2022-09-08 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Thursday, 8 September 2022

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Milton Dick ) took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

 

BILLS 1 BILLS High Speed Rail Authority Bill 2022 1

High Speed Rail Authority Bill 2022

First Reading 1 Second Reading 1 09:01 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I rise to introduce this bill to establish a High-Speed Rail Authority as an independent body to advise on, plan and develop the high-speed rail system in Australia. There has been very little action to progress high-speed rail in Australia until now. This government is absolutely committed to establishing this authority to oversee the construction and operation of a high-speed rail network along Australia's eastern seaboard. The High-Speed Rail Authority will reinvigorate work on this very important nation-building project, and Australians will no longer miss out on high-speed rail. The benefits identified in the former Labor government's comprehensive two-stage rail study were significant, not just in substantially reducing travel times; but also unlocking regional economies, providing significant employment opportunities, and supplying a remarkable economic boost in the medium and long term. The study found that, for every dollar of costs, there would be a return of $2.30 in benefits to society. The evidence has shown that without high-speed rail, Australia is missing out on significant opportunities, which is why the authority is being established. The authority will provide expert independent advice and work with the Victorian, New South Wales (NSW), Australian Capital Territory, and Queensland governments, local government and the private sector to drive this change. A high-speed rail network will revolutionise interstate travel in Australia, significantly reducing travel time to move between capital cities compared to other modes of travel. Imagine a high-speed train connecting capital cities from Melbourne, to Canberra, to Sydney, to Brisbane, all across our regional centres, through our semi-urban populations, straight to our international hubs with trips taking as little as three hours. We will no longer be behind the rest of the developed world when it comes to land infrastructure and technology. Japan introduced its first bullet train in 1964, France in 1981, and China introduced in 2003. These countries have since grown their high-speed networks, increased their top train speeds, and now celebrate annual patronage in the hundreds of millions on their high-speed rail networks. Let's get on board and give the Australian public a modern efficient, and high-speed rail network. A well-patronised high-speed rail service will assist us to meet our net zero commitment by providing lower ongoing energy and greenhouse gas emissions than interstate travel by air, and has an added benefit of reducing road traffic. Settlement patterns across Australia's east coast will be transformed, alleviating pressure on outer suburban areas and growth corridors in major cities. The construction of high-speed rail will secure significant jobs for the economy, impacting all Australians. Through Labor's National Rail Manufacturing Plan, administered by the minister for industry, here in the chamber today, the Australian government will ensure that more trains are built here in Australia by local manufacturing, local workers, and that every dollar of federal funding spent on rail projects will go towards creating local jobs and providing a sustainable industry, and a sustainable manufacturing industry in particular. This bill will ensure that high-speed rail is progressed in Australia, with the immediate priority of updated analysis and commencing work on an initial connection between Sydney and Newcastle. Once established we'll begin work on planning and overseeing the construction of a reliable, safe, efficient and cost-effective high-speed rail network. As a statutory agency, the authority will provide independent and impartial advice on the policy and standards, develop business cases and secure corridors. Specific measures will be taken to prevent and reduce the environmental impact on surrounding land and the authority will coordinate and consult with state and territory governments, industry, business and communities to enhance Australia's long-term trail investment. Faster rail will continue under the authority. Whilst the National Faster Rail Agency will be ceased, its functions will be absorbed into the authority and the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts to retain the existing capability and expertise and ensure that both faster rail and high-speed rail are delivered. High-speed rail and faster rail will help all Australians to secure jobs, and to build a better future for our regions, and to reinvigorate manufacturing in Australia. We know there is a very strong interest internationally and from the private sector with experience in high-speed rail. The authority will work with consortiums collaboratively and with transparency to investigate alternate funding and financing opportunities including value uplift. The authority will also commence work to secure corridors now and not waste any opportunity. We have already as a government committed $500 million to commence early works and secure corridors for the rail connection between Sydney, the Central Coast and Newcastle. The government will continue negotiations with the New South Wales government on the allocation and other investment options to be identified between the Australian government and New South Wales government further down the line. As a government, it's expected that we serve the Australian community and that we improve the lives of Australian people. Establishing the High-Speed Rail Authority and investing in high-speed rail will improve the lives of all Australians and transform this country. The time is now. We need to stop procrastinating and start taking action to actually deliver high-speed rail. This is a long-term project with significant benefits and it's not just about a political cycle but rather a focus on Australia's future, and particularly the focus on our regions. A high-speed rail network along the east coast of Australia will truly be a transformational project that has the ability to touch the lives of all Australians. It's a project that has the support of the regions and cities, of businesses and industries. Now is the time to complete transformational infrastructure projects that not only sets Australia up for the future but also provides jobs and opportunities immediately. High-speed rail will be an economic game changer for the country and will improve growth, access and sustainability. It will provide countless social benefits long into the future and create broad economic benefits for our regional centres. The bill I'm introducing today will allow all of these things to finally happen in this parliament. We must not delay the Australian public any longer. Let's give our fellow Australians the bipartisan support to pass this bill to let the authority commence its work to make high-speed rail a reality and invest in our country's future. Debate adjourned. Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill 2022 2

Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill 2022

First Reading 2 Second Reading 2 09:09 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Terrorism remains a real and enduring challenge for Australia—for our social cohesion and for the safety of individuals. We must protect Australia against immediate and developing threats and continue to build a more resilient and cohesive nation. To this end, this bill provides for the continuation of key counterterrorism powers that ensure the safety and security of all Australians: the emergency stop, search and seizure powers in the Crimes Act, the control order regime, and the preventative detention order regime. The powers are currently due to sunset on 7 December 2022. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security conducted a statutory review of these powers during the term of the last parliament and presented its report in October 2021. The committee unanimously supported the extension of the powers subject to certain amendments, including the introduction of additional safeguards. Due to the complexity of a number of the committee's proposed amendments, and the need to consult with states and territories in relation to any proposed amendments to part 5.3 of the Criminal Code Act 1995, there is not enough time before the end of the year to: finalise the government's response to the committee's report and each of its detailed recommendations; draft legislation to implement the government's response; consult with, and obtain the agreement of, state and territory governments to draft legislation; and introduce and secure passage of the legislation through the parliament. This bill would extend the relevant sunset dates by 12 months so that there is sufficient time to consult on, and then implement, the government's response to the committee's bipartisan recommendations over the coming months. Such an approach strikes an appropriate balance between ensuring that agencies continue to have access to powers that are a critical part of Australia's existing counterterrorism framework, on the one hand, and responding in a considered and appropriate fashion to unanimous and bipartisan recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for more robust safeguards, on the other. The government is committed to protecting the safety and security of all Australians by ensuring that law enforcement and security agencies have the powers they need to carry out their essential work. At the same time, the government is also committed to ensuring that all coercive and intrusive powers are subject to appropriate safeguards and oversight—as befits a country committed to upholding and promoting the rule of law. Stop, search and seizure powers The emergency stop, search and seizure powers in the Crimes Act ensure that people are able to respond consistently and effectively to a terrorist incident or threat. The powers allow police to request a person's name, address and other details; they allow police to conduct a search for a terrorism related item and to seize such an item; and they allow police to enter premises without a warrant to prevent a serious and imminent threat to a person's life, health or safety. Control orders Control orders under division 104 of the Criminal Code allow federal courts to impose an order that places certain obligations, prohibitions and restrictions on an individual reasonably suspected of involvement in terrorism activity. The conditions must be reasonably necessary and reasonably appropriate and adapted to protect the public from a terrorist act. Preventative detention orders Preventative detention orders under division 105 of the Criminal Code allow a person to be detained without charge. These extraordinary powers can only be used where the AFP reasonably suspects an attack could occur within 14 days, or in the aftermath of a terrorist attack to preserve vital evidence. Collectively, these AFP powers have been used sparingly since they were enacted. As of 25 August 2022, 23 control orders have been made since September 2014, when the national terrorism threat level was raised, including only one control order against a person under 18 years of age. No preventive detention orders have been made, and no incidents have required the use of the emergency stop, search and seizure powers. Although these powers have not been used to date, this demonstrates that the AFP have been appropriately judicious in exercising these exceptional powers. Concluding remarks I acknowledge and appreciate the ongoing and valuable role of the PJCIS in reviewing intelligence and security powers. The government looks forward to providing a comprehensive response to all 19 recommendations of the AFP powers review in due course. I also value the continuing partnership with states and territories in our shared efforts to protect the Australian community. The amendments to part 5.3 of the Criminal Code have been approved by a majority of states and territories, as required by the Intergovernmental Agreement on Counter-Terrorism Laws. This bill provides for the continuation of important counterterrorism powers that ensure the safety and security of all Australians. They ensure that Australia's law enforcement agencies continue to be able to manage the evolving national security and threat environment, while protecting individual rights through strong and effective oversight and safeguards. Debate adjourned. Atomic Energy Amendment (Mine Rehabilitation and Closure) Bill 2022 3

Atomic Energy Amendment (Mine Rehabilitation and Closure) Bill 2022

First Reading 3 Second Reading 4 09:17 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I move: That this bill be now read a second time. It is a longstanding legislative requirement that the Ranger Uranium Mine must be restored to a condition similar to the surrounding Kakadu National Park in the Northern Territory. For such an environmentally, culturally and historically important region, only the highest standard of rehabilitation will do. Today, I introduce the Atomic Energy Amendment (Mine Rehabilitation and Closure) Bill 2022. This bill is the first step towards ensuring the unique environmental requirements prescribed at Ranger remain legal obligations until Ranger's rehabilitation is complete. When Ranger was established 40 years ago, it was envisaged that rehabilitation would take five years and be completed by January 2026, when current regulatory arrangements lapse. However, based on the best environmental science of today, it is apparent that Ranger's rehabilitation will take longer. Accordingly, the government is acting to extend Ranger's regulatory framework until the job is complete. The bill enacts a number of measures for securing Ranger's full rehabilitation and eventual closure. Firstly, the bill allows the mine's operator, Energy Resources of Australia, ERA, to transition to a new authority that permits its rehabilitation to be continued at Ranger beyond January 2026. This in no way reflects ERA's performance at Ranger. ERA has long been progressively rehabilitating Ranger, and it is well advanced with the task—for instance, one of the mined-out pits is now fully backfilled, with Mirarr traditional owners participating in the first revegetation planting. The reason for allowing a new authority is simply that more time is needed to complete rehabilitation. ERA acknowledges this. Mirarr traditional owners acknowledge this. Environment groups acknowledge this. But the current Atomic Energy Act simply does not allow the government to extend ERA's authority. The bill will also enable progressive closing out of the site. This means that discrete parcels of land at the Ranger mine—some of which are relatively undisturbed—can transition back to underlying Aboriginal land tenure when ERA is deemed to have rehabilitated those areas. The Northern Land Council have asked that Ranger be progressively closed out so that Ranger's Mirarr traditional owners can get on country as soon as it is safe to do so. Recognising that the Ranger mine was established under controversial circumstances, it is equally important parliament is clear about what this bill does not do. The bill does not permit the re-commencement of mining at Ranger. It is entirely focussed on rehabilitation and closure. The bill does not allow the standard or quality of rehabilitation that ERA must achieve at Ranger to be increased or decreased. The longstanding environmental requirements will remain in place. The bill does not reduce the longstanding liability that the Australian government has accepted for Ranger's rehabilitation. The bill does not reduce or diminish the role of the Northern Land Council or the Supervising Scientist, both of which will continue to play critical roles in Ranger's rehabilitation, monitoring and closure. The bill does not pose regulatory implications for the broader uranium industry. The bill concerns only the Ranger site, since it is the only mine subject to an authority under the Atomic Energy Act. Many people today who were not around in the 1970s will not remember the history of the Ranger uranium mine. To say that Ranger was opposed by the Mirarr traditional owners is an understatement. Ranger became a flashpoint in the struggle of land rights, attracting national media attention and protests. And many people today may not appreciate that Ranger's history is also intrinsically linked to the Kakadu National Park which, like the uranium mine at Ranger, was established without the agreement of traditional owners. Fast forward almost half a century later to March this year; in opposition we supported the long-awaited return of the remaining half of Kakadu National Park back to the 13 clan groups. This was a milestone in the unfinished business of Aboriginal culture and history in Australia. Now, in government, we are putting forward amendments through this bill that will take the next step toward the eventual return of Ranger to its Aboriginal traditional owners. This too will form part of the story of this country's unfinished business. In concluding, I wish to thank ERA, the Northern Land Council and the Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation representing the Mirarr people for their close engagement on this bill. Ranger's rehabilitation is a priority for all parties and we all look forward to seeing Ranger being a world-class example of mine rehabilitation. I commend this bill to the chamber. Debate adjourned. Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2022 5

Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2022

First Reading 5 Second Reading 5 09:23 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2022 This Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2022 establishes the Financial Accountability Regime, or FAR, which replaces and extends the Banking Executive Accountability Regime following a number of recommendations from the Hayne royal commission. The bill underscores the government's commitment to finalise the action necessary to fully address the recommendations of the Hayne banking royal commission and implement measures that compel the financial services industry to act in the public's interest. Financial services executives make decisions that impact upon the lives of ordinary Australians, who have no choice other than to engage with the system that they operate. As a result, the community reasonably expects high standards of accountability and integrity of financial services directors and executives. The banking royal commission revealed too many instances of misconduct across the sector and highlighted that industry practices often did not meet community expectations. These issues were frequently found to be systemic and part of corporate cultures that can only be improved and remedied from the top down. The bill would establish the FAR, with the same design specifications proposed by legislation introduced by the former government in October 2021, which lapsed when parliament was dissolved. The requests made by the former Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and the Senate Economics Legislation Committee were considered and have been addressed in the explanatory memorandum accompanying this bill. The FAR would extend the existing responsibility and accountability framework to the insurance and superannuation sectors to ensure that heightened accountability obligations are in place across the wider financial industry. The FAR ensures that, where these community expectations are not met, appropriate consequences will follow. I'd now like to turn to the provisions of the bill. The FAR imposes heightened accountability obligations for prudentially regulated financial institutions, meaning banks, insurers and superannuation entities. These institutions are referred to as accountable entities within the regime. The FAR regulates directors and the most senior and influential executives of accountable entities. These individuals are referred to as accountable persons within the regime. The FAR imposes four core sets of obligations. First, accountable entities and accountable persons must conduct their business in a proper manner, which includes acting with honesty and integrity and with due skill, care and diligence; dealing with the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) in an open, constructive and cooperative way; preventing adverse impact on the accountable entities' prudential standing; and, finally, preventing breaches of certain specified financial services laws by their accountable entity. Further, accountable entities must ensure clear identification of accountabilities for accountable persons in the organisation across key areas of operation and defer at least 40 per cent of the variable remuneration of accountable persons for a minimum of four years. Variable remuneration will be reduced where accountability obligations are breached. Ensuring there are financial consequences for accountable persons who do not meet their obligations will increase their focus on the long-term outcomes of their decisions. The FAR will be supported by the imposition of notification obligations which require accountable entities to provide APRA and ASIC with certain information, such as information relating to the responsibilities of their accountable persons or breaches of certain obligations by accountable entities or their accountable persons. Both APRA and ASIC will jointly administer the regime. They will have the power to disqualify accountable persons, investigate suspected breaches of the regime and direct entities to take remedial action and to apply to the Federal Court to impose a civil penalty on accountable entities. The FAR will apply to the banking industry six months after royal assent and to the insurance and superannuation industries 18 months after royal assent. Through this bill, the government is finalising the necessary action to ensure that financial institutions are meeting the community's expectations and shifting their focus from profit at all costs to outcomes for all Australians. Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Financial Sector Reform Bill 2022 6

Financial Sector Reform Bill 2022

First Reading 6 Second Reading 6 09:31 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Financial Sector Reform Bill 2022 is part of a package of bills that finalises a number of remaining recommendations from the banking royal commission. It also delivers on the government's commitment to ensure safe and well-regulated consumer markets for credit products, such as small amount credit contracts—also known as payday loans—and consumer leases. It is disappointing that I have to introduce these measures here today. These measures all should have been implemented and introduced by the previous government. In February 2019, the former Treasurer promised to deliver his response to the banking royal commission within two years. Even with Labor's full support, the coalition chose not to prioritise the measures contained within this bill that implement the response to the banking royal commission. The measures relating to small amount credit contracts date back even further—back to a 2016 report that laid out a clear path for the government to act on payday lending. For nearly six years, the Turnbull-Morrison government failed to act on this report. These failures reflect the coalition's continued unwillingness to stand with Australians against misconduct in the financial services sector. This is a coalition that voted against the banking royal commission 26 times before finally acceding to it. Nevertheless, I hope that we are able to secure the parliament's and the opposition's support to make the sensible measures that I am introducing today. Schedules 1 and 2 to the bill make minor and consequential amendments to various Commonwealth laws to support the Financial Accountability Regime and to provide transitional arrangements relating to the repeal of the Banking Executive Accountability Regime (BEAR). Schedule 3 to the bill establishes a financial services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort, the CSLR. The government has committed to introducing a CSLR and today we deliver on this commitment. This bill is part of a package of bills that establish and fund the CSLR. In 2019, the banking royal commission endorsed the three principal recommendations of the 2017 supplementary final report of the review of the financial system external dispute resolution and complaints framework, the Ramsay review, regarding the establishment of a CSLR. The Ramsay review noted the inadequacy of existing redress measures in ensuring all consumers are compensated for losses and recommended the establishment of an industry-funded and forward-looking CSLR that targets the areas of the financial sector with the greatest evidence of need. The CSLR is designed to provide compensation to consumers who have received a relevant determination in their favour by the Australian Financial Complaints Authority—hereafter AFCA—where that determination remains unpaid. Claimants may receive compensation of up to $150,000 where they have an unpaid AFCA determination in their favour for the following financial services or products: personal advice on relevant financial products to retail clients, credit intermediation, securities dealing and credit provision. The cap on claims helps maintain the ongoing financial sustainability of the scheme, at the same time as balancing the interests of consumers. The operator of the CSLR will be a subsidiary of AFCA, limited by guarantee and operates on a not-for-profit basis. The operator must act in line with the primary legislation and regulations, with compliance ensured by ASIC. The operator will be managed by a board consisting of an independent chair appointed by the minister, a person who is a member of the board of AFCA, and an actuary who has at least five years of actuarial experience. The CSLR is designed to act as a last resort mechanism. After the claimant has notified AFCA that their determination remains unpaid, AFCA will be required, where appropriate, to take steps to ensure the relevant entity pays the compensation owed. The CSLR operator will also need to confirm that no other scheme is available to pay all or part of the compensation owed, including any state or territory arrangements. Measures have been added to reduce the inclination of financial firms from relying on the CSLR and to facilitate better compliance with AFCA determinations. For example, ASIC must cancel an AFCA member's Australian financial service licence and/or Australian credit licence if the CSLR provides compensation to a claimant. The government notes the recommendations made by the former Senate Economics Legislation Committee, which were tabled on 15 February 2022, on the CSLR bills introduced by the previous government, including the recommendation to include managed investment schemes in the scope of the CSLR. There have been no changes to the scope of the CSLR and the provisions being introduced today are substantively the same as those considered by that committee. The CSLR provisions have only been subject to minor and targeted amendments to reflect the passage of time and further stakeholder feedback. The scope of the CSLR reflects financial products that have a history of unpaid determinations and have been subject to significant regulatory reform which have reduced the risk of misconduct. This is an important point. The government will continue to consider potential enhancements to the regulatory framework of managed investment schemes. Schedule 4 to the bill amends the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009(hereafter the credit act) to strengthen the consumer protection framework for consumers of small amount credit contracts and consumer leases through the introduction of new obligations for providers of these credit products. SACCs are loans of up to $2,000 where the term of the contract is between 16 days and 12 months while a consumer lease is typically a contract longer for household goods longer than four months where the consumer does not have the right or obligation to purchase the goods. These measures give effect to the government's response to the 2016 review of small amount credit contract laws which identified a number of predatory lending practices that lead to some consumers experiencing financial hardship. Key reforms include strengthened caps on the amount of income a consumer can spend on repayments before they are ineligible to enter into certain credit products; caps on the cost of consumer leases; equal repayment intervals for small amount credit contracts; and prohibitions on certain types of unsolicited communications and referrals. Combined with anti-avoidance provisions, these reforms will enhance the existing consumer protections, including responsible lending obligations, while making sure that these credit products are more affordable and less harmful. The government acknowledges that most of these reforms will require some time for industry to implement, so the bulk of the proposed changes will commence six months following royal assent. The Legislative and Governance Forum for Corporations was notified of this bill, as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002 and the National Credit Law Agreement 2009. Full details of all of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy Bill 2022 7

Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy Bill 2022

First Reading 7 Second Reading 7 09:41 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill is one of two bills which form the levy framework for the financial services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort, hereafter 'the CSLR'. The CSLR levy framework is designed to establish an ongoing annual levy for entities that fall under a subsector in the scope of the scheme. The framework will issue levies in advance of a financial year, based on expected claims in that upcoming financial year. The first ongoing levy is expected to be issued from January 2024 for the 2024-25 financial year. The first year of operation (2023-24) will be partly funded by a one-off levy issued in the 2023-24 financial year. It will be imposed on the 10 largest financial sector entities (excluding private health insurers and superannuation trustees). This will fund the payment of compensation and associated costs relating to complaints lodged with AFCA, up to the date the bills were introduced into the House of Representatives. The ongoing levy amount in the subsequent financial years for a member of an in-scope subsector will be determined in line with the regulations. The regulations will impose levies on members consistent with the approach applied under the Australian Securities and Investments Commission industry funding model. The levy will factor in compensation amounts payable, associated Australian Financial Complaints Authority complaint-handling fees, and administrative costs of the CSLR operator and ASIC. The CSLR is designed to be financially sustainable and provide assurance to relevant financial market sectors about the maximum amount expected to be levied. The scheme applies subsector caps of $20 million and an overall scheme cap of $250 million. This limits the amount leviable within a single levy period, whilst maintaining the ability to accommodate any unexpected large-scale events or failures. The levy framework provides the minister with the ability to issue special levies to in-scope and out-of-scope firms, in response to any higher than expected outlays such as a 'black swan' event. Full details of all of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy (Collection) Bill 2022 8

Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy (Collection) Bill 2022

First Reading 8 Second Reading 8 09:45 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill is one of two bills which form the levy framework for the financial services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort (CSLR). The one-off levy imposed for the first year of operation, 2023-24, will be issued by August 2023, and the ongoing annual levy will be issued in advance of each new financial year, with the first to be issued from January 2024 for the 2024-25 financial year. The CSLR operator will estimate compensation and AFCA complaint costs to be paid out in the upcoming financial year as well as associated administrative costs. These estimates will then determine the total levy amount for each sub-sector to meet expected outlays in the upcoming financial year. Levy notices will be issued by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. ASIC will also be responsible for the collection of levies and have the power to facilitate and enforce the payment of levies. These powers will include the ability to seek information from relevant firms for the purpose of correctly calculating the firm's levy, to impose penalties for late payment and to impose a shortfall penalty where incorrect information has been provided. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 3) Bill 2022 8

Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 3) Bill 2022

First Reading 8 Second Reading 8 09:48 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Schedule 1 to the bill delivers on the government's 2022 election commitment to double financial penalties that relate to foreign ownership of residential property in Australia. Noncompliance with the residential land obligations by foreign persons has flow-on implications for Australia's housing stock and housing affordability. This increase to residential penalties will ensure that these penalties effectively deter foreign persons from contravening the residential land provisions in the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975. Schedule 2 to the bill amends the taxation secrecy provisions to enable the ATO to share taxation information with an Australian government agency, including state and territory governments, for the purposes of administering major disaster support programs. This measure will assist Australian government agencies to address the needs of individuals and businesses significantly disrupted by a major disaster event more efficiently and effectively. The sharing of taxation information will only be authorised if the Treasurer is satisfied that the program supports individuals and businesses affected by a major disaster. Schedule 3 to the bill extends the operation of a temporary mechanism that has been operating during the COVID pandemic which allows arrangements for complying with information and documentary requirements under Commonwealth legislation to be altered, including requirements to give information in writing and produce, witness and sign documents. These provisions address continuing difficulties experienced by individuals, businesses and government agencies in complying with information and documentary requirements, including requirements to witness and sign documents. The mechanism is temporary. It will expire at the end of 2022. The effect of this measure will be to continue the operation of these provisions until the end of 31 December 2023. Any determination made under the mechanism will cease to operate after 31 December 2023. Schedule 4 to the bill makes amendments to set out tax arrangements of foreign resident workers participating in the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility, also known as the PALM scheme. The PALM scheme will help meet workforce shortages in Australia as well as support the economic development of Pacific nations and Timor-Leste. Under the new PALM scheme, eligible businesses can recruit workers to help fill unskilled, low and semi skilled workforce shortages in any sector, including the agriculture, meat processing, hospitality and tourism sectors, mostly in rural and regional areas. Schedule 4 specifies that foreign resident workers participating in the PALM scheme will pay a final withholding tax of 15 per cent for each dollar of income earned under the scheme from the 2022-23 income year. PALM scheme workers who are Australian residents for tax purposes will, of course, pay ordinary resident tax rates. This ensures that such workers pay tax at an appropriate rate on program income, consistent with similar migration programs. Schedule 5 to the bill will require the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority to take account of religious obligations when conducting the performance test on superannuation products. Trustees will now be able to apply to have their faith based products face a supplementary test that considers their faith based investment strategy if they fail the original test. A faith based product that passes this supplementary test will not be subject to the consequences of failure. Faith based products will not escape scrutiny under this amendment. Products will be assessed to ensure that their investment is in accordance with their faith based investment strategy. Faith based products that fail both the original and supplementary test will face the same consequences as any other product. This measure was a 2022 election commitment, reflecting Labor's commitment to working with communities of faith. In developing this measure, I met and spoke with faith leaders around Australia. They spoke to me about the importance of being able to live their faith in every part of their lives. This is why this measure is so important. It will ensure that Australians of faith are able to participate fully in our superannuation system without compromising on their values or on performance standards. I know that many Australians of faith are watching today to see whether this parliament supports them. These changes to the performance test will strike a balance. The amendments give members back the ability to invest in faith based products while continuing to hold trustees to account for the investment performance they deliver and the fees they charge to members. Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment Bill 2022 10

Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment Bill 2022

First Reading 10 Second Reading 10 09:55 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill amends the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Act 2015 (FATA Fees Act) to align the indexation of the fee cap under that act with the indexation of fees in the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Regulations 2020. As part of the government's commitment to double foreign investment fees and penalties, legislation was made to double foreign investment application fees from 29 July this year. The doubled fee amounts incorporate the cumulative total of indexation prior to the doubling. The bill amends the FATA Fees Act to similarly incorporate the cumulative total of the indexation for the same time period into the fee cap amount to ensure the fees and the fee cap indexations remain in lock step. The fee cap itself is not doubled. Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. BUSINESS 10 BUSINESS Federation Chamber 10 09:57 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: For all meetings of the Federation Chamber from Monday 12 September 2022, Members granted leave of absence by the House of Representatives, and not physically present in Parliament House, may participate remotely in proceedings of the Federation Chamber by the official parliamentary video facility, as provided: (1) Members participating remotely must be present at either an Electorate Office or a Commonwealth Parliament Office; (2) Members present by the official parliamentary video facility may speak only after being recognised by the Chair for the purposes of making a speech; (3) Members present by the official parliamentary video facility may not: (a) be counted for quorum; (b) move or second any motion; or (c) move or second any amendment to a motion or bill; (4) notice is to be provided to the Chair, 15 minutes prior to a Member, who is participating remotely, seeking to make a speech; (5) the Standing Orders apply except as affected by this resolution; (6) contributions to proceedings made by Members present by the official parliamentary video facility will be recorded in Hansard; and (7) the resolution on remote participation in proceedings in the Chamber, adopted by the House on 24 August 2020, applies, to remote participation in proceedings in the Federation Chamber as if they were proceedings in the House, as affected by this resolution. Mr Speaker, this resolution is the next stage in an issue that I know is very dear to your heart and all members have a concern about, which is making sure that we properly respond to the various principles that were raised in Kate Jenkins' report with respect to the standards in Parliament House. One of those key standards goes to us trying to make the place as family friendly as possible. One of the issues that the pandemic took us to was, for the first time, starting to acknowledge that there can be quite legitimate reasons that members are not able to physically bring themselves to the chamber, and how do you make sure that you're properly representing your electorate during that time. While the various lockdown reasons that brought TV screens into the chamber have passed, and hopefully don't return, that has raised the question: can we do better when a member is, in particular, on parental leave? Can we do better when a member of parliament is formally given leave for a long period of time, and that leave is because they can't get to Canberra, but there are other ways in which they continue working during that time and the circumstances mean coming this far is not possible? Is there a way for them still being able to formally represent their electorates? In consultation with members, there has been a suggestion that often the best place to make speeches about your electorate is not, in fact, here but in the Federation Chamber and that that's where those opportunities often arise. I think it's also fair to say that, while we did our best during the lockdown period to find ways for people to make speeches in here, through the screens, it doesn't work as well as ordinary debate in the chamber. So what's being proposed here is that we have a go, now, of presuming, on a permanent basis, that the screens will remain in the Federation Chamber but they will only be available to members where the House has voted that the people have leave. This is for two reasons. One is that when we vote that someone has leave it's usually for parental leave purposes but sometimes it's because someone's really not well and they just can't travel here but they would be able to travel to their electorate office to advance a speech about their electorate. They will be able to do that in the Federation Chamber. The concept here is: if someone wants to take a period of time off—and the parliament used to only grant very limited time for people to take time off from sittings, if there was a newborn in the family. We're now being more reasonable than we used to be in making sure it's now a reasonable length of time. The flipside is: during that time, if someone can make a speech about their electorate, advancing the cause of their electorate from their electorate office, using the Federation Chamber, shouldn't we allow it? This is the next step in parliament opening itself up in a family friendly way. There's been good consultation as I've tested this idea basically since the election both with the opposition and with the crossbench. I want to thank all members, including the Manager of Opposition Business, for their cooperation in this. It may require further tweaking; we'll see how it goes. Effectively, the reason we've limited it to where people formally have leave—I don't want to create a situation where someone really could have made it here but starts to use this as a proxy for not making the trip to Canberra. But, clearly, when the House has voted that someone has leave, we have all voted together—I've never seen a division on one of those votes—saying, 'This is a legitimate reason.' If, within that context, someone now will have an avenue for the first time, even though they are caring for a newborn, to make the trip to their electorate office and make a speech about their electorate to the parliament and get it recorded in Hansard, and their electors get properly represented in that way, I think that's a really good step forward. It's not a huge step but it means that, if someone is taking significant time off to care for a newborn, that time off will still allow them to have speeches recorded in Hansard, representing their electorate. I commend the resolution to the House. 10:02 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I rise briefly to put on record that the opposition supports the motion moved by the Leader of the House. I want to thank him for his collaborative approach on this issue. As the pandemic showed us, working from home is not necessarily an obstacle to productivity. Workplaces around our nation—indeed, around the world—have adapted to this paradigm shift, and the parliament should be prepared to, too. Remote participation via video facility in the workings of the parliament is an innovation that began under the previous parliament, under the Morrison government, as we collectively responded to restrictions imposed by COVID-19. Before the August sittings of the parliament in 2020, the then Leader of the House developed the Agreement for Members to Contribute Remotely to Parliamentary Proceedings in close consultation with the then Manager of Opposition Business, now the Leader of the House. I'm pleased to see this bipartisan approach continuing in this parliament with respect to remote participation. I think this change will allow parliamentarians in the narrow and defined circumstances the Leader of the House has outlined to more effectively represent their electorates, even in circumstances where they're unable to come to Canberra. I think the limitation to members who have formally received leave is an effective mechanism, so that this targets members in an appropriate category to use this practice to give effect to their responsibilities to represent their electorate at a time when they may be dealing with other responsibilities such as family responsibilities or may have other reasons why they have needed to obtain leave from the parliament. The coalition supports sensible efforts to make this parliament more family friendly. We are very alive to the matters raised in the Jenkins report, Set the standard, which outlined ways to improve workplace culture in the parliament. I conclude by confirming the opposition supports this motion. Question agreed to. BILLS 12 BILLS Income Tax Amendment (Labour Mobility Program) Bill 2022 12

Income Tax Amendment (Labour Mobility Program) Bill 2022

First Reading 12 Second Reading 12 10:05 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Income Tax Amendment (Labour Mobility Program) Bill 2022 makes amendments which support schedule 1 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 4) Bill 2022. Together these bills ensure that foreign resident workers participating in the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (PALM) scheme will pay a final withholding tax of 15 per cent on income earned under the scheme. Schedule 1 to the bill specifies that the term 'the Seasonal Labour Mobility Program' will be substituted with 'certain labour mobility programs' to enable relevant workers in the PALM scheme and workers in potential future visa schemes (for which the same tax treatment is appropriate) to access the final 15 per cent withholding tax rate, from the 2022-23 income tax year. The PALM scheme will help meet workforce shortages in Australia as well as support the economic development of Pacific nations and Timor-Leste. Further details of the measure are contained within the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 12 COMMITTEES Parliamentary Standards Joint Select Committee 12 Reporting Date 12 10:07 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The Speaker has received a message from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has agreed to the following resolution: That the time for the presentation of the report of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards be extended to no later than 1 December 2022. The Senate requests the concurrence of the House in the variation to the resolution of appointment of the committee. Ordered that the message be considered immediately. 10:08 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I move: That the House concur with the resolution of the Senate. Question agreed to. Selection Committee 12 Membership 12 10:08 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The Speaker has received advice from the Chief Government Whip that she has nominated Dr Garland to be a member of the selection committee in place of Ms Claydon. 10:09 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand by leave—I move: That Ms Claydon be discharged from the Selection Committee and that, in her place, Dr Garland be appointed a member of the committee. Question agreed to. BILLS 12 BILLS Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022 12

Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022

Second Reading 12 10:10 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia All Australians want and expect our older Australians to be well supported and catered for in our community, including in residential aged-care homes. That is why in government the coalition called the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety: to ensure our oldest and most vulnerable Australians receive care that supports and respects their dignity and recognises the important contribution they make to society. The final report of the royal commission makes 148 recommendations following 23 public hearings over 99 days, 641 witnesses and over 10,000 public submissions. They are the product of wise and compassionate scrutiny of Australia's aged-care system. In response to the royal commission, the coalition committed $19.1 billion to a five-year plan to improve aged care, with new home care packages, respite services, training places, retention bonuses and infrastructure upgrades. The opposition remains committed to supporting the health, safety and wellbeing of older Australians and understands the important role that aged-care providers, care workers and nurses play in ensuring this support is provided in residential aged-care settings. Speaking to this bill hits very close to home for me. My father, who is 86 years old, is in the aged-care system at the moment, and I understand what the families are going through when it comes to aged care. I want to thank all the aged-care staff that are looking after him for their tireless work in making him comfortable. While I'm visiting him, families of other residents and patients grab me in the hallways to share their experiences, telling me about their own dire situations. They ask me for help to find doctors for their parents or elderly loved ones. Tragically, some are telling me about their mums and dads dying in agony waiting for a visit from a doctor. In some cases they are given Panadol for pain they're experiencing while they wait, and then they pass away. I recently met with the CEO of Benevolent Living aged care, Alison Moss, about the issues they are facing delivering aged-care services in Rockhampton. They are struggling to provide quality care due to a lack of staff. They have 22 beds available in their newly built and state-of-the-art facility, but, due to struggles with staff and shortages of doctors and nurses, these beds are unable to be filled. I have also recently been notified that Access Aged Care, a provider offering clinical services to residents in residential aged-care facilities, will soon be withdrawing its services from Rockhampton. Despite intense recruitment efforts, Access Aged Care has been unable to secure the services of GPs in Rockhampton to support its care model and, as a result, will no longer be providing services. This has the potential to impact emergency departments as residents can no longer be treated on site at their facility and will be taken to the emergency department for treatment. This will affect approximately 170 residents in the local area. A&E at Rockhampton Hospital faces constant ambulance ramping at a rate of 45 per cent, one of the worst ambulance ramping rates in Queensland. Shortages of doctors and nursing homes mean the elderly are being sent to A&E for scripts or check-ups, which could be done by a GP in a nursing home. This is clogging up the system. We were told this government was going to listen, they were going to consult and they were going to care. I heard the slogans constantly during the election. They recited over and over again 'Medicare, aged care, we care.' Unfortunately, on multiple occasions I have sent correspondence to the Minister for Aged Care, Anika Wells, about the terrible state of aged care in Capricornia, about Access Aged Care pulling out of the PHN and to make her aware of a bipartisan aged-care forum I hope to host in Rockhampton and that she would be more than welcome to attend. To date I have not received a single response. This is shameful behaviour of the minister, and I implore her to stop playing politics with this important issue. The minister would be well served to remember that aged care is too important for politics. The Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022 contains three schedules amending the Aged Care Act 1997. Schedule 1 establishes a new responsibility for providers of residential aged care to ensure that a registered nurse is on site 24 hours a day, seven days a week, by July 2023. Schedule 2 of the bill introduces a new power to enable the government to cap fees that approved home-care providers may charge care recipients and removes the home-care providers' ability to charge exit amounts. Schedule 3 of the bill introduces a new requirement for the Secretary of the Department of Health and Aged Care to publish additional information in relation to aged-care providers and their costs, with the aim of allowing older Australians and their families to make more informed care decisions. The opposition urges the Labor government to continue generational reform of the aged-care system for the benefit of all Australians, and to stop playing political games with older Australians and their families. Our nurses have worked tirelessly on the front line through the COVID-19 pandemic, protecting lives and keeping Australians safe. We especially recognise the amazing support that nurses provide our older Australians, particularly their critical work in aged-care homes since the outbreak of the pandemic. We know these were not easy times, yet our nurses stood up when it mattered most to protect so many older Australians, and we are grateful for their work. The opposition have grave concerns regarding the extreme use of unreleased subordinate legislation by the government. Instead of containing adequate complexity and information, this bill does not actually outline the necessary details on how it will impact aged-care providers in practice. The opposition considers this bill more of a legislative framework than detailed legislation. The lack of detail within the legislation and the lack of ability for parliamentary scrutiny of its subordinate legislation are serious concerns for the parliament and for the aged-care sector. These concerns were echoed by many stakeholders and witnesses who appeared at the Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into the bill. The government must listen to the concerns raised by the witnesses at the inquiry and the stakeholders who will affected by this legislation. Schedule 1 of this bill allows the government to implement the employment of registered nurses in residential aged-care facilities on a 24-hour basis by July 2023; however, this time line is not consistent with the royal commission's final report, which recommended making it mandatory to have a registered nurse on site 24 hours a day from July 2024, with an accompanying minimum care minutes requirement. The opposition notes the unique challenges faced by aged-care providers in rural and regional Australia, particularly regarding access to the registered nurse workforce. The royal commission considered a range of factors when recommending that time line, recognising the current workforce shortages and the time required to train or access the necessary additional workforce. Given the government have brought the start date of this recommendation forward by a year, they must specifically outline what support will be provided to regional and rural providers and other providers already struggling with viability and workforce challenges. The government must outline how they plan to get the additional nurses into aged-care homes in regional and rural aged-care facilities, following their jobs summit. The opposition supports the royal commission's recommendation on 24/7 RNs in aged-care facilities where it is possible by 2024 and in line with the royal commission recommendation. The opposition also calls on the government to provide oversight of the delegated legislation that puts in place the mechanism and details of possible exemptions. The government has not been transparent with any of the details of this exemption clause. This lack of transparency creates uncertainty for providers, who are already under stress from the COVID-19 pandemic. This information is particularly critical for rural and regional providers, who are likely to be subject to significant difficulties in finding the additional workforce to meet the requirement within the time frame set by this bill. I'll now speak to schedule 2. The former Minister for Health, Greg Hunt, and the former Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services, Senator Colbeck, required, for the first time, that information be published relating to the median prices charged for home-care services, increasing the transparency on home-care prices. This bill now enables the government to cap charges that approved home-care providers can charge care recipients and removes home-care providers' ability to charge exit amounts. The opposition supports these reforms, as they are sensible amendments broadly supported by the sector. We remain committed to ensuring downward pressure on home-care prices and older Australians being able to make informed decisions about aged-care services. Speaking on schedule 3, the opposition agrees that we need more transparency in the aged-care sector to ensure older Australians and their families are able to make informed care decisions. That is why in government we introduced substantial reforms to increase transparency, including from 1 July 2019 requiring all home-care providers to publish their pricing information in a standardised schedule published on the My Aged Care website, providing greater visibility of median prices, and investing in the My Aged Care website to ensure that older Australians and their families are able to easily access and compare information about aged-care providers. The publication of additional information to increase sector transparency and to increase consumer understanding of this sector is supported by the opposition. I believe that more information assists in making more-informed choices. The coalition has a proud and constructive history of delivering for the aged-care sector. The coalition's 2022-23 budget delivered funding for aged-care reform of $522 million, which built on the funding contained in the previous budget. This brought our total investment in response to the final report of the royal commission to more than $19.1 billion. Our 2022-23 budget responded to 10 recommendations of the royal commission and built on our existing five pillars of aged-care reform. We delivered record investment across the aged-care system over the forward estimates—from $13.3 billion in 2012-13 under Labor to $30.1 billion in 2022-23 under the coalition. By 2025-26, funding in aged care was estimated to grow to $34.7 billion per year under the coalition. We also remain committed to providing our older Australians support to live in their own homes for longer. That is why we increased new home-care packages from 60,308 under Labor in 2012-13 to 275,597 in 2024-25, an increase of 357 per cent. We are currently in the second year of the five-year plan and it is imperative that the government now continue our work to support the aged-care sector. I also implore the Labor government again not to play politics with aged care. People like my father and the families I meet deserve better. 10:22 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills Like others in this place, I've reflected a number of times on the importance of respecting Australians in their senior years. It's not just about good manners, although that's a big part of it; it's about recognition of their hard work and the contribution that they have made to their communities, to broader society and to their country. Older Australians really deserve dignity as they age and they deserve a government that will actually look out for them. Our value as a society is found in how we actually treat each other, but there is little pride to be found in the treatment of people in aged care and the hardworking staff as well in that industry. 'Neglect' is probably the best single word that can be used to describe how they have been treated, or not treated. That is a simple yet poignant way this issue has been described by others. That is why the Albanese government have committed to putting the care back into aged care. We want to rewrite that, reverse that neglect and actually care. It's what we promised at the last election and it is what we are delivering with the Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022, which will implement three of our urgent reforms to aged care. It will require approved providers of residential aged care to have a registered nurse on duty 24 hours a day seven days a week from 1 July 2023. This will extend to specified kinds of flexible care. This is something we will work closely with state and territory governments to implement. For aged-care residents and their families in my electorate of Wills, in the northern suburbs of Melbourne, this is incredibly important. It will mean fewer unnecessary trips to the hospital simply because a nurse is unavailable. That will take pressure off our health system. These trips, usually at all hours of the night, cause a great deal of stress to residents, and their families, and add to the already significant workload of the people who care for them. Fewer unnecessary trips to the hospital will also reduce exposure to illnesses—a risk of which we have been acutely aware, of course, during the pandemic. We are also particularly conscious of this in my electorate of Wills, where significant outbreaks have occurred across aged-care homes. For the families whose relatives contracted COVID-19 in aged care, I know how important this reform is. It's critical. I've spoken to dozens of them—family members and people in aged care—including those who lost loved ones, tragically. They have all told me about the greater investment in care hours required to improve the living conditions in these aged-care facilities. It was a constant theme, a constant refrain. Affordability is another challenge that the Albanese Labor government is committed to addressing. This bill will cap the amount recipients can be charged for the administration and management of home-care packages and remove exit amounts entirely. More than 210,000 Australians currently receive home-care packages, and I know, from the dozens of stories that have been shared with my electorate office, just how much cost remains—an ongoing stress for recipients and their carers. By capping these fees, we will make it more affordable for people receiving home-care packages and we will make it clearer, providing a better picture of expected costs—which can be exceptionally difficult to fully grasp when navigating what is a very complicated system. So improving transparency in the sector is a priority for the Albanese Labor government. Australians across the country have been rightly shocked about the secrecy of and scandals arising in this sector. It has been shocking—shocking to ordinary Australians, to people who have family members in aged-care facilities. There have been all the front-page reports of the lavish lifestyles of aged-care home executives and the owners of those facilities—just shocking! I think it's been a direct hit to that sense of fairness that Australians hold so dear. All this was happening while residents were slapped with increasing fees and aged-care workers remained some of the lowest-paid workers in our economy. So the final part of this bill will give Australians a greater picture of the operations of aged-care providers, including where they are directing their money. It will shine a light and give transparency. It's very important. It will require the secretary of the department of health to publicly provide information about the expenditure of aged-care providers. This will include information on the expenditure directed towards staffing and care hours, food and nutrition, cleaning, administration and maintenance, as well as the profit and loss—the bottom line. This information will be made easily available to the Australian public, to those family members, providing them with the information they need to make decisions about the care for themselves or for their family members. Now, this is what real action looks like, from a government that is actually committed to respecting older Australians and to putting their care back into aged care. It's not rhetoric. It's not grandstanding. It's not talking about it. It's actually doing something about it. As a government, we will also continue to seek further reforms, including working with the sector to implement mandatory nutrition standards, to ensure that all people in care receive high-quality, nutritious food. We will mandate an average of 215 minutes of care per day, as recommended by the royal commission into the sector. Just like providing more nursing hours, this will reduce the workload of staff and provide more time for the provision of basic standards of care—which, frankly, we should all expect as a baseline, a minimum. Now, I know how important this is for the hardworking staff who care for our older Australians. It's a tough job—probably one of the toughest jobs out there. The care, the commitment that they make, is really incredible. It is really giving of yourself; it's highly stressful but it's also very, very difficult work, and it requires a lot of skill and a lot of compassion. A lot of hard work goes into caring for our older Australians. It has to be acknowledged how difficult that job is. And it's often a thankless job. That's something that we're trying to redress here by acknowledging the hard work of age-care sector workers. We know how insufficient their pay is for the level of work they do, for that type of commitment. That's why it's so important that we address these issues and put the care back into aged care—acknowledge and reward, through their better pay, the aged-care workers who do that thankless job to look after older Australians. We can make a real difference to the lives of older Australians and give them the dignity that they deserve, given the commitment and contribution that they have made to this nation over their working lives. 10:31 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I rise to support the amendments to the Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022. Aged care of course is a very important issue within all of our communities. As I often say in this place, I come from one of the most rural and regional electorates in Australia. It is a great concern to me how these individual units are affected by any changes we make in this place. We are all very aware that staffing issues are a problem right across the industry, but they're more acute in rural and regional Australia than they are in the cities. We've had some difficulties in the recent past. I've had a major—for us, let's say a major—sized unit of around 80 beds having some real difficulty meeting standards. It's fair to say that we absolutely need our facilities to meet those standards but, given the degree of difficulty that's evolving at the moment, sometimes I think it needs a little bit of a soft touch to make sure we don't run the risk of closing these beds. In another case, in the City of Whyalla, we've had a community owned service which operates all of the residential care spaces in Whyalla under extreme pressure and forced to close one of their three facilities. In that space, I'm very pleased that the former government stepped into the breach and assisted Helping Hand to come to Whyalla and provided around $3 million worth of assistance to actually keep the facility going—to get their management systems in place and to make sure that we have a seamless change in managing and ownership in Whyalla. Helping Hand have been there for most of this year—a little more than that—and they need to make a decision in the very near future about whether they are going to go past the 12-month point and actually purchase the facility and stay in Whyalla permanently. In the lead-up to the election, I secured an electoral commitment from the coalition to advance $10 million for capital works in Whyalla. I don't make any bones about this, and I've spoken to the health minister, Mark Butler about this: it was not matched by Labor, but it was a very welcome offer from the coalition. I've spoken to the minister since, just saying how important it is that we secure this support, even though I understand it wasn't a Labor commitment. I believe there is a funding round coming up in November. I've also spoken to the local state member there, Eddie Hughes, who is a Labor member, and we are as one on this issue. We just simply need to get capital investment into Whyalla to secure the long-term management of a larger organisation which has the efficiencies which actually come with being able to run that type of organisation. One of the problems we had, of course, was with Kindred Living at the facility that was closing; we just could not get enough registered nurses. In fact—it is one of those paradoxes, I suppose—the hospital, too, was struggling for registered nurses and so it set up a modus operandi, if you like, which led to the raiding of registered nurses out of Kindred Living, which only exacerbated the problem. People have asked me, 'Why couldn't we stop the hospital raiding that staff?' But you are going to have a shortage of nurses somewhere. The problem is that we have a shortage of nurses, whether that's in the hospitals or in the aged-care sector. So we know that we have to address that as a matter of urgency. I am confident the Minister for Health and Aged Care is listening and that we will reach a position where we can secure that long ongoing service from Helping Hand. I know it would be difficult for him to sign off on some kind of grant in front of the process. I think that is right, and he is holding his ground in the right manner. But as long as the government, the Labor Party, are committed to making sure that we have long-term, classy operators in Whyalla and that we achieve some reinvestment to get rid of the shared rooms and shared bathrooms I'll be pleased. If we know anything after COVID it's that we don't want shared bathrooms in aged-care facilities. So we will move the dial forward, and I give my assurance to the people of Whyalla that I will not rest until we have nailed down that long-term commitment from Helping Hand and that we have a commitment to build new facilities and upgraded and expanded facilities at Whyalla. 10:36 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak in favour of the legislation that is before us, the Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022. These reforms to aged care are long overdue, and one of the key commitments of the Labor government is to rebuild the aged-care sector to restore dignity, quality and humanity back into aged care. The royal commission broke many hearts. It exposed the true crisis there is in aged care. But, for many of us, many of the residents living in aged care and many of the families of residents, they were stories that we had heard before. For far too long, the sector had been let fall into the crisis that it is in today. The bill before us introduces a number of key reforms that will help get the sector back on track. Just by way of example, I want to share with the House some of the conversations that my team and I have been having with people in the Bendigo electorate. So serious were the challenges in our electorate when it came to aged care that we actually ran our own survey and our own consultation work around the same time as the royal commission to share the experiences of local people. We also organised our own rally to give family members and workers an opportunity to speak out and to try and get the former government's attention about what was happening in our region. I can remember being at the rally and inviting some family members up to speak. I had to do the mental health check and say: 'What we're talking about is quite confronting. If this is a trigger for you, please reach out.' There were lots of tears. There were lots of stories being shared that triggered some really traumatic memories for many of the people that were there because they had lost loved ones in aged care who hadn't received the appropriate support that was needed because the sector is in crisis. One example of that was Bernadette, who was a primary carer for a friend. Her friend Leonie was in aged care. She contacted us to say that there wasn't enough qualified staff. Leonie had reported that staff did not know what medication she had to take and they were often trying to give her the wrong medication. She said she was unable to walk and reliant upon stuff for toileting but felt really embarrassed and was concerned about pressing the call button for them because she knew how overworked they were. The food was inadequate. Recently Leonie had just been given a party pie and a sausage roll. Her GP recommended that multivitamins be provided to Leonie to compensate for the poor quality of food. This is Leonie's experience. Leonie is one of the people in my electorate that really welcomed Labor's commitment and the reforms that are before us. The 24/7 registered nurse, for example, would ensure that Leonie wouldn't be in that situation going forward; she would actually have a nurse on site to help ensure that she was receiving the right medication and not trying to be given the wrong medication. Another example: Kylie contacted my office. She is a nurse in residential aged care, and she said that she was heartbroken to be leaving the sector but that she's burnt out. She worked extremely hard. She worked overtime every week and weekends, double shifts when they asked, because she didn't want to leave the residence in the situation that Leonie is in. Years of doing this had taken its toll, and she was burnt out. When asked if she supports the reform for a 24/7 registered nurse to be a requirement, she said yes because it would mean that her employer would have to have a replacement nurse for when someone called in sick. Quite often that isn't the case; it is left up to the facility, and, if they can't get somebody, they are left short staffed. We acknowledge that there's a lot of training we need to do and a lot of work we need to do to encourage nurses back into the sector, but, if we are able to improve and support registered nurses, like Kylie, then Kylie may come back; she may come back into the sector. They're the kinds of people we need to encourage back in. I also wanted to share the example of Robert. Robert is a 97-year-old World War II veteran, one of the last remaining World War II veterans that we have in our country. He's living in Bendigo and he does not miss an ANZAC Day. He's in the home-care support system. He fears going into aged care because of the examples that I've shared and that others have shared. So he still lives at home with his 90-year-old wife. They've been together for a while. She's now in a wheelchair on a level 4 package. Robert is on a level 3 package. My Aged Care home care is the only support they receive—there's no family—but it's complex to navigate. They have a private provider who helps to manage their package, very limited in detail. Robert thought he had been doing the right thing by saving funds for OT work and assisted equipment needed for his wife, but it wasn't right to be doing it that way. He was unaware that his funds could be used to help his wife, which, in turn, then denied him being eligible for a level 4 package and therefore more support for himself. Because he wasn't quite aware of the complexity of managing the case and because he had a private administrator based in Melbourne, he couldn't get the information that he needed. He was going without the extra support to help his wife toilet. Here he is, a 97-year-old World War II veteran, living at home, trying to live longer and live better at home, supporting his wife to toilet because he wasn't aware of how his package work properly. He ended up coming to my office, asking if we could move him from a level 3 to a level 4 package. We contacted My Aged Care to find out that he couldn't move to a level 4 because he hadn't spent all of the level 3. We had to unpack the miscommunication. Also, so much of their packages had been lost in an administration fees, and that speaks to one of the other reforms before the parliament today: capping home-care charges. This bill reflects our commitment to cap the amount that can be charged by administration and management for people receiving home-care packages, and it removes exit amounts altogether. That has definitely been the experience of Robert, and that's part of the problem we have with this sector. Private managers, private providers and private organisations are also not very good at sharing with their clients or customers how best to use their packages. So a year and a half down the track, this very kind, very gentle and very strong World War II veteran is calling my office to find out what can be done to support his wife. It shouldn't be this hard. A veteran should not have to come to their MP's office to get support to help toilet his wife. That is why the capping of home-care charges is important. It will encourage more not-for-profits to be in the sector and it will probably see the exiting of many that are in the sector to make a profit and not to deliver a service. These proposed changes provide pricing transparency for people like Robert and for providers, and creates greater clarity about direction and direct and indirect costs. All of these changes are necessary. Robert isn't the only one who has raised home-care changes with me. There's a group in Castlemaine, and this is one of the key issues that they spoke to me about in the lead-up to the election: the frustration that they're looking at, with their money dwindling and not actually going on support for them but going in administration fees. Then there's the cost of exiting, so they feel trapped with a dodgy provider and they can't move to the next without paying an exit fee. So they welcome these changes that are before us today. The other key change that is really being welcomed by people in my electorate is transparency of information. In this bill we are committing to improving integrity and accountability in aged care, providing greater transparency about what aged-care providers are spending money on. That goes to the food example that I used in the case of Leonie. Part of the frustration that Leonie and her friends spoke to my office about was that it is expensive for a lot of our older residents to be living in aged care. They've had to sell their homes or the money has gone into a bond. They are paying a lot to be in these facilities and yet all they get served is a sausage roll and a party pie. It's not good enough, when they feel they're paying a lot from their income. Having transparency of information will hold the sector accountable and will keep it honest. It allows residents and family members to know exactly where the money is spent. It also allows our parliament and our government to really understand where the money is going in aged care. If all the money is being spent on staff and we need more, then we can look at that. But if the money is going into mega profits for non-for-profits or for individuals then we need to know that. These things are why these changes that are before us are so necessary. The legislation that we have is a part; together with the other legislation that was moved through in the first sitting fortnight this is our demonstration as a government that we're getting on with the reform that the sector requires. We do not want to be here in three to four years time and still have family members coming into our electorate offices crying because their loved one has passed away in pain, or were in a position where they didn't get the help that they needed. We want everybody to live their best life and, when they exit this life, to go with peace and dignity, and in humanity. We want to see that return to our age-care sector. In the few moments I have left, I do want to thank everybody who continues to work in aged care—who has just hung on. The last few years have been really tough: the short-staffing and the pressure on the sector. But it's been particularly tough in states like my state of Victoria, where we've had the longer lockdowns and longer exclusions not allowing family members and friends in because of the risk of COVID in aged care. It was done for health reasons—aged-care is quite susceptible to COVID, and we've lost a lot of older Australians to COVID—and a lot of the residents understand that, but it has taken its toll, not just on the residents but also on the staff. They are burnt out. To those who've hung on and are still there, all I can say is that it will get better. These reforms that Labor is moving on in government will improve the aged-care sector. We are committed to seeing wages lifted for these aged-care workers, these angels who have hung on to make sure that residents have the support they need. I say to them: we understand things have happened that have broken your hearts, but thank you for sticking it out, because it will get better. These reforms are a step in the right direction, but we acknowledge there's a lot more to do. I look forward to being able to go back out to these facilities when they do have a 24/7 nurse on and there is a replacement if that person is not able to be there. I look forward to activities officers being genuine activities officers and not having to drop activities to double up as a PSA because someone has called in sick. The transparency—making sure we know where the money goes, whether it's taxpayers' money or whether it's individuals' money—is critical. Finally, on home-care packages: there's a lot of work we need to do to clean up this sector, and the capping of home-care charges is just the beginning. Older people deserve our respect and support, and I'm proud to be part of a government that is moving on implementing many of the recommendations of the royal commission. 10:51 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt It's been very interesting to listen to the contributions from other members on this, because there are obviously some clear commonalities that we, as members of parliament, experience in our interactions with the aged-care sector in dealing directly with constituents. I can tell from the previous contributions that we all have very similar issues that are brought to us as local members of parliament. They're not all bad experiences, by the way. Naturally, a disproportionate number of people who reach out to their MP do so because they've got an issue that they need support in overcoming—I accept that—but I want to make a few comments about the inherently fantastic people who work in our aged-care system and the fantastic work that they do, and I'll do that in a moment. The second thing to say, following on from that, is that I don't think any of us as human beings, not just members of parliament—I don't think there'd be any Australian—has not had a direct personal experience or interaction with the aged-care system in this country either at the moment or in the past. Of course, all of us will in the future. My last surviving grandparent is now in a residential aged-care facility, two of my three deceased grandparents came to the end of their lives in aged-care facilities, and many other members of my family have need of, or will in the future have need of, the aged-care system, hopefully for a brief period and not for a very long time. It's very important to all of us that we have an excellent aged-care system that provides the highest standard of care and support in the most flexible way to people needing that care in the last moments of their life. My grandmother not only spent the last period of her life in an aged-care facility but spent most of her career working in the aged-care sector. She was an aged-care nurse for many decades. She had become a nurse during the Second World War and served in the Army, as a nurse at the Heidelberg hospital in Melbourne, nursing returned soldiers. Many of them were POWs who'd had traumatic experiences and had challenges insofar as the care they needed. Then she came back home to Adelaide and worked at the repatriation hospital for a reasonable amount of time doing similar work caring for veterans, and then became an aged-care nurse for the remainder of her career as a nurse. She was someone who absolutely loved that work. She loved caring for vulnerable people. At times it was very difficult because the sorts of care, with the circumstances people are in, are very challenging and emotionally draining. But she absolutely loved it and found doing that work so fulfilling. I think she is the same as almost everyone that works in the aged-care sector. We all, as members of parliament, have the opportunity, I'm sure, if you're anything like me, to regularly visit our facilities and talk to management and staff as well as the residents about what their issues are and the challenges they've got. My observation is that, inherently, the people working in the sector—whilst we need to do better in the support they've got—very much get an enormous amount of fulfilment from doing the work they do. They are great heroes in our society, and I'd like to pay tribute to everyone that works in the aged-care sector. We are very lucky to have your dedication. The royal commission brought to light some, in some cases, quite shocking examples of unacceptable circumstances in our aged-care sector. I've got no dispute with any commentary of the royal commission around that. But I think we've got to remember that, whilst there are some bad circumstances, there will always unfortunately be bad operators with bad faith. My personal experience, and I think it's the case across the sector, is that most operators are inherently doing excellent work with the resources they've got. The aged-care facilities I visit in my electorate are doing fantastic things, and the aged-care facilities I've experienced when members of my family have been cared for by them are doing fantastic things. There are people that need to lift their game but it is important that we don't let the zeitgeist become some sort of sense that we've got an aged-care sector—particularly a residential aged-care sector—that is on the whole providing very low-quality, poor care; that's not the case, certainly in my experience. I want to be a constructive participant in this place in doing more wherever we've got the opportunity to improve things. The reality is that the demand on aged-care services will only grow exponentially into the future. A large part of that is for inherently good reasons. People are living longer. Modern medicine is changing our life expectancy and is allowing people to have longer lives and a lot more options around treatment for things that would have ended their lives much sooner. My own grandfather's circumstance, which is very common—he is very lucky to be alive at almost 93 years old—is of significant mental deterioration through having dementia. He is physically fit as a fiddle, which is great, but he is in a circumstance where, because of his dementia, he needs very significant care in a residential circumstance. Prior to him going into that circumstance, he had, I have to say, really good community care support. My grandma was in the same situation before she passed away. They had good support and access to community care packages that allowed them to stay at home for much longer than they otherwise would have been able to. That's another thing that's really important as we look at addressing aged-care reform and how the system will change into the future—that we make sure we are helping people to stay in their homes for as long as they can, provided they want to and it's safe to do so. That's a difficult circumstance to confront for any family. In my family's case, my grandparents had to go into residential aged care. Of course they didn't want to, and we did the best we could as a family to support them to stay out of residential care for as long as it was safe to do so. But it will always get to a point where that's not tenable. It is important that we have a good, flexible system that can, for as long as possible, have people in a circumstance where they are able to stay in a home-care situation where supports can be funded, as we do through community aged-care packages. They've changed a lot over the years, but the principle of helping people to age in place, in their home, is one that's very important for them. And of course it is important that we make sure that, particularly if they want to, we can keep them out of the residential system for longer, in a safe way. It takes the burden off the explosive growth we would have in residential care if we weren't doing as much as we could to further support people in that circumstance to stay in home care. This bill has been well commented on through a very long list of speeches and contributions in the second reading debate, and I do note, in particular, my colleagues who have talked about being in other electorates. I'm in a metropolitan electorate and I understand the issues that are acute in the sector in my electorate. But it has been quite valuable to hear contributions from members whose constituents, particularly on the residential aged-care side of things, have very different circumstances and challenges because of those circumstances. Smaller communities have much smaller facilities that are more commonly community developed and run, and they have very difficult challenges around viability. I don't have that challenge in my electorate, but I have to say that I recognise and back to the hilt people who represent electorates where they do have those facilities and how vital it is that we support those facilities to stay operating and open. It is very traumatic for people to go into residential aged care. Some have lived their entire lives in a particular community, compounding the trauma which happens at times when people are taken from their home into a residential facility because it's not tenable for them to stay in their home anymore. To then also remove them from their community—adding that additional burden of having many people that are part of their family and their social circle at a long distance from them and, therefore, clearly not able to provide that nourishment they need of regular visitations et cetera—would be a very distressing and disappointing outcome. So I commend the comments of the many members who have talked about some of the challenges that are associated with mandating certain requirements on operators which will be near impossible for some existing operating residential facilities to meet. I hope the government is very much attuned to and concerned by this, and that they make sure they think through how they structure exemptions for facilities that could have their viability dramatically impacted if we're not careful. I think that point has been made comprehensively by a lot of my colleagues, and I add my weight to those comments to make sure that it is really reinforced to the minister and the government. I hope that in good faith they are able to structure exemptions that ensure those facilities can be viable. I've talked about community care, and, in concluding, I make the point that I want to see the community care side of this sector very much focused on, and being about people accessing care and support and not about becoming some huge profit-centre industry. The aged-care sector is not there to make people extremely wealthy; it's there to support that greatest generation of people who have served our nation and built this nation, and who need us, as a government and as a society, to give them the highest standard of support and care. When it comes to community care, a lot of my constituents' experiences have been very disappointing. I won't go into the specifics of those details publicly in this debate, but I think that every member of parliament would have similar experiences of certain providers of community care clearly making a lot of money rather than necessarily delivering an excellent outcome for the people that the system is there to support. I am certainly a happy participant and supporter in this place wherever I get the opportunity to support further change if it's necessary to make sure that's the outcome we're getting around community-care provision. With that, I'd like to reiterate my thanks to everyone in this sector. It's been a very difficult few years with the compounding challenges of COVID and the workforce in aged care. We know that what they have had to struggle through, in some states in particular, was extremely taxing, brutal and draining, so thank you very much to the people that work in the sector. I hope that we as a parliament will continue to deliver change for you that improves the quality of care to people that need it and also ensures that the great heroes of the workforce of our aged-care system are properly valued for the work they do. I thank the House for the opportunity to contribute on the second reading. 11:06 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise to speak on the introduction of the Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022. This is a bill I welcome following the dire revelation of the royal commission in aged care. I would like first to thank the many who work incredibly hard in this sector. They do their job well, and the revelations of the royal commission would have been incredibly distressing for those in the sector who are endeavouring to give the best of care to loved ones and to our older Australians as they go into residential care. It's vitally important that this parliament work to improve the standards of our aged-care system. The recommendations of the royal commission were clear—that much-needed improvements to the way we care for our older loved ones must be implemented as a matter of urgency—so I urge the minister to accelerate implementing all the recommendations of the royal commission. Locally in Warringah, some 15 per cent of residents are now over the age of 65. As Australia's population continues to age, the systems we currently have in place will need to be ready to cope with increasing demand. We must approach the issue with an unwavering compassion and acknowledgement that there are some systemic flaws in the past that weren't acceptable and that need to be changed. Underresourcing and lack of preparedness have rendered many aged-care facilities ill-equipped to adequately care for their patients and residents, and I think that was made all the harder during COVID, obviously, where additional requirements were imposed upon aged-care centres. We have to remember they are not hospitals; they don't have the level of care that is available in emergency departments, so the balance between the resourcing and where the best care can be provided always needs to be front of mind. I have spoken with many local residents, nurses and aged-care workers, and they all believe strongly that having registered nurses on duty will absolutely improve the quality of care and reduce the burden on the health system generally. Registered nurses have the skills and training to treat many more incidents and prevent them from happening in the first place. This will reduce the number of residents being taken to hospital, with care able to be provided at the facility, reducing strain on our stretched ambulance and hospital services. The implementing care bill clearly seeks to improve the system, and I urge the government to ensure these measures succeed. Costings of the bill are not insignificant. We know this is an issue. An accumulated $460 million over the forward estimates is substantial; however, it's an investment absolutely worth applying to appease this shocking crisis. As many have highlighted in this debate so far, it may still not be enough to truly cover the implementation of the measure. The three schedules in the bill will improve safety and access to care rights as outlined in the Australian Charter of Healthcare Rights. The implementation of a mandated posting of a registered nurse 24/7 in aged-care facilities is a welcome improvement. It's an improvement I strongly advocated during the last parliament, and I spoke in support of the member for Indi's motion in 2021. I have done some extensive consultation with stakeholders and residents in Warringah. I seek assurance on their behalf that any exemption criteria for schedule 1 will be reasonable and that it will be consistent with the royal commission's recommendations. I echo the concerns of the member for Mayo and in the coalition's second reading amendments about the lack of detail in the primary legislation and the extensive use of delegated legislation. It's critical that the exemption criteria be made known so that we can be assured that reasonable provisions will be in place to protect providers who are unable to obtain a registered nurse. In that sense, I have listened to the contributions of other members of this place in relation to the difficulties in regional and more remote areas. Nevertheless, we also need to ensure that this exemption process is not used by providers to avoid providing better care and having registered nurses. The department estimates that there is a shortfall of some 850 nurses at present to meet the needs of this bill. We cannot penalise the ratings of these centres for not obtaining staff if they simply doesn't exist. We need to ensure there are exemptions where reasonable steps have been taken to recruit staff but have been prevented by lack of availability amidst the skills shortage crisis. Gaps in individual shifts due to sudden illness or injury of staff and difficulties for employers in abruptly sourcing casual staff should also qualify for a reasonable exemption. The onus should be on the federal government to appease the skills shortage that we are facing and help ensure these exemptions are minimised. The bill also seeks to cap home-care costs specifically pertaining to service providers no longer charging for cessation of care. I support this in principle as we need to target and prevent unreasonable outlier prices in home care. Some stakeholders in my electorate hold concerns that this schedule will grant the government an unlimited power to regulate all home-care prices. So I call on the government to always be transparent and consultative if they are to implement discretionary regulatory powers. There are still some issues relating to the crossover between aged care and NDIS. That does not pertain to this bill, but an issue that I would urge the government to address is the gap and the age discrimination that exists in the NDIS system as people then transfer to the aged-care system. The third schedule seeks to mandate public disclosure pertaining to aged-care services. I support this in principle because we need transparency. But I find it to be broadly written. A general power to disclose information without parliamentary scrutiny could be problematic. So I trust the government will consider reasonable privacy with regard to important information if it's published. When the royal commission's report was released last year, Australians were collectively horrified to learn of the extent of the real human tragedy in a deeply fractured system. The malpractice and underresourcing were a clear violation of the right to access adequate health care. I'm pleased to see this bill introduced so early on the government's parliamentary agenda. The bill will aim to rectify the three serious gaps in the aged-care industry that were outlined by the royal commission. These are important to fix, but we must remember the commission produced 140 recommendations to fix the system. So we must ensure progress is continual. There is significant pressure to reform the sector ahead of the impending jump in demand. To remain ill prepared for this would be catastrophic. We can't allow this sector to underdeliver quality care. In consultation with the aged-care workers in my community in Warringah, further fractures have been identified. One aged-care worker I met with identified that there is a significant gap between some aged-care participants receiving access to great support and others who are not. One aged-care worker has alerted me to instances whereby she witnessed dangerously poor hygiene in facilities and in homes and long wait times for support and assistance, even if an emergency button had been pressed. Alarmingly, she had seen staff administering medication to control behaviour and believes that it may have been unethical and unnecessary sedation. We know these were the types of issues that were raised during the royal commission. Reporting these serious issues through the appropriate channels can prove challenging for some aged-care workers. I note that these complaints are not always acknowledged. So we need to ensure enough streamlined reporting systems are in place so that quality care can be monitored and applied consistently across Australia. In my community, there are also concerns that some providers have too many people on their books and so they are not resourced enough to provide substantial care for all of them, with fears that a profit-over-people mentality still exists within the sector following the revelations of the royal commission. In particular the concern is for older people without family or close relations or those under public guardianship. They're often left behind with inadequate support. The disparity in quality of care needs to be addressed in those circumstances. It has to be acknowledged that navigating the aged-care system can be daunting for families and for older Australians. The sector can be quite complex, and many older people rely on family and friends to help guide them through the processes of application, assessment and engagement with service providers. Sadly, people who struggle to navigate the system find themselves being left behind. As we age, our circumstances can change rapidly. This heightens my concern that underinvestment in My Aged Care has seen waiting lists explode. It can take upwards of 12 months on a waiting list to access home-care packages. In that time one injury, a fall or sudden cognitive decline can see an older Australian completely without access to the level of care they need to stay in their home. I urge the government to eliminate the home-care waitlist, as per the royal commission recommendations, and reform the system to make sure it is sustainable and fit for the ageing population we're dealing with. Keeping people in their own home longer should be a core goal of the aged-care sector. This is again where we do see age discrimination between the interaction of the NDIS, which finishes at 65, and aged care, which does not provide the same level of support. Again, those without family or community assistance find themselves dangerously undersupported as their needs grow. Without ease of access to adequate supports, older people may be forced into aged-care facilities. This is not of benefit to the government, the economy or the community. For those who live in residential aged-care facilities, care needs to be equitable and consistent. The best way to ensure this is to ensure that we have well-trained, well-resourced staff. There are profound opportunities to stimulate the economic benefits of a well-functioning aged-care sector. We know this is where the megatrends in employment opportunities are. We know this is where the skill shortages are. The reforms recommended by the royal commission could create around 30,000 additional full-time jobs in aged care by 2030. This excludes the additional 50,000 extra full-time workers that will be needed because of population trends. So now is the time to capitalise on the opportunities afforded by reforming this sector. Of course, we also need to make sure they are properly valued. We cannot expect people to work in these sectors, which we know are so incredibly essential to the ongoing standards we expect in our community, without them being properly remunerated and valued in our society. This bill brings forward good measures to address three key gaps that were revealed by the royal commission into aged care. It's vital the implementation of these schedules is done thoughtfully and carefully so that meaningful changes can succeed. I again wish to thank those who work so hard to provide quality care within this sector. Their contributions are vital to our older Australians in our communities. It's time we ensure that the unacceptable standards of the past are amended. I look forward to continued action from the government and the minister and to seeing this happen. 11:18 Ms LE 295676 Fowler Like all Australians, I want to see care for our elderly improved where possible and considered deeply. After all, it is something that affects us all. Yesterday in the House I had the privilege of seconding the amendment moved by the member for Mayo, Rebekha Sharkie. She's a strong advocate for regional Australia, and I trust that her amendment will ensure senior Australians receive better quality care for what they pay, and it will make it more difficult for vultures who wish to take advantage of our most vulnerable. My contention is not with the government's proposal to cap fees, making aged care more affordable for Australian families, or to improve the availability of information for senior Australians to make informed decisions. However, I do take issue with schedule 1 of the Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022, which proposes to establish a responsibility for providers of residential aged care to ensure that a registered nurse is on site 24 hours a day seven days a week by July 2023. Our nurses have worked tirelessly on the front line through the COVID-19 pandemic, protecting lives and keeping Australians safe. I would especially like to recognise the incredible care given by our nurses in Fowler in supporting a particularly vulnerable elderly population. Some of the people they cared for did not speak English as a first language and others did not speak English at all, adding to the complexity and stress already being experienced during the pandemic. We will never be able to thank these nurses enough. Despite nurses having been immensely overworked during the last few years, the government proposes to have skilled nurses on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I do not harbour concerns over the validity of this proposal. Rather, I'm worried that not enough consideration has been put into how we will support these nurses and how we will expand the number of nurses available for this demanding job. This government needs to be careful to not simply throw money at situations. Detailed planning needs to be put in place as to how new nurses will be brought into the industry, how they will be trained and how these skilled workers will be retained. Currently, the proposed staffing standards are pitched well above what can be provided by aged-care facilities. The government has stated that nearly 900 new registered nurses will be required to meet the new standards. However, the Aged and Community Care Providers Association has estimated that the sector will instead need 1,440 registered nurses to meet the new staffing requirements. The government's proposal, therefore, considers the minimum requirements and does not take into account the COVID fatigue of a large portion of our nursing workforce. My constituents, like many around the country, struggle to find and afford care, either for themselves or their parents. Recently I had a constituent write to me, outlining the struggles she had in finding a home-care nurse for her father, Anthony Best. Anthony is 90 years old and suffers from macular degeneration. He was assessed for the Commonwealth Home Support Program through the My Aged Care framework; however, he received no further assistance. His daughter Louise managed to find an at-home nurse; however, the standard of care was not what was expected. Due to shortages of quality nurses, the care provider was sometimes unable to provide a nurse at all, and at other times the level of care was not what was required. In Louise's words, 'The system is broken.' While the government proposes to increase the workload of nurses in our communities, they have failed to outline how these nurses will be supported so that stories like Anthony's can be avoided. Additionally, regional electorates have already raised concerns around staffing and the lack thereof. My community of Fowler is similar in that sense. We will see a skills shortage, as we need aged-care providers who are not only qualified but also can cater to our non-English-speaking residents. There is a cultural and language barrier that needs to be overcome. Knowledge is often disseminated by community groups, friends and family, as opposed to formal channels. This was evident during the COVID testing challenges, in which misinformation was rife among non-English-speaking communities. Our healthcare system can and should do better for CALD communities. Our community of Fowler is a very diverse electorate with a growing population in the south-west corridor and a low expectation of the aged-care system. The widening of capacity constraints in the aged-care system is being compounded in Fowler. Many view aged care as having only one option—choosing to place their elderly family members in aged-care facilities—without understanding that there are other options to support the elderly and keep them at home as long as possible. The CALD community have strong family ties, evident through family compositions that are of multiple generations—for example, having grandparents, parents and children in the same household. They are also generally reluctant to move their elderly away from the home. Services such as shopping trips or GP visits would go a long way towards supporting these families, without the need to relocate their elderly fully. Matching these offerings would alleviate demand on full-time aged-care facilities. I also point to another of my constituents, Mr Thang from St Johns Park. Mr Thang currently lives with his wife and daughter. He came to our office recently, inquiring after nursing-home places for when he is unwell and immobile. He is worried he will not have the funds to secure a place in the nursing home that speaks his language. He says it will cost him $200,000 to move into an aged-care home and fears this could cripple his family. Therefore, I support the home-care package program, which supports older people with complex care needs at home so they can be closer to their families. Providing alternative aged-care options will alleviate pressures on aged-care homes and ensure families can stay together as a unit. But families that have tried to care for their elderly, if possible, at home do not have enough access to resources or financial support available to our electorate. Fowler constituents face challenges in the understanding of certain aged-care services offered and how to access them. Beds available in aged-care facilities that cater to the CALD community are very limited, such as those that cater for cultural dietary requirements and multilingual staff. Recognition of overseas qualifications could alleviate this pressure on our aged-care facilities that will now have to provide 24/7 care. Refugees and migrants are more than just their harrowing stories of escaping war-torn countries. There are skilled professionals. There are also qualified nurses and doctors. While the government looks to bringing in a further 35,000 skilled migrants to our country, to tackle the skills shortage, I ask: why not look in our own backyard first? In my electorate of Fowler we have many migrants and refugees who have skilled qualifications from their homelands. Unfortunately, many do not have the paperwork or evidence to back up their qualifications. Speaking from experience, when you are fleeing persecution, violence or war you are not thinking about the university degree paperwork or your qualification documents; you are thinking about how to save your life and the lives of your loved ones. According to the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, current recognition of the prior-learning process is complex and lengthy, which can be difficult for someone who has no knowledge of how our government works. They recommend a new skills assessment system, for people without evidence of qualifications, against an established benchmark, which should be combined with tailored courses and employment placements to identify their gaps in knowledge. We are wasting the potential of a huge group of people who are ready and willing to work. I commend upskilling our community, and offering more government funded courses at TAFE would be a good alternative to just university courses. I point to countries like Canada, which fast tracked visas for refugee nurses in the pandemic. They hope to expand their Foreign Credential Recognition Program, with the aim of employing an extra 11,000 overseas-trained healthcare workers a year. Furthermore, those who are seeking asylum could wait up to five years for their applications to be processed. During this time they are kept on punitive bridging visas, which leave them in purgatory, unable to work or study. I appreciate that the Labor government has committed to reducing this delay in visa processing; however, more action is needed to tackle the crisis at our doorstep. Over 100,000 people are currently seeking asylum. While they wait for their visas to be processed, many cannot access social services, do not have the right to work or do not have the right to study. There is no access to higher education and all are excluded from subsidised funding for apprenticeships, training and certifications. If we are to look at reforming TAFE as part of Jobs and Skills Australia, we must also acknowledge that shorter and more practical technical courses could open opportunities to a wider cohort of staff and accelerate the supply to industry. Age pensioners who are alone and take care of themselves are reluctant to seek medical treatment, due to financial constraints. The recent increase in GPs not bulk-billing is accelerating this, which leads to their health deteriorating and adds to the demands on aged-care services. With cost-of-living pressures, we cannot expect our elderly and vulnerable to break the budget just to get simple healthcare services. We have also received many phone calls from age pensioners who have had concerns regarding having to pay out of pocket to see their local GPs. While I commend the government for acting in aged care and continuing the reform by the previous government, this cannot become a tokenistic gesture to stop the cries for help from senior Australians, nurses and the families that just want affordable and quality care for their loved ones. For too long, in this House, have grand spectacles been the way of government after government to ease the pressure on them from the Australian people. Now is the time to act. Now is the time to create long-lasting and meaningful change in a sector that has been neglected and forgotten for far too long. I will continue to hold the government to account beyond the implementation of this bill, and I will continue to fight for senior Australians and the frontline workers who wake up every day and put on their scrubs to look after our most vulnerable. When I came to Australia I was told of the Australian dream. I was told you could achieve the dream to own a home and raise a family if you contributed to your country and worked hard. Part of that dream is that when you get older you will be cared for. I will not let Australians who have spent the entirety of their lives working to be robbed of that dream. 11:30 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley The Albanese Labor government is taking a different approach to governing to the previous government. We are not afraid to tackle the big challenges facing our country and we are not afraid to do it at the earliest possible opportunity. And we're not afraid to consult or to reach across the aisle and work with our parliamentary colleagues, regardless of political stripe, to face those challenges. Even if sometimes we disagree on how to do it or how fast do it, I think it's fair to say that everybody in this parliament wants to see a better future for older Australians and for the aged-care sector. I want to thank all members for their contributions to the debate on the Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022, all of which has been thoughtful and many of which have been based on their or their loved ones' lived experience with aged care. I'd also like to acknowledge and thank everybody who has either contributed to the Senate inquiry or to the ongoing consultation around the delegated legislation. I want to reassure those who have taken the time to participate in these processes so far that we have heard you and the issues you have raised, and that we are moving government amendments to this bill today as a result of your contributions to this consultation. The royal commission told us that we need to do better, and this bill is our earliest opportunity to take steps on that journey. The bill makes important practical changes to the delivery of aged-care services and it provides greater oversight of what funds are being used for. Importantly, this bill also introduces limits on amounts that can be spent on administration costs as opposed to direct care. These measures put the quality and safety of older Australians first. The bill introduces a new responsibility for approved providers of residential aged care and of specified kinds of flexible care to have a registered nurse on site and on duty at every residential facility 24 hours a day, seven days a week, from 1 July 2023. This will save thousands of unnecessary trips to hospital emergency departments and will ensure that older Australians living in residential aged care have access to the nursing care that they deserve. From 1 January 2023, the bill also introduces powers to enable the government to cap administration and management charges for older Australians receiving a home-care package and removes the ability to charge care recipients for ceasing care. This will maximise funding that is available to address care needs. There is currently little transparency in how providers set their prices for care and package management, and there is no cap on how much they can charge. The royal commission heard that some providers were charging up to 50 per cent of home-care package funding for administration and management. I know I have heard that in my electorate and I know that the member for Mayo has heard that in her electorate, and it's something that we seek to address as soon as possible. This bill will provide the means to ensure high levels of administration and management charges are reduced, and that money goes instead directly to meeting care needs. Lastly, this bill will include amendments relating to the transparency of providers' financial information and other valuable information about providers' operations to empower older Australians to make more informed choices about their care and to shine a light on providers not doing the right thing. I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge and respond to some of the feedback that we have received regarding this bill. During the Senate inquiry process, some concerns have been raised regarding regional and rural aged-care homes and the impact that the new nursing requirement will have on their ability to operate. We are aware of the issues facing these facilities and this is exactly the reason why there will be sensible and limited exemptions available while we move to this new 24/7 nursing standard. These exemptions will be designed in consultation with these providers and other stakeholders to ensure that we get them right. It is also why, under the new AN-ACC funding model, which will start on 1 October, remote and very remote facilities are forecast to receive, on average, approximately $290 per bed per day, which is $83 more than the average funding for the current ACFI system. Some people have also raised the question of how the 24/7 nurse standard will be enforced and whether there will be consequences for those without an exemption. As with any situation where an aged-care provider fails to meet their responsibilities around care standards, the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission can undertake regulatory responses that include education, monitoring provider performance, directing a provider to take specific action and enforcement action such as sanctions. Ensuring best practice and the safety of older Australians is a priority for the Albanese Labor government. We also acknowledge comments raised during the Senate inquiry process around ensuring appropriate levels of consultation for the delegated legislation. We agree there should be consultation around the detail, and there will be. On top of hours and hours of royal commission hearings that formed the basis of its important recommendations that this bill will help address, consultation on the delegated legislation is continuing and will be undertaken to determine policy parameters and, where timing permits, on exposure drafts of the proposed delegated legislation. Specifically, the delegated legislation for the exemptions to 24/7 nurses will go through an exposure draft process. I'd also note that all amendments to delegated legislation will be subjected to disallowance and therefore continue to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Before I finish I want to acknowledge the proposed amendment by the member for Mayo. We do not support the amendment to the bill. We are concerned that there is a real lack of certainty about what a schedule of reasonable charges would look like and the responsibility that such a schedule would place on approved providers. I'll hop into that in a moment. However, I really do appreciate the intent of the amendment. The government will not tolerate providers cost-shifting when we can cut administration and management fees. The bill already allows us to manage charges if unscrupulous providers try to get around the new caps. We will be watching this closely and we will respond and identify those providers who are doing the wrong thing. Setting reasonable fees for aged-care services is not straightforward. If we set the fees too high, providers that can deliver effectively at lower prices will get a benefit at a cost to taxpayers. If we set them too low, providers who cannot deliver for the national price—for example, a small provider delivering personal care in a rural area—might just stop offering that service altogether. The cost of providing services isn't the same across the country or for all providers, and the last thing that we want for providers in rural and remote areas already struggling is to stop offering critical personal-care services to people in the community because we have legislated a charge that does not meet the real cost of providing that service. However, I thank the member for Mayo for her engagement on the bill and for her longstanding dedication to better aged-care policy and real outcomes for older Australians in need of care. I look forward to working with her and all my colleagues to deliver better outcomes for older Australians in sessions to come. I thank all members for their contribution to the debate on this bill, and I commend the bill to the House. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mayo be disagreed to.    

The House divided. [11:38]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 70 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. 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. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. 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. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Vamvakinou, M. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 65 NOES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gee, A. R. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Katter, R. C. Landry, M. L. Le, D. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. Morrison, S. J. O'Brien, E. L. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Robert, S. R. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Thompson, P. Tink, K. J. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Watson-Brown, E. Webster, A. E. Wilkie, A. D. Willcox, A. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 11:47 The SPEAKER 53517 The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable Deputy Leader of the Opposition be disagreed to.    

