader community a chance to celebrate with our Indigenous brothers and sisters. It gives us a chance to learn about their heritage and traditions. Our understanding can grow. Our tolerance and our acceptance can grow too so we can all truly feel like one community. We can move together in kindness, in unity and in the same spirit, working towards the same goals and building a better future. This is why we need to have an Indigenous voice to our nation's parliament: not to create difference or a divide but to create unity, to bring us together in understanding and in love. Our Indigenous communities deserve to have a say—a real say—in policies that impact them, because there is so much between us that is the same but there is so much between us that is different and so much that we still need to learn. We can continue along this same path, where we as a government try to tell Indigenous communities what is good for them and what they need, and, as often happens, we will get it wrong. We will do more harm, and we will then have to come along and undo it, scrap the script and try again. We've seen this before. We've been here before, and we know it doesn't work. So it is time for a reset—time to shift gears. Instead of telling, we need to listen, drop the divide and bring us all together, just as we did at Mogo's Big Day Out and just as we did at Boongaree's tree-planting day. This past weekend, I was incredibly proud, excited and humbled to see our Prime Minister stand up at the Garma Festival and set out our way forward on the Uluru Statement from the Heart by enshrining a First Nations Voice to parliament. The question is simple—do you support it?—but it is so absolutely important. There isn't anything radical here—nothing crazy. It is just a chance for us to move forward together as a country for a better future. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples deserve to be in our founding document. They deserve that recognition, that symbol. Even now, there is still a lot of hurt in Indigenous communities. No one symbol will undo the wrongs of the past, but it is a good start. But, more than a symbol, our Indigenous people deserve a say in the laws that impact them. There has been no mechanism for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to provide advice to the Australian parliament, and I truly believe now is the time to change that. So let's have the conversation. Let's get the referendum moving. We want to build consensus on this, and that is the next step that an Albanese Labor government will take. I think it's really important, though, to ask one thing of all sides of this conversation: please, from the bottom of my heart—please—let's conduct this conversation respectfully. Let's keep in mind how much hurt there is. Let's keep in mind how tough the past few years have been for everyone but that the last 100 years have been tough for our Indigenous communities. And let's all make a genuine effort not to create more harm or more hurt. Let's be kind to each other and kind to our neighbours. Let's take the time to learn to understand and to really think about what it means, not just to us but to others and to our country. We should move forward with this conversation—with that spirit, with that sense of community and of belonging together. We can build a better future together, so let's get on with it. COVID-19: Australian Labor Party, COVID-19: Aged Care 112 18:50 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff When COVID hit in early 2020, it was impossible to know the scale of the damage that it would do to our country. For the last 2½ years, Australians have followed the health advice to the letter; our chief medical officers and chief health officers have provided advice to both federal and state governments around the pandemic. We've had our vaccinations. I myself have had—I've almost lost count now—three, I think, so far, and I'm probably due for another one soon. We've worn our masks, we've socially distanced and we stayed at home for months at a time when the virus ran rampant through our cities. Many of us in this place actually isolated for two weeks at a time after each sitting of parliament, so there are many in this place who have been very much impacted by the lockdowns. But as we learn to live with the virus, we need to remember that the pandemic is not over. We also need to remember that it was under our government that we actually rolled out the plan to learn to live with the virus, to get to the stage we're at right now, where we are able to move between states and we're not in a lockdown environment. It was our government that delivered that national plan, for those Australians who might be listening—but especially for those living and working in aged care or with loved ones in aged care, and that's what I want to talk about tonight. At the start of the pandemic, Labor played a fairly bipartisan role. Instead of tearing us down and having a go at us, they worked with us. They did, at that time, and they championed the health advice. But, in true Labor style, that quickly turned into political attacks undermining not only the government but also the advice from some of the best health experts in the world. Labor even preselected a candidate who repeatedly made anti-AstraZeneca comments throughout the vaccine rollout. In my