2022-09-28 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Wednesday, 28 September 2022

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

CONDOLENCES 1 CONDOLENCES Charles, Uncle Jack 1 Reference to Federation Chamber 2 09:14 Mr BURKE DYW Watson by leave—I move: That further statements in relation to the death of Uncle Jack Charles be permitted in the Federation Chamber. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 3 COMMITTEES Selection Committee 3 Report 3 09:14 The SPEAKER 53517 I present report No. 3 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of bills. The report will be printed in the Hansardfor today. Copies of the report have been placed on the table. The report read as follows— Report relating to the consideration of bills introduced 1 August 2022 to 28 September 2022 _______________________________________________________________________ 1. The committee met in private session on 27 September 2022. 2. The committee determined that the following referrals of bills to committees be made— Joint Standing Committee on Migration: • Ending Indefinite and Arbitrary Immigration Detention Bill 2022 THE HON D. M. DICK MP Speaker of the House of Representatives 28 September 2022 BILLS 3 BILLS National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 3

National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022

First Reading 3 Second Reading 3 09:15 Mr HWG Isaacs DREYFUS (—) (): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Ahead of the election on 21 May the Australian Labor Party pledged that if the Australian people gave us the honour of governing this nation, we would repay their trust by returning integrity, honesty and accountability to government. Labor told Australians that if we were elected we would legislate a national anticorruption commission this year. Today we honour that commitment. Today I bring to the parliament a bill to establish a powerful, transparent and independent national anticorruption commission. The former government promised to establish a Commonwealth integrity commission. It proved to be an empty promise, because they never brought a bill before the parliament. This government takes its commitments seriously. And we're serious about restoring trust and integrity to government. This legislation delivers the single biggest integrity reform this parliament has seen in decades. It honours our commitment to Australians in both form and substance. The design principles we announced before the election are the design principles of the bill before the House. These design principles were developed with some of Australia's leading integrity advocates. They were endorsed by the Australian people at the election. I'm also pleased to say that the design principles have been endorsed by many crossbench members in this House and in the other place. The National Anti-Corruption Commission The National Anti-Corruption Commission will operate independently of government and have broad jurisdiction to investigate serious or systemic corrupt conduct across the Commonwealth public sector. It will have the power to investigate ministers, parliamentarians and their staff, statutory officer holders, employees of all government entities, and contractors. It will have discretion to commence inquiries on its own initiative or in response to referrals from anyone, including members of the public and whistleblowers. Referrals can be anonymous. It will be able to investigate both criminal and non-criminal corrupt conduct, and conduct occurring before or after its establishment. It will have the power to hold public hearings. It will also have a mandate to prevent corruption and educate Australians about corruption. A parliamentary joint committee will oversee the commission and will be empowered to require the commission to provide information about its performance. Broader integrity reforms The commission will form part of Australia's broader integrity framework. The Albanese government is committed to strengthening this framework to improve standards of integrity across the public sector. We have established robust codes of conduct for ministers and ministerial staff and we are working across the parliament to implement the Set the standard report by Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins. We are committed to enhancing transparency and integrity of political donations. In coming months I will be strengthening the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 to ensure Australia has effective protection of whistleblowers. I am also working with the Minister for Finance to ensure Commonwealth agencies take measures to prevent, detect and deal with corruption by creating new requirements in the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule. The bill The National Anti-Corruption Commission aims to eliminate corruption in the federal public sphere, and restore trust and transparency in our democratic institutions. The commission will be able to investigate serious or systemic corrupt conduct affecting any part of the federal public sector. The definition of corrupt conduct is central to the commission's jurisdiction. It is consistent with key elements of existing definitions at the state and territory level and in the Commonwealth Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006. It encompasses conduct by a public official that involves an abuse of office, breach of public trust, misuse of information or corruption of any other kind. It also includes conduct by any person that could adversely affect the honest or impartial exercise of a Commonwealth public official's functions. Other conduct that could adversely affect public administration, such as external fraud, will continue to be dealt with by existing integrity agencies. This will ensure that the commission is not diverted from its core purpose of tackling serious or systemic corruption. There are well-established and effective arrangements for dealing with fraud and other crimes that affect Commonwealth interests. For example, in the last three years, the AFP's dedicated fraud command has undertaken 261 investigations into serious or complex frauds, and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions has prosecuted over 1,400 fraud matters referred by the AFP and 30 other agencies in the same period. The commission will be the lead Commonwealth agency for the investigation of serious or systemic corruption, and will work in partnership with other agencies that form part of the Commonwealth's broader integrity framework, including the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Public Service Commission. The commission will have the power to refer corruption issues to other Commonwealth, state and territory agencies for their consideration—for example, where an issue involves broader criminality or official misconduct, that falls within the jurisdiction of another, independent investigative agency. The commission's powers and thresholds for using them The commission will have a full suite of powers similar to those of a royal commission. It will be able to use its powers to undertake an investigation into a corruption issue if the commissioner is of the opinion that it could involve serious or systemic corrupt conduct. Importantly, the commission will be able to undertake preliminary inquiries using powers to compel the production of information. This will enable the commission to determine whether an allegation could be serious or systemic. The commission will be able to hold public hearings in exceptional circumstances and if satisfied it is in the public interest to do so. The default position is that hearings will be held in private. The legislation provides guidance to the commission on factors that may be relevant to determining the public interest in holding a public hearing. These factors include any unfair prejudice to a person's reputation, privacy, safety or wellbeing if the hearing were to be held in public. These factors also include the benefit of making the public aware of corruption. Reporting At the end of an investigation, the commission will be required to produce a report containing findings and recommendations. It will be able to make findings of corrupt conduct, but not of criminal guilt as this is a matter for a court to determine. Where a public hearing has been held, a report will be tabled in parliament. Other reports will be published by the commissioner where that is in the public interest. Prevention and education functions The legislation gives the commission the function of providing education and information about corrupt conduct and preventing that conduct. The commission will provide guidance and information to support the public sector to understand the concept of corrupt conduct, and to identify and address vulnerabilities to corruption. This work will be informed by the insights the commission draws from its investigations and the intelligence it collects about corruption. The commission will also engage in broader public education about its role, corruption risks, and avenues to report corrupt conduct. The commission's independence The independence of the commission will be secured in a number of ways. The commission will be able to conduct investigations on its own initiative or in response to referrals or allegations from any source. Agency heads will be required to report any corruption issue in their agency to the commission if they suspect it could be serious or systemic. The appointment of the commissioner and deputy commissioners will be subject to approval by the parliamentary joint committee. The appointees will have limited terms and security of tenure, during that term, comparable to a federal judge. Oversight of the commission The commission will be overseen by a parliamentary joint committee, and by an inspector. The parliamentary joint committee will be multipartisan; comprising 12 members—three government, two opposition and one crossbench member from each chamber. The committee will be responsible for approving the appointments of the commissioner, the deputy commissioners and the inspector. The committee will be able to review and report to both houses of parliament on the sufficiency of the commission's budget. The committee will also be able to review the commission's performance and its annual reports. The inspector will deal with any corruption issues arising in the commission, and complaints about the commission. Protections and safeguards The legislation also ensures that there are appropriate safeguards against undue reputational damage, and provides protections for whistleblowers and journalists. Reputational safeguards There will be an express ability for the commissioner to make public statements at any time to avoid damage to a person's reputation. The commission will be able to clarify the capacity in which a witness is appearing at a public hearing. Reports on investigations will include statements that a person has not engaged in corrupt conduct or is not the subject of any findings, where that is appropriate to avoid damage to the person's reputation. The commission must afford procedural fairness to individuals or agencies who are the subject of any adverse findings it proposes to include in a report by providing them a reasonable opportunity to respond. Whistleblower protections The legislation provides strong protections for whistleblowers against adverse consequences, including criminal offences and immunities. Public officials making disclosures to the commission will also be protected under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 (the PID Act). I will also be introducing separate reforms to the PID Act to improve whistleblower protections, with the aim of having these reforms in place when the commission commences operation. Protections for journalists The protections for journalists include an exemption from answering questions or providing information that would enable the identity of a source to be ascertained. Political parties and parliamentarians Political parties and activities are an important part of our democracy, and this legislation recognises existing rules for political and parliamentary activities. The legislation makes it clear that the use of public resources to conduct parliamentary business in accordance with the Parliamentary Business Resources Acts 2017 or the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 is not within the commission's jurisdiction. It also confirms that political activities that do not involve or affect the exercise of powers or functions by a public official, or the use of public resources, cannot constitute corrupt conduct. The commission will only be able to investigate a matter that falls within the jurisdiction of the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority (IPEA) or the Australian Electoral Commission (the AEC) if IPEA or the AEC refer the matter to the commission. Before referring the matter, those authorities would need to form a view that the information raises a corruption issue that could be serious or systemic. The legislation also expressly preserves parliamentary privilege by providing that it does not affect the powers, privileges or immunities of each house of the parliament. Funding The Albanese government has committed substantial funding of $262 million over four years for the establishment and ongoing operation of the commission. This funding will ensure that the commission has the staff, capabilities and capacity to triage referrals and allegations it receives, conduct timely investigations and undertake corruption prevention and education activities. Conclusion In conclusion, I would like to acknowledge the constructive engagement on this bill from my cabinet and caucus colleagues, the opposition and crossbenchers in this House and the other place and also acknowledge the efforts of those in this House who kept up the pressure in the last parliament, particularly the member for Indi. I will shortly be moving a resolution to establish a parliamentary select committee to inquire into this bill. I do so in the spirit of cooperation and multipartisanship—my sincere hope is that this bill will benefit from scrutiny and, ultimately, gain broad support across the parliament. With this bill, the Albanese government is fulfilling its election commitment to establish a powerful, transparent and independent National Anti-Corruption Commission. In doing so, we have the support of the Australian people. I look forward to the support of this parliament. Debate adjourned. National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022 6

National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022

First Reading 6 Second Reading 7 09:32 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill makes consequential amendments to the Commonwealth statute book to support the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. This bill ensures the commission has key investigative powers, such as the ability to obtain warrants to use surveillance devices and intercept telecommunications when investigating criminal and corrupt conduct, where existing statutory thresholds are met. This is consistent with current arrangements for the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. It also ensures information can be shared with and by the commission under other acts for the purpose of carrying out its functions. The bill also repeals the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 and provides transitional arrangements for the continuation of investigations and inquiries being conducted by the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity following the establishment of the commission. The commission will be able to complete those investigations or inquiries either under the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 or under the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill if they could involve corrupt conduct that is serious or systemic. Finally, this bill gives the commission and certain state anticorruption and investigative commissions access to the industry assistance framework under part 15 of the Telecommunications Act 1997. The ability to obtain technical assistance from communication industry participants will support those agencies' exercise of investigative powers to investigate serious criminal, corrupt conduct. Debate adjourned. Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2022 7

Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2022

First Reading 7 Second Reading 7 09:34 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I move: That this bill be now read a second time. When the Albanese government thinks about renewable energy—we don't just think about sun and wind. We think about jobs and investment. That's why I am pleased to introduce the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill in the House. This is job enabling legislation. This bill underpins the offshore renewable energy regulatory framework for a new Australian industry, building on this government's strong support for renewable energy projects and critical grid infrastructure. Offshore wind has incredible potential to strengthen our economy, create jobs and opportunities for Australians, and ensure the delivery of affordable and reliable power. Renewable energy support Australia should be on course to be a renewable energy superpower—we have the raw materials and intellect to do it. But what we haven't had to date is a government committed to seeing it happen. The Albanese government is supercharging our renewables vision because we know how important it is to our future—cleaner energy, cheaper energy. It's why our plan includes 82 per cent electricity by renewables by 2030. It's why we're investing in community batteries—installing 400 around the country, so that communities can better harness the potential of solar without needing, necessarily, individual household batteries. It's why we're rolling out 85 solar banks around Australia to ensure households can benefit from rooftop solar. And it's why we're leading the way on offshore wind, putting in place the building blocks for what has the potential to be a game changing industry in our country. Offshore wind The International Energy Agency estimates that offshore wind has the potential to generate more than 420,000 terawatt hours per year worldwide, more than 18 times the global electricity demand. Offshore wind has the potential to power Australia several times over. One rotation of an offshore wind turbine has the same amount of energy that an average household solar system produces all day. Meaning that this technology has the ability to expand manufacturing and the green hydrogen industry. It's not hard to see why, since 2010, at least 150 offshore wind projects began development across the globe. Offshore wind can strengthen our energy network by complimenting onshore wind and solar generation patterns. While offshore wind generation is thriving in the UK, Europe, and the United States, this great resource is currently untapped in Australia. While we're currently behind the pack, we're not out of the race yet, and the bill enables the necessary changes to allow for licencing and construction to begin. These proposed measures will deliver investment certainty to renewable energy sector participants seeking to operate in the offshore wind environment. There are at least a dozen offshore wind projects waiting for this legislation—and the passage of this bill is the next step in regulatory consideration. Projects like Star of the South, which will deliver up to 20 per cent of Victoria's energy, have significant potential worth exploring, and my department is consulting with local communities to define job and economic opportunities, as we speak. And the opportunities are there—offshore wind has the capability to become a significant maritime employer. Energy jobs are well paid, secure jobs and this bill helps provide additional certainty to the regulatory framework. As part of our licencing framework, we will be supporting local communities to work with offshore electricity developers to get the best outcomes for their communities. Whether that's through: • Regional investment; • Employment and training opportunities; or • Greater say in the project development. Process Further to the introduction of the offshore electricity infrastructure legislative framework, consequential amendments to theCustoms Act 1901 are required to effectively manage border security risks that could arise from the installation of offshore renewable energy infrastructure in Commonwealth waters. These amendments will treat offshore renewable energy infrastructure on the same basis as sea and resource installations for customs purposes. Without legislative amendments, there is a heightened risk of offshore renewable energy infrastructure providing an illegal entry point for people and goods seeking to enter into Australia. These amendments to the customs framework will now treat offshore installations in the renewable and non-renewable energy sector on an impartial basis. This bill also makes minor administrative amendments to the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Act 2021 to ensure its effective operation as intended, further to recent Machinery of Government changes. The offshore electricity infrastructure framework enables the development of a new industry; creating jobs, strengthening our economy, facilitating a more affordable and secure energy system, and significantly boosting Australia's progress in tackling emissions and climate change. It's the start—but not the end—of our plans for offshore wind. But it's an important start. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Reform (Closing the Hole in the Ozone Layer) Bill 2022 8

Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Reform (Closing the Hole in the Ozone Layer) Bill 2022

First Reading 8 Second Reading 9 09:40 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill is part of a package of very important legislation to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Program. For more than three decades, ever since the ozone crisis emerged, this has been one of our most important pieces of environmental policy. It regulates the manufacture, import, export, use and disposal of ozone-depleting substances and synthetic greenhouse gases. And it implements our international obligations under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Kofi Annan, the former Secretary-General of the United Nations, described the Montreal protocol as 'perhaps the single most successful environmental agreement to date'. And when you look at the progress that has been achieved—taking us from the depths of fear in the 1980s, to global agreement and, more importantly, action, to relative confidence today—it's hard to disagree with that assessment. Australians my age will remember that the ozone crisis as it emerged in the public imagination was deeply concerning. It was a formative event for many people, which clarified our changing relationship with the natural world. It was also one of the first truly global environmental moments—when we realised just how interconnected we were as human beings; and when we understood our immense power to alter this planet, our home. What made it even more unsettling at the time was that this destructive power came from some of our most familiar domestic appliances. In 1974, scientists discovered that chemicals used in cans like hairspray and shaving cream—chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons—were floating into the atmosphere and breaking down the ozone layer. Obviously, that was very bad news—because it's the ozone layer that protects us from the awesome violence of the sun. As a NASA paper put it, without the ozone layer, 'the sun's intense UV radiation would sterilise the earth's surface'. Scientists knew that the situation was bad, but it wasn't until the 1980s that they learned just how bad. In 1985, a group of physicists published a paper in Nature, showing a drastic collapse in ozone coverage above Antarctica. The results were so shocking that one of the authors, stationed in Antarctica, thought his instruments were broken. As news of the ozone hole spread from scientific journals to the mainstream press, there was worldwide alarm. That's because a degraded ozone layer could: massively increase the number of people suffering skin cancer give millions of people debilitating eye cataracts impede the life cycle of plants, affecting agriculture reshape our marine ecosystems and fundamentally alter the earth's biochemical cycle. When people discovered this, it produced an understandable panic, but crucially, it also produced an unprecedented global response. It's fitting that we're introducing these bills just shortly after World Ozone Day, which was on 16 September. That day commemorates the signing of the Montreal Protocol 35 years ago. The Montreal Protocol was a truly great achievement. People at the time may have understood the seriousness of the problem, but of course understanding the seriousness of a problem doesn't always mean you get agreement about the solution. There were countries that produced these chemicals as well as the appliances that used them, like fridges and airconditioners. There were developing nations that wanted the option of producing them in the future as wealthy countries had already done. There were companies that didn't want to accept that their products were causing a global catastrophe. Some of those companies outright rejected the science. The genius of the Montreal Protocol was its ability to bring these groups together, to provide sceptical parties with alternatives to CFCs, and to establish a pathway forward that most people could live with. The protocol showed that global environmental cooperation was possible. It showed that we could overcome national self-interest and the tragedy of commons. It showed that through sensitive diplomacy we could find rational answers to our most difficult collective problems. Proudly, Australia was in the original group of countries that supported the protocol. Of course, in the face of initial opposition, it was then Prime Minister Bob Hawke and his Minister for the Environment, Graham Richardson, who moved to ratify the agreement immediately at home. We did this in partnership with other leading countries, particularly in Scandinavia but also the United States. The American president at the time, Ronald Reagan, wasn't always the most enthusiastic environmentalist. But on this issue he proved that cooperation could cut across political lines, and he helped secure the international agreement that was needed to land the protocol. In 1987, 24 nations signed on. Today amazingly, magnificently, every nation in the world, 198 nations, are parties to this agreement. Most importantly, thanks to this global effort, the ozone layer is projected to recover by the middle of the century. Because of the Montreal Protocol the hole in the ozone layer is closing. Sometimes we don't celebrate this crisis avoided because we don't acknowledge the bullet we dodged, even if it was our hard work and planning that ensured the crisis never happened. But we really should celebrate our success on the ozone layer, and we should reflect on it. If people sometimes feel despair, if they begin to feel hopeless, they should remember this: successful global action is possible. It's not just possible—we have a living example of how we have achieved global cooperation. We're still doing it. It's made a life-changing, world-changing difference. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, the Montreal Protocol will have the effect of preventing 443 million cases of skin cancer. It will save 2.3 million lives from that terrible disease and it will prevent 63 million people from developing eye cataracts. That is in the United States alone. If you think about that, on a global scale, the human misery avoided because we took this global action, you see the scale of what we have achieved. The theme of this year's World Ozone Day was 'global cooperation, protecting life on Earth'. It's appropriate, because that's what protecting life on earth requires: mature, good faith, truly international collaboration. Australia is a leader in this global effort, and we will continue to be a leader in this global effort—progressively phasing down our use of hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs. Changes in this bill lay the foundation for future initiatives to reduce synthetic greenhouse gas emissions, and to help Australia meet its 2030 Paris target. These amendments will allow for the implementation of additional measures to reduce these emissions, through regulations as appropriate. This could include actions to further reduce HFC emissions beyond what is currently in place under Australia's HFC phase-down, or to reduce emissions of other gases controlled under the legislation. This bill will support our ongoing program to protect the ozone layer. What might be less known is how it also supports our other efforts on climate change. That's because HFCs are potent greenhouse gases, up to 4,000 times more harmful to the climate than carbon dioxide. By reducing HFCs, global action following the Montreal Protocol is estimated to prevent the equivalent of 420 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere by the year 2100. This represents more than 10 years of present-day emissions from all human activities. And these reductions will prevent up to 0.4 degrees of global warming by the end of the century. Australia's action on HFCs will be an important contributor to meeting our new emissions reduction target of a 43 per cent reduction by 2030. We are on track to reach an 85 per cent reduction of HFC consumption by 2036. Australia has a strong program to protect the ozone layer and to manage synthetic greenhouse gases, and we need to keep it strong. And after years of delay on climate policy—and after experiencing natural disasters aggravated by global warming—Australians are demanding real action. That's why, as one of our first actions in this 47th Parliament, we passed legislation to increase Australia's climate ambition. I want to thank all members and senators who offered constructive support to achieve this aim. The Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Program is another example of what Australia can do to protect our climate and meet our ambitious emissions reduction targets. We have an extremely supportive industry here in Australia, who have worked alongside government to embrace alternative technologies and to manage environmentally harmful chemicals. Taking just the refrigeration and air conditioning sector, for example, Australia has a world-leading approach to managing these substances from importation, right through the supply chain and their use in the economy, and then at end-of-life. Australia has an established innovative product stewardship scheme, which collects used refrigerants and turns their potent greenhouse gases into harmless salty water. We're also partnering with industry to assist our neighbours in the Pacific, to help them phase out chemicals that deplete the ozone layer and to improve the skills of their industry: We're helping twelve small Pacific nations build their own capacity, by training local officers in industry best practice. We're offering regional nations advice and guidance on how to move to alternative technologies and alternative gases in the smoothest way possible. And we're helping our neighbours build their own systems to report and meet their international obligations. By working together, across national boundaries, we can move away from refrigerants that damage our shared environment. Australia is committed to continued global leadership on ozone layer protection. And this bill will make Australia's program even stronger. It will reduce administrative burdens on businesses and make the legislation easier to understand, reducing the opportunities for unintentional non-compliance. It will also introduce measures to modernise and strengthen enforcement powers. This bill will ensure that the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act continues to provide protection for our environment and human health, and plays a strong role in Australia's action on climate change. That's why I'm very proud to be introducing this legislation today. Debate adjourned. Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2022 11

Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2022

First Reading 11 Second Reading 11 09:58 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that cost-recovery arrangements for the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Program can continue to be effective. The bill will amend the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Act 1995 (the import levy act) to remove the levy on the import of equipment that operates using ozone-depleting substances. As a result of the successful implementation of the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances, in line with the Montreal Protocol, imports of equipment that uses these substances are now limited to exceptional circumstances where no alternative exists, such as for public safety or scientific purposes. It is appropriate not to charge a levy in those circumstances. The bill will also amend the import levy act to provide for the levy rates to be set by regulation rather than fixed in the act. The capped levy rate has been in place since 2003 and as such is not an accurate reflection of the current cost of administering this program. Removing the cap allows the levy to be adjusted periodically so that activities under the act and regulations can be fully cost recovered in the future. Following the review of cost-recovery arrangements, a logical and appropriate change to the levy rate may occur to reflect the present-day cost of administering the program. The bill will allow for the delegation of power to appropriate officials to exempt a person from paying the levy. Effective delegation is a fundamental component of good governance and risk management. Limiting delegations to officials at executive level 2 or above ensures that only persons with appropriate seniority and expertise would be exercising these powers. Debate adjourned. Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2022 12

Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2022

First Reading 12 Second Reading 12 10:01 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that cost recovery arrangements for the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Program can continue to be effective. The bill will amend the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Act 1995 (the Manufacture Levy Act) to provide for the levy rates to be set by regulation rather than fixed in the Manufacture Levy Act. The capped levy rate has been in place since 2003 and as such is not an accurate reflection of the current cost of administering the program. Removing the cap allows the levy to be adjusted periodically so that activities under the act and regulations can be fully cost recovered in the future. Following a review of cost recovery arrangements, a logical and appropriate change to the levy rate may occur to reflect the present-day cost of administering the program. The bill will allow for the delegation of power to appropriate officials to exempt a person from paying the levy. Effective delegation is a fundamental component of good governance and risk management. Limiting delegations to officials at executive level 2 or above ensures that only persons with appropriate seniority and expertise would be exercising these powers. Debate adjourned. Animal Health Australia and Plant Health Australia Funding Legislation Amendment Bill 2022 12

Animal Health Australia and Plant Health Australia Funding Legislation Amendment Bill 2022