The House divided. [11:48]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

74 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. Burns, 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. 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. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. 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. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 61 NOES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Chaney, K. E. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gee, A. R. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Katter, R. C. Landry, M. L. Le, D. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McIntosh, M. I. McKenzie, Z. A. Morrison, S. J. O'Brien, E. L. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Robert, S. R. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Thompson, P. Tink, K. J. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Wilkie, A. D. Willcox, A. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

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

 Consideration in Detail 29 11:52 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I move the amendment circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 2, item 1, page 5 (line 11), omit "recipient;", substitute: recipient, including a schedule of reasonable charges associated with the provision of the following to the care recipient: (i) administration and management of care; (ii) services; (iii) equipment; This amendment is very simple. It aims to supplement measures provided in schedule 2 of the bill. It does not limit matters which may be provided for in the User Rights Principles under the Aged Care Act. It does, however, specify that those principles should include a reasonable schedule of charges associated with the provision to care recipients of administration and management of care, services, and equipment. The purpose of this amendment is this: as sure as night follows day, if we put a cap on administration and management fees on this side, we are going to see people who receive a home-care package no longer being charged perhaps $90 an hour or $150 an hour on the weekend. That is the usual fee that I see, and I've surveyed more than 1,200 residents in my community and asked them to go into detail for me. I've seen their invoices. As sure as night follows day, those fees will go up. I understand that the minister is saying, 'We're going to keep a watchful eye on this.' That's going to be after the damage, after people are charged $200 or $300, because providers will share and shift the cost on this. There's no reason why a reasonable schedule of fees couldn't have a metropolitan layer and a regional, rural and remote layer. There's no reason why you couldn't have a range of fees. I have constituents in my electorate who are being charged $700 for an occupational therapist to spend 10 minutes in their home to tell them that they need to get a shower chair or get a little hanging basket instead of putting their shampoo on the ground—'Just get a little hanging basket from Kmart; that's $700'—or put a rail in their wardrobe. This is extraordinary. They're being charged $700 for an occupational therapist to visit them and tell them that they need that, and then it's $440 for a company to come out to a home to provide a quote and $1,000 to install the rail. And it's all taken from the funds. Then what happens when it's taken from the funds? Older people are told, 'We're going to have to cut back your hours this month, and when we get the next lump of money for you at the end of the month you can go back to your normal hours of care.' It is outrageous that we would not fix this problem properly, right now in this parliament, and not say, 'Oh, the department's going to look at this in the future' or 'We're going to be really keeping a watchful eye on this one'. I will be talking with my constituents as soon as this is implemented, saying: 'Tell me, how much are your hourly rates now? What are you being charged for an hour of home care, or 20 minutes of home care, now? And how much are all those quotes for occupational therapists who come out and spend 15 minutes with you, and how much are you being charged?' As I said, they are going to profit-shift from where they're currently making obscene amounts of profit on administration and management fees, where providers are not changing month to month the actual care plan for a person but still taking 50 per cent, and move those profits over to the other side, where we're not putting caps in. Minister, this is an area I have cared deeply about for six years. It's one of the few areas in this parliament in which I would say I actually have a very reasonable amount of knowledge. We are going to make older people even more vulnerable to some of the unscrupulous practices by many home-care providers. I have a regional electorate. I understand what you're saying with respect to, 'We don't want to make sure it is not profitable and that people move out of delivering regional services'. I can tell you right now: on Kangaroo Island it is incredibly difficult. You get given a home-care package by the government—but try and find anyone willing to do it. That's already an issue. We're going to see, in areas where they're still willing to deliver, that they're just going to profit-shift from one side of the equation over to the other. We in this place want to see people get more hours for their home care, and that will not happen with this legislation as it currently is. 11:57 Mr BATES 300246 Brisbane I want to thank the member for Mayo for her work on this bill and the amendment she has circulated. We recognise and agree with the broad concern she's raised about the level of delegated legislation in this bill. It certainly isn't our preference, and we would encourage the government to address those concerns in a way that addresses the issues highlighted through the Senate committee inquiry process. I understand a number of crossbench MPs and senators have raised those issues with the minister, and I look forward to the outcome of those discussions. We have consulted with a number of stakeholders on the amendment circulated by the member for Mayo in the time that was available. As I said, we support the intent to ensure greater accountability in legislation and greater protection for consumers. Given the policy development underway by government, the advice we've received from a number of stakeholder groups is they support the existing process. So we won't be supporting this amendment in the House. However, we remain open to improvements to the bill and will continue to consult with stakeholders on how we can ensure this legislation is as transparent and strong as possible. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendment be disagreed to.    

The House divided. [12:04]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

75 AYES Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Bell, A. M. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, 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. Collins, J. M. Conroy, P. M. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) 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. Howarth, L. R. Husic, E. N. King, C. F. Landry, M. L. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Ley, S. P. Lim, S. B. C. McBain, K. L. McCormack, M. F. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Murphy, P. J. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Pasin, A. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Price, M. L. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Vamvakinou, M. van Manen, A. J. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wolahan, K. Zappia, A. 12 NOES Chaney, K. E. Daniel, Z. Haines, H. M. (Teller) Katter, R. C. Le, D. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Tink, K. J. Wilkie, A. D. (Teller) 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 12:09 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022 and move the government amendment as circulated: Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 26) to page 4 (line 6), omit subsection 54-1A(4), substitute: (4) Without limiting subsection (3), the Quality of Care Principles made for the purposes of that subsection must: (a) provide for the circumstances in which an exemption from this section may be granted (on application or otherwise) to an approved provider in relation to a residential facility, including that: (i) such an exemption may be granted by the Secretary; and (ii) before granting such an exemption, the Secretary must be satisfied that the provider has taken reasonable steps to ensure that the clinical care needs of the care recipients in the facility will be met during the period for which the exemption is in force; and (b) provide that such an exemption that is granted to an approved provider in relation to a residential facility must not be in force for more than 12 months; and (c) provide that more than one such exemption may be granted to an approved provider in relation to a residential facility; and (d) provide for the conditions that may apply to such an exemption that is granted to an approved provider in relation to a residential facility. (5) If an exemption from this section is granted to an approved provider in relation to a residential facility, the Secretary must make publicly available information about the exemption, including: (a) the name of the provider and the facility; and (b) the period for which the exemption is in force; and (c) any conditions that apply to the exemption; and (d) any other information of a kind specified in the Quality of Care Principles. Before I speak directly to that amendment, I'd like once again to acknowledge and thank everybody who has contributed either to the Senate inquiry or to the ongoing consultation around the delegated legislation. One thing that has been extremely clear to me throughout this process is that we all have a very clear shared goal—to see older Australians get the care that they deserve from the aged-care sector. There is clear support for the intent of this bill. The government is progressing amendments to the bill because of feedback received during the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry and their subsequent report. I would like to specifically thank Senator David Pocock and his office for their productive and early engagement on these changes, as well as all of the members and senators that have engaged with me and my team on this. I'm open to working with anyone who wants to see improved outcomes for our aged-care sector. The amendments will clarify points in schedule 1 of the bill. They specifically relate to exemptions that may be granted to approved providers in relation to the 24/7 registered nurse requirements. The amendments provide that the secretary will be the decision-maker in respect of any exemption and that the secretary must be satisfied that the provider has taken reasonable steps to ensure that the clinical care needs of the care recipients in the facility will be met if that exemption is granted. This will ensure that the needs of the care recipients are central to any decision to grant an exemption. The amendments also provide that an exemption cannot be granted for longer than 12 months, ensuring that exemptions are regularly being reviewed. Finally, the amendments provide that the secretary must publish details in relation to any exemptions that are granted. These decisions should be public, as this will incentivise providers to meet that requirement rather than seeking an exemption. It will also increase transparency, providing older people and their families with information so that they can make more informed decisions about their care. We are committed to getting aged-care reforms right to deliver the care that older Australians deserve, and we will continue to work through the details with the sector, with unions, with older Australians and with our colleagues in this place. We continue to be very open to having discussions and working with other members of this parliament to work towards better outcomes for older Australians. We want to do this reform once and we want to do it well for a lasting positive impact on people's lives. That will require all of us to work together to make it happen. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading 31 12:13 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 2) Bill 2022 32

Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 2) Bill 2022

Second Reading 32 12:14 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume The coalition will be supporting this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 2) Bill 2022. This bill implements a number of sensible measures of the previous coalition government. For a number of these measures, their implementation was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The bill provides effective changes to support small businesses in handling their affairs with the Australian Taxation Office, providing them with additional supports in the event of inadvertent breaches, as opposed to financial penalties. It provides small businesses additional support in dealing with the ATO appeals process and removes tax barriers that support sole traders and individuals looking to upskill. It supports gig economy contractors and companies to manage their tax obligations and ensure that the ATO has the data it needs to ensure accurate reporting. And it puts in place important reforms to support the coalition's election commitment to support Australians over-55 to downsize their properties and contribute to their superannuation. This bill builds on the coalition's strong record of supporting small businesses, retirees and sensible reforms to superannuation as well as supporting the housing market. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY ( ) : The question is that the bill be now read a second time. Minister? 12:16 Mr BURKE DYW Watson on indulgence—Just for the benefit of the House, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022 has come down from the Federation Chamber. What I'd like to do is simply adjourn this debate until a later hour, deal with the electric vehicle bill so that we can finish that, and then return to this. I move: That the debate be adjourned to a later hour this day. Question agreed to. Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022 32

Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022

Report from Federation Chamber 32 Third Reading 32 12:17 Mr BURKE DYW Watson by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 2) Bill 2022 32

Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 2) Bill 2022

Second Reading 32 12:18 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith 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: (1) notes this bill delivers a Liberal Party election commitment adopted by the Labor Party, namely the downsizer contribution, adding to the list of Liberal Party economic policies adopted by the Labor Party, such as the stage three tax cuts; and (2) calls on the Labor government to stop adopting taxation measures that will increase inequality and instead ease cost of living pressures by getting dental into Medicare, making childcare free, wiping student debt and freezing rents". We're in the middle of one of the worst cost-of-living and housing crises in a generation, and the government continues to just tinker around the edges with bills like this. Right now, this House should be considering a bill to repeal the stage 3 tax cuts and invest the revenue in putting dental into Medicare, free child care and affordable housing, but, instead, Labor are enshrining a Liberal election promise in law. The Prime Minister has talked about tough choices that this government will have to make when passing the upcoming federal budget. But why is it, in Australian politics, that the tough choices are always made by everyday people? When it comes to the federal budget, one of the things you can be sure of, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that the politicians, billionaires and big corporations who run this country won't be the ones making those tough choices. Nothing illustrates that better than Labor's stage 3 tax cuts. Two hundred and forty-four billion dollars—that's how much Labor's stage 3 tax cuts are going to cost this country. When it comes to tough choices, let's talk about exactly who will be making them. It certainly won't be the Prime Minister, who earns $549,250 a year—more than half a million dollars, or 13-times the minimum wage. The Prime Minister will receive an extra $9,000 a year from his government's own tax cuts. It won't be the Treasurer, who earns a measly $396,000—only nine times the minimum wage! The Treasurer, too, will receive an extra $9,000 a year from his party's own tax cuts. It certainly won't be a lowly backbencher or crossbencher like me, who earns an outrageous $217,000 a year. In fact, the last thing anyone in this place needs is an extra $9,000 a year. What we all really need is a pay cut. It absolutely won't be Alan Joyce, CEO of Qantas, making any tough choices, as he received $1.98 million last year while Qantas laid off 8½ thousand workers. The government has decided that he too needs an extra $9,000 a year. Indeed, the only tough choice any of them have to make is how to spend that extra $9,000 a year. Who knows? Maybe it'll be on an extra investment property. I'll tell you what real tough choices look like. A tough choice is a teacher having to use their own money to feed kids in their school who would otherwise go without. A tough choice is a pensioner having to choose between paying the rent or buying groceries. A tough choice is a single mum working out where to park the car for the night after she and her kids were evicted from their home because they couldn't afford to pay the rent. A tough choice is working out how long you can ignore that toothache, because you can't afford to go to the dentist. A tough choice is a family having to cancel their first holiday in years, because the mortgage repayments just went up by $200 a month and they don't know how they're going to make ends meet. A tough choice is a childcare worker wondering how much longer they can survive on low wages and long hours. A tough choice is a young man struggling to find the hundreds of dollars a week it costs to pay for the mental health support that he so desperately needs. These are the tough choices that Australians make every day, and they are tough choices imposed on them by the decisions of federal and state governments. So, when the Prime Minister talks about tough choices, let's remember that by repealing the stage 3 tax cuts we could invest $244 billion to ensure everybody in this country has what they need to live a good life. We could fund a universal free breakfast and lunch program in every school so that that teacher doesn't have to worry about which of their kids are eating today. We could raise the pension above the poverty line so that that pensioner can retire in comfort and doesn't have to decide whether they pay the rent or pay for groceries. We could build enough public housing so that that single mum can move straight into a well-designed, rent-subsidised public home. We could bring dental into Medicare so that no-one has to put off going to the dentist because they can't afford the thousand dollars it's going to cost. We could improve pay and conditions so that childcare workers are able to stay in a profession that they love, knowing that their work is valued and that they can afford to buy a house of their own and put down roots. And, while we're at it, we could make child care free so no parent has to make the tough choice to give up opportunities in their lives because they can't afford child care. We could bring mental health into Medicare so that that young man would be able to afford to get the support he needs straightaway, without having to stress about how he's going to pay the $200 a week it costs to get therapy. But, instead of choosing to help out that teacher, that pensioner or that single mum, Labor are choosing, with their stage 3 tax cuts, to double-down on a political and economic system that always makes the lives of everyday people tougher while handing out billions of dollars to the super-rich billionaires in big corporations. The amendment I've moved today is about this place signalling to the government that the last thing we need is more of the same—the last thing we need is more Liberal Party election promises; the last thing we need is the status quo. It's time this government scrapped the stage 3 tax cuts and, instead, spent $244 billion funding the services everyday Australians need to live a good life. You could vote on behalf of everyone in your electorate struggling to pay for housing, groceries, health care and child care, rather than on behalf of the top one per cent. You could vote to ensure that none of us sitting here on at least $217,000 a year get an extra $9,000 a year while there are people sleeping in cars. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Is the amendment seconded? 12:24 Mr BATES 300246 Brisbane I second the amendment. Four months ago, I was working in a retail job in the suburbs of north Brisbane. I was making about $55,000 a year, just above the median wage in Australia. At times, I and many of my colleagues lived pay cheque to pay cheque. I have countless memories of us sitting around the break room talking about our financial stresses, such as making rent or finding a doctor that would bulk-bill, and complaining about toothaches and being unable to afford a dentist. Frequently, single parents would be forced to choose between working a shift or utilising child care. Not working a shift lost them income, but utilising child care was the more expensive option. These conversations were not unique to my former workplace. They happen in break rooms and at worksites around the country. All of us know that things shouldn't be this hard and that something is very wrong. No-one should be putting off visiting the dentist because of the cost or living in constant fear of not being able to afford rent. And yet, for millions of Australians, this is the reality. To combat these issues—rising inflation, spiralling healthcare costs, rent stress and interest rate hikes—what is the government's response to my former colleagues? The stage 3 tax cuts: a $269 tax cut for my former colleagues and a $9,000 tax cut each year for CEOs and politicians. The Labor government tells us that tough decisions will have to be made in this year's budget. But when it comes to supporting tax cuts for the very, very wealthy—these are not hard decisions. The now government voted for these cuts at their introduction. They made the decision to support bad legislation then and they have doubled down on it now. When I asked a question in question time, the Treasurer could not give me a single reason why these tax cuts were good for the economy. I don't even think the government wants to keep them. They are now in a wedge of their own making. Every day I am contacted by constituents who cannot fathom the government's decision to not repeal these cuts, and I can't give them a good answer. They didn't make sense when the government voted for them, they don't make sense today and they won't make sense in 2024. We need courage. We need the government to show everyday Australians that it is really on their side. The government wants to pretend that it is powerless to stop terrible coalition policy, but it is not. It has the majority in this House, and it would have the support of the Greens both here and in the Senate to repeal these tax cuts. The government often talks about its legacy—Medicare, the PBS and so on—but this will be Labor's new legacy. It will be known as a government of tax cuts to the rich at the expense of meaningfully raising income support, JobSeeker, the pension and the DSP. It will be known as a government that legislates people into poverty. It will be known as a government that looks at the cost-of-living crisis and thinks, 'Politicians need a tax cut.' It is that simple. Our essential public services are funded by taxation. If the government wants to rip out over $200 billion of revenue, cuts to public services will have to be made. There are no two ways about it. The government has the nerve to claim these tax cuts will mean more in people's hip pockets, but how will it reconcile this with the fact that these cuts will have to be paired with essential services becoming harder to access and more expensive? Right now, it is getting more and more difficult to find a bulk-billing GP, our healthcare system is at crisis point, higher education is becoming out of reach, and students are saddled with over $60 billion in debt. How can the government possibly plan to address this with a $200 billion plus gap in the budget? This is a natural consequence of the government's commitment to neoliberalism and the hollowing out of public services. This is the government suggesting that the very richest people in Australia will solve the cost-of-living crisis out of the goodness of their hearts, despite all of history pointing to the contrary. This did not happen during the Great Depression, and it did not happen during the global financial crisis. It is said that history repeats itself, first as tragedy and second as farce. The coalition's policies consign them to irrelevance in this parliament; why does the government want to follow in their footsteps? It seems I'm expected to go back and tell my former co-workers that, despite their financial stress and despite the universal acceptance that our economic system is broken, we can't afford to fix their problems. It's a lie. We can. We have solutions ready to go. They are solutions that have precedent. They already exist in countries around the world. They can be done. Why should Australians be left behind? In the past we have been bold and courageous enough to transform our country for the better. I am here because of the community's hope for a better future and to put a stop to politics as usual. We can get dental and mental health into Medicare. We can make child care free. We can wipe student debt. We can freeze rents for two years. It's just that the Labor government would rather give themselves a tax cut. 12:30 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie As the member for Petrie I want to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 2) Bill 2022. This second reading amendment and what the Greens are talking about here is total rubbish. The reality is that the Greens do not love this country. The Greens want to change everything that is successful about Australia. The reality is that their own leader won't even stand in front of the Australian national flag. He can't do that, yet he's an elected member of this House. The reality is that the member for Griffith and the member for Brisbane probably got 35 per cent of the vote when you count in LNP preferences, because LNPs voted 1 and they put Labor next above the Greens. So those two members are here with probably 35 to 40 per cent of the vote. The way the system works delivered the seats to the Greens rather than the Labor Party, which is a real shame. It shows that our democratic process is not working when these two members can get elected with 40 per cent of the vote and when 60 per cent of people in their own seats voted for Labor before they voted for the Greens. The Greens here won't stand in front of the Australian flag. The Greens want to cut the Defence Force budget in half. As a father with a son in the Defence Force I say that is shameful. And that is before the previous coalition government committed to increasing the budget, which the Labor Party will, hopefully, support. They want to cut it in half. The Greens here want to ban private schools. They don't want a Catholic school in the country. They don't want a Lutheran school in the country. They want only state schools. Their policies are absolute rubbish. They don't deserve to be taken notice of by the Australian people. When it comes to stage 3 tax cuts the reality is that the former government and the current government supported stage 1 and stage 2 tax cuts, which gave tax cuts to the poorest people in our community. They ensured that $18,200 earned by every person, including students, is tax free. They ensured that earnings from $18,200 to $45,000 are taxed at 19c in the dollar. Stage 3 ensures that everyone earning from $45,000 to $120,000 receives a tax cut from 32.5c to 30c. The Greens talk about politicians, wealthy people and Clive Palmer, but the reality is that most people in Australia will get a tax cut under stage 3. Rather than talking the country down, start talking about what's good in this country, like the government and the opposition often do. That's all I have to say on this issue. 12:34 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to support this excellent implementation of the former Morrison government's suite of important policies, including in particular the adjustment to the eligibility for the downsizer contribution to superannuation. I note that there is an amendment from the Greens condemning this and anything else that puts money back into the pockets of hardworking Australians. I appreciate this opportunity to prosecute their position on these things for my electorate of Sturt. It would horrify them to think that it's the position of a party like the Greens to reverse and take away Australians' hard-earned savings in the case of super or hard-earned money from the point of view of an appropriate regime of income tax rates that don't punish unfairly people who are damn hard workers and deserve as much of their money in their own pockets as they can have. On downsizing: this is a really significant reform—dropping the eligibility age to 55. I was thrilled when this was announced during the election campaign by former Prime Minister Morrison. I'm happy enough, obviously—and like many other things that they said—that a few minutes later Labor said they'd do the same thing and 'me too-ed' the policy. So now we're here implementing it. It will be transformative for the retirement planning for so many of my constituents in the seat of Sturt and, frankly, for so many Australians nationwide. It allows people to plan with so much more certainty for their financial security in retirement. It's a very big decision to make, and a lot of people plan many years in advance as to how they are going to make sure they have provisioned enough to support themselves in what should be a very relaxing and non-financially stressful retirement. I also wish anyone going into retirement many, many years of it. Self-funded retirees are the great economic heroes of this nation. Again, as I always do on legislation relating to self-funded retirees, I want to thank them so very much for what they do to make provision for their retirement and the costs of that retirement. By doing that, they take an enormous burden off the Commonwealth government—all government, frankly—because they fund the cost of their own retirement. If they didn't, of course we would do so through the aged pension and the other supports that are put in place for all Australians, who absolutely deserve it if they're not in a position to make provision for their own financial requirements in retirement. But those who are self-funded retirees do so much to take the burden off the taxpayer and allow us to invest more money in so many other services that are good for all Australians. So thank you to them. Reducing the age to 55 allows a lot more people to start to make provision—potentially, to sell a large family home—much sooner than they would have if they were waiting for eligibility for this important tax concession. We can think of a couple who own a family home which isn't necessarily the home they need once their children have moved out. It probably has a large amount of value in it. From the age of 55 that couple can sell the home and put $300,000 each into their superannuation without it being taxed on the way in. There's an enormous incentive there to do that, of course. That puts people in a position to do that from the age of 55, well in advance of when they might ultimately retire and start to call upon their superannuation. There's an enormous peace of mind in undertaking that transaction, getting it done and putting the money into super, and, equally, in being able to move into a different home that's more appropriate for the stage of life that you're moving into and to meet the costs of doing so. Everyone has moved home and we all know there's a lot of cost in moving from one home to another. Even if you're downsizing, there's a lot to get organised and arranged, and there are always unforeseen or unexpected costs in doing that. A lot of people would feel much more comfortable doing that while they're still in the workforce and while they're still earning a salary or wage. Now, through this measure, they can effectively undertake that process from the age of 55: square away those arrangements, put money into their superannuation and, therefore, reassess their superannuation and the amount that they have in it. They can have a new home that they'll probably intend to spend the balance of their retirement in. They can settle all that down and meet all the costs of that transaction, of that relocation and of purchasing a new property and of provisioning for themselves by putting those funds into superannuation. They can settle their affairs while in the comfort of still being well and truly in the workforce and earning an income, not while staring down the barrel of a very imminent retirement and the uncertainty of whether or not they'll get the value they're hoping to for the property they sell and whether the new property they want to move into will cost what they thought it would, with all the various taxes and charges that state governments in particular put on those selling one home and moving into another. The other benefit of this, of course, is that it will encourage people to sell dwellings that were appropriate for a family—a family they might no longer have, if their kids have grown up and moved on, though there is another whole problem around that that isn't worth getting into in this debate—but will be less appropriate for the next stage of their life as they approach retirement. This will—I hope, as I'm sure everyone hopes, which is why the government said 'Me too' to the policy that we announced—increase the supply of family homes in the marketplace. That should help young families—who are at a very different stage in their life and in the economic cycle, with having and raising children, et cetera—by making it easier for them to purchase an appropriate family home, because more of the people who have a family home but don't need it anymore will be making the choice to sell that family home, having been encouraged to do so by this measure and this tax concession. I hope, as I'm sure we all hope, this will increase the supply of family homes in the marketplace. Another enormous challenge we've got at the moment is around housing affordability. There is a particular challenge for people looking to transition from what may have been the first home they purchased—if they have been lucky enough to even get into the property market, which is just an ever-increasing challenge. Recent increases in interest rates have only made that challenge harder still. So I hope this measure helps those people who, having bought their first home, now find that that home, which was appropriate for them at a certain stage of life, is no longer appropriate. If they partnered up and bought their first home together as a couple but were not then at the stage of having children, by now they may be looking to have children or may already have young children and find that that home is not perfectly suited to the needs of a young and growing family. People who've reached the age of 55 will, in many cases, have exactly that type of home. They probably will have spent the last couple of decades raising their own family in that home but now may be in a position where they don't need that particular type of property anymore. These very sensible tax incentives will encourage them to downsize from that property and have the benefits of doing so and of putting a significant contribution into super. They may do this individually or as a couple—both, of course, will get the opportunity. Then I think we could have the good outcome of helping younger people to get into family homes. Now, this is obviously completely voluntary. My parents, funnily enough, are in this circumstance themselves. They certainly are not downsizing their property! They're very happy staying in a larger family home. It is, of course, absolutely their right to do so. All we are doing here is providing the opportunity and an enhanced incentive to downsize, for those who choose to, through avoiding taxation on the proceeds of selling that property, up to the amount of $300,000, by contributing it to super. That obviously means they're downsizing, because they will have sold their property, and, if they take advantage of this, they will have less money left over—having contributed up to $300,000 into their superannuation—to go towards the property that they're buying to replace the one that they've sold. I think the outcome is self-evident there. It's going to be an excellent opportunity for people to plan and provision for their retirement. There are a couple of other measures that emanate from the previous government in this TLAB No. 2 bill—others have probably commented on that—in particular around being a lot more flexible with small businesses around honest mistakes they might make in the way in which they manage their business accounts, which might lead to them inadvertently misrecording and therefore misreporting certain things to the ATO. I am absolutely pleased this new government is continuing with the position of the previous government to not be too heavy-handed with people when they have probably made some genuine and honest mistakes. It's a bit like community service instead of being sent straight to jail where, frankly, the circumstance most probably is that they haven't meant to make a bookkeeping error. It's not something we will condone into the future, but one option is they undertake appropriate training to understand why they have made certain mistakes in the accounts of the business, and they won't get a second chance if, having done that, they make the same mistakes again in the future. I think that's eminently sensible. I'm particularly pleased, as I've made clear, that we're here to give an opportunity for much greater security for people planning their retirement. I thank the millions of Australians, a growing cohort, who are provisioning for their own retirement. I've made the point as to how much of a significant economic contribution that is and how much of a significant budgetary contribution it is particularly to the Commonwealth budget. This is one thing we can do to help them feel more secure in their retirement. I think it'll also lead to more people being self-funded retirees and taking a further financial burden off the Commonwealth payments that are made. That is in no way any criticism of people who do need and should always have the support of us to have the aged pension and other government supports in retirement, but, clearly, where people can afford to support their own retirement that is of significant help to the Commonwealth. This is one very good opportunity we have to help those people who help us in that way. I commend the bill to the House. 12:47 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan We have in front of parliament right now the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 2) Bill 2022, which simply does not address the biggest budgetary issue in this country: Labor's stage 3 tax cuts. I want to take this time to ask: who does this government govern for? It's not clear to me that it's for everyday people. The rhetoric is there but you have to look at the actions. At the moment Labor are about to rip $244 billion out of the budget over the next decade and hand the bulk of it to the ultra-wealthy—a quarter of a trillion dollars. Labor will say they inherited these handouts for the mega-rich from the previous government. That is not true. They in fact voted for them along with the Liberals. This was a bipartisan commitment to putting money that was meant for health, education and social support into the hands of people who don't need it. But Labor can reverse it. It's okay. Be mature. Admit you made a mistake and repeal these tax cuts—and do it now. Labor's stage 3 tax cuts aren't just some numbers on paper; they will affect millions of people's real lives. People in this chamber may be sheltered from this on these, frankly, absurdly large salaries we have, but many everyday people out there are going through hell right now, with a cost-of-living crisis unlike any in recent memory. If you were just getting by a year ago, you are in a state of absolute stress and anxiety now. If you were just making rent or mortgage repayments before and just managing your electricity bills, you are really stressing out now about where to find that money. Inflation is running at 6.1 per cent, and real wages have fallen by 3.5 per cent. It is tough out there. Rents have spiked 16.9 per cent in Brisbane in the last 12 months. Mortgages are about to significantly increase with the RBA's recent interest rate hikes. We're hearing of more and more people finding themselves without a roof over their heads. We have families sleeping in cars. But, instead of taking that $244 billion and spending it on the things that will help everyday people get by, like building public housing, doubling JobSeeker, funding Medicare properly, Labor have decided to hand it over as tax cuts, the bulk of which will go to the megarich of this country. These tax cuts are actually quite obscene. Of this $244 billion, the richest one per cent in Australia will receive as much as the poorest 65 per cent of Australia combined. The top 20 per cent of income earners will receive 77 per cent of this $244 billion. For the rest, crumbs. Members of this chamber will receive $9,000 in tax cuts a year. Alan Joyce will receive that too. Billionaires like Gina Rinehart will get $9,000 in tax cuts a year, and two-thirds of these tax cuts will flow to men, while only one-third will come to women, only furthering that gender pay gap. I'm sorry if it offends people in this chamber, but someone on over $200,000 a year doesn't need another business class flight every year. My Greens colleague, Max Chandler-Mather, has just moved an amendment to this Treasury laws bill to call on this government to stop these unjustifiable stage 3 tax cuts. There's no reason to proceed with them. Let's use this opportunity to drop them now. While Labor are handing out $9,000 to the Alan Joyces of the world, our public services are eroded. But imagine what we could do with $244 billion. Since Labor seem to be lacking in imagination at the moment, here's a quick list of some of the things we could do with that quarter of a trillion dollars. Medicare hasn't kept up with inflation, so it's increasingly impossible to see a bulk billing doctor. We could fix that, giving everyone access to genuinely free and comprehensive health care. People can't access dental under Medicare. We could make seeing the dentist something everyone can do for free. Our nurses, teachers, early childcare workers are underpaid; our hospitals are understaffed; and our schools are underfunded. We could make sure our health and education sectors are fully funded, world class and our essential workers are looked after. JobSeeker is well below the poverty line. With $244 billion, we could double it and ensure everyone has something to fall back on when times are tough. The pension is also below the poverty line. We could let everyone have comfortable, happy retirements regardless of whether they were fortunate enough to accrue a lot of super. Child care is prohibitively expensive for so many families. We could make it free. We have hundreds and thousands of people currently on the waiting list for social housing. With $244 billion, we could build enough beautifully designed public housing to give every single one of them a decent home and have plenty left over for people who just want a secure place to live for low rent. One of these things alone could be transformative, but with $244 billion we could go a long way to making all of these a reality in Australia. We have a Treasury laws amendment bill in front of us that doesn't mention Labor's stage 3 tax cuts. It doesn't repeal them, although it could. It doesn't free up that $244 billion to fund the things that everyday people need. Whenever we in the Greens suggest that the government could deliver something that would genuinely help everyday Australians, like bringing dental into Medicare, like raising the pension, like lowering the age of retirement, they cry poor and say, 'We're in too much debt.' Too much debt when we could give billions upon billions in handouts to the megarich? Well, you can't use public debt as an excuse to not fund social programs while ripping a quarter of a trillion dollars out of the budget. It's an insult to the intelligence of everyday Australians. Why does this government not govern for the real people? If they go ahead with these tax cuts, it will be sadly all too clear that they're not governing for the person who can't afford to see the dentist, the person who's lost work, the person who can't afford to pay the rent or mortgage. They'll be governing for the megarich. 12:54 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde I'm always pleased to rise and speak on a treasury laws amendment bill, and it's good to see the Assistant Treasurer in the House for the contribution. I'm sure he'll appreciate it, as he always does. The Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 2) Bill 2022 implements a number of sensible measures from the previous coalition government. I'm pleased to say that it's good to see the government looking to pursue and implement those measures, which are part of a long line of many sensible measures that we implemented over the last nine years in government. The implementation of a number of these measures was delayed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, but this bill provides effective changes to support small business in handling their affairs with the ATO and provides them with additional support in the event of inadvertent breaches, as opposed to penalties. I'll say at the outset that it would be fair to characterise the ATO's relationship with small business as certainly not a love-love relationship. It's probably more a love-hate relationship. We need to do anything that we can in this place to make that relationship better. We need to ensure that small businesses are treated by the ATO with the respect and dignity they deserve and that, when they do make inadvertent errors, they're not inappropriately penalised for those oversights. Small businesses don't have accounting departments, chief financial officers and all of the things that our large corporates do. Many of them are mum-and-dad businesses where people are not just the financial managers; they're also seeking to run the business each and every day and generate sales and revenue. More often than not they have a mortgage on that small business that is secured by their home, so they've got the pressure of keeping a roof over their head, and that is entirely dependent on how the business goes. They're also employing people in our local communities and supporting our local sporting clubs and community organisations. And they certainly don't have HR departments; the business owners are the HR department. This bill provides small business with additional support in dealing with the ATO appeals process and removes tax barriers to sole traders and individuals looking to upskill. It also, importantly, supports gig economy contractors and companies to manage their tax obligations. In this place, we all know of the growing prevalence of the gig economy in a whole range of areas. The measures in this bill also put in place the coalition's election commitment to support Australians over 55 to downsize their properties and contribute to their superannuation. The bill builds on the coalition's strong record of supporting small business, supporting retirees, making sensible reforms to superannuation and supporting the housing market. Schedule 1 of the bill amends the Tax Administration Act 1953 to empower the commissioner, where the commissioner reasonably believes an entity has failed to comply with its tax related record-keeping obligations, to direct the entity to complete an approved record-keeping course as an alternative to existing financial penalties. I think that's an excellent move. One of the benefits of the increase in technology that we see all around us is the ability for small business to have access to good technology to keep much better records. I know, because I see the work my brother does as a ceramic tiler in the building industry, that this is particularly important for tradespeople and self-employed people, who don't necessarily keep the records that they should keep. If they can do a record-keeping course and get access to appropriate software and other training to better manage their financial and tax affairs, without being penalised, I think that's a particularly good initiative. The bill also introduces, in schedule 2, a third-party reporting regime, which will require sharing economy online platforms to report identification and income information, regarding participating sellers, to the ATO for data-matching purposes. We've already seen that in other areas, particularly in the building sector, where there are reporting requirements for data-matching purposes. This measure will apply to ride-sourcing, short-term accommodation platforms, asset sharing, food delivery, task based platforms and other platforms in the economy. Once these platforms begin these measures, it's expected to result in increased self-reporting of currently unreported or underreported income by sellers. Schedule 3 of the bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act to make consequential amendments to the fringe benefits tax, to remove the exclusions as a deductible expense for the first $250 of expenses for prescribed courses of education. This is another measure that I think adds to providing incentive to undertake additional education, to build the skills of small-business owners and tradespeople. It delivers on the coalition's 2021-22 budget commitment to backing small business with a simple, fast and cheap way to pause or modify—sorry, that's a separate matter; schedule 4 does this—in relation to orders with the AAT, and to stay those orders or otherwise affect ATO debt recovery actions. This is an area where I have had many discussions with small-business operators across my electorate and the conduct of the ATO in these particular matters. I'll congratulate the government on taking this coalition budget measure of backing small business with a simple, fast and cheap way to pause or modify the ATO debt recovery action in relation to debt that is currently under review by the AAT. I would go a step further and look to see wholesale reform of this area and ensure that the ATO is much more forthcoming in its reasons and explaining why it comes up with these assessments in the first place. But this is a good step, in the right direction, by enabling small business to pause any ATO debt recovery action while their case is being decided by the independent umpire. Schedule 5 of the bill partially implements helping homeowners who want to downsize, a commitment announced by the former government on 15 May 2022. This was ultimately matched as an election commitment by Labor. These measures, I'm pleased to say, build on the tremendous track record of the coalition government over the last nine years of providing support to small and medium business, across the economy, in recognition of the tremendous effort that they provide to innovation, employment and generating wealth for our country. We often hear about our big corporates but, more often than not, where a lot of our innovation occurs is in our small to medium business sector. The measures we took during our time in government were because we understand the importance of small and family business across our economy. One of the great measures that we undertook, when we were in government, was the establishment of the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman in 2016, to ensure that small business had an advocate within government and in the community. As they're part of the role, the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman assists small business to resolve disputes through case management and alternative dispute resolution processes. The coalition also bolstered the mediation services within the Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman and established the Small Business Taxation Division within the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I think, again, that was a tremendous step in assisting small business with what sometimes can be very difficult matters with the ATO. I know that in my time on the Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue we had many discussions about the ATO and the way they conducted their process of dispute resolution and management. We strengthened protections for small and family businesses through including them in the unfair contract provisions and providing greater access, again, to alternative dispute resolution processes through various industry codes. All of these measures and many more are the track record that the previous coalition government has left for this country and for our small business sector, and I'm very proud to have been part of the government that delivered those key and important measures. As we keep working towards supporting small and medium businesses across our economy, I'm happy to see the government take up some of those measures which we would have implemented if we'd had the privilege of being re-elected to government at the last election. I'm pleased to see that the government has decided to take these on and they are reflected in this bill. 13:06 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest As has been said here, the coalition will be supporting the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 2) Bill 2022 because it implements a number of very sensible measures of the previous coalition government. It is all about small business, as we've heard previously—the small businesses that employ the majority of Australians and do so very well in all of our small communities in particular. We see in this bill a common-sense approach to the practical way that our small businesses work and the fact that they're often just a mum-and-dad business, two partners or an individual. That's why a practical approach to the Australian Taxation Office, as we see in the measures here, is so important. As we know, many of our small business owners don't have a massive HR department to work with them. They are everything. They often work all day in their business and sometimes at night as well. They're often in the role 24 hours a day, seven days a week, but they do an amazing job. I want to recognise those small businesses in our support of this bill, particularly those in small rural and regional communities. Small businesses do a fantastic job of keeping those local economies ticking over, but what they also do, which is often unseen, is support every community service organisation, every one of our volunteer emergency service organisations, and our sporting and other organisations. Whenever local people need a donation, the first place they go to is a local small business. So anything we can do in this House to provide that additional support and to assist small businesses to manage their issues through the Australian Taxation Office is a very good, practical move because it reduces the amount of time that they need to spend on those matters and allows them to get on with what they're there to do, which is to run their business and work in that business and employ other Australians—such an important part of the role that they play. I see that in my own part of the world. The bill deals with matters around the Australian Taxation Office, providing small businesses with additional support in dealing with the ATO appeals process and removing tax barriers to support sole traders and individuals looking to upskill—practical matters for small businesses. The bill supports gig-economy contractors and companies to manage their tax obligations and ensures that the ATO has the data it needs for accurate reporting. It puts in place important reforms to support the coalition's election commitment to support Australians over 55 to downsize their property and contribute to their super. The real key issue for me is the strong support for small business, though supporting retirees is absolutely very sensible, as are the reforms to super and the housing market. I can recall in my time as an MP—which I think a number of members in this parliament would have done in their time as local members—an individual who got in touch with me two days before Christmas. He said, 'The ATO wants to take my house and my business, and I'll be out of business.' We had to work overtime to make sure that he connected with the right people in the ATO and was able to work through the issues that were on the table. It was about 18 months or two years later that I happened to run into him at a local service station. He bolted across to say, 'I am still in business and I still have my home.' I think that's one of the things that we get to do as local members: facilitating very sound discussions that enable people to stay in business and to work out their issues with the ATO, if they're able to connect with the right people and get a fair hearing about what they're dealing with. Much in this bill is related to that. It is quite tough for a lot of small businesses to deal with the complexity that goes with dealing with the Australian Taxation Office, so there are a lot of benefits in this bill—even the one to seek orders from the AAT that stay or otherwise affect ATO debt-recovery actions while the small business is disputing the underlying tax assessment in the Small Business Taxation Division of the AAT. This reflects what I was talking about earlier, the issues facing a small business and the sense of panic they get if, particularly, they've inadvertently made an error or just need the right person to talk to to work through their issues. I'm really proud of what we've done. This really helps resolve disputes in a timely and cost-effective way. Access to justice is a simple thing for small business. The previous speaker, the opposition whip, spoke about the coalition establishing the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman. I think that is a particularly important office. This advocate that small business now has with government and in the community is such an important role. I would encourage as many small businesses as possible—and it really doesn't matter what issue you're dealing with—that when they need assistance to get in touch with the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman. There are a lot of other areas that they can assist you with, not just in this space. For many small businesses, resolving disputes through case management and referral to alternative dispute resolution are things that they get to deal with. Hopefully, that isn't very often, but when they do, they are time-poor and often don't know where to start. How about starting with the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman as a first point of call if they're not sure where to go? I imagine most of them work with their accountants and others but, in this instance, why not talk to the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman? If you're aware of a small business in this space, please tell them to get in touch for that purpose. We bolstered mediation services within the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman and established the Small Business Taxation Dispute Division within the AAT. There's that importance of strengthening protections for small and family businesses from unfair contract terms, which happen on a regular basis. We've seen some move in that, particularly with small businesses in the agricultural sector, and changes for those who find themselves at the bottom end of supply and value chains. The work in the unfair contract terms space is very important. Being a dairy farmer myself, over the years I've understood some of the challenges of having a perishable product and being in that position. It's a huge challenge for small business, particularly in the rural and agricultural sector. So I'm very proud of our ongoing support for small business. There was also the instant asset write-off which we introduced and the number of small businesses which were able to take advantage of that. I'm very proud of our ongoing support for small business and the number of small businesses that were able to take advantage of the instant asset write-off that we introduced, whether it was a local small business such as a café or even a pizza shop. The local guys who are livestock transporters were able to use the instant asset write-off to buy themselves the new gear that they were desperately needing. If you consider the number of small businesses that really took advantage of this during COVID, they were the ones who were still open, and they were mostly, in many instances, small businesses that did everything they could to keep their communities ticking over. In a little place called Nannup, in my electorate, the local supermarket, of course, had real struggles. You were allocated certain numbers of items, and they had limited access to the one thing we saw so much hoarding off, which was toilet paper. Here was this little business in a tiny community, and one of the local people came and saw Joyce at the store and said, 'What are you short of?' She said, 'This is something we're struggling to get hold of because we're limited to what we can have.' So this gentleman drove a couple of hours to where there were supplies. He bought the supplies back to Nannup and said to Joyce, 'Tell me who's been in who desperately needs some of these.' He went around and dropped them off on the front doorstep, safely, of these premises for the people who couldn't access them. That's the strength, that's what happens with small business and that's what happens with good people in local communities. During COVID, people come from major populated areas into small communities looking for certain products. My own local supermarket said: 'Nola, stop panicking. We've got some supplies out the back. For all of our regular, particularly mature-age, customers, we're making sure that that one packet of flour or sugar or the things that they buy every week are kept available—for the people who need them most, the people in our small communities.' That's the value of small community business. That's why I'm very proud of all the measures that we took in our time in government to support small business, and I know that we'll be continuing to work in every way we can to support small business. 13:17 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I want to thank the previous speaker, the previous Chief Government Whip, for her outstanding contribution in this debate. The opposition will be supporting this bill because the bill implements a number of sensible measures that the coalition government examined—and pushed for—in its previous life. The bill provides effective changes to support small businesses in handling their affairs with the ATO, providing them with additional supports in the event of inadvertent breachers. That's very important. Before coming into this place, I was a builder by trade, a carpenter by trade. I then owned a building business, and then I became a barrister. So I spent 30 years in a small business before coming to this place, and I've always said, 'Wouldn't it be great, wouldn't this place look a bit different if everyone had to spend time working in small business, if everyone had to understand the trials and tribulations of actually employing people and working their way around how to pay people on awards and, quite frankly, sweating blood on a Wednesday night trying to figure out how they're going to make payroll tomorrow.' I've often told people who have spoken to me about their desire to come into this place, 'In my view, you will be a lesser parliamentarian if you come into this place without having endured those trials and tribulations.' This bill does a number of things, and I'll touch on them in due course, but one of them is that, in schedule 1, if the commissioner is of the view that an entity has failed to comply with their tax obligations, specifically in relation to recordkeeping, then, rather than ping them, the commissioner can require that person to undertake a course. Schedule 1 actually reminds me of when I was a young fellow sitting for my builder's licence and I had to go and do all these various courses. I would have been about in my early 20s at the time— Mr Pike 300120 Still are! Mr WALLACE 265967 Still am? I wish I was! I was sitting in the HIA office in Brisbane with 30 or 40 other people and met a fellow by the name of Frank O'Neill. Frank's the kind of guy who will probably be listening to this right now as we speak. So if you are, Frank: Cheers, mate. You did a good job with me and many of my colleagues. You actually ignited my love of learning. So thank you for what you gave to me. But I digress. It is very important to know that people, particularly in small business, come from various backgrounds and various levels of education. Sometimes in my industry, the building industry, particularly amongst the trades—it's certainly not exclusive to the trades—for many people school was not their greatest forte. Lunchtime was my favourite subject when I was at school, as you can tell! The opportunity to go and do these courses to become better bookkeepers and to become better managers of your business—like the one that I did when I was studying to become a builder—was very much welcome. It stood me in good stead, as it has done for hundreds of thousands of other contractors in Queensland, unlike in some other jurisdictions in this fine country, I hasten to add, which do not require you to complete these sorts of educational courses to become a builder. I think Queensland had it right when I was going through some 30 or 35-odd years ago. I really do acknowledge and congratulate the drafting of schedule 1, which enables these sorts of education courses. Rather than fine someone, it says, 'Let's work with this individual and try and upskill them.' That's surely better than just pinging them with a fine. Schedule 2 of the bill is also an important provision which provides for data matching for the ATO. It specifically does that in relation to ride sharing, ride sourcing and short-term accommodation platforms. This is really important. It's really just bringing those data-matching abilities into line with, once again, my old stomping ground—that's the building industry. It's interesting because last week, or it may have been the week before that, I called upon a local business called Advance Kitchens, in Caloundra in my electorate, and I spoke with Carol Langton. Carol rang me up and she was frothing at the mouth. She is very upset about how she has to be doing all this unpaid public service, as I ultimately called it. Small businesses have all these reporting requirements, particularly for subcontractors. After I had the opportunity to sit down with Carol and explain to her the importance of these anti-black-economy provisions that enable the ATO to data match information with their own material and the reporting of their own subcontractors, Carol, to her credit, could see the benefits of those requirements. Whilst I was at the warehouse factory I had a good tour and saw the great work that Advance Kitchens in Caloundra are doing. I met some of the staff. I met an older gentleman who had been working there for decades. He was in his 70s. His granddaughter was working at the factory and was keeping it in the family. It is a terrific local business. I come back to the point. Schedule 2 essentially just brings onto parity the reporting requirements for rideshare and gig economy platforms and much more traditional business, such as those in the building industry. Those data-matching requirements have been in place for a very long time. It's very important that we ensure that we have these provisions that are very tight in relation to the black economy. We want to make sure that businesses are paying their fair share of tax. I don't think anybody would quibble too much with that point. Schedule 3 is a little less interesting, but it does amend the Income Tax Assessment Act and makes consequential amendments to the FBT act to remove the exclusion as a deductible expense the first $250 of expenses for prescribed courses of education. Having said that, once again it creates an added incentive for small businesses to provide educational courses to their staff. That is always a good thing. It doesn't matter whether it is a course in relation to IR, first aid or whatever it might be. There are FBT benefits for the first $250 of expenses for prescribed courses. It's a very good thing to provide those opportunities for additional learning for staff and to provide that economic incentive as well. Schedule 4 of the bill is something that is relatively close to my heart. I've talked in this place often enough about being a builder and becoming a barrister. Schedule 4 allows small businesses to seek orders from the AAT that stay, or otherwise affect, ATO debt recovery actions whilst the small business is disputing the underlying tax assessment in the Small Business Taxation Division of the AAT. This is very much a commonsense provision. If a businessperson feels aggrieved by a decision of the ATO then that businessperson has every right to challenge the decision of the ATO in the AAT. If that person doesn't get a successful outcome there, they go onwards from there to the Federal Court et cetera. This provision stays the decision of the ATO until they get an outcome through the legal process. This shouldn't be seen as anything controversial. Simply, while someone is exercising their legal rights to have the decision challenged in the AAT, that decision should be stayed. It reminds me that a constituent of mine, who's been vociferous in his opposition— The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 42 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Global MND Awareness Day 2022 42 13:30 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell Today I want to thank all my colleagues who are wearing their cornflowers in observance of Global MND Awareness Day 2022, which fell on a date in June when we weren't sitting. It recognises all sufferers of MND and people who have lost their lives to MND in the past year. It's my privilege today to join Senator Carol Brown as a co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Motor Neurone Disease—it's the first time we've formalised this group—to support MND sufferers in Australia, advocate for better research and funding and, of course, do whatever we can to fight this insidious disease. I thank all colleagues in both the House and the Senate who have joined our group and will join us in that fight and advocacy. I particularly pay tribute to Judith Durham—who passed away this year and who was a patron of MND and a significant fundraiser over many years—and to her contribution and effort to get better research into and a cure for MND. I want to also thank Jason Smith, who suffers from MND and spoke powerfully today on the NDIS and some of the improvements that we need to make in the treatment of MND, MS and other neurological diseases inside the NDIS. I call on the government to join us in advocating, as a group, as a committee and as a parliament, for improvements to the NDIS and the treatment of people with serious neurological conditions, and I know the government will do that. I also want to pay tribute to Tania Piper, a carer who spoke powerfully on behalf of her mother, who has MND as well. And I want to pay tribute to all of the sufferers this year, the MND associations around Australia and the state and federal organisations for the work that they do every single day for the sufferers and carers. We will find a cure, and, as a parliament, we will assist them. Robertson Electorate: Regional Youth Support Services 43 13:31 Dr REID 300126 Robertson I wish to congratulate the Regional Youth Support Services, or RYSS, on officially launching its new One3One Youth Hub in Gosford recently. This youth hub aims to be a safe learning space where young people aged between 12 and 25 on the coast can receive tailored training and support. This hub is focused on preparing young people to be job ready and gives them opportunities to develop the necessary skills to seek, apply for and obtain jobs. It is also a point of connection for further study or information on career options. The youth hub also runs several other programs to help youth that might not fit the mould in traditional education models and provide them with programs to support them during challenging periods. This youth hub has received a federal government grant for two years, and I look forward to seeing the impact this hub will have in nurturing and strengthening the youth on the Central Coast. A big thankyou and a big congratulations to the CEO, Kim, the board, the staff and the supporters of this phenomenal organisation. Petrie Electorate: Lakes College 43 13:33 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie The Mango Hill, North Lakes and Griffin suburbs are the fastest-growing suburbs in the Petrie electorate, with people moving into the community from around Australia and internationally. Traditionally, these suburbs have had a lack of sporting facilities, so that's why, on 27 August, I was pleased to officially open the new swimming pool at the Lakes College in North Lakes—an eight-lane, 25-metre swimming pool, which is heated and has great filtration. As part of my 2019 election commitment, I secured $2 million for the pool, through the Female Facilities and Water Safety Stream Program. This will be well utilised in the lead-up to the 2032 Brisbane Olympics. I want to thank Principal Nicole Gregory, former Principal Simon Armstrong and the board, who worked hard to make this pool happen. And I want to thank and give my best wishes to Mackenzie Speechley, who will run the Lakes College Swim Club. I can't, however, thank the Palaszczuk Labor government, because their ministers Steven Miles and Grace Grace went out of their way to make sure that this pool was not built at the Mango Hill State Secondary College. Shame on the Palaszczuk government. Thank you to the Lakes College for making this pool a reality for the suburbs of North Lakes, Mango Hill and Griffin. Boothby Electorate: Banana Boogie Bakery 43 13:34 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby Today I'm delighted to report that the Banana Boogie Bakery of Belair in Boothby has taken out a baked goods bonanza. They were bestowed not only first place for their traditional pastie and traditional doughnut but also a bronze for their sausage roll at the Royal Adelaide Show, where I believe one of the judges was South Australian Attorney-General and renowned sausage roll afficionado Kyam Maher. They have also taken out three gold medals so far at the 33rd Official Great Aussie Pie Competition for their cheeseburger sausage roll, butter chicken pie and smoked barbecue pulled pork pie. At 3 pm today we will know if they have taken out the overall title at the current competition. Business is booming for the team at the Banana Boogie Bakery and they have opened a second store, in North Plympton. If you happen to be in South Australia, I'd encourage you to visit. I would also highly recommend their biscoff vanilla slice, buns and Berliners, as well as their baby cinos. They are just one of hundreds of incredible small family businesses that make Boothby such a vibrant and interesting place to live and do business. Bravo to the Banana Boogie Bakery of Belair, another Boothby business batting above average. R U OK? Day 43 13:36 Mr JOYCE e5d New England I'd just like to say that so often we have these badges on and, really, they are just generic even though the cause is so noble. But for this one, R U OK?, I very much support it. There was a time in this job when I was under an immense amount of pressure. I remember going back to the waiting room of my electoral office and there were two guys I play football with waiting for me there. They said, 'We want to talk, Joycey.' My name is always 'Joycey', never 'Barnaby'. They said: 'Joycey, we want to talk to you, and it's not about going fishing. We've been watching you, and basically you need to get some help.' We can be under pressure in this place. You can be under the pump. It can go for months, as you probably know that at one time for me it did. But it's also for other people. You have to give people the space to express how they are feeling when at the extremity there is the issue of suicide. People who commit suicide don't tell you they are going to commit suicide. Unfortunately, they get their head into a space where they are quite happy with where they're going. The difference between that tragedy for the family and everything else is you asking them if they are okay. Holt Electorate: Schools 43 13:37 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt Universal education is the pillar upon which society rests. I recently visited two exceptional government schools in the suburb of Cranbourne in my electorate, Cranbourne Secondary College and Courtenay Gardens Primary School. During both visits, I was fortunate to satisfy the curiosity of the students in learning about my new role. Their enthusiasm to know more about our lawmaking processes and the government's plan to deliver a better future for them and their families was incredible. As long as we have pupils passionate about understanding how policymaking affects all of us, our country's future is in good hands. Among my favourite parts of these visits was speaking to English-as-a-second-language students at Cranbourne Secondary College. As a former ESL student, I know the difficulty of learning a new language in a new country. But their fluency in English made it seem like a breeze. I commend the teachers and student leaders of Cranbourne Secondary College and Courtenay Gardens Primary School for encouraging such a positive atmosphere. I thank the principals, David Caughey and Marc de Ley, for inviting me. Matthews, Professor Brian Ernest 44 13:39 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I wish to advise the House of the passing of a distinguished Australian academic and acclaimed writer from my electorate of Mayo. Professor Brian Ernest Matthews was born in St Kilda in 1936 and passed away in June this year. His first academic posting was in 1967 at the Bedford Park Teachers College in Adelaide before joining the English department of Flinders University. Professor Matthews held several prestigious academic positions. He was a Fulbright scholar in residence at the University of Oregon, and in 1990 he became the chair of the literature board of the Australia Council. In 1993 he was appointed as head of the Menzies Centre for Australian Studies at the University of London. In 1996 he became a foundation director of the Australian-Europe institute at Victoria University, a position he held until 2003. He accepted visiting professorial roles at the universities of Venice, Trento and Lecce. Publications included his treatise on Henry Lawson and biographies of Manning Clark and Richie Benaud. Other notable works included The Temple Down the Road, about the MCG. Professor Matthews's contribution to our national literary history is immense, and I'm sure he will be studied, enjoyed and discussed by many generations to come. Vale Professor Matthews. Global Hunger 44 13:40 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin Yesterday I met with representatives of Micah Australia, who, I know, also spoke with other members of this place. They drew my attention to the global hunger crisis facing people around the world, with the top five at-risk countries being Ethiopia, Somalia, Yemen, South Sudan and Afghanistan. A combination of conflict, COVID-19 and climate change has created a humanitarian emergency, with an estimated 10,000 children dying of hunger every day. Countless more will inevitably be left with lifelong health problems and disabilities. These are children who, through no fault of their own, are fighting for their lives, as are other members of their families. Micah reports that 50 million people in 45 countries are on the verge of famine. A global response is urgently needed, and Australia must be a part of that response. Micah is calling on Australia to provide $150 million to the global hunger crisis. The Australian people have always shown a willingness to give generously at times of crisis. Even acknowledging our own budgetary pressures, there is no greater priority than saving lives. I urge the government to consider the Micah request and how else Australia may be able to provide assistance in the global response to the hunger crisis. Petition: Refugees 44 13:41 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I seek leave to table this petition from the Refugee Action Collective (Victoria). Over the last decade Australia's refugee policies have resulted in the deliberate, cruel and criminal treatment of people seeking refuge in Australia. Boat turnbacks, the policy of both major parties, violate international law and risk sending people back to death, torture and persecution. People seeking refuge in Australia have a right to live with dignity, security and safety in our community. We, the people signed on this petition, and the Greens, once again demand: an immediate end to offshore detention and boat turnbacks; that all temporary visa types be converted to permanent visas; that all refugees who have been rejected be allowed to have access to appeals; that medevac refugees be allowed to stay in Australia permanently; delivery of an additional 20,000 Afghan refugee places; and that the ban on accepting refugees coming in from Indonesia be lifted, and refugees stranded in PNG to be allowed to come to Australia. We have a terrible legacy in this country on this issue. We have treated a large number of people incredibly poorly. Labor, in opposition, said they would treat people more humanely, but in government the problem is that Labor has continued many of the reprehensible policies of the Liberal National Party. These policies are brutal, unfair, cruel and ultimately must end. They are a huge stain on our collective hands. I urge Labor to finally end this barbaric and abusive treatment of vulnerable people who need a safe place to live, to create a better life for themselves and their families. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Member for Melbourne, has this petition been approved by the Petitions Committee? Mr BANDT M3C It hasn't, but I understand there were conversations with both the government and the opposition about seeking leave to table one out of order. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 So you're seeking leave. Is leave granted? Leave not granted. Chisholm Electorate: Sports 45 13:43 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm Today I have the great pleasure to highlight excellence in my wonderful Chisholm community. Two of our fantastic local football clubs celebrated grand finals wins across the weekend. I extend a warm congratulations to the Surrey Park Panthers under-14s and under-13 Blacks, and the Waverley Blues seniors and reserve teams, who all took home the premiership for their respective divisions. I've had the great pleasure of visiting both clubs across the last few months, so I can say with certainty and pride that they are incredible local sporting groups who enrich our community. They have endured the brunt of the pandemic and come back stronger, all with the support of their dedicated volunteers. Congratulations once again to the Surrey Park Panthers and the Waverley Blues. Go, Panthers! Go, Blues! Aged Care 45 13:44 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia The Queensland health system is broken. Individuals are falling through the cracks and need assistance to turn their lives around after waiting unacceptable times for medical procedures and for beds in aged care. Two aged-care facilities in Rockhampton have invited me to meetings in the past two weeks to discuss the crisis they are facing due to the lack of doctors and nurses servicing them. Benevolent Living, a newly refurbished, state-of-the-art aged-care facility, has 22 beds available right now that, due to the inability to clinically manage more residents, cannot be filled. These facilities have been relying on a fly-in fly-out GPs to treat their elderly residents and do not have enough nursing staff to care for the needs of existing residents. Aged-care residents are being sent to Rockhampton Hospital, where they wait for an unacceptable length of time. They are then sent back to Benevolent or other nursing homes, where they are then reassessed and then sent back to the hospital. One solution to this issue is to connect clinics run by nurse practitioners to hospitals to relieve some of the minor cases. This situation is unacceptable and is placing enormous stress on the families having to care for elderly members while they await a bed in a facility. The pressure on staff working within the aged-care sector is enormous. I will be holding an aged-care forum in Rockhampton to, hopefully, find a solution to this crisis. Pensions And Benefits 45 13:46 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite Pensioners across my electorate of Corangamite are celebrating the Prime Minister's announcement that age and veterans' pensioners will be able to earn an extra $4,000 over this financial year without losing any of their pension. Many pensioners had been calling for this change for some time, and it makes good sense. It will certainly benefit a large percentage of pensioners who live in my electorate and have retired to the Bellarine or Surf Coast. Although they've retired, lots of pensioners want to continue to contribute to the workforce and their community, but the impact on their pension has prohibitive this. But no longer. The Albanese government will now provide a one-off income credit designed to give older Australians the option to work and keep more of their money. Following the successful Jobs and Skills Summit, an immediate $4,000 income credit will be added from December to the income banks of age pensioners, to be used this financial year. This means pensioners can increase their earnings from a $7,800 to $11,800 this year before their pension is reduced. It's a win-win not just for pensioners but also for our labour market. Pensioners can work more, earn more, use their skills and stay connected while we boost the supply of labour to help address worker shortages. This is a great reform which pensioners in my electorate will embrace thanks to the Albanese government. Victoria: Education 45 13:47 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies One of the wonderful privileges of this place is seeing children up there wave to us when they visit this building, so, when I visited some of the 44 schools in my electorate, I was saddened to hear that those visits may not happen again—or at least may not with certainty. Currently there is an enterprise bargaining agreement in Victoria that requires schools that defined 100 per cent of time on duty and 50 per cent of time on call for their staff. No-one denies that teachers deserve fair compensation, but this award potentially disproportionately affects students because the principals don't have that extra finance or funding to deal with camps. Overstretched budgets are forcing schools to think twice about camps, and that includes this building and also camps throughout Victoria. Indeed, there is even talk of charging parents separately for this privilege, and that does create a disparity between private and public schools in Victoria. No-one would want it to be that you must go to a private school to come to this place for a visit. All students, whether they are public or private, should be given the chance to come to this place. I urge the Victorian Labor government, as soon as possible, to look at the consequences of this agreement and to provide funding and certainty for schools so that all students in Victoria get to go to camps. RaceRunning Australia 46 13:49 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid A few weekends ago I went down to the racetrack at Sydney Olympic Park to watch members of RaceRunning Australia train. Racerunning, or frame running, is a game-changer for people with a disability. The specially designed three-wheeled frame supports participants to run on their feet independently. Developed in Denmark, the running frames were developed for people with cerebral palsy to help them run and keep active. It took a determined father to bring the frames to Australia. Richard Keith discovered a frame running in 2018 at a triathlon competition for children with cerebral palsy. His eight-year-old son, Arran, was participating in the competition and was relying on a cumbersome walking frame for the run leg. It was here that Richard discovered running frames. Richard talks about the first moment he saw his son using the running frame—seeing his freedom of movement and speed and the joy he showed in being able to run for the first time. It was a moment that brought him to tears. Frame running has taken hold here, and there are now nine running groups across Australia, giving people with a disability exercise, self-confidence and access to a wonderful community. The story of frame running demonstrates how adjustments and technology can ensure that all people have access to sports and exercise. Henty Machinery Field Days 46 13:50 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I want to take my hat off to the organisers of the Henty Machinery Field Days. For two years, southern Australia's biggest agricultural event was COVID-cancelled, but I'm delighted to tell the House that, in 2022, it's back. Henty is a small southern New South Wales town with a population of just over 1,000. Later this month, that number will swell to 50,000, checking out the latest farm machinery and equipment, produce, agronomy, lifestyle and agribusiness products. Once again, organisers have more than 1,200 sites booked and 800 exhibitors spread across the 100-hectare site. Of course, COVID hit local economies in every corner of the country, but equally so in country towns—some of which literally have only one big drawcard event. So we've had two years where local motels and restaurants were not booked out, the P&C missed fundraisers for their school, and pubs had beer but no-one to drink it. But Henty's people, like farmers, are resilient. Despite drought, fires and flood, the latest ABARES forecast has agricultural exports climbing to a record $70 billion in the next year, led by wheat, beef and cotton. Like the arrival of every new spring, there is sunshine on the horizon. So, if you need some replacement Tupperware, want to check out natural-fibre fashions, grab a few cake-decorating tips or buy a new pair of boots, Henty is your spot—in 10 days time. Climate Change 46 13:52 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley This week I received an email from Sandy Khaloa, who is a student at Carrum Downs Secondary College in my electorate. She's in year 7. Sandy sent a very long email about climate change, and I can't read all of it out but part of what she said is that: For years people have been saying, "if we want to save our planet, we must stop producing greenhouse gases," yet here we are today … emitting billions and billions of metric tons of greenhouse gases. How many scientists will it take to prove that our planet is warming … It is not that someone must take a stand, everyone must work for change. What will happen when it is too late? People may turn a blind eye towards this saying we have plenty of time but if we do not start changing things now then our planet's future is in grave danger. She went on to say that she will not stand here watching the world burn, and she's hoping that I will not either. She said: It is real, it is happening now. We must save our planet. Our planet is a gift, we must take care of it. I may just be a 12-year-old, yet for me age does not matter. You're not just a 12-year-old. You are the person that we, in this government, are fighting for, to bring in laws to reduce emissions and make Australia a renewable energy superpower, so that your future can have a climate almost as good as the one we grew up in, and we can save the planet for generations to come. Danahay, Mr Jed William 47 13:53 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I'd like to take this opportunity to commemorate the life of Mr Jed William Danahay from the town of Nanango in my electorate of Maranoa. Nanango is a small town of over 3,000 people, a place where just about everyone knows everyone. Jed Danahay was known as being a kind-hearted man who was always giving to others. He would try to spend six months of the year overseas volunteering, and, when he was home, he volunteered locally, serving the south Burnett branch of the Rural Fire Service. Tragically, this year Jed was providing medical assistance to Ukrainian forces while on the front line in eastern Ukraine. Jed was a medic, and he was saving lives in the town of Izyum, on the Donets River, which has been under Russian military occupation since 3 May. Earlier this week, DFAT advised that Jed had lost his life while driving a medical vehicle on 24 August. Jed gave his life providing care to his fellow man, and this serves as an inspiration to us all. I'd like to acknowledge the comments made by the Ukrainian ambassador to Australia, to whom I spoke yesterday. He's called Mr Danahay a hero for his service to the people of Ukraine. Finally, I wish to express my sympathy to Jed's loved ones. Mr Danahay's family have said: Jed lived his life trying to help other people. In his short time on this earth Jed did more things than most of us will ever do in a lifetime. He dog-sledded in the Arctic Circle under the northern lights, he journeyed through Europe and saw North America ... Jed had friends across the globe and will be sorely missed Moreton Electorate: Braille House 47 13:55 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton It was 125 years ago, in 1897, that a group of women, including Lady Lamington, the Queensland governor's wife, got together in Brisbane and decided to transcribe books into Braille for children who were blind or who had low vision. From that historic meeting, the Queensland Braille Writing Association was born. It has now grown into Braille House, situated on Ipswich Road in Annerley, in my electorate. The staff and volunteers continue to transcribe books into Braille and tutor people who are blind or who have low vision. They provide all types of Braille—Moon, large print, maps and more. Work is done via the love and commitment of the wonderful Braille House volunteers. I was fortunate to attend a special volunteers' 125th anniversary event at Braille House last week with their patron, Her Excellency the Hon. Dr Jeanette Young AC PSM, today's Governor of Queensland. Her husband, Graeme, gave his apologies. The event acknowledged the work of volunteers like Wendy, a former special ed teacher who, on retirement, signed up to volunteer teaching Moon at Braille House. Wendy chose to volunteer because she wanted to use the skills she had in another setting for the good of everyone. I also want to make a special mention that this Friday Braille House will host over 50 children from all over Queensland competing in the Braille Literacy Challenge. I'd like to wish those competitors the best of luck and thank the volunteers and staff at Braille House for their incredible dedication to Queensland and beyond. Housing 47 13:56 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I've played cricket for as long as I can recall. Usually, I open the batting and Wayne Carter of Wagga Wagga is one of those very few bowlers who I've hit for four on the first ball of the innings. Wayne is a builder in Wagga Wagga and he has now been hit for six—and this is about the New South Wales government, I must say—by the new seven-star energy rating from October 2023. That's going to add $30,000 to the cost of building a new home. Wayne says: 'It's been on the table for a while and we've all been shuddering waiting for it to be adopted. It means it's going to cost so much more to build a house and that's a cost which the local people who want to own homes can ill afford.' When in government, the coalition realised electricity price drops of five per cent in 2021 and one in four homes with rooftop solar—the highest in the world. Thanks to the member for Deakin and his and our policies, there were 135,000 new home projects backed by HomeBuilder. We were the parties of making sure that people got their first home. But of course when you add the rising mortgage interest rates, the lack of action on cost of living by those opposite and this seven-star energy rating it's another hit to people who want to get into their first home. It's difficult. What's the government doing about this? We want action and we need it now. R U OK?Day 47 13:58 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I rise today to remind the House that R U OK?Day is today, and say to all of my colleagues: are you okay? And, if you're not, you can find me in the chief whip's office! On a serious note, it is R U OK?Day today, and I know what that means in our communities on the ground—in our schools in particular. I know that most of the schools in my electorate will pause today to remind one another that when you aren't okay the people who you need to ask you about it are your mates and the people who need to ask you are your family. And it is okay to ask, 'Are you okay?' and to find ways to engage your friends, your children, your brothers and sisters or whoever it is. As a former teacher, and a mother of three sons, I often found that one of the best ways to engage boys was by doing something with them: paint a bathroom, get some physical activity happening, avoid eye contact and say: 'How's it going, mate? Are you okay?' Find something physical to do. Getting them driving the car is a good place: driving lesson, mum beside and suddenly they can have that conversation that's been keeping them up at night for weeks. So to everyone in this House: please find someone today to ask if they're okay. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! In accordance with standing order 43 the time for members' statements has concluded. MINISTRY 48 MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements 48 13:59 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I inform the House that the member for Sydney is on leave today and questions relating to the Environment and Water portfolio will be answered by the member for McMahon. CONDOLENCES 48 CONDOLENCES Brown, Hon. Robert James (Bob), AM 48 Report from Federation Chamber 48 14:00 The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the motion moved by the honourable Prime Minister be agreed to. I invite all members present to signify their agreement by rising in their places. Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 48 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Ministerial Conduct 48 14:00 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra My question is to the Prime Minister and concerns his Code of Conduct for Ministers. Following the breach of the ministerial code by the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories, I refer to media reports that the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care has invested in managed funds, or unit trusts, which in turn have significant shareholdings in Australian healthcare businesses or private health insurance businesses. Does the assistant minister have an obligation under clause 3.12 of your ministerial code to notify you of this conflict of interest? 14:01 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for his question. I refer to the ministerial code: Shareholdings 3.11. In recognition of the collective responsibility that Ministers bear in relation to Cabinet decisions, this Code requires that Ministers divest themselves of investments and other interests in any public or private company or business, other than public superannuation funds or publicly listed managed funds or trust arrangements where: (i) the investments are broadly diversified and the Minister has no influence over investment decisions of the fund or trust— the assistant minister has completely complied with that— and (ii) the fund or trust does not invest to any significant extent in a business sector that could give rise to a conflict of interest with the Minister's public duty. The assistant minister has complied with that. The assistant minister has advised that she has ensured that she has been compliant with this. The assistant minister also wrote to me this morning to formally advise that she has taken the additional step of divesting all of her interests. Budget 49 14:02 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt My question is to the Treasurer. How will the October budget help Australians deal with cost-of-living pressures and respond to the challenges facing our economy? 14:02 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I thank the member for Holt for her question and I congratulate her on her first speech in this place earlier in the week. It has also been an important week in the economy: we had the interest rates decision on Tuesday, the national accounts on Wednesday, and today a speech by the Governor of the Reserve Bank. What those three events all did was lay bare the challenges that we confront in our economy right now, such as skyrocketing costs of living, falling real wages, labour and skills shortages, and issues around business investment and productivity—some of these issues which have been around for some time now. These were the key focuses of the Jobs and Skills Summit last week, and they will be the key focus as well of the budget that we hand down next month here in this place. This is the complex combination of challenges that we confront as we put this budget together. Budgets are always about competing priorities. As always, the job for us this time around is to comb through the complexity and to make sure that we are satisfying our key economic objectives. Ours are very, very clear: firstly, in the budget, to trim the waste and rorts which have been a defining feature of the budget for too long; secondly, to use that money to invest instead in the productive capacity of the economy to deal with the issues in our supply chains and to make sure that we can lift the speed limit on the economy so that it can grow without adding to these inflationary pressures; and, thirdly, by responsibly dealing, where we can, with the cost-of-living pressures that Australians confront right now, whether it be child care, medicine costs, TAFE fees or in other important areas, as well as getting wages moving again in our economy after almost a decade now of wage stagnation and deliberate wage suppression from those opposite. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Longman will cease interjecting. Dr CHALMERS 37998 The important balance to strike when we provide this responsible cost-of-living relief in the budget next month is to make sure that we are providing that relief without adding to inflationary pressures. So we are providing that relief in a way that also satisfies our broader economic objectives: in child care, cost-of-living relief but with an economic dividend and similarly with medicines and TAFE fees—and the list goes on and on—while also getting wages moving in a strong and sustainable way once again. We want to make sure that we don't add to the pressure on the Reserve Bank when it comes to interest rate decisions. We want to take some of the sting out of inflation over the medium term, and the best way to do that is to provide that relief in a responsible way and invest in the issues in our supply chains. A wasted decade of missed opportunities, warped priorities and deliberate wage stagnation has left Australians, their budget and their economy more vulnerable. The budget will make them more resilient. (Time expired) Ministerial Conduct 49 14:06 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister, and it refers to the ministerial code. I refer to the Prime Minister's comments on 8 July this year when he said: 'Well, what we need is transparency. I want politics to be cleaned up, and that's why we will have strict adherence to the ministerial code of conduct.' Prime Minister, we are now in a position where ministers are liquidating their interests at a rate of knots. Given that three ministers have disclosed shareholdings when your code prohibits this, who assesses this strict adherence and why have you so dismally failed to enforce it? 14:06 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. The fact is that my entire ministerial team have been entirely transparent, which is why you are able to ask the questions and go down the rabbit holes that you have tried to go down. But, unfortunately, for the Leader of the Opposition's objectives, they are cul-de-sacs, because the code has been dealt with and my ministers are fully aware of it. Let me just say this: if the Leader of the Opposition applied a similar code to those opposite, then one, two, three and four would all not have been able to sit in the ministry for nine long years. I tell you what: if you want to talk about integrity, you are going to have a big chance. Your big chance is next week when there is a national anticorruption commission bill presented to this parliament. That is your big chance to put up your hand and say, 'We have heard the message and we will support a national anticorruption commission,' because we will be putting forward the legislation next week. You of course said that you would deliver a national anticorruption commission in the last term of parliament. It was a commitment that you made prior to the 2019 election. We waited until the end of 2018 for the bill to be tabled, and then we waited in 2019 and then in 2020 and then in 2021 and then in 2022—and it didn't happen. Well, guess what? Next week the bill will be tabled. We will see whether the opposition are prepared to support it. Health Care 50 14:09 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. How will the Albanese Labor government plan to make medicines cheaper improve the lives of millions of Australians? 14:09 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank my electoral neighbour, the member for Boothby, for her question, because the PBS is one of Labor's proudest legacies, along with Medicare, one of the twin pillars of Australia's universal health care—hard fought for at the time, fought and contested tooth and nail by the Liberal Party, but now a deeply entrenched part of Australia's social fabric. And in just the first 100 days of this government we have already approved 23 new or amended listings on the PBS. Last week Zejula was listed, for the first time, for the treatment of ovarian cancer. We all know too well in this place that ovarian cancer survival rates, tragically, remain stubbornly low, at only about 50 per cent over five years, and this listing will provide new hope to about 300 patients every year. Each course of treatment of Zejula costs a whopping $130,000, but the good news is that this PBS listing will bring that price down to just $42.50. The even better news is that from January next year that cost will come down, even further, to just $30. A course of Zejula involves 20 prescriptions, so that saving will amount to $250 for each of those 300 Australian women. Those 300 women dealing with the enormous challenge of ovarian cancer will be among the 3.6 million Australians who benefit from the biggest cut to the price of medicines in this country's history. At a time of huge pressure on household budgets, this will be a huge relief. Single mum Carrie yesterday sent me a picture of the two medications that she's supposed to take every single day. She wrote, 'Here are two things I take that are over $42, and because of the cost I don't take them every day as I should. Are they actually reducing to that much? That would be amazing.' Almost a million other Australians defer taking medicines prescribed by their doctor because of cost, just like Carrie. Under our plan, that will change. For households with multiple scripts, the savings are going to run to hundreds and hundreds of dollars every year. Jeannie wrote to me. She said, 'Thanks, Albo.' That's how this government runs. We get written to and people thank the Prime Minister, as is completely appropriate. She said, 'My family spends a few hundred dollars on scripts, and this will definitely make a huge difference. And Andrea wrote, 'Brilliant news. Hubby has four scripts a month for his heart condition and this will help our budget enormously.' Our plan for cheaper medicines provides millions of Australians with vital cost-of-living relief and helps ensure that they're not going to go without medicines they need for their good health. Mining Industry 50 14:12 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne My question is to the Prime Minister. The federal government is now being asked to approve one of the 114 new coal and gas projects in the pipeline: the massive Mount Pleasant coalmining expansion in New South Wales. Will the government block this new coal project, including by putting a climate trigger in our environment laws, or will Labor keep opening new coal and gas projects because, as your resources minister outrageously said, it's just 'the bubbles in your soda stream; we've got to keep it balanced, how we think about carbon dioxide'? 14:13 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon As the honourable member knows, this project has gone through its approval processes at the state level. It will now begin the federal level processes before the minister for the environment. The minister for the environment will take the same assiduous, careful, methodical and proper approach as she's taken to all environmental approvals she's dealt with so far. Inquiry into Multiple Ministerial Appointments 50 14:13 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen My question is to the Attorney-General. Why has the government had to establish an inquiry into secret appointments by the previous government? 14:13 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I thank the member for McEwen for his question. The decision by the member for Cook to appoint himself to administer five additional portfolios without telling the Australian people—and, in the case of four of the portfolios, without even telling the relevant minister—fundamentally undermines the principles of responsible government that are reflected in the Australian Constitution. And, even worse, this is what the Solicitor-General concluded about this behaviour: 'An unpublicised appointment to administer a department fundamentally undermines not just the proper functioning of responsible government but also the relationship between the ministry and the Public Service.' Few are in any doubt that the former Prime Minister— Mr Fletcher L6B The government has established an inquiry into this matter. Former High Court judge Virginia Bell has been asked to look into this matter, and consistent with the sub judice convention it is not appropriate for this matter to be canvassed in the House. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The House will come to order so I can hear the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW House of Representatives Practice goes into great detail about the sub judice convention. It makes clear that it goes nowhere near an inquiry of this nature. The question was in order, as you ruled, and it's very clear there's not even an objection being made that in any way the minister was being anything other than relevant to the question he was asked. The SPEAKER 53517 I call the Attorney-General. I'm listening closely to his answer and will be taking the views of the manager into my decision going forward. Mr DREYFUS HWG I will repeat: few are in any doubt that the former Prime Minister's conduct was indefensible. The shadow minister for home affairs even called on him to leave the parliament. But there are still many questions that remain unanswered, and that is why the inquiry that the Prime Minister announced with me on 26 August is necessary. What precisely were the facts and circumstances surrounding these secret appointments? The only account we've had is a self-pitying, self-serving and self-justifying account by the member for Cook, who appears to remain pathologically incapable of accepting responsibility for his own behaviour, let alone showing genuine contrition. What precisely were the implications arising from these appointments on, for example, the functioning of relevant departments and statutory bodies or on the accountability of the executive to the parliament, and what steps can the current government take to make sure that this never happens again? Distinguished jurist and former High Court Justice the Hon. Virginia Bell AC is very well placed to answer these and other questions, which is why she has been appointed to this inquiry. She will be supported by my department in undertaking the important work that she is going to do. This sorry saga does speak poorly to the culture of cover-up and secrecy inside the former coalition government. Most Australians were well aware of the former coalition government's addiction to cover-up and secrecy, but what this particular scandal tells us is that the culture of cover-up and secrecy inside the former government was so insidious and so corrosive that senior ministers, including the Prime Minister, couldn't even keep each other informed about significant— The SPEAKER 53517 The manager has taken a point on relevance. I'd ask him to state the point of order. Mr Fletcher L6B Again it's the sub judice convention. The SPEAKER 53517 There's no point of order. Mr Burke DYW To the point of order, I appreciate that the Manager of Opposition Business tried to show authority by arriving with a copy of the standing orders. The sub judice convention is not referred to in the standing orders. It's referred to in Practice. He's going through there now. I'd direct him to pages 521 and 522. The sub judice convention in particular applies, the House has previously found, when you're dealing with something in the order of a jury trial, where there is a sense that what is said in parliament could have an implication for the justice that is then shown. To think in any way that debate in this parliament over the behaviour of the former government would have an impact on a former High Court judge in that way is something that the convention goes nowhere near. Practice is clear on that, and it's an extraordinary claim to make. The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the Leader of the House. The Attorney-General has 16 seconds to go. Mr Dreyfus HWG I'd repeat: the culture of cover-up and secrecy inside the former government was so insidious that senior ministers could not even keep each other informed about significant matters, even if they were concealing matters that went to the proper functioning of responsible government. Those opposite should hang their heads in shame. (Time expired) Attorney-General 51 14:19 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield My question is to the Attorney-General. It relates to the ministerial code. I refer to the fact that he has disclosed an investment in an actively managed Australian equities fund, the Pengana Emerging Companies Fund, which reports amongst its holdings businesses affected by the government's regulatory settings such as telco Uniti Wireless Ltd, healthcare company Healius Ltd and health insurer NIB. Is the Attorney-General satisfied that this investment does not create a perception of a conflict of interest? 14:20 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I thank the honourable member for his question. I have fully complied with the ministerial code of conduct. The Prime Minister earlier, in answer to similarly groundless questions from the opposition on this matter, read out the passage from the ministerial code of conduct. Mr DREYFUS HWG You've asked the question; you should listen to the answer. You don't like it. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Attorney-General will return to the question. Mr DREYFUS HWG As the Prime Minister explained in reading out the relevant passage from the ministerial code of conduct, it is absolutely in order for ministers to own shares in publicly listed managed investment trusts—I'd hope that some of those opposite would know what they are—where the minister concerned has no control over the investments made by that managed investment trust. That is my position. What's extraordinary is that the level of transparency that we have provided as a cabinet, as a ministry and as members of this parliament in the register of interests that these people opposite have been raking through—that level of transparency was never provided by those opposite while they were in government. Indeed, those opposite, when they were in government, permitted shareholdings in private companies, permitted shareholdings in public companies, because they didn't care about any conflicts of interest. They didn't care about the appearance of conflicts of interest and they didn't care about the actual conflicts of interest. We do. We are a government of integrity, and those opposite would do well to have a look at how this should be done, because you didn't know in office how this should be done. Energy 52 14:22 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Why is it so important to be upfront with the Australian people about the reliability and affordability of energy supplies? What are the consequences of not disclosing critical details, and how is the Albanese Labor government restoring leadership in the area? 14:22 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable member for Reid for her question. I'm very pleased to inform her and the House that about six minutes ago the government's climate change bill passed the Senate 37 votes to 30. That's what restoring leadership is about. It is well on its way to becoming the law of the land. In relation to the leadership we have to show and the damage that we have to repair, the House knows the impacts of 10 years of delay, denial and dysfunction, What we've seen is 10 years of underinvestment in renewable energy and in electricity generation. That's what the act is all about: sending the message to investors that Australia is open for business. The house will recall the four unfun facts of the previous government's record: the fact that four gigawatts of energy generation left the system and only one gigawatt came on; the fact that the previous minister promised almost $1 billion of investment and didn't deliver one watt of energy; the fact that their signature policy, Snowy 2.0, is running 18 months late; and the fact that the then minister, the now shadow Treasurer, intervened to change the law so that an electricity price rise would be hidden from the Australian people. As morally unacceptable as that is, I understand why he did it. The implications were very significant. What the previous minister hid from the Australian people was, for example, for New South Wales an average rise of $227 four a New South Wales household or up to $1,130 for a small business. That's what the now shadow Treasurer hid from the Australian people. That's bad enough, but I saw the other day the shadow Treasurer interviewed on Sky News, and he was asked about this. He was asked about why he intervened to change the law to hide the electricity rise, and he said: 'No, this is a report from the AER, not from the government. Let's be very clear about that. It wasn't me.' The trouble is that, when you change the law, there's a record. They keep records of these things. At the front it says, 'Angus Taylor, Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction.' I know there was more than one of them, but this was actually you! On the back, the regulation change about the date of the report says, 'Omit "1 May", substitute "the first business day after 25 May"'. It didn't occur to the now shadow Treasurer that that was after the election. I table the regulation. This guy wants to be the Treasurer of Australia now. He's not fit to be the Treasurer of the local P&C, with what he's hidden from the Australian people. I apologise to the P&C treasurers around Australia; they're all fine people. But this is the leadership we are showing to get over 10 years of denial and dishonesty. Ministerial Conduct: Attorney-General 52 14:25 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Attorney-General, and it relates to the ministerial code. I refer to the Attorney-General's disclosure— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. Members on my right, when a member is asking a question, they will be heard in silence. I'm going to ask the deputy leader to begin her question again, and I'm asking for silence, particularly on my right. Ms LEY 00AMN My question is to the Attorney-General, and it relates to the ministerial code. I refer to the Attorney-General's disclosure that he invests in the Greencape Broadcap Fund. Does this fund hold shares in Omni Bridgeway, a listed litigation funding business, which recently issued an ASX statement welcoming a decision from the Attorney-General? If so, is he satisfied that this shareholding does not give rise to a perception of a conflict of interest? Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left will cease groaning. The member for Moreton is on thin ice again. 14:27 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I thank the honourable member for her question. I'm going to read 3.11 of the Code of Conduct for Ministers because it's important that its exact terms be understood: In recognition of the collective responsibility that Ministers bear in relation to Cabinet decisions, this Code requires that Ministers divest themselves of investments and other interests in any public or private company or business, other than public superannuation funds or publicly listed managed funds or trust arrangements where: the investments are broadly diversified and the Minister has no influence over investment decisions of the fund or trust; and the fund or trust does not invest to any significant extent in a business sector that could give rise to a conflict of interest with the Minister's public duty. Mr Dutton 00AKI I think you're in trouble, mate! The SPEAKER 53517 Order, the Leader of the Opposition and members on my left! Mr DREYFUS HWG I will examine the matter that has been raised by the honourable member, and I can assure the honourable member and members of this House that I have complied at all times with the Code of Conduct for Ministers. It's a very significant matter, and that's why I have undertaken to look at the matter that has been raised by the honourable member. But I can assure the House that every single one of the publicly listed managed funds that my private superannuation fund invests in have been fully disclosed to this House. They are all, as I said, publicly listed managed funds. They are all investments that are broadly diversified, and they are all funds in which I have no influence over investment decisions of that fund or trust. Defence Procurement 53 14:29 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. What policy changes will the Albanese Labor government make to ensure effective procurement of our nation's ADF capability in order to defend Australia's economic and security interests, and why are these changes important? 14:30 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I thank the member for her question and acknowledge her service to our nation's Defence Force. On 3 August, the government announced the Defence Strategic Review, which has been asked to consider the complex strategic circumstances which we face, what it means that we are within the 10-year threat window—which we know the former government rightly observed exists for our country—and what that means in terms of the kind of Defence Force that we need to build for the future to keep us safe. To that end, Sir Angus Houston and Stephen Smith are casting a critical eye over the Integrated Investment Plan, the 10-year procurement schedule for our Defence Force, because a prudent management of that schedule is fundamentally important to building a powerful Defence Force. But that task has been made so much more difficult by the legacy which has been left to us by those opposite. When it came to hoopla, the Liberals were the gold standard. When it came to defence, there were press releases by the hour, bells and whistles, streamers and balloons. They literally had Top Gun music when they were doing defence announcements. They truly were the PT Barnum of defence procurement, but when it came to delivery, well, that was actually a completely different question: frigates running late, offshore patrol vessels running late and a lost decade when it comes to our future submarines, as they chopped and changed from one country to the next. As we came to office, we inherited 30 major projects running over time and 17 major projects running over budget to an accumulated total of more than $4 billion. The Leader of the Opposition used a love to come to this dispatch box and talk about how much money the Liberals spent on defence. Well, can I tell the House, it doesn't count as defence spending if you spend the money on absolutely nothing. It doesn't count as defence spending if you flush that money down the toilet. It's not as though we can go onto the battlefield and overwhelm our adversary by running up to them and waving a copy of the budget papers in their face. This was the single most inept, incompetent, negligent government when it came to the management of Australia's defence budget. Let me say, the age of vaudeville is over. There are not going to be any Top Gun announcements from the Albanese government. What you will get is serious, prudent management of the defence budget because we understand that that is the way that we'll get the submarines in the water quicker, and we'll get the OPVs and the frigates back on track. In doing that, we are going to build a potent and capable Defence Force which will keep our country safe in the future. MOTIONS 54 MOTIONS Ministerial Conduct 54 14:33 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I seek leave to move the following motion forthwith: That the House: (1) notes:    (a) the Prime Minister has repeatedly claimed to be bringing a higher standard of accountability, transparency and integrity to Government;    (b) the Prime Minister said on 8 July that "Well, what we need is transparency. I want politics to be cleaned up. And that's why we will have strict adherence to the Ministerial code of conduct";    (c) at least three Ministers have disclosed that they own shares, when the ownership of shares is specifically barred under the Ministerial Code;    (d) the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories has admitted to the House that she was in breach of the Ministerial Code;    (e) the Assistant Minister for Health holds managed funds which have significant shareholdings in health care and private health insurance companies;    (f) the Attorney-General invests in funds which have significant holdings in businesses which he is responsible for regulating, and;    (g) the Prime Minister and other Ministers when asked about these matters have repeatedly dismissed the questions and claimed that 'there is nothing to see here'; and (2) and therefore calls upon the Prime Minister to either:    (a) live up to his rhetoric and take steps to actively enforce his Ministerial Code, including seeking formal advice from the Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet in relation to each of the Ministers reported to hold shares or to hold managed funds which hold shares in circumstances which give rise to a conflict of interest; or    (b) admit that this Prime Minister is in fact failing to enforce his Ministerial Code and in turn is failing this critical test of whether his government is demonstrating the higher standards of integrity and accountability that he has claimed to uphold. Leave not granted. MOTIONS 54 MOTIONS Ministerial Conduct 54 14:35 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I seek leave to suspend so much of the standing orders as would prevent me from moving the following motion— The SPEAKER 53517 I just ask the leader to move it. Mr DUTTON 00AKI I'm seeking leave. Government members interjecting— Mr DUTTON 00AKI I have, actually. I seek leave— Government members interjecting— Mr DUTTON 00AKI Leave is not granted; I understand that. Government members interjecting— Mr DUTTON 00AKI Yes, which I've just done. The SPEAKER 53517 Are you requesting that standing orders be suspended? Mr DUTTON 00AKI Absolutely. Government members interjecting— Mr DUTTON 00AKI They can laugh and jest, but— The SPEAKER 53517 I just suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that he needs to move that the standing orders be suspended. Mr DUTTON 00AKI I move: That the House: (1) notes:    (a) the Prime Minister has repeatedly claimed to be bringing a higher standard of accountability, transparency and integrity to Government— Mr Burke DYW At this point the Leader of the Opposition is moving a motion the House denied him leave to move. The SPEAKER 53517 Yes, and he will need to move a suspension of standing orders. Mr DUTTON 00AKI Speaker, as you said in your own words, I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion immediately— The SPEAKER 53517 That's correct. Mr DUTTON 00AKI As you pointed out before. Government members interjecting— The 53517 Members on my right will cease interjecting. Mr DUTTON 00AKI I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion immediately— That the House: (1) notes:    (a) the Prime Minister has repeatedly claimed to be bringing a higher standard of accountability, transparency and integrity to Government;    (b) the Prime Minister said on 8 July that "Well, what we need is transparency. I want politics to be cleaned up. And that's why we will have strict adherence to the Ministerial code of conduct";    (c) at least three Ministers have disclosed that they own shares, when the ownership of shares is specifically barred under the Ministerial Code;    (d) the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories has admitted to the House that she was in breach of the Ministerial Code;    (e) the Assistant Minister for Health holds managed funds which have significant shareholdings in health care and private health insurance companies;    (f) the Attorney-General invests in funds which have significant holdings in businesses which he is responsible for regulating, and;    (g) the Prime Minister and other Ministers when asked about these matters have repeatedly dismissed the questions and claimed that 'there is nothing to see here'; and (2) and therefore calls upon the Prime Minister to either:    (a) live up to his rhetoric and take steps to actively enforce his Ministerial Code, including seeking formal advice from the Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet in relation to each of the Ministers reported to hold shares or to hold managed funds which hold shares in circumstances which give rise to a conflict of interest; or    (b) admit that this Prime Minister is in fact failing to enforce his Ministerial Code and in turn is failing this critical test of whether his government is demonstrating the higher standards of integrity and accountability that he has claimed to uphold. This is a very serious issue that is before the House, absolutely it is, because the Prime Minister has claimed to the Australian public that he is going to usher in a new era where there is greater accountability, where ministers will be held to a higher standard, and it's absolutely clear in the changes made by this Prime Minister in relation to the Code of Conductfor Ministers, released in June 2022 by this government, as has been detailed in the House today at 3.11—specifically, 3.11(i) and (ii)—and 3.12. Part 3.12 wasn't referred to today, of course, but it's worth reading it into the record: If a Minister becomes aware that a fund or trust has invested in a company that might give rise to a perception of a conflict of interest, the Minister should inform the Prime Minister immediately and liquidate the investment in the fund or trust if required to do so. None of that has happened. We've got a situation where earlier this week a minister claimed to this House that some sort of self-assessment process had been undertaken by her, during which—surprisingly!—she cleared herself of any wrongdoing. She later claimed that, in fact, she had breached the Code of Conduct for Ministers, for which she knows, as we now do, there is no consequence. How is it that this Prime Minister is pretending to uphold some different code or some different standard when there is absolutely no consequence for a breach of the code? Could it be any clearer? Have a look at the Assistant Minister for Health in terms of those shareholdings. Could they be shareholdings in the education sector? Could they be shareholdings in a building company? No. As it turns out, the assistant minister has an interest in shares relating specifically to her own portfolio: health and private health insurance funds. You could ask, 'Is there a consequence for such conduct?' Under this Prime Minister there is no consequence. Again, that minister has conducted her own assessment and, would you believe it, she's cleared herself of any wrongdoing. What a robust process of a higher standard being maintained by this government! Then we come to the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General, as we have seen over the years through his own statements—I mean, let's rely on his own words and conduct here—without doubt, by his own admission, would be the smartest person in the world! There's no question about that. He would be the smartest person not just in this parliament and not just across the country—listen to him: he is the most learned person in this place and, in fact, across the world! When you go through his listings, they've been very successful. Congratulations! That's a wonderful thing and to be celebrated. And he has properly disclosed them, as he points out. It is inconceivable, given the Attorney-General's background; given his knowledge of the industry; given his connections, particularly to companies that are involved in the litigation process and that fund litigations; and given his network across Melbourne, across members of the bar, across the legal fraternity in New South Wales and across the country. He's been Attorney-General; he's occupied that office before. Despite his significant investment in a company that he knows a great deal of detail about, he's telling this House that, somehow, he's surprised by the revelations which we have laid out. The connection can't be any clearer. I haven't got before me the exact figures of the shareholding that the Attorney-General has declared, but let me put it in simple terms: the shareholding owned by the Attorney-General has effectively doubled in value since the Labor Party came to power. Is that directed to decisions being made by the Attorney-General? Well, I'll let people draw their own conclusions. But what I do know is that, when the Attorney-General made a decision, and when that decision was announced, made in his capacity as Attorney-General with a direct impact on the company involved, the company listed and provided advice to the Australian Stock Exchange, as is their obligation. They were very, very happy with the decision made. As it turns out, so too were the shareholders. Does this result in any consequence under the Prime Minister, who is saying to the Australian public that he is leading a new way, that he's coming in here for a kinder, gentler, friendlier parliament, where transparency will reign? Is there any consequence for the Attorney-General when he surely, with all of the knowledge he possesses, with his superior intellect, with his capacity above any other human being—has this detail escaped him up until this very moment? Is that a credible account of his position? Is it a credible account of his own interest, his own investments? I'll let people draw their own conclusions. There are many on the other side of this chamber who I know hold a very similar view to us in relation to this Attorney-General. It doesn't pass the pub test. It doesn't pass any test whatsoever, and it's incumbent on this Prime Minister to uphold his standards. If he were to do that, he would demand that this Attorney-General dispose of his interests, exhaust the conflict of interest which is clear to all to see and uphold the high standard that he has claimed to the Australian public he adheres to. So far, not only has the Attorney-General failed this test; two other ministers, that we know of, have equally failed the test, and there may be more. We haven't come to our favourite friend, the member for Maribyrnong. We may do. I think the Prime Minister will probably deal with him in the next reshuffle. Let's see what the Prime Minister has in store for him. You are his favourite, Bill, I know that much. He may deal with you himself. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the Opposition will— Mr DUTTON 00AKI I'll refer to him as the minister, the member for Maribyrnong, the soon-to-be-former minister—whatever he prefers. The fact is that this Prime Minister has failed the test, and the Attorney-General has a serious case to answer here. He hasn't so far, and it can't escape people that he has clearly tested at least the boundaries, but, in our judgement, he's in clear breach of this hopeless code. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 53517 Is the motion seconded? 14:47 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I second the motion. Labor has no integrity on integrity. Ministers have breached the ministerial code left, right and centre. Three ministers are selling shares at a rate that would make Gordon Gekko proud! This is from a government that spent nine years on this side of the House lecturing us on integrity. Every question time they lectured us on integrity. The new Prime Minister promised that there would be a new era of government, a new era of integrity, a new era of transparency, and what did he show us? He produced a ministerial code that, in just over 100 days, has been breached by three ministers, three ministers who've had to sell their shares. The Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories has admitted to breaching the code. The Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care has invested in shares in areas that are regulated by her portfolio. And today we have revelations that the Attorney-General's superannuation fund invests in funds that invest in a prominent litigation fund, a litigation fund that is benefiting from a decision of this government, a Friday afternoon special decision of this government, made to appease and support one of the Labor Party's big donors. The Labor Party have three big donors: big unions, big super and big class-action funders. They have made their first priorities in government to do things to benefit these three organisations, whether it be the nobbling of the ABCC, whether it be the changes to make superannuation funds less transparent or whether it be to make litigation funds less transparent and less of benefit to those people who are the victims, who brought these actions forward in the first place. Labor has no integrity on integrity. Let's hear what the Prime Minister has been saying about the importance of his code. He said: As Prime Minister, I expect my Ministers to demonstrate that they are complying with these high standards of conduct, and in doing so, living up to the expectations of the Australian public. On the day his code was released, the Prime Minister told Sunrise: 'I want politics to be cleaned up. We've got strict adherence to the code of conduct.' But what's the Prime Minister actually done? What have we seen? We've seen three ministers breach this code of conduct in just over 100 days. This is the transparent Labor Party! This is the new politics that the Labor Party promised they would deliver when they came to government. That was only two months ago, and what have we seen? You can breach the code with impunity. There is absolutely no consequence for breaching this code. And what happens when you get caught? The Prime Minister will look after you, the Labor Party will look after you; there's no real standard that any minister is being held to at all. With the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories, we found out they don't even have to read the code. The code is there and it can be breached with absolute impunity again and again. That's why the motion that the Leader of the Opposition has moved is so important. It's why it deserves to be debated properly in this House. It deserves to be debated because you cannot have the situation where a ministerial code has been put forward by a new Prime Minister who has promised new transparency in government and who, instead, has demonstrated that there isn't any real transparency because there is no consequence for breaching his ministerial code, a code that is designed to lift transparency. Mr Speaker, you have the Attorney-General here talking about the code and the fact there were several elements to the code that were worth looking at. It's worth looking at paragraph 3.11 again, and it says: In recognition of the collective responsibility that Ministers bear in relation to Cabinet decisions, this Code requires that Ministers divest themselves of investments and other interests in any public or private company or business, other than public superannuation funds or publicly listed managed funds or trust arrangements where: (i) the investments are broadly diversified and the Minister has no influence over investment decisions of the fund or trust; and— and this is the important bit— (ii) the fund or trust does not invest to any significant extent in a business sector that could give rise to a conflict of interest with the Minister's public duty. What did we see here? We saw a minister with a serious conflict of interest investing in a fund that benefited from a decision that had been made by this new government. Mr Speaker, this motion deserves to be supported, and we should have the full motion brought forward. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the motion be disagreed to. I give the call to the Leader of the House. 14:52 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Okay, wake up everyone please. You can imagine in Tactics at the beginning of the week: they decided, 'We're going to have our first big suspension motion, and we're going to build up to it,' because after you lose office the suspension motion is your big moment, your crescendo, where you start to define what you're about. And the issue they picked to define what their opposition is about is that ministers aren't selling down shares quickly enough. Let's just consider the shadow ministry that they are offering on this issue. If this standard were applied to them, the Leader of the Opposition would be in breach, the Leader of the Nationals would be in breach, the shadow Treasurer would be in breach, the Manager of Opposition Business would be in breach, the shadow home affairs minister would be in breach, the former Deputy Prime Minister would be in breach— Mr Wallace 265967 You're in government! Mr BURKE DYW I just heard them saying, 'Oh, but you're in government.' So you've only just bought all these shares, have you? This has only just happened? This is all brand new? My favourite one of the examples: the shadow minister for climate change doesn't just have shares; he's got them in Rio Tinto and Newcrest. No conflicts there! No conflicts there at all! But the motion that we have, the whole concept of the resolution we're to suspend standing orders for—and, let's not forget, the whole concept of a suspension in the middle of question time—is that this is so important it's worth knocking off all the other questions that were going to be asked. That's what they're asking for. That's what this resolution is for. Mr Howarth 247742 You did it every week! The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Petrie will cease interjecting. Mr BURKE DYW We never did it on anything as silly as this one. What they are going for here is on the concept: 'Well, the big thing we need to have happen is to seek advice from the Secretary to PM&C.' Remember the Gaetjens reports? Remember how many times we were told by those opposite, the answer to every question: 'Phil Gaetjens is looking into it.' I remember hearing about the Gaetjens reports. I don't remember seeing the Gaetjens reports. I don't remember a single one of those reports ever seeing the light of day. But it wasn't only on shares that those opposite had issues of integrity. Remember when respected Speaker Tony Smith was in that chair and was asked about a former Leader of the House who had set up a trust fund, and the impact of that trust fund to pay for his personal expenses, his personal bills, was being used on the declaration. All the questions they have asked this week have been based on going through the declaration, where ministers have been transparent. That's where all of this information has come from—because ministers have been transparent. What did the former Leader of the House's declaration tell you? There was a trust fund and you weren't allowed to know where the money was coming from. That was referred to the privileges committee in a reference that was made and then the Speaker had to consider whether or not it would be given precedence to even be looked at. For as long as I have been here and for as long as the Prime Minister has been here, when precedence is given the House then votes in favour of it. But, breaking that precedent, in a complete cover-up to forever conceal the financial interests of one of their own, they came in here to vote that reference down. And who do you think was the Leader of the House who called the division? Who do you think was the Leader of the House who said, 'We should never have a right to know where the money is coming from'? Who might be that person who stood right here and argued that the government would not be supporting the reference—and the culture of secrecy wouldn't just continue but that every single one of them would vote against the recommendation of the Speaker and make sure that the information was forever suppressed? Any ideas on who? I know you are all looking at your phones, but it was the now Leader of the Opposition who came in here and led the charge to make sure that the Register of Members' Interests was effectively rendered meaningless by one of his own receiving money that we will never know the origin of. Compare that with an incoming government where the Prime Minister has come forward with a code of conduct that those opposite never would have dared do. If any Prime Minister from their side had dared bring in a code of conduct where you were expected to get rid of your shares, they would have knocked off the Prime Minister in seconds. That's what they would have done, because it goes completely against the grain of how they operate. It goes completely against the grain of born to rule, born to invest, born to entitlement— Government members interjecting— Mr BURKE DYW And born to rort; that's right. It goes against the grain for every single one of them. What they are now doing is complaining and wanting to argue about a code of conduct which contains some of the principles that were there when we were last in government—all of which they got rid of as soon as they came in. They made sure that none of these principles around protecting the public interest and avoiding conflicts of interest were applied to them at all. On the occasion when one of their own was so openly flouting it that the Speaker recommended it be given precedence for the privileges committee, each and every one of them voted to shut the inquiry down. And now that the government has re-established proper standards of integrity, proper standards to avoid conflicts of interest, proper standards that make sure ministers are not caught in the sort of behaviour that those opposite were involved with, what do they do? They decide that that's their big issue. I have laughed this week thinking about the conversations that they must have had as to who should ask about a breach of the ministerial code. Do we have the person who had to resign over Queensland trips? Do we have the question relevant to the motion we now have in front of us asked by the person who somehow magically uploaded fraudulent documents about the Lord Mayor of Sydney? Do we have the question asked by someone who took an overseas trip to China in a private capacity, who suddenly appeared as a minister doing private work? Do we have people involved in water sales and water purchases? Do we have— Government members interjecting— Mr BURKE DYW And I haven't even mentioned the Leppington Triangle! I haven't mentioned that, but after this point of order I'll— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Leader of the House will resume his seat— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker will cease interjecting! The SPEAKER 53517 The Minister for Home Affairs will cease interjecting! When the House comes to order I'll call the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher L6B Mr Speaker, on the suspension of standing orders: he needs to be relevant and argue why standing orders should not be suspended. He's not doing that. The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the Manager of Opposition Business. It is a very wide-ranging debate. I give the call to the Leader of the House. Mr BURKE DYW I don't think that point of order was in the interests of the Manager of Opposition Business, I've got to say. But if he ever wants that to become the precedent for how we debate suspensions of standing orders we can start to go to that rule in the future, if that's where he wants to go! Of all the questions, right on cue: who might be the person who purchased land worth $3 million, paid $30 million for it, but then, when they had to work out, 'Let's rent it back,' decided that the land was worth even less than $3 million? Then, off the back of that— Ms Rishworth HWA From donors! Mr BURKE DYW From donors, I might add! Those opposite come to this debate in the worst of all worlds—in the worst of all worlds!—with zero credibility and wanting to talk about a standard that they evaded, that they rorted and that they did everything they could to avoid. I'm proud that we have a government where these questions can be asked, because the answer on every occasion is a standard that is being held here that never existed over there! And if that's going to be the sort of reason that you reckon we should interrupt the rest of question time and make sure that the crossbench don't get other questions—if you reckon that an issue like this was worth it—you are far more out of touch than we had even dreamed. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the motion be disagreed to.  