own state of Queensland, there was also some anti-AstraZeneca sentiment coming from the now Governor, which at the time was inappropriate and had a dangerous impact on those having AstraZeneca. I myself had AstraZeneca, being in that age group. Then that changed, and I was thankfully fine with the AstraZeneca vaccine. But that's how much they respected the advice from the top medical experts across our country. With more than 20 million lives saved worldwide with COVID-19 vaccines, it's the AstraZeneca vaccine that has saved many more lives than any other. If Labor weren't attacking us on COVID-19 vaccines, then they were attacking us on aged care. It's interesting that Labor said one thing when they were in opposition, about the work we did to protect aged-care residents and staff during COVID-19, but now that they're in government the talking points have changed—speaking out of both sides of the mouth, in true Labor style. When the now Prime Minister was in opposition, he loved to say that the aged-care sector was in crisis. Well, it's pretty clear that, since Labor came into government, less than three months ago, the crisis has worsened. I'll just go through some numbers with you. When Labor were sworn in, in May, there were 6,274 active COVID-19 cases in 780 active outbreaks in residential aged-care facilities across the nation. By 29 July, so from May to the end of July, that number had increased drastically, to 9,906 active COVID-19 cases in 1,064 active outbreaks in residential aged-care facilities across the country. There was also an increase in deaths, sadly. Of course, every single death across the country that is related to COVID or that is related to anything across the country is a terrible travesty, but I'm talking particularly about the deaths from COVID and particularly in aged-care homes around the country. There was an increase in deaths from 2,400 in May to 3,300 at the end of July in aged care alone. These are pretty big numbers on Labor's watch. That's just under 100 deaths a week in aged care under the Albanese government and almost more than the number of deaths in aged care in 2020 and 2021 combined. Clearly, there has been a massive increase in cases in aged care and a massive increase in deaths in aged care on Labor's watch. In my home state of Queensland there were more than 40 deaths in aged care in July alone. I note the aged-care minister has already been out this week saying that aged-care residents are safer this winter than they were in previous winters, which is completely at odds with the rising figures of cases and deaths in aged care. Last year the now Minister for Health and Aged Care attacked our record on COVID-19 deaths in aged care, saying, 'Tragically, 685 Australians died in aged-care homes from COVID-19 because the Morrison government didn't have a plan.' I say to Minister Butler and his government that if that is the benchmark, what is Labor's plan? Do they even have a plan or are they just putting a bandaid solution on a bandaid solution and hoping that Australians turn the other eye. With vaccination rates in aged care declining and a worsening workforce shortage, the government's decision to extend ADF support until September is just another temporary solution. The government is facing rising numbers of cases and of deaths, and it's clear it has no idea what it is doing when it comes to COVID-19 or to aged care. This also shows that Labor's promise for 24/7 nurses in aged care is just an empty promise. There are clearly workforce challenges associated with that, which we heard today in the other chamber. There is no quick fix from Labor. Labor still hasn't explained how it plans to support the workforce or how it will prioritise the needs of senior Australians in care. If it can't sort out the workforce now, how can it possibly attract the thousands of nurses it needs to fulfil that promise to Australians? I don't see how they are going to be able to do it. It's easy to throw stones from the other side when you've never actually had to guide a nation through once-in-100-years pandemic. They should have been paying attention when we were in government, rather than just running attack lines through the media. I'm incredibly proud to have been a member of the Morrison government during the last parliament. Under the leadership of Scott Morrison, Josh Frydenberg and Greg Hunt we invested over $45 million in our COVID-19 health response and $314 billion in economic support. Our vaccination rates were among the highest in the world and our loss of life was one of the lowest in the world. From the outset of the pandemic aged care was a major focus for the Morrison government, and we undertook significant measures to protect aged-care residents, staff and their families. We provided millions of units of PPE from the National Medical Stockpile, millions of rapid antigen tests, ADF support, surge workforce support, and additional payments to aged-care staff to recognise the extra work that they were undertaking, and I'm sure they remember that. It was also our government who called the royal commission into aged care, so as to ensure that Australians can access the respect, dignity and care that they deserve. We had a comprehensive response. Five key pillars were outlined by the minister—home care, residential aged-care services