First Reading 12 Second Reading 13 10:03 Ms 00AMR Ballarat CATHERINE KING (—) (): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Maintaining Australia's strong biosecurity status ensures our food security and protects agricultural trade. This can only be achieved through a strong government-industry partnership. One of the many ways this partnership takes effect is through the work of Animal Health Australia and Plant Health Australia. Through these bodies, the Australian government partners with state and territory governments and a number of livestock and plant industry bodies to further our shared biosecurity interests and ensure Australia's world class produce remains in high demand. Incursions of exotic animal diseases or plant pests into Australia are relatively rare, but they do have serious potential impacts. Detection of foot-and-mouth disease and lumpy skin disease in one of our nearest neighbouring nations has had the government and livestock industries on high alert. The government has taken immediate action to prevent these diseases from entering Australia, implementing the strongest biosecurity response in our nation's history. This includes our three-pronged approach of supporting Indonesia's response to both diseases with animal vaccinations and technical support, stronger measures at the border and increased preparedness here at home. Because the risk of incursion cannot be entirely mitigated. This is why governments and industry bodies partner as signatories to the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement and Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed. If the worst should happen and an exotic animal disease or plant pest should make its way into Australia, emergency eradication responses are mounted and cost-shared under these deeds to give the best possible chance of eradication. Government and industry investment can avoid significant pest or disease management cost to our producers in the longer term. Over the past few years, under these emergency response arrangements, we've been able to eradicate citrus canker and three strains of avian influenza. Varroa jacobsoni—a bee parasite—which we all know as varroa mite, was also eradicated and we are now working to achieve the same outcome for its more problematic cousin, Varroa destructor. Four kinds of biosecurity levies provide an equitable way for all producers to contribute to the cost of the biosecurity activities and eradication responses that benefit their industry. Animal Health Australia and Plant Health Australia levies fund activities such as biosecurity education, planning and surveillance, as well as AHA and PHA membership. Emergency animal disease response and emergency plant pest response levies primarily fund industry contributions to eradication responses. They can also be spent on other biosecurity activities once these financial obligations are met. An issue for Plant Health Australia member industries is that for the EPPR levy this alternative use is limited to purposes related to emergency plant pests under the plant response deed. Increasing the flexibility in how these levies can be spent to include all plant health and biosecurity activities will increase their effectiveness. This bill will achieve this by broadening the range of permissible uses for those levies. Plant industries have welcomed this change, as it will allow them to focus available funds on their industry's most pressing biosecurity needs, whether for exotic or established plant pests. However, meeting response costs remains crucial—it is the main purpose for emergency response levies—and the bill will not change that. The bill will also modernise and streamline the AHA and PHA funding legislation, including by removing redundant or duplicative provisions. For example, a complex provision for funding biosecurity related research and development activities through PHA levies will be removed in favour of using PHA's more straightforward industry planning processes. The bill will also simplify the process by which the relevant PHA industry member for a specific biosecurity levy is determined. This will reduce regulatory and administrative burden. Honey bees provide valuable pollination services to a myriad of plant industries and the honey industry's biosecurity activities are now characterised as plant biosecurity. Therefore, references to honey in the AHA act can now be removed. The bill will also allow the AHA act to facilitate the levy arrangements that are likely to be needed if other response deeds are agreed. Each of these changes will make the AHA and PHA funding legislation more effective, efficient and fit for purpose. This will strengthen the ability of industries to invest meaningfully in biosecurity and help maintain Australia's enviable position as a world-class agricultural producer and exporter. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Lifting the Income Limit for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card) Bill 2022 14

Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Lifting the Income Limit for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card) Bill 2022

Explanatory Memorandum 14 10:09 Ms RISH HWA Kingston WORTH (—) (): I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Lifting the Income Limit for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card) Bill 2022. Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Workforce Incentive) Bill 2022 14

Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Workforce Incentive) Bill 2022

First Reading 14 Second Reading 14 10:09 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Of course, it has been widely reported across the country and understood by this government that businesses across Australia are experiencing skill and labour shortages and that this is constraining productivity and economic growth. In response to these challenges many global economies are facing, the Albanese Labor government is implementing a range of policies designed to address labour market issues the country is facing to boost productivity and address underemployment. In early September at the Jobs and Skills Summit, our government announced 36 immediate actions to build a bigger, better trained and more productive workforce to help deliver secure jobs with growing wages, boost incomes and living standards and create more opportunities for Australians. If we're truly to unlock the full potential of our country and address our labour shortages, we need to take seriously that there are many who continue to be excluded from the labour force but want to join. The Jobs and Skills Summit presented an enormous opportunity to examine potential solutions, and in the lead-up to the summit the Albanese government was continually consulting across portfolios in the ways and means that we could unlock workforce participation for those who wanted to work or work more but were finding barriers or penalties for them doing so. During this consultation, stakeholders and peak bodies representing older Australians advised that many age pensioners and other pensioners over age pension age are motivated to contribute to the workforce and are an underutilised group who may be willing to assist in addressing our current shortages. At present, only around three per cent of age pensioners earn income from employment. By providing incentives and increasing opportunities to work more without penalty, even a marginal increase in the number of older Australians in work would benefit the individuals and businesses. The measures in this bill are purposefully designed to further strengthen the existing incentives for pensioners over age pension age to take up work or increase the number of hours they work if they wish to do so. Through the social security income test, with its income-free area and proportional withdrawal rate, combined with the Work Bonus, pensioners are better off financially if they earn additional income rather than relying solely on income support. Pensioners are able to earn an amount of income before their pension begins to be reduced: the income-free area. For each dollar of income over the income free area, the single pension is reduced by 50c. For a couple, each individual pension is reduced by 25c a fortnight for each dollar of income the couple has over the income-free area. In addition, the Work Bonus allows pensioners over age pension age to earn an extra $300 per fortnight from work before the income test is applied. The combination of the income-free area and Work Bonus means a single age pensioner with no other income could earn up to $490 per fortnight from work before their payment begins to reduce. Pensioners are able to build up any unused amount of the $300-a-fortnight concession in a Work Bonus income bank. This amount can be used to exempt future earnings from the pension income test. This means a pensioner could choose to do intermediate or seasonal work and still benefit from the Work Bonus. At present, the maximum Work Bonus income bank balance a person can accrue is capped at $7,800. This bill delivers on one of the key outcomes of the Jobs and Skills Summit. From commencement until 30 June 2023, age pensioners, disability support pensioners and carer payment recipients over the age-of-pension age, as well as certain veteran entitlement recipients over qualifying age will have $4,000 credited to their Work Bonus income bank for use during this financial year. The maximum Work Bonus income bank will increase accordingly, taking the maximum balance from $7,800 to $11,800 until 30 June 2023. Eligible pensioners who are currently working and have already benefited from the full value of the Work Bonus concession will have their income bank topped up by $4,000, taking it from $0 to $4,000. Eligible pensioners who do not currently work and already have the current maximum income bank balance of $7,800 will also have their income bank topped up by $4,000. Until 30 June 2023, they will be able to have a maximum income bank balance of $11,800. Because the $4,000 increase will be added to each eligible pensioner's Work Bonus income bank upfront, every pensioner will be able have an extra $4,000 of employment income disregarded from the income test from the start of this measure. The bill will also give age pensioners and those receiving the equivalent Department of Veterans' Affairs payments increased flexibility to move more easily between the pension and periods of work. Under this measure, age pensioners with employment income, whose total income exceeds their income limit, will be able to easily resume their age pension payments if they become payable again within two years, without having to do a full re-application. This legislation, once passed, will enable a streamlined, simple process to accommodate pension recipients' flexibility in their approaches and choices to work. At the moment, after 12 weeks at a nil rate of payment, those who are working can only resume their age pension payments if they complete a full re-application. This bill will allow Services Australia to suspend, instead of cancel, a person's age pension for up to two years if their payment is reduced to nil and they have some employment income. Suspending, instead of cancelling, the person from payment ensures that the person can benefit from an abridged re-application process if, at any time during the two-year period, their income is at a level where they are no longer precluded from payment. To enable a person to be paid their correct pension entitlement, the shorter, simpler process will confirm their current circumstances, including their income and assets information. This means age pension payments can be resumed quickly and effectively. In addition, we know pensioners value their concession cards, and, even if they are able to work, older Australians often have additional medical needs. To support their ongoing care and cost of living, and in addition to this bill, we are also extending the time a person can keep their pensioner concession card while their payments are suspended. The pensioner concession card provides access to a range of Commonwealth health concessions, including cheaper prescriptions under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Currently, age pensioners who earn above the income limit keep their pensioner concession card for 12 weeks. Disability support pensioners who work more than 30 hours or have income, including some from employment, above the limit retain their card for 52 weeks. This bill will increase and align the amount of time age pensioners and disability support pensioners are able to retain their concession card to two years. When a recipient of the age pension, disability support pension or certain veterans' entitlements is employed and has sufficient income that a pension is no longer payable, then they and their partner, who is also a pensioner, will both keep their pensioner concession card for two years. Both will also be able to easily resume their pension payments within the two-year period if their income reduces to the point they become payable again. We know that participating in work improves one's quality of life, with financial and non-financial benefits. For pensioners, this could mean not only getting a higher income but getting stronger social connections, keeping mentally active and keeping physically fit. Businesses also stand to benefit from the skills and experience of older Australians, particularly in the context of current labour shortages. We value the contribution that all senior Australians have made, and continue to make, to our economic and social wellbeing, and we will support those pensioners who still, themselves, wish to contribute to the workforce to do so. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (Australia-India Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2022 16

Treasury Laws Amendment (Australia-India Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2022

First Reading 16 Second Reading 16 10:20 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The bill will amend the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 to implement the agreement reached between Australia and India on 2 April 2022 as part of the Australia-India Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement. Specifically, the bill will adjust the taxation on certain payments or credits made to Indian residents providing technical services remotely to Australian customers. It aligns Australia's tax treatment of Indian residents providing technical services remotely with residents from other countries. As Australia's seventh largest trading partner, India shares a close economic relationship with Australia. This measure will further strengthen that relationship. In accordance with the trade agreement's side letters on taxation, this measure will commence on the latter of the day of royal assent and the day the trade agreement enters into force. It will apply to assessments for income years starting on or after the commencement of this amendment. It does not commence at all if the trade agreement never enters into force. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (More Competition, Better Prices) Bill 2022 16

Treasury Laws Amendment (More Competition, Better Prices) Bill 2022

First Reading 16 Second Reading 16 10:22 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill will deliver on the government's election commitment to help ease the cost of living by increasing penalties for breaches of competition and consumer laws and to provide greater protections for small businesses from unfair contract terms. Schedule 1 to the bill will increase the maximum penalty for anti-competitive behaviour under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010(CCA) as well as breaches of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL)to ensure the price of misconduct is high enough to deter unfair activity and to ensure consumers retain a robust level of protection. In 2018, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development found that the average and maximum competition penalties in Australia are substantially lower than those in comparable international jurisdictions. As a result, there is a risk that a breach of the existing competition law could be seen as an acceptable cost of doing business by some large firms. The amendments will increase the severity of Australia's penalty regime to be more comparable with international jurisdictions. As a result of this bill, we expect that, in some cases, courts will impose higher penalties for wrongdoing. We want courts to be able to ask themselves, 'Will this penalty deter lawbreaking by this company and others like it?' By strengthening penalties, Australia will be promoting competition and better corporate behaviour. Greater competition means better prices and more choice for Australian households. No business that complies with the law will face any additional compliance burden as a result of this increase in penalties. Schedule 2 to the bill strengthens the existing protections against unfair contract terms in the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001(ASIC Act). The reforms will better protect consumers and small businesses from unfair terms, by reducing their prevalence in standard form contracts. This will help to improve consumer and small business confidence when entering into standard form contracts. Consumers and small businesses often lack the resources and bargaining power to effectively review and negotiate terms in standard form contracts they are offered by a larger party. The existing unfair contract terms protections in the ACL and the ASIC Act provide that where a court finds a term is unfair, that term is void. This approach has not provided sufficient deterrence against the use of unfair terms, which remain prevalent in standard form contracts. The amendments introduce civil penalty provisions prohibiting the use of, and reliance on, unfair terms in standard form contracts. This will enable a regulator to seek a civil penalty from a court. The existing definition of an unfair term remains unchanged. The government's expectation is that regulators will continue to take a reasonable and proportionate approach to enforcing the unfair contract terms protections, including affording businesses an opportunity to respond to allegations of unfair terms before commencing any legal proceedings. The bill includes a requirement to review the reforms two years after commencement, and the government will also welcome feedback from stakeholders ahead of this review. Finally, the Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was previously notified in relation to the unfair contract terms amendments as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002. Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 17 COMMITTEES National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation Joint Select Committee 17 Appointment 17 10:27 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I ask leave of the House to amend the notice relating to the appointment of a Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation by adding the following words to the motion: (2A) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Government Whip in the House of Representatives, the Opposition Whip in the House of Representatives, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority party or independent senator or member of the House of Representatives; (2B) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee; Mr Tehan 210911 Leave is granted on the basis that the Attorney-General has given me his word that there will be no issues with this and there has been consultation. Mr DREYFUS HWG I move the motion relating to the appointment of a Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Legislation as amended: That: (1) a Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation be established to inquire into and report on the provisions of the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 and the National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022; (2) the committee consist of 12 members, three members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, two members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, one member of the House of Representatives nominated by any minority group or independent member, three senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, two senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and one senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent senator; (2A) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Government Whip in the House of Representatives, the Opposition Whip in the House of Representatives, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority party or independent senator or member of the House of Representatives; (2B) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee; (3) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives; (4) in the event that a House is not sitting and is not expected to meet for at least two weeks, the relevant whip in the House of Representatives, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, minority groups or independent senators may nominate any appointment or discharge of a member of a committee in writing to the relevant Presiding Officer. The change in membership shall take effect from the time the Presiding Officer received the written nomination. At the next sitting, the Presiding Officer shall report the change to the relevant House and the House shall resolve membership of that committee; (5) the persons appointed for the time being to serve on the committee shall constitute the committee notwithstanding any failure by the Senate or the House of Representatives to appoint the full number of senators or members referred to in this resolution; (6) members of the committee hold office as a joint select committee until presentation of the committee's report; (7) the committee elect a Government member as its chair; (8) the committee elect a member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting; (9) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote; (10) four members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include at least one Government member of either house and one non-Government member of either house; (11) the committee have power to: (a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced; (b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit; (c) sit in public or in private; and (d) adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives; (12) the committee report on or before 10 November 2022; (13) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and (14) a message be sent to the Senate seeking its concurrence in this resolution. Question agreed to. NOTICES 18 NOTICES Postponement 18 10:29 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That notices Nos 10, 11 and 12 be postponed to a later hour. Question agreed to. BILLS 18 BILLS Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022 18