The House divided. [15:06]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

84 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. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. 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. Haines, H. M. 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. 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. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Scrymgour, M. R. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Spender, A. M. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Tink, K. J. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 53 NOES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. 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. Landry, M. L. 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. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Robert, S. R. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Thompson, P. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 60 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme 60 15:09 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra My question is to the Minister for Government Services. How will the Albanese Labor government's delivery of its election commitment to establish a royal commission into robodebt bring justice to robodebt victims? 15:10 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I thank the member for Canberra for her question. As Australians are aware, robodebt is probably one of the most shameful chapters in public administration in the nation's history. That isn't just the view of the current government; it's the view of the Federal Court and the view of hundreds of thousands of people. Just to remind those opposite, robodebt occurred on their watch. Between July of 2015 and November of 2019, over 400,000 of our fellow Australian citizens who rely on the safety net were targeted by an unlawful scheme. The scheme was called out to be unlawful almost from when the first debt notices started going out, but unfortunately the current opposition, then in government, for 4½ years ignored the pleas of those who were unlawfully targeted; ignored the decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal; ignored the advice from the Australian Taxation Office; ignored whistleblowers; ignored the current government—then the opposition—when it was raising and advocating on this issue; and ignored the legal aid commissions around Australia. It was only a class action—which Labor helped push for—that forced the government to admit the scheme was unlawful, and they only did so at the door of the court, because then the ministers and senior public servants overseeing this unlawful freight train of misery against hundreds of thousands of citizens might have had to give evidence in the class action. When faced with giving evidence, miraculously the government folded its tents, settled the claim for $1.7 billion and paid interest of $112 million. But the government has never, ever satisfactorily explained matters. So it is left to a royal commission, to be chaired by Justice Catherine Holmes. It'll report on 18 April next year, and it'll get to the bottom of questions which, unfortunately, the previous government never answered—questions like: Who was responsible for its design, development and establishment? What were the advice and the processes that informed its design and implementation? Were any concerns at any stage ever raised about the legality of the scheme? The royal commission will also look at concerns raised about robodebt once it was initiated. Were the risks ever identified? Was there advice from the Australian Taxation Office and documentary proof that the government ignored? Was there advice from affected individuals and other agencies? What did the then government do in response to adverse decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal? The old government, the current opposition, have said that this royal commission is unnecessary. Yet again they're short-changing the vulnerable. The victims of this scheme are owed the justice of the truth, and they should be able to find out why the last government treated them so illegally. Charitable Organisations 61 15:13 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong My question is to the Prime Minister, regarding the last government's $18 million grant to the Australian Future Leaders Foundation, an initiative of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in consultation with the office of the Governor-General. Will your government commit to reviewing other discretionary grants made by the Morrison government to charities and community organisations? 15:13 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Kooyong for her question. The government has indeed been going through, line by line, the commitments that were made by the former government. In some cases they were made in budgets. In some cases they were announced during the election campaign as part of what became a growing feature of the former government's budgets, which was the so-called contingency funds for contingencies—that is, 'In case of emergency in the electorate of Kooyong, break glass.' They didn't really work all that well. We know of course, for example, about the abuse of the Commuter Car Park Program, where, for commuter car parks, some $65 million in the electorate of Kooyong was promised. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Petrie will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 That, of course, just disappeared, because in some cases they were promising commuter car parks where there weren't actually train stations for commuters to get on the train at! But the government, indeed, as part of the review, has indicated—and I can confirm—that a decision has been made by our expenditure review process to not proceed with the $18 million that was allocated for the Australian Future Leaders Program. It was, I must say, a program that, in terms of scrutiny of the details that were there, in our view was not worthy of proceeding with, and which was also to receive $4 million in recurrent funding in perpetuity. The fact is that we have inherited a trillion dollars of Liberal Party debt, and therefore we have had to make some difficult decisions. The Governor-General was an advocate of this program. I make no criticism of the Governor-General whatsoever and I indeed informed the Governor-General of my government's position, as a matter of courtesy to him and as a matter of respect for him. But we will be going through, line by line, getting rid of the rorts and waste that dominated the budget and that were a part of the trillion dollars of Liberal Party debt. We also know that, whether it was sports rorts, whether it was commuter car park rorts—the so-called pork-and-ride scheme—or whether it was other programs, they were addicted: they were addicted to abuse of taxpayer funds. This government intends to deliver for taxpayers, not— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister's time has concluded. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I do not need any more yelling from the member for Barker. He is warned. Climate Change 61 15:17 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, what can we expect will be the response of the Australian business community to the passing of the government's climate change legislation? 15:17 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Fremantle, not just for the question but for his advocacy for climate change action. He has been a very strong advocate in his local electorate and around the country of the need for Australia to move forward into this century, because we've been held back. We know that, under the previous government, we saw four gigs out and one gig in when it came to energy production. The SPEAKER 53517 Order. The Prime Minister will just pause. The member for Barker on a point of order. Mr Pasin 240756 I'm simply drawing the Speaker's attention to the clock. It hasn't reset. I draw your attention to that. The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the member for Barker for his assistance. I'll ask for the clock to be reset and I'll ask the Prime Minister to continue his answer. Mr ALBANESE R36 I thank the member for Barker for the most substantial contribution he's made since he joined this chamber! The fact is that renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy. Renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy, which is why our program—our 'powering the nation' plan—will lead to a lowering of power prices. And that's what the business community understand. That's why the Business Council of Australia support it. That's why the Australian Industry Group support it. And that's why the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry support it as well. All of the major business groups are saying to those opposite: 'Get out of the way! We've had a decade of denial, and what we need is a government that has a program that encourages investment, because investment is the key to lowering prices for businesses.' That's why they want to do it. But it's not just Australian investors. Yesterday I met with Ignacio Galan, the chairman and CEO of Iberdrola. Now, they are major global investors in renewable energy. They are one of the world's largest offshore wind developers. They've commissioned the largest green hydrogen plant in Europe—just near Madrid, occupying a space previously held by a coal-fired power station—creating jobs, for the local communities, in new industries. On Monday, Iberdrola announced plans to invest another $4.4 billion in renewable energy in Australia. That's what we'll see as a result of the passing of this legislation. I thank all those in the House and the Senate who supported this legislation. On that basis, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. The SPEAKER 53517 Before I call the Leader of the House, I will call the Prime Minister. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 62 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Abe, Mr Shinzo, AC 62 15:20 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Mr Speaker, I will visit Japan from 26 to 28 September to attend the state funeral for Mr Abe Shinzo, AC, former Japanese Prime Minister. We've spoken previously in this parliament and, across the whole spectrum, expressed our condolences to the people of Japan. I will be accompanied on that visit by former prime ministers the Hon. John Howard, OM AC, the Hon. Tony Abbott, AC and the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull, AC, all of whom worked with Mr Abe during his two terms as Japanese Prime Minister. We will be the official delegation, and I believe it's entirely appropriate that I as the Prime Minister have extended invitations to Mr Howard, Mr Abbott and Mr Turnbull, and I'm pleased that they are able to attend with me. Mr Abe's state funeral will be attended by past and present world leaders, foreign dignitaries, colleagues and family in honour of his leadership and immense contribution on the international stage. Mr Abe was instrumental in elevating Australia's relationship with Japan to a special strategic partnership and did more than anyone to advocate for a free and open Indo-Pacific. He signed the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement, creating new opportunities for Australian businesses in Japan and, of course, was a tireless champion of the Quad. I believe that the attendance at Mr Abe's state funeral by not just myself as the sitting Prime Minister of Australia but by three former prime ministers will send a very strong message to the government of Japan but, most importantly, to the people of Japan about how respected Mr Abe was by Australia and about the friendship that is there. I thank the former prime ministers for the discussions and for attending with me. 15:22 Mr 00AKI Dickson DUTTON (—) (): I want to provide the opposition's support to the Prime Minister on what's a very important visit to Japan. It's not only to commemorate a life well lived in the service of his country; it's a very significant expression about the depth of the friendship between our two countries. It's always important to celebrate the links, the people-to-people links, and the former prime minister, Abe Shinzo, had a very significant personal link with former prime ministers, including prime ministers Howard, Abbott and Turnbull. We support, very much, the gravitas that's attached to the delegation having invited the former prime ministers, and I thank the Prime Minister for extending that courtesy to the former prime ministers. I had the great fortune of having dinner earlier this week with the Japanese Ambassador to Australia, a great friend of our country, as many across the chamber know, and they will spend time with him, from meeting to meeting, and know that he is very serious about deepening the relationship even further. The tragedy that struck with the assassination of Abe Shinzo, as we mentioned in the condolence motions, shocked the world. It's right and proper that our Prime Minister should lead the delegation, to express sympathies to the family and to the nation as a whole, and it will enhance the relationships between our two countries. On that basis, we wish him and the delegation safe travels. DOCUMENTS 63 DOCUMENTS Presentation 63 15:24 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 63 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Pensions and Benefits 63 15:24 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Deakin proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: This government's abandonment of vulnerable communities by seeking to abolish the Cashless Debit Card without consulting affected communities. I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:25 Mr SU 242515 Deakin KKAR () (): Someone who is respected across this chamber—indeed, someone who is respected throughout Australia—Noel Pearson, said the following at a recent Senate committee hearing, referring to the disgraceful decision of the government to abolish the CDC: You will repeal the card and then you will walk away and leave us to the violence, leave us to the hunger, leave us to the neglected children. It's very easy to forget about remote communities. That's not the opposition speaking; that's one of the most respected Indigenous leaders in this country, eviscerating this ideological decision by the government to abolish the CDC. In this place we often argue about very fine areas of difference. As a general rule, 90 per cent of the time we don't look at the motives of those opposite and think they are anything other than good. But in this instance we've got an example of a minister and a prime minister who are seeking to abolish the cashless debit card. That, we know with certainty, will have a few consequences. The consequences, we know, will be: more violence in remote communities; more drunkenness in remote communities; more drugs in remote communities; and more neglected children in remote communities. We know that will be the outcome of this decision, and this minister and Prime Minister have completely botched this process. The only decent thing to do now is walk away from this shameful decision—a decision that will, in the words of Noel Pearson, see more children neglected. The cashless debit card operates in a number of communities—Ceduna, East Kimberley, the Goldfields in WA, Bundaberg, Hervey Bay and Cape York. We have seen in each and every one of those communities, since the cashless debit card has been in place, reduced antisocial behaviour, reduced consumption of alcohol, reduced consumption of drugs and attendance at school increasing. Ms Rishworth HWA What evidence! In your imagination! Mr SUKKAR 242515 Yet we have a minister with the absolute gall to stand there interjecting. How on earth could anyone walk into this chamber and make a decision knowing that children will be abused and neglected as a result? That is the outcome of this decision! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The minister, on a point of order? Ms Rishworth HWA On reflections on other members. I ask him to withdraw. Opposition members interjecting— Ms Rishworth HWA It is a reflection! It is! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Will you withdraw? Mr SUKKAR 242515 No. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 That's very unparliamentary of you. Mr SUKKAR 242515 Sorry—what's the unparliamentary remark? The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Have you reflected badly on the member opposite? Mr SUKKAR 242515 No. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I will be listening extremely carefully to you. If I ask you to withdraw, next time you will think deeply about doing so. Mr SUKKAR 242515 The decision to abolish the cashless debit card, in Noel Pearson's words, will see the government leaving affected communities with violence, hunger and neglected children. I can understand why the minister's a bit touchy about that. We'll see neglected children! That will be the outcome of the decision made by this government to abolish the cashless debit card. Members opposite might be very touchy about this, and so they should be. In fact, I know there are a number of very good people in the Labor Party who are utterly ashamed of the decision of the Prime Minister and this minister to impose this absolute tragedy on affected communities. There are 17,000 participants at present on the cashless debit card. What has been the process by which this government now wants to rip a tool we know is working, a tool that is improving the lives of women and children, in particular, out of those communities? Anyone with any common sense will accept that the inevitable outcome of putting more alcohol and more drugs into these communities will be devastating for them. The least we could expect from this minister is that she would consult with those communities. Let's hear about the consultation from this hapless minister. The consultation involved a number of documents being sent to affected communities on 30 August. Honourable members interjecting— Mr SUKKAR 242515 No, hear me out, colleagues. On 30 August, the so-called CDC engagement team sent to the Goldfields a raft of documents to commence the process of consultation. There was a draft engagement plan, an engagement summary, a participation checklist, a CDC fact sheet, all very bureaucratic. That was the consultation that started on the 30 August, and they were given until midday on 2 September to come back, from 30 August to 2 September. This hapless minister, who's engaging in meaningful consultation, has given these communities less than three days to come back on an issue that is going to see devastation hitting their communities. The minister opposite might not like the quotes that are about to come up, but these are quotes from the communities that will have the CDC ripped out of them. Ian Trust from the Wunan Foundation said: It reduced the alcohol violence and the harassment of the elderly and vulnerable for cash when they used to go to the ATM … The government says if we want to go down that path of keeping income management that it has to be a community decision, but there's no information about how they want us to arrive at that decision or what the replacement could be. Tammy Williams from the Family Responsibilities Commission said: We are looking at going back to a card that doesn't match the technology of the CDC, and people will have limited access to their money, won't be able to utilise online shopping or travel outside their communities. But it's even worse; the government is not even proposing anything viable in the place of the CDC, hence why there are so many fears about what is going to come. Mayor Perry Will from the District Council of Ceduna said: 'The first we heard of it was in the PM's election promises that he was going to do it. Prior to that, we had no representation from any Labor politicians.' Oh, she met with him after she made the announcement! That's wonderful consultation. Ms Rishworth HWA I turned up. I had a meeting with him—two hours! Mr SUKKAR 242515 I'll keep taking these interjections if the hapless minister wants to continue to provide them. This is a crucial matter for our parliament. In my opening remarks to this bill, when the minister introduced it, I had a very different tone. I appeal to the decency of those opposite, the decency that I know is there amongst virtually all members of this House, the decency that you would not make a decision that you know is going to hurt children. And yet they proceed with this destructive course. If you don't want to listen to me, listen to people who are in the affected communities about the impact of the CDC. Again, this is from Perry Will in Ceduna: 'Don't take it away.' He was saying, 'Look out the window. Take a walk around. See the difference for yourself. The CDC's been terrific for the town in reducing violence, increasing tourism, improving safety for women.' The list of quotations is extraordinarily long. From a refuge worker in the East Kimberley—this is probably the most powerful: 'Since the CDC, the seriousness of assaults seen by the refuge has declined.' So, Minister, do not— (Time expired) 15:35 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston We have heard a lot of rhetoric from this minister. There is so much rhetoric from this minister, but no evidence whatsoever—sorry, shadow minister; I shouldn't have promoted him. We've heard so much rhetoric about crime, so much rhetoric, but with no evidence whatsoever. One of the things that the shadow minister talks about a lot is crime and the crime statistics—he hasn't been able to provide any of them. But I'll give them to you. In fact, domestic violence offences as a subset of assault offences increased by 57 per cent between 2014 and 2019 in Ceduna and surrounds. In Alice Springs, between 2012 and 2020, we've seen assaults involving DV increase as well. What we've seen, for participants in areas where the CDC has been, is no change whatsoever or, in fact, things getting worse when it comes to crime. This shadow minister has constantly ignored the evidence—and we've listened to him a lot. He talked about Noel Pearson. I met with Noel Pearson and I had a very productive conversation with Noel Pearson. But the shadow minister misrepresents Noel Pearson, because one of the things that the shadow minister suggests is that the blanket application of the CDC to anyone on an income support payment is supported by Noel Pearson. But, in fact, Noel Pearson has said he doesn't agree with the blanket imposition of the card. He doesn't actually agree with the blanket imposition of the card. There's Ian Trust from the Wunan Foundation, who the shadow minister mentioned earlier, who said about the card: It lost its effectiveness as people worked out ways of getting around it: doing other people's shopping, buying people fuel and so on. That was always probably going to be the case. So you have Ian Trust saying that the card is not really effective anymore. There was Ms PC Clarke from the Central Australian Aboriginal Family Legal Unit, who said: CAAFLU supports the repeal of the cashless debit card. This bill is a step in the right direction … Christine Donaldson said she was forced onto the CDC just because of where she lived. She said: I am an elder … in the Goldfields region of Western Australia and I fully support the amendment bill and agree that the card needs to be abolished. Then there was Antoinette Braybook from Far North Queensland, the co-chair of Change the Record. She said: We agree with the government's conclusion that the cashless debit card is not evidence based, is ineffective and is discriminatory. Beverly Walley from east Kimberley said: … the cashless debit card has deteriorated quite a lot of life … There had always been parents drinking, drugs and gambling prior to the cashless card being enforced in 2015-16. Having said that, there is no change. Everything is still the same. These are some of the people living in these communities. I would challenge the shadow minister: has he actually visited any of these communities; has he actually travelled to any of these communities? Because I have been up to the east Kimberley and met with organisations. I have been into Far North Queensland, as has the assistant minister. I've been to Ceduna and spoken to these communities. I have travelled through the Northern Territory, speaking to the women in the town camps, speaking to the women in the refuges in Kununurra. I would challenge the shadow minister to go out there, because he actually might learn a couple of lessons. He might actually go and speak to the people who have been affected. When I heard from the people who had been affected, I heard that it had been shameful for them and it had ruined their lives. Many have said—these are the lived experiences of people—that they are embarrassed because they don't have enough cash to go to the school fete or they don't have enough cash to go and watch their country football. People are embarrassed, frustrated and shamed by this. One of the absolute furphies that those on the other side propagate is that everyone on the card has a drug and alcohol problem and, therefore, the government has to tell them how to live their lives. I met so many people, including carers and people on a disability support pension, who said they had never touched a drop of alcohol in their lives and they didn't understand why they were being punished. I do want to get to the evidence, because the opposition has been full of rhetoric and no evidence whatsoever. And the evidence speaks for itself. Not only did we have two ANAO reports that said that this card was not delivering on the outcomes it had promised; we also had the University of Adelaide report in January 2021, which found that the evidence to support the CDC was inconclusive. The study found that any reduction of alcohol and drug use could not be attributed to the effect of the card. Also in that report—this is evidence that the opposition always ignores—it was reported: … the CDC was reported to introduce widely felt and costly hurdles to many participants in relation to financial planning and money management … …   …   … A large proportion of CDC participant survey respondents reported that their quality of life had been affected … Another study, by the University of South Australia and Monash University, found that the CDC in Ceduna had 'no substantive impact' on gambling and drug and alcohol abuse and no substantive impact on crime or emergency department presentations. And in June 2022, as I said, the ANAO released its latest audit, which was damning. I would, finally, go to the point when the shadow minister was banging on his chest and talking about a lack of preparation from this side of the House. Let me remind the House of a couple of things. First, the cashless debit card legislation is due to expire on 31 December, and there have been no moves by the former government to put together any legislation to actually extend it. Second, there needed to be a tender process, because the contract was running out for the supply of the cashless debit card. Do you think the former government made any moves to ensure that there would be a smooth tender arrangement? Of course they did not. They made no moves to actually recognise that the tender was ending on the 31st. In addition to that, we hear a lot about the support services. I've been very, very interested in the support services, because I know a lot of communities really value the support services and have recognised that, while the card hasn't done a lot, the support services have made a difference. Do you think that the former government put any money in the March budget for services past 1 July 2023? Do you think they gave any certainty to these communities that they could continue to rely on these support services? No. How much money was in the budget after 1 July 2023? Zero. So to have the opposition come and talk about abandoning communities, about leaving them behind and about not supporting them is absolutely appalling, because they did not put the provisions in to support those who actually needed those services. They can come in here and cry their crocodile tears, but there was no action and no preparation by the former government in terms of what would happen come 31 December. I have been consulting with communities, I've been speaking with communities and I will continue to work with communities on the future of voluntary income management. I will continue to work with the Family Responsibilities Commission, recognising the important work they do and working to make sure that their work is not impeded. But we will not stand for communities, sometimes picked by the local member, having an imposition of a blanket card for anyone on a working-age payment. That leads to stigmatisation and significant problems when it comes to practical life decisions. This government will work with communities. We will continue to listen to them, work with them and deliver for them, unlike those opposite. 15:45 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page The bottom line of this legislation going through parliament, both in this House and in the Senate if it does next week, is that this government did it in a rush. It was one of the first pieces of legislation they put through this parliament. In fact, they moved an urgency motion to rush it through. This legislation passing will mean that this Labor government are going to place women and children in dangerous situations. They're going to place women and children, who currently are in a safer position, in a very dangerous, vulnerable situation. The communities where the cashless debit card is were chosen very purposely. It wasn't done randomly. They were in remote communities and predominantly in remote communities that had a higher level of domestic violence and other forms of views than the rest of the communities around the country. Now, that is sad. That is a very sad and very dangerous situation. We're talking about communities where children have sexually transmitted diseases. We are talking about communities where the presentation to hospital of domestic violence, school absenteeism and the worst type of abuse you could inflict on women and children were higher than the average around the country. They were chosen very purposefully. This wasn't picking on people. This was going to communities where statistics said that women and children were in trouble, that it was dangerous to be in those communities, especially on certain nights, when the welfare money arrived. It was dangerous. These communities—and I have been to them. I grew up not that far from Ceduna. I know Ceduna very well, amongst some of the other communities. And what would happen on those nights when it was particularly dangerous, when a large part of the population was drunk, was that children would roam the streets at night because that was the safest place for them to be. It wasn't safe to be in their homes. It wasn't safe to be inside. They would roam with friends because that was the safest place for them to be. What is this outrageous stigmatisation that the government go on about? They get a card and they can spend 80 per cent of it on essentials. They spend it on food, they spend it on clothing, they spend it on the essentials of life and they have 20 per cent left over to spend on things that you would need to spend cash on. In an ideal world, of course wouldn't want to do that, but it was done not to be victims but to protect victims. It was done to protect children who were getting sexually transmitted diseases. It was done to protect women and children from going to hospital. That's why it was done. So when this is done, when this legislation goes through and the violence goes back into those communities, shame on all of you. This ideological thing—'Oh, we're stigmatising people.' What a stigmatisation it is to give someone a card! How terrible that they had a card that they went to a supermarket and bought food and essential items with. What a stigmatisation that is! I don't understand the fact that in the first two weeks of the parliament they had to rush this through. When the violence starts increasing, when the hospital presentations start to pick up again, when the children are starting to get sexually transmitted diseases again, shame on all of you! Shame on all of you because of this ideological obsession that you can't give them a card and the terrible things that that was doing to them. The minister said talk to people. I have, and I've also spoken to my Senate colleague, Jacinta Price, who lives in Alice Springs. So she's not qualified to comment? Is that what you're saying, Assistant Minister? That she's not qualified to comment? She has said the same thing. We can talk about a lot of virtue signalling and we can talk about a lot of symbolism, but what this government has done—if we want to talk about closing the gap, which is a very important thing to do—in passing this legislation means that the gap isn't going to get closer. You've just widened the gap, and you've widened the gap especially in the communities where this is going to be lifted. So thank you for nothing there. Again, when the shadow minister got up—and I won't go through some of the quotes that I have here—he said that a lot of the elders in these communities are very disappointed about this and a lot of the leaders in these communities are very disappointed about this, because it had made a positive difference. I know that it made Ceduna a safer place to be in during the daytime. It meant that tourism was back and it was significantly different; you could feel the difference. So shame on you for putting those people back into danger! 15:50 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I find it beyond remarkable that the opposition has put forward this matter of public importance in relation to vulnerable people. For the Liberal and National parties, the parties of robodebt and the parties of WorkChoices and healthcare cuts—the parties that introduced the harsh cashless debit card—to come here today to stand and lecture us about it is absolutely appalling! The fact is we're delivering on the government's election commitment to abolish the cashless debit card, and we are doing that because privatised welfare does not work. That is the reality. We have consulted extensively about abolishing the card. Those opposite didn't consult with anybody when they put more than 17,000 people on the card. Bang! They were put straight on the card—that's the reality. We are working with communities who have been devastated by the cashless debit card— Mr Hogan 218019 You ran a scare campaign! You ran a lie that it was going to pensioners! Mrs ELLIOT DZW They can yell as much as they want, but the fact is they forced people onto privatised welfare. Do you know why they're yelling? Mr Ramsey HWS Because you're not telling the truth! Mrs ELLIOT DZW Do you know why they're annoyed? Because they were going to roll it right out across the country. That's exactly what they intended to do— Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I just might remind members— Mrs ELLIOT DZW That's why they're in here today! The fact is that the cashless debit card is privatised welfare, and there is something deeply, deeply wrong when private for-profit companies control people's income support payments and they determine where they can actually spend their money. It wasn't a government department, a private company did it. What happened when people contacted them and said: 'I can't access a lot of goods. There's no money in my account, what's going on?' They got no help and they got no support because it's a private company. If you had any problems with the card nobody was interested, nobody would listen to you. We know that the former government spent more than $170 million on the cashless debit card program, money that would have been better used for support services in those vulnerable communities. We also have a lot of evidence that it just didn't work. We know that. In fact, we had the Australian National Audit Office just recently release its latest audit on the performance of the card, highlighting once more the lack of evidence. But we also know that because of the extensive consultation we've done with communities. Both the social services minister and I have consulted widely with the impacted communities. I have been in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay, and spoken with many people there about how they've been impacted. That includes community members, participants and service providers. I was in Cape York as well, and listened firsthand to their community and what they want to see moving forward in terms of income management. We went to Western Australia, speaking with many participants and local councils as well, particularly many individuals whose lives have been devastated by being on this card. But, as I said, the reason those opposite were so angry before is that they did want to roll it out right across the country. We know that was their agenda: to put more recipients on the card. The fact is that it has devastated so many lives. So many people I've spoken to have had their lives impacted: the card was very restrictive, it was often declined and people couldn't buy basic food or groceries. People couldn't pay their rent, they couldn't make car repayments and they couldn't buy second-hand clothes. It's had a devastating impact on individuals because it stripped away their dignity and they have felt so stigmatised by it. In fact, I was handed a number of notes at the many consultations that we've had, with people saying, 'I can't pay my rent because at the time my landlord takes cash, and it's really embarrassing.' They can't pay their rent. They can't pay for things that require a BSB payment and they're judged everywhere they go. Also, they can't speak to anyone when they have a problem. But we are approaching abolishing the cashless debit card in a responsible way, to ensure that communities and individuals are in a properly supported transition off the card. We will keep consulting with them, particularly in relation to the issue of voluntary income management as well. We have listened to people, we have listened to First Nations community leaders, we have listened to service providers and, really importantly, we have listened to participants. The fact is that privatised welfare does not work. No matter how much those opposite keep pushing it, it does not work at all. Nothing highlights that more than the absolute disaster of the cashless debit card. It brought lots of very vulnerable people a huge amount of shame. They were stigmatised everywhere, and they couldn't access the basic services they needed. They felt like they were being punished and demonised. But these people opposite are still pushing the benefits of it, despite the thousands of lives that they ruined because of it. Do you know why? It's because they are so obsessed with privatised welfare and they are so annoyed that we stopped them rolling it out across the country so they could stigmatise and ruin more lives of vulnerable people. We are abolishing it. 15:55 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey The first community that adopted the cashless debit card was in my electorate, in Ceduna, and I refute many of the allegations that the assistant minister just made, including that the community was not consulted. It is absurd. It was the community of Ceduna that set the 80-20 split. We have a far west Indigenous leaders group there. They met every two weeks during the implementation and rollout of this program. Allegations were made by the minister that people say they can't go to the football and use their card. That is incorrect. It can be used for school lunches. It can be used at the football gate. It can be used inside the club rooms at the football. It can't be used to buy alcohol while you're at the football, though, I'm afraid. That is what it is designed for. It's worth reflecting that this card was brought in in the aftermath of the state coroner's report in South Australia following six deaths in Ceduna over less than a decade related to alcohol abuse. There was another one while the commissioner was inquiring. We have not had any such deaths—touch wood—in the period since the card was introduced. I absolutely refute the allegation that the people of Ceduna do not support the card. They know full well that I am in favour of the card, and they keep supporting me. People can check the ballot figures in Ceduna if they wish. So it is with a heavy heart I see the fact that the government is intent on taking this ideological step. I am absolutely convinced we will see a lift in violence, a lift in antisocial behaviour such as drunkenness and quite likely some untimely deaths. I have told the minister quietly—and I thank her for coming out to Ceduna, but she came with the decision already made—that, however you cut this up, she and the government will be held responsible for the outcomes. I noted a couple of the submissions to the Senate inquiry as it went around, and I'll refer particularly to Allan Suter's contribution. He went through that period in which the Ceduna community set the 80-20 split. Not only did they set the 80-20 split; they embedded in the design of the card that people could be reduced to a 60-40 split if they liked and met certain criteria. He is of this opinion: 'It was a clear demonstration of how the removal of the cashless debit card in Ceduna will damage our community. I would encourage some to do some homework about the time during the pandemic when support payments were made outside the cashless debit card system. Our community experienced severe disruptions, including drunken rioting, family violence and major social disruption due to substance abuse. When these extra payments stopped, so did the trouble.' He went on to say: 'Unfortunately, most Ceduna residents fear that removal of the cashless debit card will turn back the clock to where we were prior to 2008. When this happens, the opponents of the cashless debit card and the Australian government will be totally responsible for the resulting increases in family violence, public intoxication and, potentially, more deaths such as those covered by the 2008 coronial inquiry.' I thought perhaps the Senate committee, when they were inquiring into this, may have listened to Noel Pearson when he told the meeting: 'Labor's decision to outlaw the cashless debit card nationwide would ruin two decades of progress and reforms in Cape York.' That's because the card there has replaced the BasicsCard, and the BasicsCard was a very clunky type of system; whereas the cashless debit card is pretty seamless. I don't carry one in my pocket, but the member for O'Connor does, and you cannot check it visibly, from any kind of distance, to see that it is anything but a normal card. So I am very concerned about what is happening in my community of Ceduna. It's a community that has come so far in the last decade that it's barely recognisable from what it was. And when you compare it to similar communities around Australia— (Time expired) 16:01 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That the business of the day be called on. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: For the members' information, you won't get a call when the minister has moved that the business of the day be called on. Question agreed to. BILLS 69 BILLS Climate Change Bill 2022 69