and sustainability, residential aged-care quality and safety, workforce, and governance—and there was an investment of $19.1 billion and, as part of a response, a plan to support the aged-care workforce, which is more than can be said for Labor. So again I ask the government: what is it doing to reduce the increased number of deaths in aged care and protect our most vulnerable during COVID-19? And while, as I said, every loss of life is a deep tragedy, this government needs to be up-front with aged-care residents, with staff and with their families about what their plan is, because 800 deaths in the aged-care sector since May is simply not good enough. The government needs to do more to protect our vulnerable Australians during this current omicron wave, and clearly they haven't been doing enough when it comes to those five key pillars set out by Minister Hunt when he was the Minister of Health and Aged Care in terms of moving forward with the sector to protect those most vulnerable Australians who are in aged care. I call this government to do more—to do more for quality, to do more for safety, to do more around the current omicron wave that is going through aged care and to do more to reduce the death rate. Moreton Electorate: Koalas, Moreton Electorate: Infrastructure 114 19:00 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I want to share this really great story about koalas in my electorate. My electorate takes in Toohey Forest, an ecological island in suburbia, just 10 km from the Brisbane CBD, surrounded by residences and industrial estates. The 260-hectare Toohey Forest is home to koalas, short-beaked echidnas, lace monitors, bearded dragons, squirrel gliders, wallabies, an array of birdlife and over 400 species of native wildlife and plant species. Many locals use the many walking trails and riding trails and enjoy seeing koalas and other fauna in their natural habitat. The forest merges into Griffith University's Nathan and Mt Gravatt campuses. A few years ago one of the koalas got into the habit of repeatedly crossing Ring Road, which runs around the Nathan campus. For some reason this very determined koala decided to cross the road at about the same time in the same place every afternoon. To prevent anything from happening to their beloved koala, a campus security guard was assigned to guide the koala across the road each afternoon. For several days the guard stood next to the tree around the time the koala took its journey. When the animal came down to ground level the guard watched and stopped traffic so that the koala didn't get hurt. Now, that is Griffith University service! No wonder that university actually has the numbers in the Labor executive government at the moment. It's quite amazing. Where the koalas in Toohey Forest come from is a bit of a mystery, but according to Griffith University researchers they started reappearing a decade or so ago. The koalas appear to be thriving, and their numbers in the 260-hectare forest have become clear only recently, mainly thanks to the work of a great local, Brad Lambert, who is also a senior teacher with Toohey Forest Environmental Education Centre. Brad has recorded all the wildlife that he's found in Toohey Forest on the Atlas of Living Australia website. He's also started a Toohey Forest wildlife Facebook page to engage with the community, with the vision statement 'Inspiring conservation by connecting communities to nature'. This fauna-rich habitat is intersected by a very busy Toohey Road. Koalas and other small animals are at risk from the speeding traffic. I'm pleased that an Albanese Labor government is investing in a fauna crossing under Toohey Road that will let our koalas and other small animals move between the eastern and western sides of their urban habitat. This crossing will hopefully protect our local koalas in the same way that the Griffith University security guard protected that road-crossing koala—but without paying the overtime! Koalas are an endangered species, sadly. Australians need to take their protection seriously. The fauna crossing will ensure that the koala colony living in our precious urban forest will be protected. I also want to commend the Palaszczuk government for their announcement today on securing more land to protect the koalas in the Coomera Connector corridor. My office is located in Sunnybank. People travel to this suburb from all over Brisbane to enjoy the rich cultural, food and shopping experience of this vibrant and bustling precinct. The thriving Sunnybank Plaza and Sunny Park shopping centres are separated by Mains Road, and the bus stops on either side of Mains Road are used by commuters and students travelling into the city. More than 5,000 people use this pedestrian bridge, spanning Mains Road, every day. This bridge has needed an upgrade for quite a few years. I repeatedly brought this important issue to the attention of Brisbane City Council Lord Mayor Schrinner, but my letters since 2019 asking for an upgrade to the pedestrian bridge have been ignored. So I'm pleased to announce that the Albanese Labor government will step up and provide $2 million to get this pedestrian crossing sorted. The upgrade will include elevators on both sides to improve accessibility for seniors, people with disability and those with small children, as well as new security