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

Consideration of Senate Message 18 10:30 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I move: That the amendments be agreed to. We had a long debate in the Senate last night, a very significant debate, and I would like to thank all of those senators that contributed. There are four sets of amendments to the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022 that have come to the House from the Senate, which are agreeable to the government. Indeed, they were not divided on in the Senate last night. I will go through those sets of amendments that we're talking about right now. I must say that these amendments came from extensive consultation and the Senate committee report. I would like to thank the Chair, Senator Marielle Smith, and all the senators who worked on that report, who did a great job. The first set of amendments before us strengthen the Family Responsibilities Commission and the work they do. I would be surprised if those opposite vote against the strengthening of the Family Responsibilities Commission. These amendments to do with that group have been endorsed by the Family Responsibilities Commission themselves. The second set of amendments allows for a transition for those in the four CDC sites. They will be able to get voluntary income management to transition seamlessly on 6 March to an enhanced technological card. We heard that people wanted a seamless transition. The third set of amendments, the government amendments, allow for the Northern Territory participants on the CD card to transition to an enhanced technology also on 6 March. Finally, as moved in the Senate by Senator Rice, is the requirement for me, as minister, to table a services plan to ensure that all of the CDC sites get a services plan. Indeed, we table the costs of the CDC itself under the former government. These are sensible amendments. They do improve the bill. They are the result of listening to communities. Therefore, I commend the amendments to the House. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendments be agreed to.    

The House divided. [10:38]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

87 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. 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. Le, D. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. 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. Thwaites, K. L. Tink, K. J. Vamvakinou, M. Watson-Brown, E. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilkie, A. D. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 50 NOES Andrews, K. L. 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. Hogan, K. J. Howarth, L. R. Joyce, B. T. G. Leeser, J. Ley, S. P. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. 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. Tehan, D. T. Thompson, P. Tudge, A. E. van Manen, A. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Webster, A. E. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill 2022 36