Climate Change Bill 2022

Consideration of Senate Message 69 16:02 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I move: That the amendments be agreed to. Our parliament and our country have seen too many bad days on climate change. Today is a good day for our parliament and country, and we're going to need many more of them. Today is one step, but it's a big step. It will give this country a sensible climate change policy, and will give this country a climate change policy which sends the message to the world that we are open for business for renewable energy, for transmission and for storage. This is a good day for our climate. It's a good day for future generations. It's a good day for workers in Australia's regions, because that message that we send to the rest of the world—that we are open for business—is a message that investment should come to the regions which have powered Australia for so long and will power Australia under clean, renewable energy. They are regions that will create so much energy that it can be exported to the rest of the world, and we can be a renewable energy powerhouse. That's what this message from the Senate does. That's what this bill does—this bill that will become an act as a result of this House's actions and the actions of the other House. We have left it too late as a country. We are starting today to achieve an emissions reduction goal for 2030, which is 87 months away. That is not long. Therefore, we have not a second to waste. That's why I say this parliament and this country need to see many more good days for climate as we ensure we're reducing emissions in electricity generation, in transport, in industry and in agriculture. That's the process we begin today. But the first step is to send the framework, the message and the signal to the world that we're ready, and that's what we're doing. I thank the House. I thank the members of the government for their steadfast support, not just today and not through just this bill, but from 2 December last year, when the now Prime Minister and I released the Powering Australia policy. It was a controversial thing to do. More than one political party has lost an election on such issues. I thank the members of the government for their steadfast faith and support through all those months. I thank the crossbench for their support, working in good faith with the government, improving the bill and making suggestions that the government was more than happy to accept in this House and in the other house. That's how a good parliament works. That's how a government of grown-ups work. That's what a sensible process does. So I thank those members of good faith in both houses who voted to make this bill a law. I want to thank the key officials in the Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water: Deputy Secretary Jo Evans, Kath Rowley and the entire team—finer public servants you would not meet. I want to thank them for their very important contribution to this bill. I want to thank Andrew Garrett and Peter Nicholas, from my office, for all their work in making this bill a reality. Again, I thank the House. This is an important day. It is one step but it is a very important step. In the world of climate change action, Australia is back! In the world of sensible climate change policy, Australia is back! In the world of investment in the clean energy of the future, Australia is back! The message goes out from this House today to the world: 10 years of denial is over; 10 years of delay is over; 10 years of dysfunction is over; 10 years of division is over—and today the real work begins. 16:06 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax Today is the day that the Labor Party's climate change policy comes to fruition and into legislation. They took this policy to the Australian people, a policy that included not one but two key targets. The first target was a 43 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030. The second target was a reduction in household power bills of $275. It was based on this climate policy that the new government came to power, looking the Australian people in the eye and promising them that they would not only reduce emissions more than the former coalition government but also reduce power prices more than the coalition government—the coalition government, by the way, that achieved an extraordinary performance on both counts; a coalition government that saw emissions reduce by over 20 per cent on 2005 levels and a coalition that ensured that power prices came down by 10 per cent over the last term of government, with power prices coming down for both households and businesses. But the Labor Party went to the Australian people and they said to them, 'We can do better.' Not only did they promise to get emissions down further; they also promised that prices would come down further. But, as we are here today, with the Labor Party celebrating the Greens-Labor legislation, the Albanese-Bandt government's legislation, we have households throughout this country who are opening up their power bills, and what do they see? Higher prices—prices that are going through the roof. There are probably business owners, people who have invested their own money into their businesses, listening to this very debate and hearing the celebrations of the Labor Party, despite having told them that they will reduce their power prices, but their power prices are going up. We are talking to businesses today that might have to close their doors because of the power prices. And this Labor government have no solutions—none whatsoever. The only thing they bring into the House by way of this legislation today is the claim of 43 per cent—something they had already advised the United Nations on. We had the minister himself standing up—he had gone public before showing this bill to the House—and saying that the bill was not necessary, and yet in it comes. We saw over the last month, through the Senate inquiry, the very concerns that we had raised in this House being confirmed. The department, under the minister, had done no work on modelling the impact of this bill, especially on rural and regional communities. For any regional and rural community, any resident of regional or rural Australia, this government, this minister and his department have not done their homework. Government members interjecting— Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Let them scream about the last nine years. Well, they had nine years to get this right—nine years to do some modelling. They had nine years, therefore, for the department to have something. They claim they've done modelling. Guess what modelling they have done? It's modelling that says power prices will come down by $275. Why is it that over the last couple of months neither the Prime Minister nor the minister have been able to stand at this dispatch box and confirm that $275 is coming off household bills? Why? Because they did not look the Australian people in the eye and tell them the truth of what their plan was. So, as power bills go up, it is on them. As businesses close, it is on them. We know the truth. This 43 per cent legislation was unnecessary. They're the words of the minister, and he will live by that. (Time expired) 16:11 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise simply to say that I welcome the message from the Senate and I welcome this bill returning amended and strengthened some more by the amendments moved by crossbenchers in the Senate. This is an important step, and it's very important for the Australian people not to be caught up in the political games and the rhetoric that exists in this place. The reason why we have an energy crisis and rising energy costs is that for too long we have denied what needs to happen. We have failed—the coalition failed for too long—to implement policies to ensure that we are at the forefront of the energy transition. Let's be really clear: the cost-of-living pressures are directly impacted by global warming and climate change. Insurance premiums are escalating and rising rapidly. We need to address that. That has a direct impact on households and their cost of living. Food supplies are all directly impacted by climate change and global warming events. The only way we will have domestic fuel security is if we electrify transport as rapidly as possible, and that requires electrification and transitioning to renewable energy as fast as possible. I welcome the message from the Senate and the bill as amended. I want to thank the Australian communities that have asked both sides of politics since 2019 to legislate Australia's commitment to net zero by 2050. They got behind the climate bill that I presented in the last parliament, and they support this bill, because we need that certainty of legislating net zero by 2050. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy is well aware of my position—that I want to see greater ambition—but I recognise that this is a start. It is a good start, but we need to make sure we increase that ambition and accelerate that emissions reduction as soon as possible. We are on track to exceed two degrees of warming. This reduction is not enough. If we're going to be consistent with the Paris Agreement, we need to ensure we reduce emissions at a greater rate. We have the technology. The Australian people want to see it happen. You need to be brave and embrace the opportunity. That does mean not approving more fossil fuel projects, and that is something that I look forward to having more discussions about, but, for today, this is an important day. Let's be really clear: this does provide policy certainty for businesses and for investment—to know that Australia is committed to reducing emissions, being in step with the rest of the world and embracing a net zero world. 16:14 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin As we see the increase in floods and fires across the country, I think the majority of Australia will be really pleased to see this symbolic start to a new era. This gives us an opportunity to shift our focus from the past to the future. Australia really has an opportunity to have a bright future as a green energy exporter. Just as we have had waves of economic activity in the past that have been driven by foresight from previous governments and investments in infrastructure, this too represents a new era, where we have the opportunity to be thinking about what our economy will look like in 20 years time. I am grateful for the collaborative approach that has been taken by the government in this first symbolic step towards the shift that we need to see in our broad economy. The Climate Change (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022 lists a number of the places where we need to start, which is the beginning of the work that we need to do together. This transition will need to be smooth but will also need to be bold. I'm very excited to see this change and look forward to continuing the work that needs to be done. The 53517 The question is that the amendments be agreed to.      

The House divided. [16:20]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 86 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Archer, B. K. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. 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. Haines, H. M. 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. 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. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Scrymgour, M. R. Sharkie, R. C. C. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. Spender, A. M. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Swanson, M. J. (Teller) Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Tink, K. J. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 50 NOES Andrews, K. L. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Dutton, P. C. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gee, A. R. Goodenough, I. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Landry, M. L. 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. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Robert, S. R. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Thompson, P. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 Climate Change (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022 72

Climate Change (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022

Consideration of Senate Message 72 16:25 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I move: That the amendment be agreed to. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendment be agreed to.    

The House divided. [16:26]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 86 AYES Albanese, A. N. Aly, A. Ananda-Rajah, M. Archer, B. K. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. 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. Haines, H. M. 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. 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. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Scrymgour, M. R. Sharkie, R. C. C. Shorten, W. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. Spender, A. M. Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Steggall, Z. Swanson, M. J. (Teller) Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Tink, K. J. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 50 NOES Andrews, K. L. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, S. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Dutton, P. C. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gee, A. R. Goodenough, I. R. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Landry, M. L. 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. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Robert, S. R. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Thompson, P. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 COMMITTEES 73 COMMITTEES National Capital and External Territories Joint Committee 73 Membership 73 16:28 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a message from the Senate acquainting the House that Senator David Pocock has been appointed a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories. ADJOURNMENT 73 ADJOURNMENT Rollinson, Harper 73 16:29 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham This afternoon I'm going to talk about a wonderful little girl and her family who I had the great pleasure of meeting last week and again today in the parliament. Last Wednesday had been a relatively quiet day in my office—I had been working on my first speech and I had met with a few constituents—and then in came Harper Rollinson in her pink tulle skirt, black-and-gold shiny top and pink sandshoes, and my afternoon changed completely. What a whirlwind personality. I didn't even get the chance to introduce myself to her mum, Katie; her dad, Luke; her brother, Eli; and Sara from the Shepherd Centre. Harper, at seven years old, came in to see me to get some tips for her speech to the Power of Speech Breakfast, which she gave here today at Parliament House. It was a week of first speeches in Parliament House for both of us. I gave her some tips on continuing your speech even if your brother is being a little bit annoying, and Harper told me that speeches in the parliament need more love hearts and butterflies. My followers on Facebook agree with Harper—this place does need more love hearts and butterflies. I'm going to outline some of Harper's speech to you here today. When Harper's mum, Katie, was pregnant doctors discovered that she had the same eye cancer as her dad, Luke, and her brother, Eli. Harper was born early and when she was just 12 days old she had chemotherapy to save her eyesight. As a consequence she lost her hair and she lost her hearing. Her hair grew back but her hearing didn't. She got hearing aids when she was nearly two and cochlear implants—or her super ears, as she calls them—when she was three. Kate from the Shepherd Centre started speech therapy with Harper and also visited her school, St Joseph's at Bulli, to show Harper's teachers how to use her devices so that she can still hear the teacher when the classroom gets noisy. The Shepherd Centre do some amazing work, helping children with hearing loss and their families. They provide early intervention services for children and toddlers, speech pathology services, social skills and resilience training for young children to develop confidence, as well as preschools that help educate children with and without hearing loss—one of which is in my electorate. They provide many other services too. I am really grateful for the work that they do. Harper dances. She swims. She does gymnastics. I'm a little bit jealous that she is able to listen to music while she is swimming, because that's pretty cool. Harper showed me some of her gymnastics—the splits and a backward walkover—but her mum and I had to be the fun police and talk her down from handstands and cartwheels in my very small meeting room. Today Harper delivered her speech in front of the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for the NDIS. She spoke with confidence and bravery. Having recently delivered my own first speech, I understand all too well the pressure that comes with big speeches, particularly in this house. But Harper rose to the occasion and she did herself and our community proud. The event was First Voice and Cochlear's Power of Speech Breakfast. It was aimed at challenging common ideas around what deaf children can and cannot achieve. It was an honour to attend and to be able to listen to the lovely speakers tell their stories. As the Minister for the NDIS, the Hon. Bill Shorten, shared at today's event, seeing a baby have their cochlear implant switched on for the very first time is nothing short of a scientific miracle. These devices change lives. Harper was one of seven children from Australia and New Zealand with cochlear implants who were invited to speak. Harper was a ball of energy and an absolute inspiration. I know how proud Katie, Luke and Eli must be after seeing Harper speak today. Harper also has a friend, Alana, who lives in England near the Queen. They chat on Zoom about their super ears. Harper loves being able to talk to someone on the other side of the world who also has super ears. Apparently Alana is a little bit scared of coming to Australia though because of our spiders. I'm very pleased to be able to stand here today and share Harper's story. She is a young girl who has faced so many challenges but who has risen to face them again and again. She runs headfirst into her experiences with an optimism and enthusiasm that is absolutely contagious. Harper has a bright future ahead of her and I thank her so much for bringing more love hearts and butterflies to my office—all the way from Wollongong to Parliament House. I also thank the Shepherd Centre for the work that they do to help children like Harper. I'm so pleased that Harper and I were able to do our very first speeches in Parliament House in the same week. Cost of Living 74 16:34 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon Suicide Prevention Australia's State of the nation report was released on Tuesday. The report revealed an unprecedented 70 per cent of Australians are experiencing elevated stress beyond their normal levels compared to this time last year. A conclusion was that two of the greatest stressors were the cost-of-living challenges and personal debt. This is alarming, and so was the report. We all know that in the last few years it has been incredibly tough right across the nation. We have been challenged like never before. The toll has been great; there is no denying that. It's important to note also that these challenges aren't new; they've been at the forefront of governments' thinking since the pandemic hit back in 2020. It's something the former coalition government managed day in, day out for 2½ long years. In that time, our government was able to respond quickly to every challenge thrown at us. We found a way to provide support when it was needed and where it was needed. We targeted the cost-of-living measures that helped ease pressures on household budgets at the time they needed it most. We reduced taxes so that hardworking Australians kept more of their hard-earned money. We cut the fuel excise, which instantly reduced cost-of-living pressures. We looked after our most vulnerable by delivering a $250 cost-of-living payment to nearly six million pensioners, welfare recipients, veterans and eligible concession card holders. This was at the top of our landmark JobKeeper, JobSeeker and other pandemic measures that were universally applauded right across the nation. People still stop me in the street today and thank me for being a part of the government who saved their business and kept a roof over their head. In May this year the nation put their trust in the Labor government, whose promise was to tackle, as they put it, spiralling costs of living and a crisis. Australians are still waiting for the Albanese government to keep that promise. On Tuesday, on the back of Suicide Prevention Australia's State of the nation report, a reporter asked the Prime Minister what the Albanese government was doing in the immediate term to help people get through this cost-of-living crisis. For those who missed it, I can update the House that the Prime Minister made four claims. One claim was that his government was responsible for the recent increase in the pension. This is not the truth. The truth is the Department of Social Services regularly reviews the rate of the pension and other welfare payments. This increase was simply a result of that twice-yearly review, and had nothing to do with the Albanese government. The next claim was that the Albanese government was responsible for the recent increase in the minimum wage. Again, this isn't the truth. The truth is the minimum wage is determined by the Fair Work Commission, an independent and separate-from-government organisation. Their submission was one of many, and I would say they have no more right to claim ownership of the rise in the minimum wage than any other stakeholder. Finally, the Prime Minister claimed their commitment to cut the costs of medicine and child care will reduce the current cost-of-living pressures ordinary Australians are facing right now. This can't be true. The legislation has not even been introduced into the parliament. If both pieces of legislation pass, the Albanese government has said cheaper medicines will not be available until January next year and cheaper child care until July next year. Therefore, on behalf of the journalist whose question was left unanswered, on behalf of everyone living across the North West, the West Coast and King Island in the great state of Tasmania, and on behalf of all Australians, I ask the Prime Minister: what is your government doing right now to help those struggling through this cost-of-living crisis? Libraries 75 16:39 Mr LIM 300130 Tangney Australia's future is built upon shared values and the colourful diversity of its many citizens and guests, and their many stories. But I may suggest that the very cornerstone of Australian democracy and the greatest test of other democracies is the provision, accessibility and use of social infrastructure. It's not difficult to find things that divide us: the way we walk, the way we talk, where we came from and where we live, whether we store our Vegemite in the pantry or our shoes at the front door. If we look past our noses, we will find many differences between us, so where in our society do we find places that can bring everyone together? There is social infrastructure, our shared space—our parks and their barbecues, green spaces, schools and child care centres, places of worship, markets, countless beautiful beaches and wonderful rivers—but none of these are more glorious than our libraries. I love the library. What other place can people leaving prison go to access a computer to find a job? When a new family arrives in Australia and can't speak English, where else do they know to go to learn? When you are studying for an exam to build a better future for yourself or print your CV for a job application—or maybe you are looking for an opportunity to find out about activity in your community and how to be involved—you have the library. Libraries provide so many functions, and they are tailored to fit the needs of their own communities. Whether people want to start a business, wish to research or are a new mother who feels isolated and wishes to meet other mums to share their many difficulties and also their many joys and triumphs, the library is there to support the community. The library is the intersection of communities and a meeting place for people looking for a better life. It is a joy to know that the people in community in Tangney are so well serviced by so many libraries, staffed with very wonderful librarians. Be it in Willagee or Willetton, Bull Creek or Riverton, there is a library for you. My constituents can also visit AH Bracks, Civic Square, Geoffrey Bolton and Canning Bridge Express libraries. My community is only made stronger through their contribution and assistance. I must thank them for the work they do and the role they play in our community. Libraries provide a vital service. By design, libraries are dynamic and create resilient communities, because libraries are not about books; they are about people. Libraries do not discriminate between old or young, rich or poor, citizen or guest, black or white, purple or pink; all are made welcome. Our libraries are best when they are supported to do their jobs. The last government did not support librarians well enough to retain their jobs and keep food on the table when libraries were closed, particularly when our libraries across Australia contributed resources for public health awareness and support activities. The libraries in my electorate had support activities in response to the pandemic. I look forward to having a library membership with all the libraries in my electorate. Of course, I must thank the Parliamentary Library here in Canberra for assisting even with this speech and with the work of my office. Where else can the public get these institutions, sometimes with high ceilings and beautiful windows and other times small and close to home, places where the public is welcomed warmly and given opportunity to leave with so much more than they entered with? Andrew Carnegie had a phrase he used to describe libraries. They are 'palaces for the people'. Palaces for the People is also the title of a fantastic book, which you will be pleased to know you can borrow for free from your local library. Durack Electorate: Government Services 75 16:44 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack In 2022 it is inexplicable that any town in our nation could be likened to that of a war zone, yet early last month reports from the beautiful town of Carnarvon in my electorate of Durack said otherwise. In a letter addressed to Premier Mark McGowan, shire president Eddie Smith said some parts of the town looked 'like a war zone and at times were exactly that.' It is a harrowing tale, all too familiar to those living in regional Western Australia, with stories of ongoing domestic violence, child abuse, alcohol and drug abuse, youth crime—the list goes on. You can help alleviate these problems by providing access to better services for at-risk youth and for struggling families, but community leaders in Carnarvon are saying that too many state government services are being managed from Geraldton, some 500 kilometres away. Durack is the largest electorate in Australia, spread over some 1.4 million kilometres, with over 300 towns and communities. Access to services is a constant challenge. You cannot simply travel from one suburb to the next in 10 minutes by simply jumping on a bus. This problem is not unique just to social services providers or just to Carnarvon. Councils are struggling to find chippies and other tradies. The local cafes are struggling to hire coffee-makers and chefs. Childcare centres can only staff a quarter of what the demand requires from them. If Labor, state and federal, actually took a moment to consult with the community leaders on the ground and take into consideration the unique challenges of remote and regional Australia, they would know that a lack of housing lies at the core of these workforce issues. Put simply, if you cannot house your workforce locally then what chance do regional communities in Western Australia have of attracting workers? How can they possibly grow? How can they develop? Western Australia's resources sector alone—a majority of which is based in my electorate of Durack—is going to need another 40,000 workers by mid next year, according to the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of WA. When I visited the beautiful town of Tom Price, only last week, I was told that the senior high school has 12 teacher vacancies. The feedback that I got on the ground was that this was due to a lack of housing. Now, that's on the McGowan government—it's their responsibility to get the teachers and to house them. In WA, there are close to 19,000 people currently on a waiting list for social housing, and, of those 19,000, over 3,400 call Durack home. These are not just people struggling with homelessness but also other very vulnerable people in our community, like victims of domestic violence. I'm sure that Premier Mark McGowan and the housing and lands minister, John Carey, are aware of the housing crisis that's hurting communities in my electorate. But they are not behaving like it is a crisis. Local families and businesses are suffering. So I ask: Where is the outrage? Where is the sense of urgency? Where is the action? I understand that close to 2,000 social houses across the state of Western Australia are empty and are in need of repairs. This is shameful, while Labor are trying to build new houses in an incredibly over-inflated market with blowing-out building costs. We know the story about how hard it is to get a house built. They need to focus on fixing up the stock of houses that they currently have in their control. Of course the state government is not the only provider of houses. We know that businesses, especially the mining industry in Durack, are owners of housing stock, as are private individuals and local councils. But, for such a wealthy state, you would think that putting a roof over the heads of vulnerable Western Australians and of our key service providers in regional WA, like our nurses and our police, would be a priority for the McGowan government. But it doesn't appear to be. Yalgoo in my electorate has over 200 residents. The residents of that town need and deserve services, just as you and I do. They are struggling to find professionals to deliver these services because they have nowhere to house them. When I visited Yalgoo recently—and my word, the wildflowers were wild!—I learnt of a contracted nurse who had been forced to live in housing provided by the local council because the health department housing provided to her was unsafe. We need action. This is shameful. McGowan needs to act. Micah Women Leaders Network, Global Hunger 76 16:49 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm Yesterday, on 7 September, I had the great pleasure of meeting with members from the Micah Women Leaders delegation. I met with Edwina, Rachel, Sylvia and Tracy, who were part of a much larger delegation of senior women leaders from Australian Christian churches who were meeting with over 45 MPs—I was just one—from all sides of politics to discuss their Help Fight Famine campaign. It was a really enlightening meeting. I found out that currently we have 828 million people in the world experiencing hunger, and that is a shocking figure. In the work the Micah Women Leaders delegation have done they've been able to advocate for the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world. This is the fourth annual delegation that the leadership group has undertaken, and it included 40 women leaders representing over 12 different denominations advocating together, which I think is a wonderful example of collaboration. Micah Australia is a coalition of Christian international development agencies and churches, under the leadership of Reverend Tim Costello. It empowers Australian Christians to advocate on the most urgent global justice issues affecting our world today: extreme poverty and hunger, rising conflict and climate change. I think it's significant that climate change legislation has gone through both Houses in this place today, because it is not just an issue that affects us here in Australia; it is a global problem. I'm so glad that Australia is finally—at last—contributing to meaningful solutions for our planet. We are experiencing a combination of crises in the world at the moment. The global hunger crisis has been exacerbated due to the pandemic, climate change and the war in Ukraine. It's a perfect storm for an unprecedented hunger crisis. The number of people facing acute food insecurity in the world has soared from 135 million to 345 million. I know that this is an issue that people in my electorate of Chisholm care very strongly about. Taking action to address extreme hunger in the world is one of the top issues that I receive correspondence from my constituents about. That doesn't surprise me, because my constituents are very caring people who believe very strongly in social justice issues and the need to advocate to representatives like me to take action. I'm really grateful for the fact that the community is so outspoken about these issues, because that means I can effectively represent them in this place, advocate for solutions and be accountable to the people who voted for me. The UN declared on Monday this week that in Somalia famine is at the door and will strike at any time. A significant threshold has to be crossed to have a famine declared, and it is really alarming that we are seeing that in the world at the moment, in Somalia. We know that we can't, as one nation, solve these issues in the world by ourselves, but we do need to be part of the global effort, just as we've been part of the global effort to address the crisis in Sri Lanka and to address climate change issues. I know that Australia is looked to as a leader across the world for our capacity to respond compassionately to crises like this. There are several growing hunger hotspots in 2022—in Ethiopia, Somalia, Yemen, South Sudan and Afghanistan. Of course, all of our communities here in Australia have people who have come from those countries and who have families in those countries still. It is desperately worrying for those people to see what is going on overseas, and they desperately want Australia to be a part of the solution. I was really honoured to be one of the MPs approached by the Micah Women Leaders delegation. I made a commitment that I would speak on this issue in this chamber, and I am really pleased that I've been able to do so so soon after meeting with them. I look forward to working with the relevant ministers in our government, with the Micah Women Leaders Network and of course with my community in Chisholm to continue to advocate for solutions and to see what Australia's role will be in addressing these wicked global problems that my community cares very, very deeply about—as do I. The SPEAKER 53517 And, finally, I give the call to the member for Fowler. Australian Parliament 77 16:54 Ms LE 295676 Fowler Thank you, Mr Speaker—saving the best for last! This has definitely been an eventful sitting week in the heart of the nation's democracy. My constituents sent me to this place to work for them, to vote for them and to negotiate on their behalf. It is my understanding that I share this mandate with my colleagues in this chamber. This week I spoke about my journey to this place and the Australian parliament, the centre of democracy. I even caused quite a bit of a stir with my choice of fashion! I'm proud to be an Australian, I'm proud to call Australia home and I display my appreciation and love for this country on my sleeve and, in this instance, with what I wore. I also saw members of my community from Fowler eager to see democracy at work. They came down in five busloads to experience it. Many have never set foot in this House, the people's House. I thank them for being here and for putting aside their valuable time to travel to Canberra. They could see how we elected politicians can get caught up in this bubble. The last few days have been a bit tumultuous in parliament. Debate has been blocked and procedure has been unfair. The Australian people have made it clear that they're moving towards a more diverse and inclusive parliament, one that represents the true essence of who we are as a nation. I have also taken small steps as there are more opportunities presented to me in this House to raise the impact of the high cost of living on my community. While commending the government on some of its legislation, I also advocated for the community by asking the government to take notice of the families in Fowler and how much we need resources and investment—especially for a settlement city so that our people can grow and thrive. We do need to move away from the two-party system. Moving forward, I urge the government to work more collaboratively and more transparently with the crossbench, and to work towards evolving Australia's parliament to work for the Australian people. They put us here to ensure the prosperity of their livelihoods. We must do better, otherwise what is the point of having a parliament at all? So thank you, and have a wonderful evening! House adjourned at 16 : 57 The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ) took the chair at 09:30.

Thursday, 8 September 2022

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ) took the chair at 09:30.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 78 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Gambling Advertising 78 Employment 78 09:33 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore In the lead up to last week's Jobs and Skills Summit, I held the Gilmore Jobs and Skills Summit survey to canvass the views across our community, because I believe everyone deserves to have their say. I was impressed with the hundreds and hundreds of responses I received, and I thank everyone who participated. My electorate of Gilmore has a traditionally high unemployment and underemployment rate. We have a higher than average age demographic and lower than average wages, so we have a unique set of jobs and skills challenges that do not necessarily follow the national trends. While there are a significant number of local infrastructure projects that I believe could help to create jobs, without action to fix structural issues facing our health, housing, childcare and education sectors, I fear these projects will not do enough to support the wellbeing of our community. I am excited that many of the suggestions made in our Gilmore submission were considered and listed as priority outcomes from the summit. The two most common themes were about apprentices and training in skill shortage areas, and support for older workers. That's why, as part of the outcomes of the summit, we will deliver an additional $1 billion in joint federal and state funding for fee-free TAFE for 180,000 people in skills shortage areas. That is just fantastic. On top of this, we have also provided a one-off income credit so that age pensioners who want to work can earn an additional $4,000 over the financial year without losing their pension. Many people who responded to my survey raised this concern, and this again is fantastic news. Local people raised concerns with the visa system and the need to support the agricultural sector, so we have committed to this as well, with an historic agricultural workforce tripartite agreement to ensure farmers can get the workers they need and to make sure agricultural workers are protected and respected. Speeding up visas, increasing the migrant cap and supporting industries with skills shortages are all things local people said they wanted and are all things we will now deliver. Across all the themes raised, wages were raised as an issue that needs addressing in health, education, child care, hospitality and more. We are taking this seriously, and the jobs summit outcomes show the government has listened to the voices of local people on the South Coast. We've also announced progress to address the housing crisis and improve jobs and training pathways for women and First Nations people, more themes raised by local people. I received many interesting comments and suggestions about how we can address the local jobs and skills crisis. Thank you so much for sharing them with me. I will continue working hard to deliver these commitments for our community. Sunshine Coast: Rail Infrastructure 79 09:36 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax Enough talk—time for action. I'm referring, of course, to the $3.2 billion new rail line that will run from Beerwah to Maroochydore. This rail line has been well studied and long wanted. Indeed, we saw this year that, in the federal budget, the single largest transport infrastructure project across the nation was for this Beerwah to Maroochydore rail line, with $1.6 billion committed by the federal government: fully costed and fully budgeted for. This rail line, of course, is needed for several reasons. Firstly, we know that South-East Queensland—in particular between Brisbane and the Sunshine Coast—is the fastest-growing region in the country. Population growth is going through the roof. Indeed, when the studies were done on this very project, it was before COVID. What we have seen post COVID is, again, the movement of people to the south-east corner—in particular between Brisbane and the Sunshine Coast. Population growth alone justifies this infrastructure project. But what we also see is a much-strained Bruce Highway, despite record funding from the former coalition government. We need to have fewer cars and more people in trains. Again, this is why we need this rail connection, which will take, for the first time in history, a rail line off the existing track, across the coastal strip, from Caloundra through to Kawana and up to the Maroochydore CBD. It is vitally needed. We also recognise the environmental benefits of ensuring that we have more people on public transport, such as rail, rather than just in cars. We have the need for population planning. We need a population plan that has density around new railway stations—again, a reason for this program. We also have the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games, where the world will be coming to the Sunny Coast. We need this rail line. The moment of truth, though, is coming. The moment of truth will be at the federal budget. We will see whether or not the new government will honour its word. The minister herself, before becoming a minister, said about this very project, 'There is no time to waste.' Labor candidates on the Sunshine Coast, before the federal election, also said they supported this project. What have we seen since the election, though? Nothing. There have been no commitments made. All there is is weaselly words about having to work with the state government—also a Labor government—which has previously said it was a fully viable project but has not committed the funding. The moment of truth will be on budget night, and I tell you what: the Sunshine Coast and Brisbane will be watching. We are demanding that $1.6 billion be in that budget. Women's Health Week 79 09:39 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper I rise to address the chamber about Women's Health Week, which is taking place this week. Like many girls, I learned at an early age that women and girls would face additional challenges in life. We were told to just put up with period paid. Sexual health wasn't talked about. Many women suffered a miscarriage in virtual silence, and my own mother had a stillbirth that was simply never discussed. My sisters, friends and classmates all knew our paths in life would be harder in many ways because of our gender. We knew we wouldn't get the same pay at work. We knew that, if we had families, we'd have to do the bulk of the child rearing. We knew that we'd have fewer choices about our own bodies and about if, when and how we wanted to have children. As a woman, a mother, a nurse, a union leader, a member of parliament and now, luckily, the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care, I have fought my whole life to change this expectation. While many things have changed for the better, many may not have. Every woman has a story about how their chronic pain was ignored or played down by the GP, only to receive a diagnosis of endometriosis a decade later; or about a woman who lives in a small town, who had to pay $1,000 to access a termination when she was actually broke; or about a woman who'd experienced sexual abuse as a child, who cried silently while she had a gynaecological examination with a cold speculum. Women's health issues play out every single day, in all communities, all postcodes and all cultural backgrounds. On Tuesday, I attended the launch of the Jean Hailes National Women's Health Survey, which showed that almost half of all women are reporting that their health has declined as a result of the pandemic. It's even worse for women in the disability, CALD, First Nations and LGBTIQ+ communities. However, the picture is not just bleak. I want to give a huge shout-out to some of the women who are working hard to be part of the solution to this enduring challenge. In my electorate of Cooper, we have the wonderful Women's Health In the North, who have staff like Emily, who has dedicated her career to helping women and girls. She is motivated by the recognition that gender inequality drives bad outcomes for women, from health inequity to family violence. 'What I grew up with isn't what I want other young women to grow up with,' she said, and that is the sentiment that I want to leave with you. We've all grown up steeped in some version of gender inequality, whether it's taking on the lion's share of housework and child rearing or not being paid the same as males in your workplace. I call on all people of all genders to work to fashion a better world for our next generation, so that everyone can get the care they deserve. Merriwa to Willow Tree Road 80 09:42 Mr JOYCE e5d New England I rise today in the Federation Chamber to talk about a road that I have been fighting for for some time for the farmers, after arriving home in the seat of New England. Back in 2016, we got $5.4 million from the Commonwealth as part of a $12 million package to do up the Merriwa to Willow Tree road. The reason this road is important is that it's an alternative route across the Liverpool Range—as opposed to the New England Highway. If the New England Highway gets shut down, this is the road you go along. We did what looked like a marvellous job. The road was sealed. It was a beautiful road that went up over the range. But then it rained and the road fell into the creek. Since that time, we haven't had a second range crossing, and the people who live either side of that range have to go about a further 60 kilometres to get round. I know the government, at this stage, are talking about their wage summit, and I appreciate the sentiment of what they're trying to do there. If people want to get to work—and there are some massive feedlots on one side and grain and cattle on the other side—it's really important that we allow them to actually get to work. This is something that has been forced on us, but we've got to fix it. It's going to cost around $40 million to fix. I want to thank the minister, Catherine King, for the meeting we had yesterday with both the mayor, Maurice Collison, and also the shire's general manager, Greg McDonald. Minister King gave us a fair hearing, and I want to thank her for that. It's important that people understand that we've heard this morning about billions of dollars for a rail line, but we're talking about $40 million for people to get to work. I think it's incredibly important that, being a government for all, vital infrastructure such as this is fixed, because it speaks to all the things we want to do. We know that, 'Cities don't build roads; roads build cities,' and economies are built on the capacity for product to move from one area to another. This is vital infrastructure not only for New England but also for the Hunter Valley. It's well known that it's the alternate route to get to one of the major federal highways to go north and south in our nation. I hope that it's within the government's remit that, as we go to the budget, we have the capacity for this piece of infrastructure. In the whole scheme of things, it's not large, but, in the realm of the Upper Hunter and southern New England, it's absolutely vital that it is restored. We need to get away from this perverseness of a brand new road that comes to an absolute dead end when there are people on either side who can't go from one town to the other. Robertson Electorate: Community Events 80 09:45 Dr REID 300126 Robertson Since my election, I've been meeting with as many constituents and community groups as possible to ensure that I am across all the issues in my electorate. Through this process, I have met with some exceptional people and some exceptional groups doing some amazing work. Recently, I met with a group of passionate members of the Avoca Beach community to discuss their vision to establish a community garden in the beachside suburb. Representatives of this group, who speak on behalf of over 300 members, told me about all the amazing benefits the community gardens can provide, including for your physical and mental health and for your social wellbeing. We've seen, through the COVID-19 pandemic, how important community spaces like parklands and recreation areas are to maintaining residents' mental health and wellbeing. Community gardens can also make more coherent and cohesive communities by coming together to work collectively and collaboratively on a shared objective like a garden. This vision is one that I certainly do encourage and will support to make it a reality. My thanks and appreciation go to Lisa, Beth, Bruce and Sandra for sharing this vision with me and showing me the beautiful proposed site at Avoca Beach. I very much look forward to working closely with you over the coming weeks and months. Keep up the excellent work. Another story from my electorate that I wish to share is about the Wiseberry Peninsula winter appeal 2022. The Wiseberry Peninsula winter appeal 2022 has been a huge success. The Robertson community, especially the Peninsula, were very supportive of this year's campaign for winter donations. Each year the Wiseberry winter appeal collects much-needed winter essentials to donate to fellow Central Coast residents who might be experiencing homelessness or going through a difficult period. This year they supported Coast Shelter, a homelessness and outreach organisation based in Gosford that does some amazing work for people who are vulnerable and homeless. I'm pleased to report that the Wiseberry Peninsula collected a whopping 54 bags of donations full of winter items and essentials. This equated to a massive 265 kilograms of donations that went straight to Coast Shelter to distribute to people on the Central Coast doing it tough over winter. From the bottom of my heart, I thank the community-minded staff at Wiseberry Peninsula. In particular, I thank Tammy Jackett, who contacted my office; director Rod Dillon; and administrative officer Kiara Kelly. You should all be extremely proud of the results that you've been able to achieve this year. To the exceptional Robertson community and all the small businesses that got behind the campaign and donated: thank you. Finally, to Coast Shelter, thank you for continuing to do what you do each day of the year, 24/7. We know how invaluable and appreciated your service is on the Central Coast. (Time expired) Page, Mr Brian 81 09:48 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I rise to pay tribute to a true gentleman and pillar of the Limestone Coast community, Mr Brian Page. Brian was Mount Gambier through and through. His breadth of knowledge of all things south-east is probably unmatched. Brian was a forestry professional and founding member of the Mount Gambier Hoo-Hoo branch, the Fraternal Order of the Forest Products Industry, serving as president in 1978; a member of the Mount Gambier Club; a member of the Limestone Coast Area Consultative Committee since its inception in 1995; and a member of the Australian Institute of Wood Science. He worked tirelessly for the local tourism industry, including serving on the Riddoch Art Gallery Foundation as one of the original trustees, chairman of the Limestone Coast Tourism Board and the committee chairman of the Lady Nelson establishment body. But Brian was probably perhaps best known for his philanthropy. Brian was a member of the Stand Like Stone Foundation board of directors since its inception in 2004 and was the inaugural chair of the interim steering committee for the community foundation project. Brian and his wife Sue were also founding donors and, through Stand Like Stone, established scholarships for students at Mount Gambier High School, Kingston Community School and Keith Area School. Brian's belief of community-based philanthropy has served our community in the Limestone Coast well. Brian joined myself and many others in pushing for the federal government to reform tax deductible gift recipient rules, as Brian believed strongly, as I do, in the community foundation model and the premise that locally collected charitable donations were best spent on the local communities and that a long-term sustainable approach to giving was the only way to combat long-term entrenched community problems. Brian worked tirelessly for a more generous and inclusive community. He did it quietly, without seeking personal accolade. Brian's generosity, his kindness, his knowledge and his love for the south-east are what he will be fondly remembered for by many. Mt Gambier and, indeed, the wider south-east have lost a great man but have benefited immensely from his lifelong commitment and dedication to community throughout his life. As we reflect on Brian's life, let us be inspired to be more like him, if only in part, and give back to the community that supports so many. My sincerest condolences to Brian's wife Sue, his extended family and his many friends. Vale Brian Page. Health Care 81 09:51 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen I have risen in this chamber many times to speak on the issue of healthcare access in our electorate of McEwen. Under the previous government, access to healthcare services and particularly GPs was abysmal. Families across our electorate struggled to access even the most basic medical care. Every Australian deserves to be able to access health care. The simple act of taking a child to a GP when they are sick is not something that we can do without. Under the previous government, much of my time as a local member was spent with the many people in our community who were scared and frustrated by the lack of access to healthcare services that they were experiencing. With not enough doctors in our towns to look after the needs of our communities, people were desperate. Our GPs were doing the best they could, but they were overworked, tired and struggling to keep up. My constituents wanted to know what the coalition was doing to address healthcare services and the immense shortage of GPs which regional Australia is facing. It's not a level of medical care that we should accept in this country. I wrote time and time again to the former Liberal Minister for Health asking for urgent assistance for our region but got crickets in response. Meanwhile, every day people were being turned away from GP clinics simply because there were not enough doctors to care for them. So I am proud to be part of a government that has finally taken action on the issue of healthcare access in regional areas. It's not simple and it is not something that will be fixed overnight, but we finally have a government that is actually caring and committed to doing something. Prior to the election, I made a promise to our community, and Labor made a promise to the country, that if elected the government would increase the support for communities across the country where there is a GP shortfall. This initiative, coupled with Labor's plan to increase the number of urgent care clinics across our country, intends to particularly support those in rural and regional areas in their access to much-needed healthcare services. Local practices, including those in our electorate, like in Wallan and Whittlesea, will now be able to recruit from a much bigger pool of doctors, because updating the distribution priority access areas will see more than 700 areas with either full or partial DPA classification. Because international medical graduates and overseas trained doctors are only able to access Medicare if they work in a DPA area, a DPA classification means that practices in DPA areas have access to more doctors who can work for our local communities. I was also pleased to learn that the minister is also looking at the way the Monash model is working and how things might be improved. I'm proud to be standing in this chamber today as part of an Albanese Labor government that is delivering on its promises to our communities seriously and delivering on them now. It is so important for our rural and regional areas to have access to doctors and to have better health care because it means that we have better outcomes in the regions. Agriculture Industry 82 09:54 Mr PEARCE 282306 Braddon New data from the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences shows that Australia is on track to hit a new record for agricultural exports. The value of our exports is forecast to hit a record $70.3 billion in 2022-23, driven by a favourable growing-condition year and international demand. Like the remainder of the nation, our agricultural sector on the north-west coast of Tasmania has had a good year. It's been a good growing season. We have had good rain and temperatures are starting to rise. Favourable international commodity prices have allowed farmers to build and to reinvest back into their business model and their enterprises. Our farmers are at the cutting edge when it comes to the application of science and technology and the application of world's best agricultural practice. The introduction of this technology into the agricultural sector in Tasmania is second to none. With the current challenges around the dramatic rise in the cost of, particularly, diesel fuel, labour and fertilizer and agricultural chemicals, our farmers need to be smarter, more than ever before, if they are to grow their business to a viable future. Our farmers lead the way, not just in the state, but nationally, and they are increasingly internationally renowned for producing some of the best produce anywhere in the world. It's spring, and that means it's time for farmers and agribusiness to show off everything that is great about living on the land and the agricultural sector. The agricultural show and field day season kicked off a few weeks ago with Rural Youth's four-day Agfest in Tasmania. For those who didn't get a chance to go to Tasmania and experience Australia's top agricultural field day, let me tell you, it was a cracker, with more than 50,000 visitors to the site. After a couple of years of challenges, the crowds were back in droves, and the city and the bush were brought together to celebrate and appreciate everything that our farmers do. They get an understanding of the contribution farmers make to their lives and to making it better every day. Over the coming months it will be great to see more agricultural shows, like Burnie show, the Circular Head show, the King Island show and the Wynyard show, back in action. I want to close with a shout-out to our great volunteers, who work tirelessly in order to bring these agricultural shows to our communities. It wouldn't have been an easy few years. You could have thrown the towel in quite easily over the last couple of years, particularly as COVID implications pinched on your great shows. But you did whatever every good farmer does. When confronted with a problem, you just ploughed around it and kept going. Your resilience is second to none, and I can't wait to catch up with you all at the upcoming ag show season as we showcase the bright future of our agricultural industry. Dunkley Electorate: Local Sporting Champions Program 82 09:57 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley Everyone in my community knows that I am an unapologetic sports tragic and a huge advocate for the benefits and opportunities that being involved in sport, on and off the field, can bring all of us, but particularly young people. So one of the great pleasures and privileges of being the member for Dunkley is being able to assist young people with Local Sporting Champions grants. Last week I hosted a group of young sporting champions from across the electorate—different sports, different schools—to celebrate their sporting success. They did themselves, their parents and their schools proud with the way they conducted themselves. There was one young woman who wasn't able to come, Isabella Lowe-King, because she was competing. She sent me an email after the events to tell me this: I've just returned from the AWF Youth & U23 Weightlifting Nationals in Perth and so happy to let you know that I came 1st in my weight division, broke 4 Victorian records and also a Personal best in the Snatch & Total categories, so it was a very successful event for me. Clearly! She went on to say: I just wanted to thank you so much for the grant of $700 under the Local Sporting Champion Program. The grant assisted with the costs in many ways and was very much appreciated. It was so great to have my family there to support me as well. Isabella sent me some photographs of her competing, and I find it extraordinary that such a small, compact young woman can lift such a huge weight. I wanted to thank her for keeping me updated about her success. I also thank her for mentioning how great it was to have her family there, because the other thing we know about young people in sport is that it is made so much easier for them if they do have family and friends to support them. We also know the sacrifices that are made by parents and grandparents and carers to help the young people in their lives to be able to participate in their sport; to give them those opportunities to learn about community, responsibility, teamwork; to learn that they can be strong and tough and brave and graceful; to learn that they can play baseball, do gymnastics, play football, play hockey or do equestrian, whether they're a boy or a girl; and that they will have some great successes and they will have some not-so-great competitions. But what they will take out of their time in sport is lifelong friends, lifelong memories and, for many of them, opportunities to work professionally in an area that they love. So congratulations to all of the young people who, over my time as your federal member, have got awards, and I look forward to many more presentation ceremonies in the future. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265980 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 83 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022 83

Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022

Second Reading 83 10:01 Ms LE 295676 Fowler I'll continue on from where I left off yesterday. If we are to convince normal, everyday Australian consumers to start making the switch, we also need to ensure HEVs are included in any subsidies. The government has clearly not considered how working-class Australians will benefit from their proposal. As with all things, major changes take time. I therefore propose that, alongside the other vehicles included in this proposal, the chamber support my amendment to include hybrid electric vehicles, HEVs. These vehicles are not perfect; however, they emit, on average, 64 grams of CO2 emissions per kilometre less than petrol vehicles and 76 grams less than diesel vehicles. More importantly, they are affordable. It is therefore key that these vehicles be included in this legislation. As it currently stands, vehicles expected to be exempted this year will equate to between 0.16 per cent and 0.4 per cent of new vehicle sales in the next 12 months. By 2024-25, this percentage of new sales is anticipated to rise to the range of 0.71 per cent to 1.8 per cent. This low level of sales demonstrates how small the impact of this bill will be in its current form. It is certainly not in line with the government's Driving the Nation program. Consequently, it is indefensible to not include HEVs on the basis that they will emit carbon. With these vehicles included, we will see a much smoother transition towards the uptake of EVs, and they will be participating in an eventual move to solely battery electric vehicles, BEVs, on the roads. Furthermore, has the government considered the grid infrastructure required to support an increase in the uptake of electric vehicles? It seems that the government is proposing to walk before it can run. It is currently estimated that it will be at least a decade before the electricity grid can accommodate an electric fleet. And, in the short term, how is the government proposing to build the required number of charging stations? For those who travel long distances, do not have charging stations at their homes or are not charging their car at home every night, publicly available charging stations are a necessity. Currently, there is a confusing and convoluted structure of investment that covers local, state and federal spending. Whilst the government proposes to invest $39.3 million for 117 fast-charging stations, there is a lack of detail around the time line of this rollout and, more importantly, whether it will match or, preferably, precede a greater uptake in EVs. The solution to this in the short run is therefore hybrid vehicles, which have the capacity to drastically reduce emissions, compared to the current levels, and will not burden the grid or require charging stations. We need a transition period, and these amendments I'm putting forward will assist the transition period as well as making it available to many Australians. Additionally, if we are to ensure that no-one is left behind in transitioning to a greener future, the Australian domestic industry, particularly manufacturing, must be the springboard. It must be Australian business and Australian workers that facilitate the building of infrastructure and the implementation of a renewable future. The government has committed to 604,000 jobs by 2030 as a result of transitioning to renewables. Only 54 per cent of these jobs are meant to come directly from renewable industries. Consequently, the bulk of jobs will come from those workers who support our renewable capacity: tradesmen, factory workers and manufacturers. In Fowler, for example, there are nearly 1,400 workers into the automotive industry. However, there is currently a real shortage of capacity and expertise in electrical component manufacturing. In its own Powering Australia plan, the government asserts that thousands of jobs will be created for construction workers. With investment, surely the same could be true for our manufacturing industry, as people upskill to meet the increased demand for production of electric vehicles and other renewable products, especially in an electorate like Fowler where unemployment is nearly three times the national average. Furthermore, due to global supply chain shortages, the current wait time for an EV is roughly 12 months but could extend to up to two years. While it is good in principle to implement what the government has put forward, consumers won't reap the benefits of their EV for a long time to come. While it may be cheaper to fuel these cars once they have been purchased, this approach still requires the initial capital to purchase the vehicle and the charging capacity for electric cars to ensure they run efficiently for business needs. I commend state governments that have committed to rolling out fast-charging stations, with NSW planning to have 700 fast-charging stations rolled out by 2027. However, this does not help small businesses now, particularly those from low socioeconomic communities. Australia exports about 60 per cent of the world's lithium. Surely there is capacity to reboot our local manufacturing industry to build EV batteries. With a local manufacturing sector—in particular one based in south-west Sydney in my electorate of Fowler—we will no longer have to rely on a global car market that is already struggling to keep up with demand, which could see wait times dramatically reduce. Additionally, we are presented with a unique opportunity to invest in our renewable manufacturing industry. Countries such as China with major automotive manufacturing industries are having to use mandate based systems that see the production of EVs incentivised, as it will take time for manufacturers to adjust. In Australia, we do not have this issue. If the government is serious about the uptake of EVs, investing in Australia's industry is an obvious and important policy. If the government seeks a truly sustainable future, thinking must extend beyond the top end—beyond the consumers of the final product. For real and effective affordability and sustainability, we need Australian manufacturing by Australian majority owned companies. Initially this may be focused on car manufacturing, but it can eventually be extended to buses and heavy vehicles as we build the capacity to manufacture them and their components onshore. I therefore ask the government to consider requiring that all government purchased vehicles at local, state and federal level be zero- or low-emissions vehicles manufactured in Australia using Australian made components and parts by 2035. Further to this point, the government must also facilitate the purchase of all new commercial and government buses in metropolitan areas to be electric buses manufactured in Australia, as proposed by my colleague the member for Kennedy. What we see in the government's proposal is the minimum. We see the absolute minimum from this government in incentivising the uptake of electric vehicles. If they're truly planning to increase the number of EVs on the road, they have certainly not proposed how they plan to support such an uptake. Such a plan should include consideration for investing in our domestic manufacturing. I therefore implore the chamber to hold this government accountable for considering all Australians in their transition to renewables—not just those who can afford it—and support my amendment to the bill to include hybrid electric vehicles. 10:09 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I certainly did not want to allow this historic opportunity to go by without making a contribution to the debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022. It is an exciting time for the Australian people and, certainly, for this parliament. I was here in the 46th Parliament when you could barely utter the words 'electric vehicle', and I am overjoyed that we now have a government in place that is taking new technology seriously and has vowed to act on climate change, for which we have a very clear mandate from the Australian people. When the Minister for Climate Change and Energy introduced those bills, he filled my heart with joy—and not only mine. The people of Newcastle have long called for measures like these to be introduced because it is an unmistakable signal to Australian industry and also to the Australian people that we've got a government in charge that understands not just the human and social imperative to act on climate change but also the economic imperative to do so. We understand the economics of clean, cheap, reliable energy, and we recognise that generational imperative to act now. So it is incredibly important that this parliament gets to work. This bill was introduced back in July—one of the first bills from the new Labor government—which indicates the seriousness with which we take this issue. The communities that I represent and, indeed, the communities represented by all Labor members understand clearly. Our communities have rejected the fear campaigns of the past now. I live in a city where all of our industries are very carbon intensive. I am home to the world's largest port that exports coal. My community knows full well the economics of energy. We've been doing it for more than a hundred years. We intend to be doing it for the next hundred years. They will be different forms of energy, however, and we will play a lead role in transitioning this country and in meeting our international obligations. It's communities like mine that have a lot of skin in the game that are going to lead this discussion in Australia, and it's governments like the Albanese Labor government that are going to provide the leadership to make these social and economic changes that are good for the planet, good for our people and good for the future. We know that Australian businesses and industry are now desperate for some very clear indications and guidance about the risks of inaction on climate change. They're acutely aware of the risks. What they want is strong leadership and guidance about the pathways ahead, so everyone can get on with it. Indeed, I would argue that communities like mine have been way ahead of this parliament. Now they feel like they've got a government that's finally pulled its head out of the sand and is going to provide the kind of leadership that is required to ensure that people living in Newcastle and the Hunter aren't left behind. We are about grabbing every opportunity available and leaving no-one behind, and that's what legislation like the bill before us now is going to present: new opportunities. This is one of those new opportunities that we can grab with both hands. Alternatively, you can do what so many members of the opposition do—turn their back, don't enter the debate, ignore, don't show up. We're not about to do that. We understand the imperative to be a responsible government in 2022. This bill is implementing an Albanese government election commitment to provide an electric vehicle discount by means of a fringe benefit tax exemption for eligible, employer provided electric cars. That, in a nutshell, is what this bill seeks to do. The government is absolutely committed to reducing transport emissions. It's one of the big emission components that we do absolutely have to reduce, and we are making electric vehicles more affordable so that families and businesses who want them can get them. So many people are coming to my electoral office and saying: 'When is this going to happen? When can we start buying our electric vehicles?' They're desperate to get in on this game, and good on them. Those who are in a position to do so want to do their part. They need some help to make these electric cars more affordable. This bill, these measures, will deliver on that. As I said, it's a bill that will not only make electric vehicles more affordable for families but will also contribute to our climate change targets. The bill will amend the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 to exempt from fringe benefits tax the use of eligible electric cars made available by employers to employees. This fringe benefit tax exemption will apply to battery electric cars, hydrogen fuel cell electric cars and plug-in hybrid electric cars. Eligible electric cars will be limited to those first made available for use on or after 1 July 2022 and with a first retail price that is below the luxury car tax threshold for fuel-efficient cars. That is $84,916 for the 2022-23 component. I expect there to be a big uptake on this. My community is absolutely ready. We are home to an electric vehicle festival. We have been doing this festival for more than a decade now. Just last week, I was at the University of Newcastle, farewelling a Tesla electric vehicle that is starting its journey in Newcastle. It will circumnavigate Australia in a project called Charge Around Australia. I was there to farewell, and send my good wishes to, Stuart McBain, the project director and driving project lead. He will be the person behind the wheel. It is an amazing opportunity for the university to incorporate all the smart things that it is doing in this area and take that car out to kids in remote and rural regions, who probably don't get to have a close-up experience of electric vehicles very often, so they can have access to the people who are building those technologies and talk to them about the science. We know that children in Australia are anxious about their futures and what climate change means. I know members opposite also have concerns about the anxiety of children about their futures. One way of dealing with that anxiety is making sure that we provide great educational opportunities for those kids. I want to make sure that a kid at Yuendumu has got just as much chance as a kid sitting in Newcastle city of understanding this technology, of aspiring to be a scientist contributing to the technological solutions, of thinking about those problems that are ahead and being part of those solutions. The University of Newcastle is very fortunate to have Professor Paul Dastoor, who has led the globe in producing incredibly cheap solar energy, where you no longer need sophisticated cells popped onto your roof or cars. He can literally paint the solar panel onto a plastic film, which is lightweight, incredibly cheap to produce and is printed on a 2D printer. That is what is going to help charge this electric vehicle as it travels around Australia. We know there is range anxiety out there, and I heard the member before me speak to that issue. That is why Labor is committed to rolling out the 117 fast-charging stations that we are investing in along highways across Australia. But there are other people playing a role in this as well. I congratulate the City of Newcastle Council, which is already rolling out charge stations in our city and region. I have community groups doing it, and the NRMA. There are a whole bunch of people who are way ahead of where the former government was at. They were already making efforts to get down this road and take opportunities with both hands, willingly and happily. The work that we will do to invest in those fast-charging stations will go in partnership with the NRMA, councils, the private sector and community groups who are also acting in this regard. That will go a long way to addressing those issues that people have around range anxiety, and I acknowledge that that's real. The project Charge Around Australia will educate and inspire some 70 schools along the way—how fantastic! They will get insights into the cutting-edge global technologies that are being produced here in Australia. They are being developed right in my city of Newcastle, and they are the sorts of technologies that will be addressing the climate crisis in Australia. We are doing the heavy lifting because we know there's a lot at stake for communities like mine. I hope that events like Charge Around Australia and the work of Professor Paul Dastoor and the University of Newcastle inspire young minds everywhere to enter STEM. I want young girls from across Australia to be totally inspired to take up those STEM subjects, do those in schools and talk to industries about future career pathways they can have. They're going to be part of developing those technologies in the future as well—I know that. And that's why we are deeply committed as a government to provide new energy apprenticeships and new energy skills programs so those kids have got a bright future. That's what we want here. This electric vehicle discount is just one of many measures now that the Albanese Labor government is putting forward in this parliament to make sure that we can honour our international obligations. We will honour that commitment that we have made both to the Australian people and to the world. We are serious partners in this endeavour now, and amending the fringe benefits tax to make sure that there are more affordable electric vehicles out there for families and for eligible employees is a great first step. It's one of many, many steps that we will be taking. For members opposite, who have dealt themselves out of so many conversations and so many important opportunities to be a partner in forging a better future, I really hope that there is some thought given to a better strategy in parliament. Instead of putting your head in the sand and pretending these things aren't happening, I urge you to work with government to ensure that we are offering the very, very best pathways forward. I think it has to be acknowledge that this was a very clear commitment from the Albanese Labor government during the election. We absolutely have a mandate to implement this. There would be an outcry—and justifiably so—among the Australian people if this bill were not to pass through this parliament in both houses. It is certainly the way that the rest of the comparable democracies are travelling, and it would be a crying shame for Australia not to be taking part in ensuring that we make electric vehicles a more affordable option for the Australian people. We don't wish to become the dumping ground for all the vehicles that no one else in the world can sell. That's not the kind of future I want for my city of Newcastle. I'm pretty sure it's not the future we want to see for anyone in Australia. So I encourage all members of this parliament to get behind this bill and give it your support. 10:24 Mr JOYCE e5d New England Might I start by saying that, if you live in Yuendumu, the last vehicle you would ever buy would be an electric vehicle, because you don't have the capacity to charge it in a way to give you the range— A government member interjecting— Mr JOYCE e5d I didn't interrupt you, and you should be polite. There are a range of issues here. First of all, the market has been very aware of electric vehicles for a long period of time. In fact, a lot of the research for electric vehicles and batteries is done by 3ME in Armidale. They are then constructed from a chassis that's imported from Brazil—well, they're not constructed, they're just assembled, in Newcastle. The place they use those electric vehicles is down the coalmines that the Labor Party is intent on closing down. We also have electric technology in forklifts. We have electric technology, in a minor form, in scooters and in golf buggies. The market is very aware of this technology. It is not new. The reason it hasn't taken off is that it's not appropriate to so many areas—that's why it hasn't. People aren't dumb. If they can make money, they'll go out and make money. They don't need any inspiration to make a buck. When we talk about the dumping ground, where do you think the dumping ground for electric vehicles is going to be because we don't make them in Australia? The dumping ground for electric vehicles will be Australia. There are a range of reasons for not taking up electric vehicles, and I have to make the chamber aware of this. The first one is range. A Tesla has a range of about 470 kilometres. There is nothing wrong with that. It's just that it's way beyond the price range of people who live in a weatherboard-and-iron to be able to buy. The other thing is that, when you don't have electric fast-charging stations, and even with 117 fast-charging stations—Australia's a big place, the size of Western Europe. That means it takes about 27 hours to charge one from a house supply. What happens if you need to get to the hospital? What happens if your kid gets an asthma attack? And the other thing is of course that people in poor areas don't have the money to buy new cars. If I go to the areas around me and the hills around where I live—I must admit I'm very humbled; at some of those booths I get over 90 per cent of the vote—I will not find a new car in that village. I will not find a new car in many of those areas. I'm proud of my people. It's just that they don't have the money to buy them. They don't have $60,000 to buy an electric vehicle. They work within a budget of around $10,000 to $20,000. And, if you want to test that, go and see the second-hand car lot and see what's moving, what's selling. The other thing is they're just unsuitable. In the last two months of wet weather, I've had to use the winch on my Toyota three times: once for a funeral director who got bogged on the roads, once for a tray back that had slipped off onto the road—and it was the only way we could get in—and once for a small truck. Now, people say that's out of scope. Well, it's not. That's the life we live. That's what we do. And that sort of technology is not available in electric cars. In many areas it just would not be accessible, it would not be appropriate, and it'd get knocked to pieces. The other thing about electric vehicles is that, when they're turned over, just like forklifts, they're basically worthless. That's the end. It's not like an HQ, a WB or an HJ Holden, which even decades later people are still using because they can fix them up. And the ideas, the technology and the nous to fix them up are seen through the local people. A lot of them have taught themselves. But the capacity to do that with electric vehicles is not there. So we're forcing on poor people literally another caveat, another cost, and we're saying to them—for a policy which, let's be frank, on the whole is a policy for white, urban, small upper-class areas in cities, where it's an appropriate car, because they're small distances and there's ample capacity to recharge. But that is not the case in regional areas. If you go to Yuendumu, you're not going to be using an electric vehicle. And that Tesla—and I've been reading about it—that's going to circumnavigate Australia is not going to Cape York. It's going to areas where it can recharge. And so, what you're saying, even by that statement, is that there are certain people you're going to isolate. We, on this side, believe in choice. If you want to buy an electric vehicle, knock yourself out—buy it. And, if you don't want to buy it, then why is the government subsidising the actual people who could afford it the most? If you want to subsidise something, subsidise poor people into a vehicle, full stop. That's what you should be subsidising people into. We've also seen those opposite talk about technology. You have to completely rejig the whole power grid to get the capacity for people in their homes to recharge their cars. You're going to need about six kVA per house, and they just don't have that. This is a massive cost to try and bring this into our nation. Even then, you're going to have periods of a massive peak in power at night, when there's no solar and less wind. You're going to have a massive peak in power and the inability for it to actually work. Those opposite don't actually sit down and go through the nuts and bolts of this. When you come up with ideas, like wanting to go to zero emissions, and you need base-load power, rather than talking about how smart you are in manufacturing and industry—which I hope you are—why do you completely ignore nuclear power? You parody it. Why do you run it down? You say it's a stupid idea. So let's go through all the stupid countries that are currently developing, or are a part of, the small modular reactor industry and are going to get there before us: the Czech Republic, Romania, Argentina, Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, Russia, Finland, South Africa, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Germany, South Korea and Qatar—all these dopey people, all these incredibly dopey countries, who are once more, in a new piece of technology—like mobile phones, like motor vehicles, like everything else—just going to leave Australia behind. And, ultimately, we'll end up with small modular reactors. It's just inevitable. It's like saying, 'I'm going to ban iPhones' or, 'I'm going to ban fridges' or, 'We're going to continue walking rather than using a motor vehicle at all.' It's going to come in. Let's look at the dumb companies that are developing it: Hyundai, Hitachi, Westinghouse, General Electric, NuScale, Amec, Rolls-Royce, Skoda, Neutroelectric, KGHM. Do you think Rolls-Royce is stupid? Do you think Westinghouse is stupid? Do you think General Electric is a dumb company? Do you think they're doing this because they think it's a dumb idea? No, they're once more just leaving us behind. Rolls-Royce is developing a 470-megawatt small modular reactor. It will power Leeds, a city of over 500,000 people—one reactor. The size of it is 16 metres by four metres—obviously the cooling capacity is there. Just think of that: 16 metres by four metres powering something the size of Leeds, and they believe they'll have it on the market by 2029. And the Labor government is saying, 'No, we're not going do that.' They giggle and make these foolish statements in the parliament, because they just haven't done their homework. These are going to be factory-made; they're modular. With anything made out of modular parts in a factory, of course, over time they're going to get safer, cheaper and smaller. But our nation, with the Labor government talking about industry and innovation and being smart—well, they're not smart enough, nor are they courageous enough to see the bleeding obvious right in front of their face and be part of it. No, we'll get left behind. It'll be yet another product we import. We had other statements—for instance, the Prime Minister said, 'You wouldn't bring a rock of uranium in here; please don't do that.' All that does is spell out how ignorant he is of it. Uranium-235 is about 0.7 of one per cent radioactive. To make it work, you have to upscale it. It needs to go to about four or five per cent to use in small modular reactor, and if you wanted it in a nuclear weapon you'd have to take it to 90 per cent, which is incredibly difficult. So, unless you intend to eat it, or break it down with nitric acid and inject it, then you've got no problems with it. Mr JOYCE e5d You should do a little bit more homework, rather than try to look like the most beautiful thing in the parliament. What we're seeing here is the Labor Party, once more, without the courage to lead, making us the dumb country—once more, the dumb country left behind. Even the AWU, from the right wing of the Labor Party, is in favour of nuclear energy. The CFMMEU is in favour of it, but not the Labor Party in Canberra. They're not in favour of it. They're left behind.   Mr JOYCE e5d But here is Zoolander making his statement—such a beautiful man. He should get a bigger repertoire—and a bigger suit, because he is almost busting out of the one that he's got. What we are seeing is this unfortunate capacity for us to be the sillier country as we see the rest of the world racing ahead. The most recent application approved by the United States was for NuScale's 77-megawatt small modular reactor, built in the factory. One of them would do Tamworth. People say, 'Where will you have them?' Where you currently have power stations would be the most logical position. So you don't have to build this myriad of transmission lines across the area. The nuclear issue, believe you me, is vastly more palatable to regional areas than what is going on now. In the town of Walcha, 550 wind towers are going up around the town, turning it into an industrial park. It is the only thing you can find that will bring the Greens, the Nationals, Labor supporters and the independents all into the same room, basically saying, 'What is the inspiration to turn our area into an industrial park? It's not what we had in mind.' You need about 50 acres for one wind tower. Because it's an intermittent source, they are about 33 per cent effective and they commercialise out at around two per cent. So you would need about 20 wind towers, even if they were 100 per cent reliable. But, because they are not, you are going to need in the vicinity of 60 wind towers and more—in fact, some reports talk about hundreds—to take the place of one small modular reactor. The NuScale reactor is 20 metres high and 2.7 metres wide. The Rolls Royce one is 16 metres high and 4.5 metres wide. They come in on the back of a truck and, when they are removed, they are moved out on the back of a truck. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265980 The member for Bruce, on a point of order? Mr Hill 86256 Just a half of a point of order on relevance. In the advocacy for nuclear power, we have gone way beyond the bill. But, equally, it is only a half a point of order, because it is actually quite helpful to us, the more you want to talk up nuclear power and the idea of bringing uranium into the chamber. So you do you. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265980 I ask the member for Bruce to take a seat. I call the member for New England. Mr JOYCE e5d I take the interjection. The point of government is to lead. It is to find things and drive agendas. If all you want to do is be the caravan of polling, then we don't need a government; we can just do it online. This area is pertinent. If you are going to go to a zero-emission process, there will be this huge requirement that is going to come onto the grid. Look at the peak hour traffic and ask yourself this question: when all these vehicles become electric—which is apparently what you want—how on earth are we going to charge them? They all go to work during the day—and maybe they will have charging facilities or maybe not—and then they go home at night and they are going to charge them up. How is that going to work? You don't have the capacity in the grid to do it. As even AEMO is saying, we are on the edge of a collapse of the grid. We are on the edge of it not being able to deal with the issues, because our baseload is going off. You have to keep a grid at about 49 hertz for the capacity to stay up. If it goes down, it doesn't just go down for an hour; it can go down for days. If that happens—I think this is something we would both agree—politically, that would be a disaster. We have to make sure that we have the capacity to keep the grid alive. If you want zero technology, the obvious baseload, zero technology is nuclear. All these countries are not stupid. We are the stupid ones. They are developing the technology, and they will be the beneficiaries. In the United Kingdom, they are looking at this bringing about $250 billion a year into the marketplace—and they want a bite of that cherry, but we do not. We don't make electric cars. We don't make motor vehicles anymore. We don't manufacture many things, and here we have the capacity to go into an area where you have high-paying technical jobs. But, apparently, we don't want to be part of high-paying technical jobs. We've got to import the electric cars and, in due course, we will import the small modular reactors. It will be an absurdity if you go to Fiji or to Papua New Guinea and see them. You will be able to anywhere around the world and see them. They will be made in factories from South Korea to China, the United Kingdom, Finland, the United States, Argentina—Argentina is going around us—Romania and obviously France, and we're just going to be left behind. We're just going to be left behind, and we're going to be sitting in the chamber saying how stupid Skoda, Rolls-Royce, Hyundai, Hitachi, Westinghouse, General Electric, NuScale, Atkins, Amec and the University of Manchester are. All these other people apparently are so stupid, and we're here saying, 'Oh, no, we're so smart.' 10:40 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce That was a treat. I'm glad I arrived early. It was an interesting mix of facts and fiction. It's kind of peak irony, isn't it—having the member for New England here talking about 'making foolish statements in the parliament'. That's a direct quote. I was listening carefully. I think he said the electricity grid is close to collapse and we're a dumb country because we don't make cars here anymore. If only you'd been in government for the last 10 years, you might have been able to do something about this! What happened to the car industry? They were chased out of Australia—bye, bye, car industry. I think that was your government, Member for New England. The point of a government is to lead, apparently. This is what he told the chamber just there: the point of a government is to lead. If only he'd been in government for the last 10 years and could have done anything about all of these problems! I think, Minister, you walked in just as he was explaining to the parliament that it's really not such a dumb idea to bring uranium into the chamber. It's just like a lump of coal. The two are the same, and that would be fine. Just when you thought the Libs couldn't get any weirder—even putting aside that contribution from the National Party—they do this: the party of tax cuts is here to oppose a tax cut on electric vehicles. It proves, I think, the point we heard yesterday in question time. There were a few good points made yesterday in question time. They are really the party of dregs and leftovers from the previous government. There's a pattern, isn't there? Just in the first few months since the election, they refused to turn up to the Jobs and Skills Summit. They oppose at every turn clean, green, renewable energy to put downwards pressure on power prices. They pretend that secret ministries don't really matter. If you thought that they were weird, there are other secret ministries—the strangest thing since Sir Prince Philip. This bill to cut tax on electric vehicles—the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022—is good for motorists, it's good for employers and it's good for climate action. The FBT exemption will apply to battery electric cars, hydrogen fuel cells and plug-in hybrids, with savings of up to $9,000 a year. I think it's $4,700 if you're buying it as an individual with salary sacrifice or novated leases. I had correspondence about this bill. It was one of the first things in the first sitting week of parliament. Booran Motors, a local business, emailed me and said: 'Is this election promise going to happen? When are you going to do it?' I said, 'Well, I've got a good answer for you: we're introducing a bill into the parliament today.' They said, 'Is it going to pass the parliament?' I made a mistake. I said to them, 'Well, I'm sure it'll pass the parliament,' because I couldn't imagine a world where the opposition, the party of tax cuts, would oppose a tax cut on electric vehicles. But I'm going to have to contact Booran Motors. I visited them a couple of weeks ago to have a chat to understand. They got out the schedules. They explained how their novated leases work. They showed me the flow-through calculations, and actually the calculations they had were more optimistic than yours. They said it's going to incentivise employers and consumers to choose electric vehicles. So I apologise publicly for misadvising them, thinking that the opposition might support a tax cut on electric vehicles. For the last decade, we've had this failing Liberal government actively working to hold Australia back and stop us embracing the future. They were running these disingenuous fear campaigns while the rest of the world raced ahead. Electric vehicles, according to the former Prime Minister, were going to end the weekend. No-one would be able to tow a trailer. I learnt something else from you in question time yesterday, Minister: the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party told Australians on radio, very firmly, that there was no firm in the world that manufactures electric utes. Well, that's not true, is it? To quote you, Minister, there are just a few small boutique firms: Mitsubishi, Ford and General Motors. A government member: Startups! Mr HILL 86256 Startups—that's right. Anyway, I'm sure she'll walk in and correct herself. But Australians understand far more than the opposition. They understand that electric vehicles are the way forward. But let's be frank, with a couple of comments. Australia is currently the dumping ground, disgracefully, for the world's most polluting cars. As the member for New England reminded us, we don't make cars here anymore, because the former government chased them away. But the multinational car manufacturers dump their most polluting vehicles in Australia, and that's because we're the only country in the OECD that has no fuel efficiency standards and none under production. There's one developed country, I think, which is Russia, that also has no fuel efficiency standards, but it got kicked out of the OECD. So it's such illustrious company that we're in! We are the dumping ground. Too many Australians who are trying to buy an electric vehicle quickly at the moment can't get one quickly. There's not enough supply. We've been left behind because of this low intake, because there's no incentive for the manufacturers to send their cars to Australia. Why would they? They can keep selling polluting vehicles that no-one else in the developed world will buy now. That's the reason that Australians can't get a supply of electric vehicles. Frankly, we're a pimple on the backside of the global car market, and there are no proper incentives for them to increase supply, because we're a small market, we're a right-hand-drive vehicle market and, as I said, we have the worst vehicle emission standards in the developed world. So just keep sending 'em along! It's illustrious company, isn't it? That was possibly your finest moment in question time—'nyet zero'—thank you, Minister! But the hard reality is we are largely irrelevant to the major car manufacturers, especially at the moment, with the global supply chain difficulties, which affect everyone, but that's then compounded by the lack of fuel efficiency standards and our terrible policy settings. Now, the manufacturers won't say it like that; they're very polite people. They'll nod, they'll talk about delays in chips and they'll say, 'It's a very tough world out there, and we're doing our best.' But that is the fact. That is what the industry bodies will tell you. That is what the industry analysts will tell you. It doesn't matter how polite the manufacturers are; until we fix our policy settings and provide some proper incentives for them to change their behaviour and send more electric cars our way, we're not going to get them. Australians are not going to be able to get the clean technology that will cut their fuel bills or remove their fuel bills, depending on the technology they choose. That is the cold hard truth. So we're going to need a range of policy changes to embrace the future and make sure that Australians can access clean technology and electric cars more rapidly. This bill is therefore one contribution. It's not the whole answer. We had a whole list of problems from the member for New England and other opposition speakers as if they hadn't been in government for the last 10 years. Well, they weren't the government for the last 10 years; they were just parading around in the white cars and occupying the offices. They didn't do too much governing. But more work is needed. The electric vehicle discount in this bill is just one key part of the government's Powering Australia Plan which will help to reduce emissions targets by 43 per cent by 2030 and net zero by 2050. In addition, this government will continue to provide the infrastructure for electric vehicles. In answer to some of the legitimate queries that were raised—the thing is it's all problems, no solutions. Those opposite spent 10 years talking down the future, avoiding the future, trying to pretend that that wasn't where the world was going, instead of preparing Australia for the future and bringing us there. So there's $500 million to the Driving the Nation Fund to establish 117 fast-charging stations on highways at an average interval of 150 kilometres—that should deal with range anxiety; it's well within the range of all electric vehicles—and to create a national hydrogen highways refuelling network. There are also the vehicle emissions standards. The vehicle emissions standards will play an essential role in transforming Australia into a globally competitive market for electric vehicle intake. Australians are currently paying more for petrol and getting less value for the petrol that they're buying than drivers overseas because we don't have those fuel efficiency standards. Now, we do need to be careful and sensible about how this is done. We've got no choice but to take into account those supply constraints globally and make sure that, as we bring in fuel efficiency standards, electric vehicles will be available to avoid price shocks. That's something that the industry bodies are talking about to those who are interested in these things. This can be done, though, and it can be done sensibly, and we don't need to succumb to idiotic scare campaigns like those run by the previous Prime Minister and, indeed, the now opposition—the dregs of the previous government. Overseas, there are a range of different incentives for manufacturers. I suppose the only good thing I could say about the fact that we're last in the developed world, the fact that we're the only country in the OECD not to have fuel efficiency standards—the only positive, if we want to put a positive spin on it—is that we have the opportunity to look at what other countries have done, to get there in the most efficient way and make our policy settings the best in the world, informed by everyone else's experience: who's got it right and who's got it wrong. So I'm glad that the government is undertaking a proper, considered policy process—something alien to the former government. You just stood up and announced stuff because it felt good and it seemed like a good idea and you needed to have something to fill the daily media cycle. You announced stuff. It didn't matter whether it made sense. It didn't matter whether you delivered it. You just announced more stuff. You certainly didn't consult on it or write a discussion paper, put it out to the public and have a proper process—talk to industry, talk to government departments. You didn't do that. Well, that's what we're doing. So I'm delighted that the minister is running a proper policy process. Adult government is back, in the style of Hawke and Keating—governments that ran proper policy processes and exposed themselves to criticism. There will be a discussion paper out within the next month or so, I think, and the policy process will continue. Finally, I just want to acknowledge the strong community support in my area and the work of the South East Councils Climate Change Alliance—councils right across south-east Melbourne who have been advocating for exactly the things the government speakers have been talking about. This bill is good for motorists, good for employers, good for climate action, and I encourage the opposition to get on board. 10:50 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde Much as I like and admire my colleague the member for Bruce, there was much in his contribution—he would be unsurprised to hear—that I disagree with. One of the things I find interesting in this whole debate is the lack of willingness to dig down into the detail of how we actually get to this point. I'll make the observation at the outset that I have no issue with electric vehicles. As the member for New England said in his contribution, if you want to go and buy an electric vehicle, knock yourself out and go and buy one. But I have many, many people in my electorate of Forde who would not even think about buying an electric vehicle, because they cannot afford it. They work in jobs where salary sacrificing and even discussion of fringe benefits is not an option. They wouldn't know what a novated lease or a salary packaging plan is, because they just do not work in industries or in jobs where those opportunities are afforded. So how are they going to benefit from this policy? They are not going to benefit. The worst thing is, if we continue to go down this road and we continue, over time, to increasingly restrict access to internal-combustion-engine-powered vehicles, and second-hand models of those vehicles, as a consequence, become more expensive, for people on low to moderate incomes in my electorate, their cost of living is not going to go down; it is going to go up, because they will have to pay more for the vehicles that they can afford to buy or that they will increasingly struggle to buy. And increasingly, I would argue, they are going to pay more for fuel for their vehicles. These people will not benefit from this policy. And, at the end of September, this government is not going to continue the fuel excise discount that we instituted when we were last in government. So people in my electorate who are on low to moderate incomes are going to pay double. They're not going to benefit from this policy, and they're going to pay higher fuel prices from the end of September. So is it any wonder that we on this side of the House stand here and debate the merits of this policy? It's our responsibility to debate the merits of this policy, when people in electorates like mine and those of my colleagues across this country are going to pay the price of this policy. I would go further and touch on some other claims that were made by the member for Bruce in relation to pollution and the impacts of internal combustion engine vehicles. I've been round long enough to have seen the massive improvements we've made in the last 30 or 40 years in the level of pollution that comes out of our vehicle fleet, whether it is our cars or our trucks. I can remember many an occasion, driving from Beenleigh into Brisbane, when you couldn't see the skyscrapers in the city of Brisbane because of the smog, because of the pollution. I can't remember when we last had a smog day in Brisbane because of pollution from motor vehicle exhausts. For that matter, I can't remember that happening in Sydney or Melbourne. Do we still have days with smog from bushfires and fog and other things? Yes, we do, but the incidence of those events as a direct result of vehicular pollution today are extraordinarily rare, and that shows me that we as a nation over the past 30 to 40 years have done an extraordinary job in improving the air quality and emissions standards from our vehicles. The other thing that I find interesting in this debate about providing subsidies to electric vehicles is we seem to have gone into an age of subsidy for a whole range of things. As I look back through history—because history is a wonderful teacher about what we can do better or do differently—I question the need to subsidise electric vehicles, because we never subsidised the Model T Ford— Dr Chalmers 37998 It's a tax cut. It's not a subsidy, it's a tax cut. Mr VAN MANEN 188315 I take the introduction from the Treasurer, who might know. It is a subsidy because it's a tax cut that's not being applied more broadly. We didn't subsidise the iPhone, we didn't subsidise computers—we didn't provide tax cuts on those, if the Treasurer wants to go down that road. I find it increasingly strange that we have to continue to provide these subsidies—or tax cuts, as the Treasurer wants to put it—for new technology when historically we've never had to do that. The market will take care of these things itself as people take the opportunity, and that's why we don't need to take this step. As I said in my earlier remarks, before the Treasurer got here—and he has many people in his electorate in the same socioeconomic situation as mine—they will not benefit from this because they do not work in jobs where they get fringe benefits tax or salary sacrifice arrangements. At the same time, their fuel costs are going to go up from the end of September, and the Treasurer has had nothing to say about that whatsoever. Dr Chalmers 37998 I talk about it every day. Mr VAN 188315 The tradespeople across my electorate and those who are self-employed will not get the benefit from this, and I'd like to know how that's going to benefit them. What is also not spoken about is the impact of this on the electricity network and the capacity for the network to accommodate the increased usage that a greater take-up of electric vehicles will cause. The government have said they're going to invest in the electricity network, but all of that investment comes at a cost. It is a regulated asset, which means a regulated return to those investors, which all reflects in your electricity bills. We might have a saving on one hand of $5,000 through a reduction in the fringe benefits tax, but what are we going to pay in increased electricity bills as a result of this additional investment and the regulated return that that will require on those investments? As I look at this bill and all of the actions that those opposite are taking where they are proposing to reduce the cost of living for everyday Australians, I fail to see how that's actually going to be achieved. Through their policies, they are going to increase the cost of living, not reduce the cost of living. 10:58 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I'll keep my contribution short to allow the Treasurer to make some closing remarks. I want to follow up on an opinion piece I wrote in the Northern Territory News recently about fuel gouging in the Northern Territory and introducing our electric car discount, which will remove import duties on electric and low-emission cars. This is one part of our plan to reduce emissions and cut power bills by investing in renewables. The electric car discount will reduce the upfront and ownership costs of electric vehicles, addressing a significant barrier to their uptake. Our government is committed to reducing transport emissions and is making electric cars more affordable for the families and businesses that want them, including in the Northern Territory. That's why our government is tabling this bill, fulfilling our election commitment of providing an electric vehicle discount by means of a fringe benefit tax exemption for eligible electric cars that are provided by employers. Currently, the fringe benefits tax is payable when an employer makes available a car, including electric car, for private use of an employee. The amendments in this bill exempt from the fringe benefit the use of eligible electric cars made available to employees or those who take up a salary sacrifice arrangement. This exemption will apply to battery electric cars, hydrogen fuel cell electric cars and plug-in hybrid electric cars below the luxury car tax threshold for fuel-efficient cars of $84,916 for all vehicles made available for use after 1 July 2022. I welcome these changes, which will ensure that employers providing employees with an eligible electric car will not pay fringe benefits. This is an important measure that will help increase the uptake of electric cars in our nation. These policies are urgent, not only because they are fair to future generations, whose lives will be severely impacted by how we respond to climate change in coming years, but also because they will help Australians, who are facing such strong cost-of-living pressures at the cash register and in their bills. What we have seen in the Territory is fuel retailers gouging, and I am committed to continue putting pressure on them to be fair and honest with Territorians about the massive profits they are making, whilst our government also moves us towards a renewable energy future with this electric car discount. I thank the House for the opportunity to update my constituents. Around the country we have seen that people want to embrace electric vehicles. Not everyone will want an electric vehicle, and that is fine, but more and more people will see that this is the way of the future and that it will result in cheaper bills. I commend the bill to the House. 11:02 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thank you very much for the opportunity to sum up the debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022. I want to genuinely thank members from all sides of the debate for their contribution to it. As we know, the bill amends the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 to provide a fringe benefits tax exemption for eligible electric cars that are made available by employers to employees—so, in effect, a tax cut to make electric vehicles cheaper and also to boost the supply of electric vehicles in our network. The exemption applies to battery electric cars, hydrogen fuel cell electric cars and plug-in hybrid electric cars that are below the luxury car tax threshold for fuel efficient cars. The exemption will apply to fringe benefits arising from the use or availability of an electric car from 1 July this year, provided the car was first made available for use on or after that date. Employers providing employees with an eligible electric car will not have to pay fringe benefit tax on that car, and the cost to employees of entering into salary-sacrificing arrangements in order to lease the car will now be less than it previously would have been. This bill does implement an election commitment from the Albanese government. It's just one part of a much bigger plan to improve the uptake of electric vehicles in Australia, with further measures to be delivered as part of the National Electric Vehicle Strategy, which will be laid out by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, and the minister for transport and others will have input into that strategy, as will the public, of course. The strategy can also consider matters beyond the scope of vehicle fringe benefits and beyond the remit of this legislation that we're considering today—things like charging facilities and other important parts of getting the EV ecosystem right in Australia. The fringe benefits tax exemption will be an ongoing measure, but it will be reviewed after three years, just so that we can make sure that it remains effective and it's doing the job that we want it to. This is a significant signal that Australia now has a government that recognises the economic and generational imperative of acting on climate change. It is disappointing but not especially surprising to hear that those opposite don't support a tax cut for electric vehicles, which would bring down the cost of living and also incentivise the types of cars we increasingly want to see on our roads so that we can take climate change seriously but also take the cost of living crisis seriously at the same time. This is a government that understands the opportunities of acting on climate change and of cleaner and cheaper energy and low emission cars. We intend to grab those opportunities for the benefit of the Australian people. This measure we're talking about today is good for motorists, employers and their workers, and it's good for the environment. All of that makes it good for our country as well. That's why I commend the bill to the house. T C2T The original question was that this bill be now be read a second time. To this the honourable member for Hume moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The honourable member for Kennedy has moved as an amendment to the amendment that all words after 'Whilst' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Kennedy be disagreed to. Question agreed to. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265980 The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Hume be disagreed to. Question agreed to. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Sitting suspended from 11:08 to 11:12 Consideration in Detail 93 11:13 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney I seek leave to move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together. Leave granted. Ms TINK 300124 As I discussed yesterday when I addressed this House, I feel that one of the biggest opportunities facing us as a nation is to actually grow the size of the second-hand car market here in Australia. In this context, the amendments that I have proposed are designed to enable the FBT exemption to be extended to second-hand vehicles that are imported but were made after January 2020. I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 21), at the end of subsection 8A(2), add: ; or (d) a vehicle of a kind mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) that is an imported second-hand vehicle. (2) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (after line 26), after the definition of hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicle, insert: imported second-hand vehicle means a motor vehicle that: (a) was manufactured on or after 1 January 2020; and (b) is imported into Australia; and (c) at the time of importation: (i) has previously been used in a foreign country; and (ii) has not previously been registered in Australia under a law of a State or Territory; and (iii) complies with the relevant Australian safety standards, as in force at that time. 11:15 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I thank the member for North Sydney, not just for moving these amendments to the bill but also for the opportunity that we've had to discuss them with her and some colleagues from different parts of the parliament as well. We share the member for North Sydney's objective to build a decent second-hand market for electric vehicles. We are not interested in supporting this particular amendment for the following reasons. What we've got already, in the way that the bill is constructed, is the capacity to build a second-hand market over time by creating that cut-off for second-hand vehicles imported after 1 July this year. We have given some thought to the member for North Sydney's amendment, which would be to bring that cut-off date further back into history to allow for some older cars to come into the market. I do understand and appreciate why the member for North Sydney, who comes to this with the best possible motivations around electric vehicles, would like to do that. We feel like the most appropriate place to draw the line is at 1 July, and that will mean that over time, as time passes from that 1 July cut-off going forward, there will be more second-hand vehicles brought into the system, and that will be a good thing. The way we understand it is that most lease providers are unlikely to offer older imported second-hand vehicles to employees, and this measure is relatively narrowly cast around the leasing arrangements for employers providing these cars to employees. But, as we've indicated privately and are very happy to indicate publicly, as part of the National Electric Vehicle Strategy, which the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, in conjunction with the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, me and others, will be consulting on broadly, we would consider the kinds of suggestions made by the member for North Sydney and others as part of that broader strategy. But, for the time being, our interest is in locking down this deadline as we've proposed it in the legislation before us. And so, unfortunately, and respectfully, we won't be supporting the amendment. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T The question is that the amendments be disagreed to. Question agreed to. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: In fairness to the member for Fowler, whom I understand is on her way, I will suspend the Federation Chamber briefly. Sitting suspended from 11:18 to 11:20 The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T I thank the members. I understand the member for Fowler is some time away, so we'll move on. I put the question that this bill be agreed to. Question agreed to. Bill agreed to. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. BUSINESS 94 BUSINESS Rearrangement 94 11:22 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I move: That business intervening before order of the day No. 3, Government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. CONDOLENCES 94 CONDOLENCES Brown, Hon. Robert James (Bob), AM 94 11:22 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle It is an honour to be able to rise in this chamber today to speak to a condolence motion marking the passing of the Hon. Robert James—or 'Bob', as we all knew him—Brown AM. Bob was so committed to political life that he actually served in all three levels of government. He was first an alderman and mayor to Cessnock City Council—and I know my good colleague the member for Paterson, who is in this chamber, would be all too familiar with the work of Bob Brown in her part of the world, just as we were in Newcastle. As I said, he first served in the Cessnock City Council as an alderman—as we called them in those days—and then later as mayor. He became mayor in 1968, I believe, and then he served again, a second stint, there at Cessnock council from 1974 through to 1980. He then became the state member for Cessnock, where he dutifully served from 1970 to 1980, a decade, at Macquarie Street, in Sydney. He resigned as the state member in order to contest the federal seat of Hunter, which he won. He served in this House of Representatives from 1980 to 1984, and later he was elected as the federal member for the very newly formed seat of Charlton, which he held until he retired in 1998. I'm sure there are some people—perhaps my good friend sitting opposite—who might recall serving in parliament with Bob in those days. During his tenure as the federal member for both the Hunter and Charlton, Bob was elevated to the position of Minister for Land and Transport under the Hawke and Keating governments from 1988 through to 1993. He was a lover of the Land and Transport portfolio and made a lot of contributions during that time—way too many to list. Perhaps some of my colleagues might go through those. In addition to his extraordinary political career, spanning all three levels of government and decades of service, Bob was also a teacher both in profession and in life. He travelled vast distances across Australia to teach. He did a placement in Deniliquin in the New South Wales Riverina area, as well as in many other local high schools. He also did a two-year stint as a deputy principal in New South Wales. Above all, Bob was such a passionate man for his community and, indeed, his family. He was involved in literally everything. I recall him being a very active member in the Lions Club and the footy club, he was a life patron of the Australian Workers Heritage Centre, he was director of the Kurri Kurri Hospital—a project I know he held very dear to his heart—and a member of the Hunter District Water Board. He even founded a local museum to preserve the rich heritage of the Hunter region, which was renamed earlier this year in his honour—and very rightfully so. In 2007 he was named in the Queen's Birthday honours for his service to the Australian parliament, particularly in the area of transport policy and for his service to the community of the Hunter region through local government, his works in heritage, and his contribution to a number of sporting organisations and economics education. He was a teacher his whole life, regardless of what title or profession he held. Bob now rests with his wife, Joy, and I extend my sincere condolences to the entire family, including the grandchildren and great-grandchildren. He had a very rich and full family life indeed. Today I speak particularly to Bob's son, Brad, and his daughter, Kelly Hoare, who also served in this parliament as the member for Charlton and gave me a break as a very young woman wanting to get some experience. She took me on as a casual in her electorate office in Charlton, and I am very indebted to her for that opportunity as well. Kelly Hoare went on to succeed her father as the member for Charlton in this place. I hope that the family take some heart in knowing that our local communities and Bob's colleagues in this place are paying tribute to him but also thinking very dearly of his legacy and his family that remains with us. We have the utmost respect for Bob, his perseverance, and his unwaning dedication to politics in our region, and for that we will always be very deeply thankful. May he rest in peace. 11:29 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson It is with great sadness and great pride that I stand here today to pay tribute to Bob Brown, as he was so fondly known to all of us in our local area. I want to acknowledge my friend and colleague the member for Newcastle and say that the Browns, in their way, have touched so many of us across the Hunter. Brown is a name synonymous with the Hunter. Rather than repeat many of the facts that have been given about Bob, I'd like to share a couple of my own personal stories and interactions about him and how he influenced not only me but my community and my family Bob was born in Pelaw Main, in the now seat of Paterson, and he married and raised a family in Kurri Kurri. I remember the house where he and Joy lived with Kelly and Brad. We'd always drive past Bob and Joy's house. Bob was a teacher at Kurri high, where I went to school and where my sisters went to school. My eldest sister, Adele Johns, said that Bob was the most influential teacher in her life. And that's really saying something. Adele finished school in year 11. She didn't actually matriculate, as you did in those days. She's a little bit older than me, 18 years my senior. She went on to work and had a career. But, later in life, she went back and did an enabling program at the University of Newcastle and her HSC and qualified as a speech pathologist. But it was Bob who sparked that fire for learning, and she credits him with that. Bob used to come to our school as the federal member. I can still remember him standing in front of us all in the assembly hall on Benefactors Day, regaling us with stories of our history, what he was doing in parliament and how we mattered as kids from Kurri high. He lit that fire in me for politics. I will never, never be able to thank him enough. I was enamoured by Bob. I truly loved him. I thought he was spectacular. Then, after I was successfully elected as the member for Paterson, he continued to correspond with me. I'd see him at functions. Indeed, we were at the inauguration and blessing of the memorial gates at Pelaw Main Primary School, where he went to school. He told me so many stories about growing up in Pelaw Main. He was immensely proud of our area. He also had a great love and affection for working people, particularly those who worked in our coal industry. He was, of course, a giant of a man in terms of his intellect. Even just a few months ago, when his body—I'm sure he won't mind me saying it—was starting to fail him, his mobility was in question, but his mind was incredible. He stood at the opening of the new Sir Edgeworth David Memorial Museum at Abermain, the old school of the arts, and named every colliery and pit head that had existed. In granular detail, he gave the geology of the area. This was a man whose mind did not fail him. He was quite remarkable. I said to him that day, 'Bob, you never cease to amaze me.' And he said, 'Well, Meryl, life and learning is the thing that's amazing.' His great gift was the love of learning and passing it on to the rest of us. Bob left a long legacy in terms of his service to his community. That's absolutely undisputed. He planted the seeds and we're all now reaping the benefits of that harvest. He created in many people, not just me, a love of community and a love of service to that community, and a hunger for learning and a hunger to make our area, whatever area, better. He did that right up until his very last days. I spent time with him and Joy when he visited her nearly every day in Salamander when her health was failing. They reflected on a life of adventure across regional New South Wales as young teachers and having children, and Bob writing economics textbooks. Joy, in her own right, was a leader as well and a person of great intellect. I feel that the Brown legacy will live on not only in Kelly and Brad, who have their own wonderful achievements and their own wonderful families. It just goes to show that you can leave a lasting, deep and meaningful legacy in public life, but often in ways that you will never know or know of. May he rest in peace. Good on you, Bob. 11:35 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland I'm very pleased to make a contribution on the condolence motion for the Hon. Bob Brown AM, the former member for Charlton and Hunter. Having served in this place as the member for Charlton myself—in fact, as the last member for Charlton—I know what an honour it is to be a voice for the constituents of Charlton in this place. Unfortunately, the seat of Charlton was renamed Hunter in the 2016 redistribution, and there is no member for Charlton currently in the House. At that time, I became the member for Shortland, and my colleague the member for Hunter now represents about 55 per cent of the constituents of the old Charlton, while I represent about 25 percent, and the rest are in the member for Newcastle's electorate. Although I did not know Bob personally, his reputation precedes him. I could go to any meeting of the mighty West Wallsend branch of the Labor Party and the presence and legacy of Bob was always there. He was a fierce advocate for the working people he represented in this place, and he had an abiding commitment to the Labor movement—both its industrial and political wings. I'd like to acknowledge Bob's service at all three levels of government that we have in our federation: his time as a councillor and mayor of Cessnock; his time as state member for Cessnock; and his federal service as a member for Hunter from 1980 to 1984 and then as member for Charlton from 1984 until his retirement in 1998. Not many Australians have such a love of public service as to serve at all three levels of government. I'd also like to recognise Bob's ministerial career, serving as Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support from 1988 to 1990, and thereafter as Minister for Land Transport until 1993. Bob's service was recognised in 2007, when he was named a Member of the Order of Australia for his service to the Australian parliament, particularly in the area of transport policy; to the community of the Hunter region through his local government, heritage and sporting organisations; and to economics education. Being an economist myself by training, I would say that the people of Charlton certainly benefited from having Bob in this place. I know that he wrote the economics textbook that was the official textbook for the New South Wales school system. His commitment to his community and the great Australian Labor Party was evident from his first speech in this House, on 2 December 1980, when he said: May I say how privileged I feel in the first place to be able to represent the electors of Hunter and people in the wider community as the member for Hunter. I am proud to represent people with whom I have been personally associated for so long. I am here to represent people to whom I feel personally and politically committed because of their allegiance and loyalty to the Australian Labor Party and to the aspirations of the Labor movement. I also note his selfless commitment to the party, when after the sweetest victory of all— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 11 : 38 to 11 : 5 5 Mr CONROY 249127 As I was saying, Bob Brown's dedication to his constituents was further evidenced in his statement outlining his reasons for standing aside from the ministry in 1993, where he said: I will have the opportunity to concentrate on my own electorate and on some areas of special interest. I express my appreciation to the ALP members and to my constituents in the Charlton electorate for their continued support and loyalty. Mr Deputy Speaker, it won't shock you to know that members of the Australian Labor Party are dedicated to the cause of the labour movement and for workers' ability to collectively organise for decent pay and conditions. We will always fight for the rights of workers, and Bob Brown certainly exemplified this. Bob Brown, when talking about the waterfront dispute in 1998, told parliament: Scabs are people who betray their fellow workers. They sabotage industrial action which is taken by organised workers to improve their circumstances, consolidate their gains or protect their wages and conditions. Scabs are thieves who try to improve their own position by stealing from other workers. They steal their jobs and their incomes and, in the process, seek to feed their own families with food they steal from the tables of others. I would be interested in knowing what Bob would say about the current conflict with GrainCorp in the port of Newcastle who are looking at using strikebreaking workforces during their negotiations of the new enterprise agreement right now. In the same speech, Bob went on to refer to the often violent birth of the Australian trade union movement, where workers were shot and killed by police at coalmines and wharves, and said: To those who say those events were long ago, I say that we have recently seen the vile images of balaclava hooded thugs in black suits with their rottweilers, alsatians and mace sprays, as well as the darkened buses with the shrouded windows smuggling scabs on to the wharves and the mine sites. They are foul, vile, gut-wrenching images that despoil our humanity. This passion was a product of the minefields and the coalfields of the Hunter Valley, where workers risked their livelihoods and often their lives to advance conditions such as workplace safety, where workers were shot and maimed and, in one instance, killed for taking industrial action to protect the community. This is where Bob came from, and Bob lived those values each and every day on this planet. Bob's passion for the rights of workers to collectively bargain is incredibly evident in those words. I also want to reflect on and pay tribute to Bob's activism in the movement against the Vietnam War. In recognising the service of his predecessor, Bert James, Bob stated in his first speech: Bert James was one of the most forthright and courageous members of the Federal Parliament and, among many of those great issues which he pursued, probably the most courageous stand which he adopted was in relation to the horrific experience of the Vietnam War. The position which Bert James adopted has been completely vindicated. There is no one today in the Australian community who is not aware of the fact that Australia became involved in the Vietnam War on the basis of lies and deceit. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 11:59 to 12:13 Mr CONROY 249127 I was providing a quote from Bob Brown on his predecessor Bert James: Bert James was one of the most forthright and courageous members of the Federal Parliament and, among many of those great issues which he pursued, probably the most courageous stand which he adopted was in relation to the horrific experience of the Vietnam War. The position which Bert James adopted has been completely vindicated. There is no one today in the Australian community who is not aware of the fact that Australia became involved in the Vietnam War on the basis of lies and deceit. The detail, brutality and futility of that war will stand as a permanent indictment of those shameful people who perpetrated it. It was one of the most brutalising experiences in the history of mankind. I refer to Vietnam and the antiwar movement because of feedback I received from my friend and fellow branch member the former member for Wallsend John Mills. John stood against Bob in the preselection for the seat of Hunter in 1980, and John recalls that Bob was something of a hero locally in the late 1960s because of his brilliant organising and activism, particularly in organising marches against the Vietnam War around the Hunter. I will end my contribution by sending Bob's family my condolences and also our best wishes and thanks for his service. To his daughter, Kelly Hoare, who also served as the member for Charlton, his son, Brad, and all his grandchildren and great-grandchildren, you can be rightly proud of this truly wonderful man whose service to the parliament of Australia we honour today. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 I understand that it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places, and I ask all those present to do so. Honourable members having stood in their places— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 I thank the Federation Chamber. 12:15 Ms SCRYMGOUR F2S Lingiari I move: That further proceedings be conducted in the House. Question agreed to. Gorbachev, Mikhail Sergeyevich 97 12:16 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon On 30 August the last leader of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, died in Moscow at the age of 91. Those who remember or have heard about how tense the late Cold War was in the seventies and eighties may remember Gorbachev as the fearsome name and face of the USSR. It is important to note that Gorbachev, a Communist Party faithful who rose to be general secretary in 1985, was no pushover or pro-Western, as critics have claimed. Gorbachev did all he could to preserve and expand the power of the Soviet Union. When he spoke of restructuring Moscow's foreign policy and its economy, and bringing transparency to its society, Gorbachev envisaged the Soviet party state that had emerged from the 1917 revolution growing its industry and military capabilities to keep contesting the Cold War. In 1986 Gorbachev made a landmark speech in Russia's Pacific Fleet headquarters of Vladivostok that signalled that only the tone of Russian strategic policy had changed. This speech and the constant port visits of Soviet submarines into the South Pacific sent shockwaves through Canberra. Many of our hard-nosed defence planners worried that the Soviet Union had overcome Australia's area denial strategy in the Pacific. But, as we know from history, Gorbachev's social and economic reforms unleashed forces that had long been heavily repressed by the brutal hand of the Soviet state. Gorbachev's legacy is defined by what he did next. When the non-Russian peoples of the Soviet Union began agitating for independence, Gorbachev, a committed Leninist, hesitated. At first, protesters were violently repressed in Georgia, but when the contagion of freedom which he had caused spread to the Baltic states, Gorbachev backed down. The Baltic states are free today thanks to this decision. He resisted the pressure from his security apparatus, and every instinct of the Soviet state to crush any open threats to the party's monopoly over power. Russian nationalists to this day resent this decision for destroying Russia's sphere of influence in Europe and for fatally undermining the Soviet Union itself. But from my perspective Gorbachev should also be remembered as a proponent of freedom who helped to end the costly Cold War. Gorbachev would later visit Australia in 2006 to lobby the Howard government to sign the Kyoto protocol. We know from our former ambassador to Russia Peter Tesch, who bought him his first Akubra, that Gorbachev was curious about Australia's prosperous, multicultural society that didn't throw its weight around against its neighbours. Mikhail Gorbachev remains a divisive figure amongst Westerners, Russians and Ukrainians. Gorbachev's memory is painful for many Ukrainians because of his share of responsibility in the 1986 Chernobyl disaster and because he endorsed Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea. But we also know from witnesses that, to his dying day, Gorbachev was crushed by the war in Ukraine—as all of us are in this place. As the war escalated earlier this year, a sick Gorbachev called for an end to the hostilities. Among his remarkable acts of statesmanship and courage was his decision to unilaterally withdraw half a million Soviet troops from Germany and eastern Europe. That's a force eight times the size of the ADF. He chose to withdraw them rather than unilaterally keeping Soviet forces dominating half of Europe, as many of his advisers wanted to do. Those who criticise him in modern Russia say that Gorbachev was tricked by the West into selling out Russia's interests. But, in a 2014 interview, Gorbachev, who was himself closely involved in these negotiations with the US, rejected the idea that the West had deceived him into withdrawing troops. Still, Gorbachev was given no state funeral in Russia. But, as we remember his life, let us keep in mind not only his contribution to the only period in history in which Russians briefly tasted real freedom for one generation; let us also remember his lasting contribution to international peace and security, and to Australia's security by extension of that. Dmitry Muratov, a Nobel Peace Prize winner who knew Gorbachev well, recalled that he refused to press the nuclear attack button even for simulated attacks during training. We can only hope that this spirit will guide the leaders of nuclear weapons states who weigh such huge responsibilities. Vale, Mikhail Gorbachev. 12:22 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to commemorate the life of Mikhail Gorbachev and the remarkable things that happened, particularly at the end of his tenure as the chairman of the Politburo and leader of the USSR. It is in the context of the very heartbreaking circumstance in the former USSR that we see before us right now—the Russian aggression and invasion of Ukraine, and the circumstance in that part of the world, which is very disappointing. It didn't have to be that way, because the opportunity was there when the Iron Curtain fell, and then when the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics disintegrated into the constituent parts and became various forms of new democracies, for Russia, in particular, to have followed the path of countries like West Germany and Japan, which, having been adversaries to the peaceful Western world order, have now joined it and are some of the strongest members of it. What a different place the planet would be right now if Russia had followed the path of the now united Germany—West Germany for a long period of time, until the fall of the Berlin Wall—and Japan. That is the great lost geopolitical opportunity that the United States, in particular, and the Clinton administration have to bear responsibility for. It is heartbreaking that that moment of excitement at the fall of the Soviet Union has resulted in a very different outcome. Nonetheless, Gorbachev was—I was reflecting on this just a moment ago—probably the last significant global figure of the 20th century who was involved in events like the Cold War who has finally passed away. It's an opportunity to reflect on him but also on that era. I was born in 1983, so I don't remember those things in real time, but I know through studies and an interest in global politics, which we all invariably have if we end up serving in the federal parliament. That era that Gorbachev was a part of was a remarkable period of time—a relieving period of time. A previous contribution, from the member for Solomon, pointed out the very different way in which things could have transpired if Gorbachev had been a different type of person to the one he was. He was not to be universally admired, and things happened on his watch and under the regime that he led that were deplorable and disgusting, including, clearly, acts of violence by the regime that he headed, and the death of innocent people. But, comparatively, we're very lucky that Gorbachev became the General Secretary of the Communist Party, and we're very lucky that, compared to what others in that same position could have done, he saw the peaceful destruction of that Communist regime and, therefore, the end of the Cold War-the end of a period in which the spectre of nuclear war was ever present in people's minds until that point. Even though we unfortunately still have nuclear weapons and worst-case scenarios present here in 2022, there certainly was a dramatic de-escalation, thanks to Gorbachev's engagement and involvement with President Reagan, in particular, in the nuclear stockpiles and defensive build-up of the USSR, and, commensurately, of the United States—and from us being in a situation with those two powers constantly and very closely potentially triggering one another for the unthinkable to unfold. That never happened, thankfully. Thanks to Gorbachev, the risk of those two powers ultimately triggering something like that event disappeared when one of the two potential trigger fingers was gone. So I pay tribute to Gorbachev and the impact that he had on the 20th century. I'm very pleased that he became the leader and led, particularly through perestroika and other measures, the destruction of that Communist regime. I note the bitter disappointment that what could have come out of that—a Russian democratic republic that was a member of the Western world, seeing its future through free and open trade, economic advancement and democracy, and being a part of a responsible world order—did not manifest. That's not really Gorbachev's fault, because it could have occurred. Disappointingly and depressingly, it did not, and we see the unfortunate reality of that with what's happening in Ukraine. But we should still pay tribute to him, with the very significant caveat that there were a lot of things that he was associated with that we should also deplore and criticise. Nonetheless, he was one of the great figures of the 20th century, and I indeed pay tribute to his legacy today. Debate adjourned. ADJOURNMENT 99 ADJOURNMENT Health Care 99 12:29 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley Universal access to health care is something that Australia and Australians have been proud of for many, many decades, but no-one can deny that that important principle is under extreme stress in our country right now—stress which predates the pandemic but was exacerbated by it and which requires both systemic and localised interventions. I'm very proud to be part of a federal Labor government that is willing to roll up its sleeves and take on that challenge, because it is part of our commitment to a fairer, more equal society and to not leave anyone behind. We know it is harder than it has ever been before to access a bulk-billing local GP, and for most people it's almost impossible to have a regular bulk-billing GP to look after their health needs, even if they have a chronic health need. One of the changes that have already been implemented in the first 110 days or so of this new government is an election commitment that my community of Dunkley fought very hard to get, which is to change the distribution priority area allocations so that our community's general practices can now more easily recruit doctors to work in our outer suburban electorate. It means that locals needing to see a doctor will be able to access health care when they need it. For the clinics, particularly those operating in areas like Carrum Downs, Karingal and Langwarrin, the change in classification will give them more opportunities to recruit and retain doctors. As a government, we're also strengthening Medicare and the PBS so that more people can afford the medications they need to stay healthy. The burden of worrying about the price of accessing sometimes life-saving or life-extending medication will be significantly reduced, which is so important right now with the cost-of-living pressures that are on everyone but that impact even more on people who are already struggling to make ends meet. The legislation introduced yesterday, the National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill 2022, will mean that, for the first time in its 75-year history, the maximum cost of general scrips under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme will fall. It is truly great news for so many people living in my community, a wonderful area with wonderful people but a community that struggles with rates of chronic disease that are higher than those in other communities across Victoria and, in many cases, across the country. This legislation means that someone taking one medication a month will save $150 every year. A family with two or three medications will save between $300 and $450 a year, not an insignificant amount for many families in my community. The maximum cost to general patients for PBS medications has doubled since 2000, and there had been no help before this federal Labor government was elected. The ABS advises that the high cost of medicines meant close to one million Australians delayed or didn't fill their medication prescriptions in 2019-20. That's why these changes are important, and it's why we are making them—to put about $200 million back in the pockets of Australians every year and to make sure that people who regularly need to take medications can take them and not then worry about how they're going to put food on the table or buy schoolbooks, school shoes and sporting equipment for their children. We know those are some of the decisions that people often face, particularly women. I'm very proud to be part of an Albanese government that is making medicines cheaper, making it easier to get bulk-billing GPs and making it easier for people like Stella in my electorate—an excellent young woman who has type 1 diabetes—to be able to afford CGM technology. These are the sorts of things that truly change people's lives, and we have to keep doing more of this and the systemic changes that I know are to come for a better, healthier, fairer society. Broadband 100 12:34 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan During my election campaign and in the months since the election, numerous residents in the seat of Ryan have reached out to me with their problems with getting decent broadband internet to their home. I spoke to some residents recently who, while paying for 140 Mbps speeds, are likely to get 30 to 60 Mbps and they experience repeated dropouts of five or more minutes every single day. I have spoken to locals in Ryan from Kenmore, Kenmore Hills and Chapel Hill who are working from home as software developers and as researchers. We have locals trying to run small businesses out of their home. They all rely on this crucial infrastructure for their livelihood and to contribute to our society and economy. But they are struggling because, when the NBN was rolled out, it was delivered as fibre to the node not to the premises. Data travels rapidly along good quality broadband infrastructure until it reaches a node, say 100 metres from someone's house, after which it hits ancient and slow copper infrastructure that basically renders the new infrastructure useless. Upgrades to the premises are taking place around the country; yet places like Kenmore Hills aren't on the list, and locals want to know why. When locals have asked NBN Co if they could have this upgrade done, they were told that they would have to pay $14,000, at a minimum, each. The electorate of Ryan needs a comprehensive rollout of the upgrade to FTTP, and they need it now, and it shouldn't come out of the pockets of everyday locals. I think it's a national disgrace that we have such abysmal internet and that we treat our citizens, who simply want the basics they need to operate in the modern world, like they are asking for some kind of luxury good. New Zealand has better internet speeds than Australia, as does China, India and Kazakhstan. So how is it that we in Australia, one of the wealthiest countries in the world per capita, have some of the worst internet going around? We all remember how the Liberals under Malcom Turnbull torpedoed the NBN when they ripped up the original plan of delivering fibre to the premises and replaced it with the significantly inferior fibre-to-the-node model—and now we're paying the price. But the problem runs deeper than that. When Labor initiated NBN Co, they tried to move the expenditure for it off the government's books. So they set it up as an independent commercial entity with a corporate structure ready for privatisation that had to partially finance itself through borrowing on the private markets. This led NBN Co to become a particularly profit-hungry entity, having to begin generating significant revenue well before it even finished its initial rollout. NBN CEO, Stephen Rue, makes $3 million a year and the chairman of the NBN board is the previous CEO of Telstra. It sounds a bit like a corporation to me. And that is what people in Ryan have told—that interacting with NBN Co feels like interacting with the most opaque and inhuman private corporation. If you wanted to look back further, you could say that the privatisation of Telstra that was prepared by Labor under Keating and completed under Howard laid the foundation for this terrible mess. If Telstra had remained a genuine public entity, we could have rolled out high-quality broadband through Telstra in a planned way where no-one was left behind and nothing was done on the cheap. That is the past, though. How do we fix this tangled web of telecommunications errors now? Firstly, we need an immediate speed-up of the NBN fibre-to-the-premises upgrade, with more investment and a commitment to total coverage. Suburbs in my electorate like Kenmore Hills need to be put on the rollout plan and they need to be given a clear time frame. Secondly, we need to do away with the idea that the corporate model is the best vehicle for delivering key infrastructure. While, the government have said that they have shelved the idea of privatising the NBN for now, it is little comfort when NBN Co acts like a giant company already. I think key infrastructure like telecommunications needs to be in public hands and not run for profit. It needs to be properly funded and democratically accountable. Robertson Electorate: Surf Lifesaving Clubs 101 12:39 Dr REID 300126 Robertson The Central Coast is home to some of the most spectacular beaches in the entire country—and I would go as far as to say the planet. These beaches, rich in natural beauty, represent relaxation, fun and happy memories. I'm sure that many of the members here today in the chamber can think of a time from their childhood, or even more recently, when they have enjoyed all that our glorious beaches have to offer. Yet these very beaches, which represent so much happiness, can also become dangerous environments for visitors and swimmers, especially to those people unfamiliar with the beach or with limited knowledge of the constantly changing water conditions. I am very proud of the many surf life saving clubs across Australia, especially in my electorate of Robertson, that ensure visitors to our pristine and magnificent beaches are kept safe and out of danger. In the Central Coast region there are approximately 15 surf life saving clubs, all with their own unique challenges and advantages. In total, there are 8,332 active members of Surf Life Saving Central Coast. I would like to particularly acknowledge Club of the Year for 2022, and my former Nippers club, Umina Beach SLSC, who were awarded this title because of their continued demonstration of excellence in governance, life saving, education, membership and surf spots. Umina SLSC were followed by Avoca Beach Surf Life Saving Club, who took out second place. In the electorate of Robertson, we are home to nine of these clubs, from Umina Beach, Ocean Beach and Killcare in the south, to Macmasters Beach, Copacabana and Avoca in the middle, to North Avoca, Terrigal and, finally, Wamberal in the north. Every summer, volunteers from all nine of these surf clubs patrol, ensure safety and provide rescue operations when the call arrives. Without these brilliant and hardworking surf life saving clubs, our beaches would be very different places to be and a lot less safe for swimmers. To all our courageous and tireless surf life saving volunteers, a big thankyou from me, the people of Robertson and the people of Australia. Your service is so appreciated and never goes unnoticed. I'm pleased to be a member of the Parliamentary Friends of Surf Life Saving and to join with parliamentary colleagues to support the efforts of surf life saving clubs and surf life savers across our great country to improve the relationship between government and these clubs. Further, I was honoured yesterday to be given the privilege and the honour of presenting life savers from Robertson, from the Avoca Beach Surf Life Saving Club, with special certificates and recognition after a heroic rescue operation that occurred at the start of this year. On Saturday 15 January 2022, five- to eight-foot waves, strong currents and onshore winds made Avoca Beach hazardous. A group of four swimmers lost their footing and were swept out to sea. Surf life savers responded immediately, entering the water on rescue boards to retrieve the swimmers. A fifth patient was then seen struggling to keep their head above water and was swiftly rescued, as a further three swimmers became caught in the rip. More swimmers were rapidly being swept into danger at various locations along the beach. With each rescue board supporting up to four patients, the surf life savers worked hard to keep the patients safe and calm until the IRB could transport them back to the beach. In total 14 people were rescued by surf life savers. Without their vigilance, bravery and coordinated efforts, the outcome could have been multiple fatalities. I thank every life saver that took part this rescue operation and commend the club on ensuring that no fatalities were recorded on this day. My thanks go to the following Avoca Beach SLSC life savers who took place in the rescue: Brett, Peter, Vincent, Paul, Andrew, Andrew, Chris, George, Stuart and Lynette. I look forward to visiting the Avoca Beach Surf Life Saving Club and personally thanking the hardworking and dedicated members who were not able to be recognised yesterday. Finally, in this coming summer season, remember, if you're at the beach, please swim between the red and yellow flags. Child Sexual Abuse 101 12:44 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe I'm going back a long time, to when I was a detective at the Boronia criminal investigations branch, but I will never forget every Monday morning. When you came in, you would speak to the weekend crew to see what jobs they'd had, and every single Monday morning, tragically and sadly, there'd been a sleepover or an event where a young child had been sexually abused. It was very sad, obviously, for investigators, but you cannot ever imagine what the poor victims and their families had been through. Back in 2019, the home affairs minister at the time—and a former police officer too—and now Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, raised the issue of the need to have a national child sex offender register. Subsequently, in my role as assistant minister for community safety, I took over the fight to ensure we could do everything possible to have measures in place to protect our most valuable asset—our children. There's always been this view—even in law enforcement—when this has been raised, that it's mainly strangers who commit these abhorrent crimes. I knew better, from my days as a detective. There's also been a view that we don't want vigilante groups going after child sex offenders, which, obviously, is fair and reasonable. It was at one of the police and emergency management meetings I went to with police ministers and attorney-generals where we got agreement to base it on evidence. If there was evidence there, the various states and territories would look at this, and, hopefully, then support the need for a national child sex offender register. So I was able to commission a great group of men and women to conduct research into repeat child sex offenders, and this was led by Dr Rick Brown and Anthony Morgan, research manager and the author of the report. I very much thank the Queensland, Victoria, New South Wales and WA governments, who provided that data. Sadly, Canberra's data was so low it couldn't even be used. South Australia couldn't provide data at all. It was the same with the Northern Territory and Tasmania. The data looked at offences committed by a child sex offender—and alleged offences were included—between 2005 and 2014, followed by a subsequent offence between 2015 and 2019. Over that four-year period, there were 1,321 alleged child sex offenders who committed a repeat offence, against another victim, and there were 1,780 victims abused, aged 15 years and younger. There has always been a view that these offences occur at parks et cetera. Sixty-six to 82 per cent of these 1,780 offences occurred in residential locations. Fifty-one to 61 per cent of these offences involved a family member or a person known to the victim. It could be, as I said, a sleepover; it could be someone who's visited. The rates of reoffending were seven per cent or more, up to 11 per cent, and the offences were committed over a 10-year period. Lastly, the offenders nearly always knew their victims, and the average age and sex of the victims was an 11-year-old girl. I'm calling on the Albanese government—I know that every member in this place would hate to see children being abused. But, sadly, we cannot provide information to, say, a mother in a relationship with a new partner—allowing that new person to get into their home and have access to their children. That's precisely—when I was talking to Dr Rick Brown—what these offenders are doing. They're making the most of opportunities; they're being predators. What we need now is the leadership to go and look at a program, or look at what they do in the UK—it's based on Sarah's Law—where an application is made, and the police undertake an interview with the person making the application to determine what information should be provided. It's all done to protect children. I strongly urge this new government to support this proposal. Mental Health 102 12:49 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore Today is R U OK? day, a day to check in on your mates and a day to remind us that mental health matters. Mental health support is something that I am passionate about because I know how important it is to our community. Mental health in regional and rural areas is always more acute than in the cities. Among a range of reasons driving this is that traditionally we have less access to services or more difficult access to services. That's why I have been working hard for years to improve access to mental health services in my electorate of Gilmore on the New South Wales South Coast. Dealing with drought, then record-breaking bushfires, a pandemic and flood after flood has been particularly tough on the mental health of our community. And young people have been hit hard by this. Before the 2019 election, I committed to a full headspace for Batemans Bay. I've had years of seeing the amazing difference the Nowra headspace makes to the lives of young people in the Shoalhaven, so I've been a big champion of this service. In the wake of the 2019-20 bushfires, I pushed the former government to bring that funding forward, with an interim service opening soon after in Batemans Bay. I was delighted to officially open the full Batemans Bay headspace in April last year, and I regularly visit to see how things are going. I'm really proud of it, and I know it is making a big difference to the lives of local young people. The last time I was there, I took the new Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention along with $1.2 million to help reduce wait times. I thank the assistant minister for her support of the service. I'd also like to thank all of the wonderful headspace support workers on the ground helping young people in need. Your work is invaluable; thank you. My passion for improving mental health services for local young people hasn't stopped. At the last election, I promised another headspace for the Kiama community. Kiama is a beautiful regional town in the north of my electorate, which has devastatingly seen a string of local youth suicides during COVID. It's heartbreaking. We need to be stepping up support for young people in this community. Since the election, I've been meeting with the health minister and the CEO of headspace to make sure that this commitment for a headspace in Kiama stays front of mind. It takes some time for these centres to get up and running, so I'm working closely with the minister to ensure the funding is released as soon as possible. And I'm really pleased to say that that is progressing. I thank the minister for that. Thank you also to everyone in the community who has advocated for this service and has worked with me to secure this commitment. I'm looking forward to delivering a headspace for Kiama this term. I mentioned the floods earlier. My electorate has been hit hard by successive natural disasters over the last few years. We've had two disaster-declared floods this year alone, in March and in June, and we are still cleaning up from these. Many local communities still don't have full road access to their homes, with landslides across the South Coast doing serious damage to our road network, and it's taking time to get that fixed. I'm working closely with the councils on that, and the Australian government is providing funding support for this as well. But the impact is still being felt, and it is yet another drain on the mental health of our community. I was really delighted that the Albanese government is delivering a further $450,000 to the South Eastern New South Wales Primary Health Network to support the mental health and wellbeing of our community. Funding will go towards an emergency response coordinator who will work with primary and mental healthcare providers and relevant agencies to make sure local people have access to support services. The PHN will also pleasingly deliver small community connectedness and recovery grants of up to $10,000 to build resilience and social connectedness. On R U OK? day, as with every day, supporting the mental health of the South Coast community is front of my mind. I will keep working closely with the relevant ministers to continue improving our mental health services and recover from our seemingly never-ending string of natural disasters. And I encourage everyone to ask your mates today, 'R U OK?' Sometimes, just knowing a friend is there can make all the difference. Banks Electorate: Community Organisations 103 12:54 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks Lugarno Football Club is a mighty institution in our electorate, and on Saturday 23 July it was great to attend its 60th anniversary dinner at the Conca D'Oro in Riverwood. Established way back in 1962, it is one of the biggest clubs anywhere in the St George region, with well over 500 players, from under-sixes to over-45s. It is great to see an increasing number of women and girls participating in the Lugarno football club every year. That number continues to grow. In particular, it was great to acknowledge Sue Dick on the night. She really personifies everything that is great about Lugarno FC. It was also great to see Michael Jarevski, the president, and so many other members of the executive and families who have an association with the club. Lugarno FC, congratulations on a great 60 years. On 2 September I caught up with the Revesby Rhinos at their home ground down at Neptune Park in Revesby Heights. It's a beautiful spot and a great home ground for the club. The club has grown significantly in recent years. There are now 10 teams, all performing well, with three making the finals this year. Recently the club received a $7,500 grant through the Stronger Communities Program, which I was very pleased to be able to assist with. That's gone into purchasing a second-hand copy machine, additional storage, a freezer and an EFTPOS machine—all those practical things that make a difference for the club and the families associated with the club as they gather each weekend. It was really good to see Paul Sawaqed, the president. I'd like to also acknowledge Wayne Hunter, the vice-president, and Rita Sellars, the secretary. It is a club on the up and up, and it was really good to visit. South Hurstville Carss Park Cricket Club has perhaps one of the most beautiful grounds anywhere in Sydney and probably anywhere in Australia, right on the bay at Kogarah Bay. It was great to go down there recently with Sandra McDonald, the very energetic junior secretary of the club, and talk a bit about some of the issues down at Carss Park. The reality is that the field is not in good enough condition. There are a whole range of problems with the pitch and with the playing field generally, and it is important that Georges River Council take action to address those problems, because this is a wonderful club with close to 200 players and they deserve to play in good conditions. They have a beautiful location, but the field does not match the location at the moment. So that needs to be fixed, and I look forward to continuing to work with Sandra and the club. I thank and congratulate the club for all of its work supporting young cricket players in the region. St Christopher's Catholic Primary School is a wonderful school, and on 17 August I attended their science fair. It had been postponed for a couple of years because of COVID, because you couldn't really have those sorts of events, so it was really terrific to visit the science fair on 17 August. The theme was real-world water problems impacting our environment. The kids did some really interesting and thought-provoking displays about environmental issues, including the importance of conserving and protecting water and ensuring that it is there not just today but in the decades and centuries to come. It was really terrific to visit. The St Christopher's community is a special one, and it was great to go down there. I'd like to acknowledge Warren Loy, the principal; Brooke Watson, the assistant principal; and Charlotte Garner, a teacher who had a huge role in organising what was a very successful event. Lily Monteverdi School of Music has a proud history of providing music to our community. The school specialises in violin, viola, cello, flute, clarinet, piano and guitar, and it teaches students to a very high standard. There's an annual concert. It's been at the Sydney Conservatorium of Music in some years. I believe it's at the Sydney Opera House this year. It really reflects the stature of Lily Monteverdi, a terrific local group with more than 200 people, mainly kids, who are learning the beauty of music through their instructors at Lily Monteverdi. I'd like to thank Lily Su, the head teacher and director; Monty Guo and Verdy Guo, who are also heavily involved in the school; and everyone who's involved in Lily Monteverdi. Question agreed to. Federation Chamber adjourned at 12:59