cameras that will provide improved safety for the more than 5,000 pedestrians crossing over Mains Road each day. The 'Dragon Bridge' upgrade will celebrate the rich cultural melting pot that is Sunnybank. The dragon is a significant symbol for my Asian communities. Many people were attracted to this part of the south side of the Brisbane River because, if you look at it from the air, it appears to be the heart of an enormous dragon that curls from the bay in and then snakes around Brisbane's CBD. One feng shui interpretation is that Sunnybank is a place of good fortune and good luck—the dragon's heart. After two years of a pandemic and counting, the local businesses connected by the dragon bridge could do with a bit of luck. The bridge will hopefully be a very distinctive landmark, right in the heart of Brisbane's vibrant Asian diaspora communities. The upgraded bridge will provide easier passage between the shops, restaurants, schools, aged-care facilities et cetera on either side of the very busy Mains Road. The upgrade will be delivered in consultation with local government, state government, local business groups and the local community. I'm also very excited that an Albanese Labor government will supercharge the benefits of household solar by delivering a community battery for Moorooka. Around 1,400 households in the Moorooka area have rooftop solar, but the high price of household batteries means that families are still struggling to realise the full potential of rooftop panels, and it's putting more pressure on our electricity grid. Local households who might be unable to instal solar, like renters and people living in apartments, will also be able to draw from excess energy stored in this community battery. This is a local and practical example of how, with a good Labor government, we can reduce emissions, boost renewable energy and make sure people's electricity bills are lower. Labor's commitment to invest in funds to remove the Coopers Plains level crossing will mean that we are moving closer to finally removing one of Brisbane's worst rail crossings. This level crossing has been identified by RACQ as one of Queensland's worst and most dangerous. The Coopers Plains level crossing traverses three separate rail tracks on the Beenleigh and Gold Coast lines. The boom gates are lowered 138 times each day, causing frustration for motorists and pedestrians, who have to wait for the trains to pass. With as many as 1,000 cars and trucks passing the level crossing each hour, there have been numerous accidents, including over 28 cases of cars hitting the boom gates over the past seven years. That's too many close calls. We know that the number of passenger and freight trains using these lines will increase in coming years, particularly as Cross River Rail kicks off. This project will be delivered in partnership with the Palaszczuk state government, and I thank Mark Bailey for his contribution, and Peter Russo—my state colleagues—and the Brisbane City Council, with some great advocacy from Moorooka Ward Labor councillor Steve Griffiths. But there's more work to be done. Residents of Coopers Plains have already been consulted on the two options that the Department of Transport and Main Roads released earlier this year. The Palaszczuk Labor government and the Albanese Labor government have both committed a third each—around $133 million—to fix the crossing; however, the Brisbane City Council has only committed one-tenth of the cost. Brisbane City Council is only going to stump up $40 million. So I'm calling on the LNP Brisbane City Council to pay their fair share. The LNP Brisbane City Council has committed 50 per cent in the past to build two level crossings on the north side of the river. So all I am asking is for the council to commit one-third of the project cost, not half, and the Coopers Plains level crossing would then be fully funded. Infrastructure investments like this deliver a better life for locals across Brisbane, and the Moreton community deserve the infrastructure that those on the north side of the river get. By removing this dangerous crossing, not only will an Albanese Labor government allow locals to spend more time at home and less time on the congested roads; it will deliver safer roads to the local drivers, pedestrians and kids going to Coopers Plains State School, and obviously will make life easier for the train drivers on this busy corridor. The Albanese Labor government will help unblock congestion and deliver more jobs and a better future for local families. It was actually the former federal Labor government, the Rudd-Gillard governments, that fully funded the $280 million upgrade of the intersection between Mains Road and Kessels Road, also a notorious choke point. That project was completed in mid-2014. It was kicked off by me and the Rudd-Gillard governments. This project has greatly improved safety and reduced congestion along the corridor that connects the busy Ipswich, Pacific and Gateway motorways. Federal Labor has a strong record of delivering for Brisbane's south side. I'm very pleased to be a part of the federal Labor government, which will deliver some much-needed infrastructure in my electorate. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 There being no further grievances, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:10