National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill 2022

Second Reading 36 10:46 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper As a nurse, I know how difficult it can be for people to manage the health needs of themselves or their loved ones. It is complex, often tiring and often stressful to navigate managing your health or the health of your family. Often individuals have to calculate multiple health concerns, think about multiple medications, visit multiple health services. It's hard enough for many patients to remember their care regimes, let alone deal with the stressors that come with illness. They shouldn't need to deal with the further stress of financial strain on top of their illness. Of the 19 million Australians eligible for savings under this bill, people filling just one script a month could save around $150 a year. Those filling two scripts a month could save around $300 a year. That is a lot of money for say someone on the minimum wage. The bill will also allow optional discounting by pharmacies for specific PBS prescriptions via an optional reduction in the maximum price of a medicine. We recognise that it is an established practice for some pharmacists to discount medicine to at or below the current general patient co-payment. Instead of this meaning that the new co-payment price leads to an increase for some patients, these amendments will ensure that no patient is worse off. This means, for example, that Sophia, who lives with elevated intra-ocular pressure, a leading risk factor for glaucoma, will continue to pay the $27 her local pharmacy charges her for each script of her eye drops. To ensure no patient is worse off, the amount paid by the patient will still be counted towards the safety net threshold. The current system, as I said, is complex for people to navigate. Under current policy, if a patient was given 40 scripts to fill in one year and all were priced at or above the current $42.50 co-payment rate, then they would have paid $1,445 for the first 34 scripts. At that point of reaching the safety net, their additional six scripts will cost them less but will still bring their total cost to $1,485. Under our policy, if a patient had 40 scripts to fill, they could fill all of those and have spent only $1,200 in total, which means they don't reach the safety net threshold and they will have saved $285. That's a real difference to out-of-pocket costs. From 1 January 2023 this bill will enable pharmacists to continue to provide a discretionary discount for drugs with a price between the new and the old co-payments, $30 and $42.50 respectively. Establishing this discretionary discount means that Sophia should continue to pay only $27 for her tablets. This is creating real savings for families over the long term. As we know, there are so many Australians who require medication over a long period of time. Over 1.3 million Australians, more than five per cent of the population, live with diabetes. One treatment option for diabetes is a combination of pills which are on the PBS. Ann is 35, she has diabetes and she needs that medication. She has been prescribed tablets, and she has to take them every single day. This means filling 13 scripts a year at a cost of $42.50 per script. With rising costs, Ann has tried to find extra work after hours and extra days to help contribute to her medical costs. Under this bill, from 1 January 2023 Ann will only pay $30 per script, saving her $162.50 per year. Ann needs this medication so she can thrive in her day-to-day life. These are the kinds of reforms that a Labor government delivers. This is what Labor does. Having spent so much of my life in the healthcare system as a nurse, I'm proud to stand and support it here today. This bill will ease pressure on families and will do so quickly. I'm pleased to hear the debate on this issue and I look forward to hearing from others in the House and the Senate this week. I urge the opposition and the crossbench to really think about the positives in the legislation. It's important that it passes this year so that savings to households can come into effect from 1 January next year. That's a real boost to household budgets in the short term that our Labor government is pleased to be providing. The reforms are needed now. We came into government with a promise to address the issues plaguing our health system left by the previous government. We came into a government with a promise to strengthen Medicare, because we understand Australians deserve access to the medicines they need and their postcode should not determine the healthcare they get. They shouldn't have to sacrifice and scrimp to afford the medications they need to get through the day. This bill delivers on that commitment. It delivers a fairer deal for all Australians. I hope all members in this place will support it. 10:52 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar I rise to support the National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill 2022. The cost-of-living crisis is impacting Australians hard. Inflation continues to increase and is set to peak at eight per cent. Interest rates are rising, as has the cost of petrol, energy and food. The past few years and months have created the perfect storm. The price of powering a heater has surged due to a nine-year failure in energy policy by the previous government. The cost of filling up a car is almost double what it was 12 months ago. Extreme weather events have impacted our supply chains. At one stage an iceberg lettuce was nearly $12. The maximum co-payment for a medical prescription has doubled since 2000. But now things will change. As a local GP, I know that even long before the current cost-of-living crisis the cost of medications has been a major issue for many Australians, particularly for those with chronic disease, co-morbidities, or a family with a number of children. As a GP developing treatment plans for the average everyday Australian, I know that the cost of medications and therapies needs to be taken into account. By reducing co-payments for medications to a maximum of $30, down from $42.50, someone with two or three medications can save up to $450 a year. That is why I welcome the National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill. It is a small but significant and important cost-of-living measure that will support millions of everyday Australians. Over the last few weeks I have spoken to a number of pharmacists in my electorate. All welcomed this legislation. One pharmacist in particular, who owns pharmacies in both my electorate of Mackellar and in Western Sydney, expressly told me how critically important this bill will be in his Western Sydney practice. He described how it is increasingly common for customers to ask their pharmacist which medicines are the least essential, because they can't afford all of them. He told me that he believes cutting the cost of medications to a maximum of $30 a script will make a significant difference to many of his customers. Equity of access to health care is a core principal of the Australian health system. I would like to acknowledge that the former government pursued this goal by decreasing the PBS safety net threshold. This bill goes one step further by limiting the cost of each individual script for those not already on concession cards. But decreasing the cost of medicines is only a start when it comes to equity of access to health care in Australia. So I take this opportunity to call on the government to do more to make health care more accessible for all Australians. There is also a looming crisis in primary health care in this country. The cost of seeing a GP has been steadily rising for years, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to even get an appointment to see a GP, especially one that bulk-bills. The waiting times are getting longer and longer. In some rural and regional areas, the wait to see a GP, I'm told, can be months. These are significant barriers to ordinary Australians accessing health care. Just yesterday I received an email message from a constituent who said: 'I sometimes have to skip my medication to make it last longer. Getting a doctor's appointment is near impossible, especially a bulk-billed one, and paying for consultation fees isn't in the budget.' So what needs to be done in this regard? Firstly, we need to decrease the cost of seeing a GP by increasing the Medicare rebate. Following a several-year freeze of the Medicare rebate, more and more general practice owners facing increasing costs and stagnant revenue have had to adapt by introducing private billing of their patients. Most GPs in my electorate are now private billing. I was recently visited in my Mackellar office by the CEO of Cornerstone Health, a healthcare company which has the stated purpose of increasing access to quality primary health care for all Australians by providing a network of bulk-billing GP services across the states of New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria. Henry Bateman, the CEO, told me that even they, as a corporate healthcare provider, are feeling the pressure to implement a co-payment due to the long-term inadequacy of the Medicare rebate. If this were to happen, it would mean that access to bulk-billed GP services would be significantly curtailed even further. Unless there is a change, the cost of visiting a GP will become increasingly prohibitive for many, meaning millions of people will simply delay or avoid medical care. Barriers to seeing a GP have been further compounded by the chronic shortage of GPs that has been slowly growing over the past couple of decades. Deloitte Access Economics forecast that by 2030 Australia will be short 10,000 GPs across the country, or almost 25 per cent of the workforce. My electorate of Mackellar is already 17 per cent below the Australian average number of GPs per 100,000, and many doctors are not able to see new patients. Additionally, the GP workforce is an ageing one. Almost 25 per cent of GPs in my electorate of Mackellar are over 65 years old. That's a potential decrease of 25 per cent of GPs if they retire over the next five to 10 years. We simply don't have enough medical graduates undertaking general practice training. Only 15 per cent of junior doctors are specialising as GPs. We need policy measures that build on advocacy to drive this number to what the AMA believes should be 50 per cent. Both of these factors outlined above—the increasing cost to see a GP coupled with GP shortages—mean that people are instead presenting to emergency departments to get their medical care, thereby putting extra strain on an already overstretched and stressed hospital system. We also know that GPs are critical to preventive health. The problem is not going away. It is forecast to get worse. We need to act strategically now to resolve the current GP shortage before it becomes a full-blown crisis. The Royal Australian College of GPs' 'Become a GP' campaign is a start, but there need to be more incentives at a tertiary level and we need for the workplace to drive the uptake. So I applaud the Minister for Health and Aged Care, who has stated that GP shortages will be a priority for him. There is a simple policy measure similar to the PBS medications co-payment bill that, if implemented, would go a long way to solving the problem of the GP shortage—that is, increasing the Medicare rebate. This would help to address the high cost of visiting a GP while also supporting GP practices to remain viable. We are still playing catch-up from a six-year freeze—six years when the cost to doctors increased and the CPI increased. What is needed is a reasonable increase in the Medicare rebate, one that will help relieve the cost-of-living pressures of everyday Australians, by reducing GP fees, while balancing the considerations of our current national debt. That increase would also assist doctors to continue to bulk-bill and help to incentivise more new doctors to become GPs. Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend this bill to the House. Lowering the cost of medications will deliver a reduced cost of living for many Australians and improve equity of access to health care. I look forward to further health equity measures being implemented to increase access to primary healthcare services. 11:01 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I am very pleased to be speaking about the National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill 2022. I know the Speaker's chair is neutral, but I'm particularly keen to do so with you in the chair, Mr Deputy Speaker Freelander. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Thank you! Mr PERRETT HVP Australians will remember that we went to the last election with a commitment to cutting the cost of medications. The Labor Party gave a commitment that we would cut the cost of medications by reducing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme co-payment from the current maximum of $42.50 per script to a maximum of $30 per script, a reduction of 29 per cent. Under our bill—an Albanese government bill—a person taking one medication a month could save $150 per year; those people taking two medications per month could save as much as $300 to $450 each year. After nine years of neglect by coalition governments, the costs of living are soaring and many Australians are cutting back on essentials in order to make ends meet. This will be the first time in the PBS's 75-year history that the maximum cost of general scripts under the PBS will fall. Under the PBS, patients make a co-payment towards the cost of each PBS medicine, with the Commonwealth covering the remaining cost, which can vary from zero to thousands of dollars per prescription. This keeps otherwise expensive medicines affordable. Just for some history: the very first attempt to legislate for a scheme to provide approved prescription medicines, such as antibiotics, free of charge to Australian residents was made by the Curtin Labor government back in 1944. So if you're an Australian resident and you hold a current Medicare card then you're eligible to receive benefits under the PBS. Ensuring access to cheaper medicines is part of our belief that all Australians deserve access to universal, prompt and world-class medical care. No-one should have to choose between filling prescriptions for potentially life-saving medicines and providing for their families. These changes to the PBS will take effect from 1 January next year and will save Australians more than $190 million in out-of-pocket costs. The existing safety-net provisions will continue, and all scripts currently counting towards the patient safety net will continue to do so. The maximum cost to general patients for PBS medications has doubled—doubled!—since 2000. Sadly, the former coalition governments—the Abbott, Turnbull, Morrison progression—did nothing to fix this problem. Not only is this measure good for household budgets. This government knows that the health of Australians is so important because if don't have your health then everything else becomes secondary. The Albanese government understand this, and that is why we want to do what we can to make sure Australians have access to affordable medicines by listing every drug recommended by the independent experts on the PBS. We know that people are being forced to choose between filling prescriptions for potentially life-saving medicines and providing food, shelter, warmth et cetera for their families. We've heard from the Australian Bureau of Statistics that, because of the high cost of medications, nearly one million Australians delayed or didn't fill their prescriptions for medication in the 2019-20 year. Think about that for a moment. Nearly one million Australians—they could be your grandparents, your neighbours, your family, our children. One million Australians who were prescribed medicines by qualified doctors because they were sick were then not able to take that same medication, because they could not afford to do so. We know what not taking your medicine means. Not taking your medicine means it can take longer for you to recover—if you recover at all. It can mean more time out of the workplace, serious complications, hospitalisation and all the costs that come with that. This means that, in the long term, not taking medication can be unhealthy for an individual and unhealthy for our economy. More people ending up in hospital can lead to higher healthcare costs. Last Sunday was World Pharmacists Day, in recognition of the vital role that community pharmacies play in caring for the health of their patients. Pharmacists see a lot in their day-to-day workplace. They do much more than provide advice on medicines and their side effects. They are one of the centres of local communities. They provide health advice. They provide health care and make a difference in their local communities. Their connection with community is great because they are the most accessible of all health professionals and have been at the front line of providing health services during these incredibly challenging and stressful times associated with COVID. In the communities I represent and in communities throughout Australia, people rely heavily on our pharmacists to help us get through some of the health difficulties. Pharmacies have consistently spoken of their experiences of having to deal with patients that come to them with multiple scripts and seek advice about which ones they really need to fill—an economic question for a health professional. Why is this? It is because some people can't afford to fill them all. Patients often decide to fill a script that might give them immediate relief—for example, pain medication—but not fill a script that's actually very important for their longer term health. Across my electorate of Moreton, most local pharmacists have welcomed the action by the Albanese government to cut the out-of-pocket costs their patients pay for medicines on the PBS. Kuraby is at the southern end of my electorate, next to Treasurer Chalmers's electorate of Ranking. It's got a high percentage of people from overseas, and in many family homes English is their fifth language. Sohail Ashgar is the pharmacist at Home Pharmacy in Kuraby, and he's been there for quite some time. He's the only pharmacist in Kuraby and he knows just about everyone. He has commended the move by the Albanese Labor government to cut the maximum co-payment for drugs on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme from $42.50 down to $30. Sohail says, 'This move is the best course of action to make sure that the people are not missing out on essential medication because of the expense. He said he has seen a recent uptick, especially amongst elderly patients struggling with the cost of their medications. The tragic reality, says Sohail, is that he and his staff have seen too many customers being forced to choose which essential medication to go without. Sohail told of cases where patients have been cutting tablets in half in order to make them last longer. Sohail said that it has become quite regular for patients to go weeks without picking up their medication at all—an economic decision. Sohail made it clear that these sorts of things have become too common and can leave vulnerable patients at high risk of further illness, which, as we know, will then put a larger economic strain on the healthcare system, which could be avoided. Sohail cares and said, 'Our country is better off when people are as healthy as possible.' Thank you for your service to your community, Sohail. There is the suburb of Acacia Ridge, which is a part of my electorate that has a significant proportion of residents with long-term health issues. It's a battler suburb that my grandfather moved into in the forties. The staff at Chemist Warehouse Acacia Ridge have noticed in recent months an increase in people not being able to afford crucial medication. The chemists said that, when people are in a position where they just can't afford to put those few extra dollars towards their medication, it is really difficult for the patients' wellbeing. However, this change by the Albanese government will make huge difference for many people in the Acacia Ridge community and will be a huge direct relief for many regular patients that visit the chemist. Fairfield Gardens Chemist said that these changes will have a positive impact on the Fairfield community. While they haven't seen the same struggle to afford medication as I've mentioned in Kuraby and Acacia Ridge, the chemist knows very well that chemists right across the country are seeing devastating scenes of Australians, especially our elderly, being unable to purchase essential medication. The Fairfield chemist made it clear that cheaper medicine is always a benefit to society. Then there's Salisbury, a suburb next to my home suburb of Moorooka. It's a suburb undergoing a huge transformation. Younger families are moving into the area. And, like elsewhere, housing prices are going up. So, while the cost of medication has always been an issue, this latest medicines announcement is great for the Salisbury locals. Lowering the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme co-payment threshold means that the elderly regulars at the chemist will save money on medication and will have more to spend on regular, day-to-day items. And finally to the suburb of Yeronga—a suburb hammered by the floods in February this year. I know the member for Sydney came to that part of my electorate and saw the devastation firsthand. Ms Plibersek 83M I did. Mr PERRETT HVP Yeronga is a suburb that is basically surrounded by the Brisbane River. Many of the residents are of reasonable means. However, staff at the Yeronga Village pharmacy told me that they have witnessed a rise in older patients struggling with the cost of medicines. It makes sense that, as we get older, our health deteriorates, and so our reliance on medication increases. And, as we know, as we get older our income tends not to increase. So, while this measure will benefit many in my local community, it will especially have a positive impact for many local seniors. We live in a very rich country, and Australians should not have to decide which family member they can afford to treat or which medication they should go without. No longer will general patients taking medication like apixaban for the prevention of stroke have to choose between their script and their groceries—and I hope I got that pronunciation right, for the doctors in the house! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 Very good. Mr PERRETT HVP This bill will ensure that they receive the essential medical care needed to prevent serious illness. This bill fulfils the Albanese government's election promise to cut the cost of medicines and ease cost-of-living pressures for Australians. Cutting the price of medicines by nearly one-third will mean that more people can afford to get the medications they need to stay healthy, without worrying so much about the price. This bill will put close to $200 million back into the pockets of Australians each and every year, helping millions of Australians living pay cheque to pay cheque, week to week. This bill also fulfils the Albanese government's election promise to cut the cost of medicines and ease cost-of-living pressures for all Australians. I commend the legislation to the House. 11:12 Dr RYAN 297660 Kooyong I rise also to speak in support of this National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill 2022. Firstly, may I just note how nice it is to speak on a bill in such a bipartisan way— Mr Perrett HVP Tripartisan! Dr RYAN 297660 Thank you!—and how pleasant it has been, over the last couple of days, to hear from so many people with a medical professional background, like the members for Dobell, Robertson, Cooper and Mackellar—pharmacists, nurses, doctors—about how strongly we feel about our PBS and its value in this country. But I have to say that medicine affordability matters to all Australians, not just to those of us who have been involved in the healthcare sector. In 2020-21, almost two-thirds of us needed at least one PBS medication. In total, 314 million prescriptions were dispensed under the PBS or the RPBS. This bill will reduce the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme general patient charge from $42.50 to $30, indexed annually. Three point six million Australians with current scripts costing more than $30 will immediately save money as a result of this bill. The PBS is a vital part of our medical system. It ensures that Australians have timely, reliable and affordable access to safe medicines. It keeps otherwise overly expensive medications affordable. This move to decrease the co-payment for medication is a significant one. It is the first time in the 75-year history of the PBS that that co-payment has been cut. It's worth remembering, though, that this bill only applies to the more expensive medications, and for a subgroup of Australians. It will primarily benefit people who do not purchase a substantial amount of PBS medications each year and so do not hit the safety net threshold, and those who do not qualify for concession cards. The bill does not affect the safety net threshold or the concessional co-payment amount. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in 2019-2020 nearly 900,000 Australians delayed having prescriptions filled or did not have them filled at all due to the cost of those medications. People who need to pick and choose which script they will fill and which one they will defer are potentially risking their health. They are also potentially having to put up with loss of function and with pain. Parents shouldn't have to choose between getting the medication that they need and putting food on the table for their families. I also note that we know that many PBS medications costing less than $30 per script will increase in cost after 1 October. This results from agreements made by the previous government with manufacturers to increase the cost of almost 1,000 medications. This happened during the COVID pandemic in mid-2021 as a result of the minimum stock holding requirements strategic agreement. But the fact remains that a $20 or $25 script is not a minor consideration for many Australian families. We need our government to advocate effectively on our behalf to secure medications as inexpensively as possible for this hugely important scheme. Finally, I would like to note that we need our government to promote best-practice prescribing. In March 2022 the Morrison government defunded the NPS MedicineWise scheme. NPS MedicineWise is a 24-year-old scheme providing national leadership, education and resources on the best-practice use of medications and medication safety in Australia. Its programs and resources reach all GPs. They reach one-third of residential aged-care facilities across Australia. The program has made significant improvements to the health of Australians by reducing medication errors and decreasing overprescription. Its importance has been highlighted in the reports from the aged-care commission on the safety of medications and the frequency of medication errors in aged-care facilities. With the Albanese government Minister Butler had the chance to reverse the decision to cancel the NPS MedicineWise scheme, but he chose not to do so. I believe the Albanese government has erred in not reversing the decision to cancel the NPS MedicineWise program. Proposals to transfer its activities to the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care or to competitive grant processes are undeveloped and relatively underfunded. Given that the government spends $14 billion a year on the PBS, the $24 million a year spent on the NPS is a pittance, especially given that this program has delivered a net return on investment of more than two to one to the federal government by delivering more than $1.1 billion in direct savings for the PBS and NPS—improvements like a 25 per cent decrease in the overprescription of some antibiotics, prevention of 50,000 unnecessary scans for low back pain, and half a million fewer scripts for opioids, saving us more than $9 billion. The health of the Australian people and our budget bottom line will only be improved by ongoing support from our government for consumer education programs which improve health literacy. This bill provides the targeted healthcare intervention that we need to help those most in need of assistance with cost-of-living pressures. To further improve our health system we need to optimise our use of prescription medications and to improve our healthcare outcomes. I call on the Albanese government to reverse its decision to withdraw support for the NPS MedicineWise program. 11:19 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Adelaide I too rise to speak on the National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill 2022. This is a very important bill. We know that with the cost of living going up at the moment, and interest rates, we hear many, many people, not just over this period where it's becoming even more difficult, but over a period of time people making really tough, hard decisions. One of the things that they're jeopardising is their health. We hear people who are on very, very low incomes saying things like: 'Which medication can I go without to be able to pay the rent? Which medication can I go without to pay the electricity bill?' That is very detrimental not only to them and their health but also to the nation as a whole, because when people get sicker it costs the public more and more to keep them healthy. So it's a very important bill. It's a bill that acknowledges that we are trying to make it a little bit easier for Australians who are, as I said, having to make very difficult choices about how to make their money last and what to prioritise. Medication is an expense that people often have no choice about. They rely on medication to stay well and even to stay alive. We can look at just a few illnesses around the place which mean people are reliant on medication, like diabetes, with insulin pumps and a whole range of things. Other people rely on their blood pressure tablets or cholesterol treatment—things that have to be taken for the rest of their lives. These aren't choices that people make. It's the circumstances of their health that have put them in this situation, which gives them that added cost on the day-to-day costs of living. As I said, we know that patients have been choosing between getting the health care that they need and providing for their families. So this is a very important bill. It'll make it easier for people to afford their medications and not go without essential medication. The bill proposes to reduce the PBS general co-payment from its current amount of $42.50 to $30, subject to annual indexation. It will also enable pharmacies to apply an optional discount to the price of some PBS medicines. This is delivering the biggest cut to the cost of medicines in the 75-year history of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, or PBS, as the acronym is. So it's very important. It is a change that will make a difference to people's lives. We went to the last election with a commitment to decrease the general co-payment from January 1 2023, and that promise is being kept as we see this bill presented here in the parliament. The PBS is an important scheme which ensures people can afford essential medication. In fact, I'd say it would be one of the best schemes that I've seen anywhere in the world; sometimes we have to look at the type of country that we live in, where we provide these services. But, at the same time, we have to ensure that these services are provided within a person's ability to source them, and this will assist with that. The last thing we want is people making choices whether they get their medication or they don't get their medication and they pay for some other essential service. Patients generally pay a co-payment, as we know, towards the cost of each PBS medicine. Concession card holders pay less. Once patients have spent over a certain amount on PBS medicines, then they can qualify for the PBS Safety Net. This means that general patients will then pay a lower amount for medicines and concession card holders will receive medicines for free for the remainder of that calendar year, once they go over that threshold. This is a much, much needed reform after almost a decade of neglect from the former government in this area. We saw co-payments for Medicare going up. It was harder to find GPs, as you would know yourself, Deputy Speaker Freelander. The eradication and eating away of our health system over the last 10 years has been detrimental to Australians and detrimental to the health of Australians, which means that added burden of cost. In some ways, the former government thought that they were saving money by making all these cuts or by not ensuring that legislation was keeping up to date, but the reality is that it ends up costing governments more through the deterioration of a person's health. We have to look at the future in terms of the benefits that you get as a whole, not just the actual cost itself. I think health care is one of the essential needs that we, as a government, should provide to people. People should be able to access health care, whether it be medicines or whether it be a hospital bed, regardless of their credit card or income. Medicare, which was a Labor initiative, has been one of the greatest things that we have done in this country. Look at systems around the world, Mr Deputy Speaker, where people have no choice. If they get sick, they're then burdened with poverty for the rest of their lives. They basically don't have the ability to recover their health. I remember speaking to a driver in Bali many years ago. We were talking about the health system, and I said to him, 'What happens when you get sick and need to access a hospital or a doctor if you don't have money?' His direct answer was: 'It's too bad. You will die.' That is a really sad situation to be in. We really need to keep an eye on our health system to make sure it doesn't deteriorate and that we protect Medicare. I'm so pleased that, at election after election, there has been a commitment by the Labor side of politics to maintain Medicare, strengthen it and ensure it's available to everyone, regardless of their postcode and regardless of their credit card, because it is a right in this country. Everyone should have access to health care. The co-payment for general patients has doubled since 2000. Since 2000, we've seen a doubling of what people have to pay for pharmaceuticals and medicines. According to the ABS, more than 900,000 Australians delayed getting or didn't get a script filled in 2019-20 due to cost. That's nearly a million people. If you think of the damage that may have been done to their health and what that ends up costing us, Mr Deputy Speaker, it far outweighs the cost of making sure people have the ability to get their medicines. Is this the type of country we want to live in—one where over a million people make a choice to delay getting script or not to get a script because they can't afford it? All Australians, as I said, should have access to universal, prompt and world-class medical care. No-one should be faced with having to make the dreadful choice between filling prescriptions for potentially life-saving medicines and providing for their families, paying the rent, paying energy bills et cetera. As I said, the PBS is a significant component of the government's investment in our health system. It provides significant direct assistance to make medicines affordable, and affordable throughout the financial year. The co-payment makes the scheme sustainable, while the Commonwealth pays the remaining cost. Of course, many PBS medicines cost significantly more than the patient contribution. The maximum patient co-payment for the 2022 calendar year is $42.50 for general patients. Under this bill, Australians will now pay only $30. This translates to a 29 per cent, or nearly 30 per cent, saving for general medicines, and around 19 million Australians will be eligible for this saving. People filling one script could save around $150 a year. It's not uncommon, when you hit your 50s or 60s, to be on cholesterol tablets, blood pressure tablets or perhaps diabetes medication. When you add up three or four medications, which are usually on month-by-month scripts, you could be looking at over $200 to $300 per month. That is a big burden on the budget of a family, so this is important. As I said, people filling one script could save around $150 a year, while those filling two scripts could save around $300 a year. In addition, 3.6 million Australians with current prescriptions over $30 will immediately save on medical scripts thanks to this bill. The bill will also ensure that no patient is worse off under this change. It will permit pharmacies to continue offering optional discounts to general patients on prescriptions with a Commonwealth price between the new and current amount. The amount paid by the patient will still be counted towards the safety net, ensuring that no Australian is adversely impacted by the changes. We are constantly amending the PBS to ensure that it conforms with new health research and advice. Every year, in fact nearly every month, we hear of new cutting-edge medicines that are added to the PBS, and access to existing medicines is expanding to new patient groups. I am very enthused when I see new drugs and medications coming out that are life-saving medications. We have seen many that have been produced and made here in Australia these last few years. That gives hope to many people that perhaps would not have that hope without those drugs. Some subsidised medicines available through the PBS can cost thousands of dollars per script, but they're supplied to patients at significantly reduced cost. I am proud to be a member of this government that is constantly putting health care at the forefront of all of our policies and at the health front of every campaign we have run in elections, especially Medicare, about the significance of Medicare, the universal access to health care. There is no doubt that cutting the cost of medications is good for households, who are dealing with unprecedented cost-of-living pressures that we've seen over the last few months; but it's also important for the health of the nation. If we can assist people with their health and keep it from deteriorating, as is usually done through modern-day drugs and medicines, then it ends up costing the government and public purse less in the long run. When you look at easy quick fixes to cut from health budgets in the short term, what you're really doing is causing massive damage in the long term. That is why this bill is seriously tackling the cost of these medications. For example, up to half a million patients with stomach ulcers or reflux disease will pay less for their prescriptions. Over 60,000 patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder will also save, as will 20,000 migraine sufferers and people with epilepsy. We're also including essential drugs in the treatment of various cancers and making them more affordable and available more people. There is a direct correlation between the health of the population and the health of the economy in which people live, as I said earlier. We know that medicines are an essential need for people. We know that it is absolutely important that they take their medications and it's absolutely important that they don't have to be under pressure when they're buying medications. That's why this bill will ease that pressure for the majority of people so they can buy those medications, to make them affordable, to ensure they don't have to make those difficult choices. It would be a horrendous situation to be in, knowing that you need to take medication for a particular illness or disease and knowing that you cannot afford to buy that medication. I couldn't think of a worse position to be in. I'm proud that I'm part of a government that is making medicines cheaper. That's exactly what this government is doing. This bill is a really important step. Good health is the foundation of our human capital, our society and our economy. I will always fight to ensure that Australians have access to the health care and medications that they need, as all my colleagues on this side of the House do as well. 11:32 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I rise to speak in support of the National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill 2022. I am very pleased to speak on this bill, which of course is yet another coalition policy. They say the best form of flattery is imitation, and this bill is no different. But I'm not going to stand here and complain, because this bill ultimately results in a good outcome for the Australian people, and the coalition supports it. It is very much in their interest, particularly as we are dealing with cost-of-living pressures right now. On 30 April 2022, before the last election, the coalition announced an election commitment to reduce the PBS general patient charge by $10. But, not to be outdone, just the very next day the Labor Party came out and announced that they would be reducing the charge by $12 50, a $2.50 improvement—very, very good policy work! I may jest a little bit and say it with a smile on my face, but it is a good outcome for Australians. But what is becoming increasingly clear is that the Labor party don't have any of their own policies. They continue to look to the policies of the coalition for addressing the cost of living. We support Labor's bill to reduce the maximum general co-payment for medicines on the PBS whilst we note that it is a copycat policy, made from our policies. The bill will reduce the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme general co-payment by $12.50 from the current amount of $42.50 to the new amount of $30. I want to point out that this won't take effect until 1 January 2023. If this Labor government really cared about the cost-of-living pressures faced by Australian families and their businesses, they would have pursued this policy and pursued the introduction of this bill in their first sitting. What Australians are really worried about right now is their financial stability and national security. While Labor dances to the tune of republicans, left-wing academics and militant unions, Australians are sitting around their dinner tables worried about their financial future. They are worried about how they are going to continue to put their kids through school and how they are going to continue to pay their mortgages. These are very real issues that Australians are grappling with on a day-to-day basis. They're worried about whether they are going to be able to put food on the table for their kids. They're worried about whether they're going to be able to put fuel in the car to drive to work and take their kids to and from school. They worry about whether they are safe. They are worried about whether they are safe from malicious actors who are attacking our essential services online. They wonder about whether they are safe from national security threats after the dismantling, effectively, of the home affairs department. They wonder whether they are safe from geopolitical threats. They wonder about the decisions of this Labor government in vacillating on important defence projects, like whether it should be replacing the Taipan helicopters with Black Hawks. That's an absolute no-brainer, but the defence minister, in his ultimate wisdom, has decided to effectively put that project on hold and conduct a review as to whether it should be doing that. These are important projects. These are important defence projects that this government should be backing the coalition government's decisions on. The Labor Party talked a big talk about defence being bipartisan, but— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Lyons on a point of order? Mr Brian Mitchell 129164 I fail to see how the points the member has raised bear much reference to the bill before the House. The SPEAKER 53517 Please proceed. Mr WALLACE 265967 I thank the honourable member for his point of order, but these issues do directly go to cost of living. They go to cost of living and security and how Australians believe that they are best served by a government who want to see action on cost of living and security, whether that be national security or the security of their own bank accounts and security of their own records. If the member opposite thinks that's not relevant, I don't know what would be. Australians want a healthcare system that provides them with safety and with a degree of comfort, just like they want a government that looks after them in relation to things like industrial relations when members opposite are pushing through reforms in this place that will see union lawlessness with the abandonment of the ABCC. Australians want to know that their taxes are being put to work effectively. They want to know, through things like the abandonment of the ABCC, that our costs of construction aren't going up by around 30 per cent. Those are not my words, they're the MBA's words. Australians want to know— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The member for Sydney on a point of order? Ms Plibersek 83M Mr Deputy Speaker, I think we have ranged pretty broadly from the topic of the legislation before us. I'd ask you to suggest to the member that perhaps he might like to return to the legislation that's being debated. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Yes. Please proceed, member for Fisher, and try to address the question before the chair. Mr WALLACE 265967 As I noted earlier, these are important issues which go to the heart. And I'll take the second point of order that has been raised, in relation to relevance. I note that the deputy speaker didn't find in favour of the first point of order. Be that as it may, Australians want to know that their government has their backs. Australians want to know who is in charge and what the government is doing to relieve cost-of-living pressures. This is a question that is directly on point to the minister at the table. This is a bill which the government is putting up as easing cost-of-living pressures on Australians. Between 2013 and 2022, the coalition government made nearly 2,900 new or amended medicine listings to the PBS. In our last year, in the last year of the coalition government alone, 2.2 million free or subsidised medicines were funded through the PBS just in my electorate of Fisher. In our last budget, we invested an historic $132 billion to deliver the essential health and aged-care services Australians need. Let me say those figures again: in our last budget, $132 billion—an historic amount—compared to the Labor Party's budget of just $75 billion when they were last in government. It was $75 billion in 2012-2013 and now $132 billion. And yet for six years all we heard about from those opposite were cuts to the healthcare system. I'm no mathematician, but it was $75 billion in 2012-20 $13 to $132 billion in our last budget and yet those opposite consider that to be a cut. Despite what Labor may tell you, we strengthened Medicare and revolutionised health treatment with our telehealth system. We committed $133 billion over four years to continue bolstering our Medicare system, a jewel in the crown of Australia's world-leading health and social care infrastructure. On that, I think we all agree—that the Medicare system in Australia is probably the best in the world. Australians demand, rightly, an effective healthcare system, and the coalition has always been absolutely committed to delivering on that. In government we delivered a 133.69 per cent increase in funding for public hospitals in Queensland. That's record funding to a hospital system that Queensland Labor, which is my state, continue to mismanage. After nearly a decade of reform, record-breaking investment and action, the coalition has set the standard for health care in this country. But what's the real cost of living in Queensland? We talk about the cost of living in this place and we talk about health care. Australians are already tuning out this government because they know that federal Labor isn't listening to them. They know that after just six months in power this Labor government is hopelessly out of touch. On 4 April this year the now Prime Minister, in the lead up to the election, announced to the Australian people that he would govern in the style of the Queensland state Labor. As I say that, around about 4½ million to five million people in Australia—namely, Queenslanders—are rolling around on the floor laughing. The Prime Minister said: But I've also seen what Premier Palaszczuk has presided over as a bit of a template for the way forward for Federal Labor let way forward for federal Labor. Let me tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, Queenslanders are shuddering with this news. Let's take a look at the cost of living in Queensland under a Labor state government. Roads are congested because of Labor's inaction. A drive down Caloundra Road in my electorate will demonstrate that the state members for Caloundra and Nicklin are not listening. Rail projects are overbudget. Cross River Rail is overbudget and late. The North Coast Rail duplication has been delayed by the state Labor government. The state Labor government take the Sunshine Coast for granted, like they do the state over. In fact, both the federal and state Labor parties are choosing red carpets and photo-ops over looking after people. What has Labor done from a healthcare perspective in Queensland? Ambulance ramping is at levels that are unprecedented. Paramedics and patients were ramped for nearly 123,757 hours last financial year. In the 2021-22 financial year Queensland paramedics and their patients were being ramped for more than 357 hours every single day. Hospitals are overwhelmed, and our hardworking nurses, doctors and frontline staff are struggling to keep up. Maternity wards in regional Queensland have been shut down, and mums-to-be are being handed do-it-yourself birthing kits in regional Queensland. This is a disgrace. The integrity of Queensland's DNA labs is now subject to an historic commission of inquiry. Bullying, secrecy, cover-ups, photo-ops, name changes and political games cannot mask the frightening truth. The fact is in Queensland the cost of living comes from the risk of financial and physical peril. From Cairns to Caloundra to Coolangatta, Queenslanders have seen the cost of Labor in government. This is federal Labor's blueprint for government. This is their template. It's their goal, and that should alarm every single Australian. Every young couple in regional Australia who may one day want to start and raise their family beyond the big city should be very, very worried. Every senior Australian who relies on public health care should be worried. If the Prime Minister is looking to Queensland Labor as the best practice on how to manage health care, we are doomed. (Time expired) 11:48 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons Before the honourable member departs, he mentioned that Labor will continue to look to the coalition for cost-of-living policies. I can't help but think perhaps he's referring to their policy to deliberately keep wages low, which is what happened under the Liberals. Perhaps that's the policy he's referring to. We won't be copying that one. Perhaps he's referring to the coalition's policy to keep power price rises secret in the days before the election. I can tell you, Deputy Speaker Goodenough, we won't be copying that policy. Perhaps he's referring to the coalition's policy to keep the Medicare rebate frozen for six years. We certainly won't be copying that. So Labor will not be copying the coalition's policies when it comes to cost of living because we know that, after nine failed years of the coalition government, the cost of living has only increased for the vast majority of Australians. I rise to speak on the National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill 2022. In both respects, Deputy Speaker Goodenough, I welcome the former speaker's contribution because he was in support of this bill, although the vast majority of the content of his speech had nothing to do with the bill before the House. The purpose of this bill is to amend the National Health Act 1953 to reduce the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme general patient co-charge payment, commencing 1 January 2023. So in three short months time Australians will have cheaper medicine. It's the first time that the PBS co-payment has been reduced by any government in the history of the Federation. The Albanese Labor government are delivering on the commitments that we made at the election as part of our plan for a better future for this country. We said we would make medicines cheaper and that is what we are doing. Under the bill before the House today the most that Australians will pay for medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is $30, a reduction of up to $12.50. About 19 million Australians will be eligible to save money under this great Labor reform; 3.6 million Australians with current prescriptions will save money immediately that the bill comes into effect, from 1 January 2023. That means 14 per cent of the Australian population will have an immediate benefit, immediately have their medicines cheaper, from 1 January 2023. People filling out one prescription a month could save $150 a year. People with two scripts stand to save around $300 a year. That's money back in the pockets of Australians, many of them older Australians. This Labor reform to make medicines cheaper is one way that we seek to address the cost-of-living mess that we inherited after nine years of failed coalition government. After nine years of neglect from the former government, the costs of living are soaring and many Australians are cutting back on essentials in order to make ends meet. As I alluded to, that's nine years of deliberate wage suppression, nine years of superannuation sabotage, nine years of Medicare vandalism and nine years of childcare inertia. We are 129 days in government and, already, we have done more to address cost-of-living pressures than the coalition did in nine years. We have backed a minimum wage rise, we are backing wage rises for aged-care workers, we are making child care cheaper, and we are allowing more seniors access to the seniors card and ensuring that age pensioners can work a few more paid hours, if they wish to, without losing their pension. Since 2000 what Australians pay to access medicines under the PBS has doubled to $42.50 per prescription. For low-income Australians, especially those already struggling with higher rent and transport costs, it has become a choice between looking after their own health or feeding and sheltering their children. We've all seen the stories in the media that that's the choice parents confront: do they get the medicines that their doctors say they need or do they feed and shelter their kids? For the vast majority of parents, the choice on that is clear. It's a choice no parent should have to make. The PBS co-payment for general patients has doubled since 2000. More than 900,000 Australians told researchers that they delayed buying medicine that their doctors said they needed or they didn't fill the prescription out at all because of the co-payment cost. This is unacceptable in modern Australia and this Labor government will not have it. All Australians should have access to universal, prompt and world-class medical care. The PBS is a significant component of the Commonwealth's investment in our health system, providing significant direct assistance—$13.8 billion in the 2020-21 financial year—to make medicines more affordable. The bill before the House today seeks to further reduce the maximum cost that Australians will pay for the medicine they need. I have said before, in this place, that access to health care in my electorate—a big, regional electorate in Tasmania—is something that keeps me awake at night. After a decade of policy neglect, regions across the country are facing a primary healthcare crisis, with an inability to retain and recruit GPs and other healthcare professionals. My electorate has few big population centres. It's a seat of small towns, where access to health care can be hours away. For example, Interlaken, in the Central Highlands, has a rugged beauty about it, but it's an hour from the nearest pharmacy and even further from a GP. One of my constituents lives in a small shack with no mobile phone reception and only a wood heater to provide her warmth. She would have preferred to live in a town, but she couldn't afford the rent. She'd been waiting years for hip surgery, and she lived in constant agony. The only GP she could get in to see was in Hobart, a four-hour round trip. After getting her new scripts, she faces a two-hour round trip on other days to the nearest pharmacy. The bill before the House today won't fix Tasmania's appalling hospital waiting times, and it won't fix the ambulance ramping that's at crisis levels in my state and has kept my constituent on the elective surgery list for years, but it will make medicines cheaper for people like my constituent and others. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is a significant partner to Medicare. Both of them are proud Labor reforms that have transformed Australians' access to affordable, quality health care. I want to speak briefly to the minister's opening remarks in her second reading speech, where she mentioned—you learn something new every day!—it was John Curtin and Ben Chifley who fought hard to create this essential pillar of our health care system, the PBS. It took two High Court challenges; two referenda; constitutional changes; and battles with the British Medical Association, the Liberal Party—which in those days opposed it—and many others over 15 years to make the PBS what it is today: a genuinely universal system and perhaps the best medical system, pound for pound, in terms of bang for buck, that we have in the world. I was very pleased to hear the member for Fisher remark with what sounded like genuine support for Medicare. It was a long time coming. We know that those opposite vigorously opposed Medicare for decades. Certainly, over the last nine years of their government, while they said they supported Medicare, we saw it being nibbled away at the edges. There was a bit of vandalism going around on the edges. Under the National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill 2022, a reduction to the PBS general patient co-payment by $12.50 will mean that the maximum Australians pay for PBS medicines will drop from, as I say, $42.50 down to $30. That's a 29 per cent saving—not bad. Furthermore, no patient will be worse off. Pharmacies can, if they choose, continue to offer optional discounts to general patients on prescriptions with a Commonwealth price between the new amount and the current amount. Under the bill before the House today, medicine will be cheaper. We promised this at the election, and we are keeping our promise. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and Medicare are the foundation stones of Australia's public healthcare system, and it's only a Labor government that makes them stronger. Australians have a right to affordable, quality health care and should never have to face the choice of forgoing the medicine they need because of cost. I commend the bill to the House. 11:58 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I'll just pick up on some of the remarks of the previous member, welcoming the member for Fisher's comments about the coalition commitment to Medicare. It's not a new thing. It is not a new thing at all. The coalition is very committed to Medicare. One would not have thought so in 2016, of course, and I think that's the problem the previous member is dealing with—the scurrilous campaign the ALP ran that was later termed 'Mediscare', when they said the coalition would get rid of Medicare. We had six years to do so. We did not. We supported Medicare. We increased the funding for Medicare. That kind of dishonest campaigning should be called out every time there is an opportunity, so I take that opportunity to do so. This proposal is to drop the Medicare co-payment from $42.50 to $30. The coalition put forward during the campaign that we'd reduce it by $10. This is a $12.50 reduction which came soon after from the ALP. I think it is good that they matched it or even upped the ante. Those payments will be coming down at a time when people are under pressure. It's a shame that they will not coming down immediately. There is a wait time before this will hit the market at the end of the year. Having said that, it shouldn't be forgotten that, in its last year in government, the coalition reduced the threshold for the PBS safety net to around $1.244, off the top of my head, down from $1,400-and-something. That is welcome. That's a very targeted response to the cost of living at the moment. By definition, those constituents that reach that threshold are some of the poorest and most disadvantaged in our community because they are on multiple medications, which means their lifestyle is probably already impeded, and in fact are often on welfare payments as well to fund their living or are at least on a limited and fixed income. So I think that was a very serious move to reduce cost-of-living pressures, and I welcome that. I was very pleased by the fact that we had legislated that before we got to the election. The PBS is exemplary. The PBS stands alone in the health field as something that actually delivers an efficient, expanding service. Importantly, it keeps costs under control. The member for Fisher went through the increased spending that the coalition had afforded to health and aged care during the period in which we were in government. It was a little more than double, from $75 billion to $132 billion. That was a 100 per cent increase. When you look at the PBS, in 2012 it was operating at about $9.5 billion a year. It is now at $13 billion. So we have seen a roughly 30 per cent increase in the PBS over the same period that the rest of the system has had a 100 per cent increase. In that time, we have been able to deliver a plethora of new medications to an expanding population. While I know a lot of the drug companies don't particularly love our PBS, I think it places itself in the marketplace around the world quite uniquely in that it enables us to get great value for dollar but is not so punitive on the manufacturers and marketers that they don't still seek to sell their newly developed drugs in our market. I sometimes shake my head in wonder at what has been able to be achieved with the PBS when I look at the ballooning costs not only in the health sector but across a whole range of other government expenditures. One of the things is making those new drugs available in Australia. The approval process through the TGA has improved over the years. There is a great effort to make sure that Australians get the very best. It's not only in the drug field. There are associated things that the taxpayer contributes to which allow people to live there lives to the fullest. Greg Hunt had a fabulous record while he was the health minister. In fact, we approved 2,800 new and, at times, incredibly expensive new drugs to the PBS, all the while keeping the lid on those PBS costs. Keeping the pressure on the drug companies is not the only way of keeping the lid on PBS costs. Some expiry of patents has contributed greatly. Blood pressure tablets and cholesterol tablets, for instance, are ones that Australians are very large consumers of and for good reason. They keep Australians alive longer. They keep them fitter and healthier. But, of course, some of those very significant patents of the past have expired now, and we now have the listing of generic drugs on the PBS that are equivalent. Most of the original drugs remain on the PBS and are marketed into our market, but the manufacturers have had to reduce costs. They've had that period of protection that is afforded to them for the great cost that they commit to in developing these new drugs, doing the testing associated with them and bringing them to market, and it's right and proper; that's what a patent system works around. But as those patents expire it's also very important that the PBS then goes out to find the alternative suppliers, puts the pressure on the original suppliers and brings down the cost to the public. I remember—in fact, you might remember, Deputy Speaker Freelander; I think you were in the place of the time—when we had a fairly strong debate in this place about the delisting of Panadol Osteo. I'm a little scratchy on the numbers, but at the time you could buy Panadol Osteo at the pharmacy for, let's say, $40. Actually, I think it was more than the cost of a Medicare bulk-bill rate. Or you could go to the doctor, get it prescribed from the doctor and pay $42.50. Let's say it was $60 at the pharmacy. You go to the doctor, pay $42.50 and get the Panadol as prescribed. In fact, by the time there was a pharmacy dispensing account and a whole lot of things that hung off the doctors' bills, it was quite expensive for the taxpayer, and there was a cry: 'If you take this off, we will not be able to afford Panadol Osteo.' Within a matter of months, if not weeks, the price of Panadol Osteo over the counter at the chemist dropped to the equivalent of Panadol Rapid. It just shows that, while it is very important that the PBS is in place when it should be in place, there are times when it actually distorts the market and it should be out of the market. That's not 100 per cent relevant to what we are talking about with this bill, of course, but it does come back to this theme that I have been talking about, where the PBAC over a very long period of time and subsequent governments—apart from one time that I will come to in a little while—have managed the PBS in a very good way for Australia, providing maximum benefit to Australians across the board for minimal cost, about as good as you can get around the world. Anyone associated with that I give a pat on the back. The coalition, of course, as I said, committed to a $10 reduction, and now we've got $12.50. I was going to say a bit more about Greg Hunt and the other associated things that actually came not through Medicare but through the health budget to assist people to live their life to the fullest. As you well know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I'm the co-chair of the parliamentary enemies of diabetes, and in fact the constant glucose monitors, set to be listed universally by the government before the last election, were matched by the then opposition and now the government, and it was a great move forward and something we campaigned for over many years. In the period before that, we had gradually campaigned to extend those constant glucose monitors. I have told this story in the House on a number of occasions. I was at a function, the Port Pirie Smelters Picnic, in my electorate, and a young couple came up to me. From memory, I think they had a two-month-old baby who had gestational diabetes and was on a constant glucose monitor at the behest of the hospital but had to give it back and did not qualify for the constant glucose monitors under the current rules. I went and saw Minister Hunt at the time, and after speaking to him for five minutes he said, 'That's not good enough.' Virtually with the stroke of a pen, 30 similar families around Australia had that problem fixed. That was good, responsive government. That was a minister listening, being in touch and knowing what's achievable. It was a great outcome. I thank him still and that family thanks him still for that outcome. Of course, now it's universal, so we don't have to argue about such things, but it's a progressive step. The point is that the PBS isn't the only scheme in place to assist Australians to achieve their life potential. One of the things we remember of course is that it has been the custom of health ministers to sign off on the PBAC recommendations. In the last 50 years I think there has only been one period when that did not occur: in 2011 the then Labor government put a freeze on listings due to budgetary constraints. Our budget is in pretty tough shape at the moment. We're heading into an October budget and I haven't heard any murmurs from the other side that there's any likelihood of being a move to stop listing new drugs on the PBS, but I absolutely say to the government: don't. Don't go down that pathway again. It hasn't been the pathway followed by the previous government and it's not one that should be followed by you. When people come to tell me about advances in the health system they say that they'll save lives and will save money. It's one of the great paradoxes of our modern health system that the more lives we save the more it costs! I'm a living example of that as I stand here. I had life-threatening cancer just on nine years ago. I was saved by some very clever surgeons and a whole heap of radiation, which a lot of people don't seem to like either—I have some arguments about the location of the low-level radioactive waste management facility in my home community. But I was saved by the miracles of modern science. Since that time I've had a shoulder reconstruction and I've just had a partial knee replacement. Those wouldn't have cost the taxpayer anything if I had succumbed to the first ailment! Now, the point being there is that our modern medical system is saving people—absolutely—and getting them into useful lives. But we're all there for more complicated challenges later in our lives, and that's why these health budgets keep ballooning out rather than actually coming in when we think we're making all these particular advances. I don't know that that adds anything particular to this debate; it is what it is. I'm not suggesting by any means that any of this should be curtailed. I'd like to think that my survival through that ailment, and the facts that I do pay the Medicare levy, invest in private health cover and am a significant taxpayer, would say that I hope I can square the ledger! But it is the case that the more things we combat things the more it will cost us, and this is something that government has to consider in the long term. It's one of the reasons that the health budget keeps growing at a faster rate than inflation or other indicators—the CPI, for instance—in our society. It's something that governments always have to be aware of: the increasing share that it's taking of the GDP or the government tax take. How we manage that, I think, is a challenge for both sides of this House, for the whole parliament, and not just now; not today or not tomorrow but over the next 10 to 50 years this will be an increasing challenge. I have come roughly to the conclusion of my time, so I will leave the debate there. I look forward to these changes coming. I wish they were coming faster because, even today, we know that fuel is going to go up 22c tonight. So it would be good if we had this coming down the pipeline a bit quicker, but I think we've got to wait until January. 12:13 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland This is my first address in the new parliament when you've been in the chair, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, and I want to say how pleased I am that you're continuing on the Speaker's Panel—continuing to make a strong contribution to this parliament. I'm pleased to make a contribution on the National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill 2022, a bill which will have a positive impact and be warmly welcomed in the Shortland electorate. I thank the Minister for Health and Aged Care for his work on this very important legislation. This legislation will provide a reduction to the PBS, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, general patient copayment by $12.50. This is the first reduction in the history of the PBS. This means that the maximum Australians will pay for PBS medicines will be $30. This is a reduction in cost of almost a third from the current rate. This change and cost reduction is sorely needed. We know that millions of Australians are struggling with cost-of-living pressures—their groceries, petrol and medical expenses. Under this legislation around 19 million Australians will be eligible for the savings. Combined, these general patients could save around $190 million each year People filling one script a month could save around $150 a year, while those filling two scripts a month could save around $300 a year. This is a key commitment that Labor took to the last election. I'm proud to be part of the Albanese Labor government that is delivering this cost-of-living relief, which is desperately needed. Unlike the previous Liberal government, which was all announcement and absolutely no delivery, we are seeing a markedly different approach to delivering on our commitment from the Albanese government. This bill is significant in that delivery. We are actually delivering tangible cost-of-living relief to millions of Australians. Unlike the last government, we are not waiting until two minutes to midnight before an election to make an announcement, when they had nine years, almost 10 years in power to do something, but did nothing. In a prosperous and wealthy country like Australia no-one should be forced to pick between accessing vital medication and putting food on their table. Yet that's exactly what so many Australians, including people in my community, are doing. We know that over the last nine years the previous government was obsessed with attacking Medicare and our healthcare system. They cut bulk billing incentives for doctor, and they reclassified the Hunter and Central Coast regions as not being a priority area for GPs, which has led to a significant GP shortage. They cut funding to Hunter's vital GP access after-hours service, funding that the Albanese Labor government will restore. All those changes made it much harder and more expensive for people in my community to see their GP. But patients have also been hit with a double whammy of their vital medicines becoming increasingly unaffordable. The co-payment that general patients contribute to the Commonwealth to sustain the PBS has doubled since 2000. According to ABS figures, more than 900,000 Australians delayed or didn't get a script filled in 2019-20 due to the cost. This is just plain wrong. Former prime minister Gough Whitlam said in 1975 that the purpose of universal health care is to make medical treatment available to all who need it to ensure that medical care is not just another marketable commodity but a right of every citizen. All Australians should have access to universal, prompt and world-class medical care. No-one should have to choose between filling prescriptions for potentially life-saving medicines and providing for their families. Unfortunately many of my constituents currently do have to choose. So of course this Labor government is committed to enacting progressive and meaningful health policies that positively impact the lives of many Australians. This builds on our strong history. Labor introduced visionary programs such as Medicare and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It was that great Australian Labor Prime Minister Ben Chifley who established the PBS in 1948. It wasn't easy. It took two court challenges, two referendums, a constitutional amendment and 16 years to embed the scheme. Yet almost 80 years on it has helped the lives of so many Australians. Labor has been in government for only a few months, but we have already put our money where our mouth is when it comes to improving the health outcomes of Australians. One of the biggest issues my constituents face is finding an available appointment with their GP or finding a GP that takes new patients. This is one of the biggest concerns they raised with me in the lead-up to the recent election. As I mentioned earlier, the GP shortage in my community is a direct consequence of the previous government's decision to reclassify the Hunter and Central Coast as non-priority areas for GPs. So I was so happy that in July, exactly two months after the election, the new Labor government reversed these changes. Medical practices in my community can now access doctors from the bonded medical program as well as overseas trained doctors, making it easier for them to recruit more GPs to our region. This change will not only take stress off local GPs; it will also reduce patient wait times, making it much easier for people to see their doctor. The new Labor government has also delivered on our commitment to give 130,000 Australians with type 1 diabetes access to subsidised continuous glucose monitoring devices under the National Diabetes Services Scheme. These Australians over the age of 21 will be able to access CGM products through their pharmacy, with a co-payment equivalent of $32.50 per month or $390 per year. These life-saving devices were previously costing them up to $5,000 per year. Similar to legislation we are discussing today, this measure will help ease health costs for people living with type I diabetes. Not only that, having access to these devices will save lives. Unsurprisingly, delivering this election commitment was welcomed by many people in my community. Nicole said to me via Facebook: … as a mother of a T1 this brings music to my ears. Andrew was equally pleased, saying: I have been diabetic since 1994 and if it wasn't for the subsidies I would be broke. The free glucose monitor is another plus. And Jessica said: This is amazing news! I received an email last week from NDSS and nearly cried. I haven't been able to access the CGM since having my son. Financially it was totally out of my reach. This is absolutely lifesaving stuff. That brings me back to how important the legislation we are debating today is. It will save millions of Australians hundreds of dollars a year on medication they need. This is what Australians expect from a Labor government, a government that cares about their health and their ability to access affordable medicines. Concern about the rising cost of medicines is something that I regularly hear about from my constituents. Martin from Warners Bay is on the disability support pension. He told me that he pays over a quarter of his pension on medication. He said: I have five that are non-PBS, despite some of them being considered the most effective for my condition, and the kindest on my body. There is one drug I pay $40/month for, and it has less ingredients than one on the PBS that would cost me $5.50. Carolyn from Kahibah is on a part age pension and contacted me about how the rising costs in medicines are impacting her family's budget. She said: I have been on prescribed melatonin for a number of years. All this time I have been purchasing a three months' supply from a compounding pharmacist. I can now only get a month's supply at a time at a cost of $35. I was paying $75 for three months' supply, and I could claim all but $40 of that back from my health fund. So from costing me $10 a month it is now costing me $35 a month. This is a lot extra from a limited income! We do the right thing and pay for private medical but when things like these changes occur it makes it less attractive to be covered. This is just a small handful of the feedback I've received from the Shortland community. As a member of this place it's imperative that I listen and act on the concerns of my constituents. It's also vital that we bring forth real reforms, reforms that will transform the lives of so many Australians. As an electorate that is, on average, the sixth oldest in this country, health care and the need for better health services are issues that the Shortland community are rightly concerned and passionate about. Over the course of the most recent federal election campaign, my team and I knocked on thousands of doors and called more than 20,000 Shortland residents. Over and over again, health care, and the cost of health, was identified as the major issue of importance for my constituents, particularly the cost of health care dramatically increasing over the last decade. That's why this legislation is so vital. It demonstrates yet again that the Albanese Labor government is committed to addressing these cost-of-living pressures that Australians are facing in these uncertain times. This delivers on that commitment and I commend the bill to the House. 12:23 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash It's not often I can say this, but two years before I was born the Chifley government introduced a PBS scheme, and what a benefit that has been to Australians all of these 73 years—73 years of benefit to families, to the people the former speaker mentioned, especially those with type I or II diabetes, and every other condition that may have come upon the Australian people. Our health and wellbeing, the food we eat, the exercise we have, the things we can do for ourselves, have changed dramatically since 1948. In 1948 most of the food that you ate would have come from within two kilometres of your own home or, if you were in a city, five kilometres from your own home. It was all produced in Australia, and it was produced locally. Your food was of the highest standard, which enabled the very healthy growth of our broader community throughout that time. Since then, though, our food isn't necessarily local. It can come from interstate. It can come from around the world. And it's not necessarily seasonal, as all our food was. Why am I talking about food in relation to the PBS? Because, as our nutrition is less, as we eat more fats and sugars, we have a greater need for the Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme to keep the health and wellbeing of our community in the state that it's in. Of course I'm supportive of this legislation, and every government since 1948 has been supportive of the health and wellbeing of the Australian people however it's implemented. I'm not going to criticise any former government for what they did and didn't do with regard to health, because health expenditure has increased exponentially every year since 1948, and there have been massive changes made to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme over the years. We now have remarkable new drugs that can change the lives of people in a week or so. And, of course, this PBS scheme is unique throughout the world. The Australian people, this nation, have the opportunity to access drugs for their health and wellbeing at a price that is affordable to every family. I know there are families out there today that have to choose between whether they buy food or their drugs, and we need to look more closely at how we can support those families. But, importantly, the PBS scheme has been crucial to the health and wellbeing of Australians for 73 years. This general co-payment bill amends the National Health Act to reduce the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme general co-payment by $12.50, from the current amount of $42.50 to the new amount of $30, taking effect on 1 January. This is happening in a time when inflation is rampant and greater in the foods and commodities that families actually have to buy. We may have an inflation rate of around six or seven per cent, but the increases for the actual food that you need to buy, the food that is important for a family, are from 12 per cent in some cases to 23 per cent, and there are not the specials available in the supermarkets that were available. The costs have increased for families. So, at a time when families are under enormous pressure for their day-to-day living costs, this is a change that I support wholeheartedly—and I mean wholeheartedly. The fact the government has moved one step further than the coalition was prepared to, by $2.50 or whatever it was, is irrelevant to me. This gives an opportunity for the Commonwealth to supplies of pharmaceutical benefits that have a Commonwealth price between $30 and $42.50 indexed annually. The bill also gives pharmacists an option to discount the price for general patients by more than a dollar when supplying a PBS prescription. It's really important that this bill will ensure no patient is worse off after the reduction of the general patient charge, and it is established practice for pharmacists to discount medicines that have a Commonwealth price at or below the general patient charge. So, when it comes to individuals, every individual has an entirely different need under the PBS scheme. New drugs come on to the PBS after a lot of consideration by the committee that recommends to government. New drugs, especially in the areas of cancer, can make such a difference. There's also a safety net involved in here for families that have an ongoing need for medicines. So the reduction in the general patient charge will likely have an impact on the number of scripts a general patient can have filled before they reach the safety net threshold However, with the reduction a patient will save $285.80 in out-of-pocket costs. So even though it will take you longer—because the price is cheaper—to get to the threshold where you no longer have to pay, you will save $285.80 in getting there. So there is some benefit to the patient. The bill gives effect to an election commitment made by Labor in response to the coalition's leadership on the issue. On 30 April 2022 the coalition announced an election commitment to reduce the PBS general patient charge by $10. Following the announcement, on 1 May 2022 Labor announced that they would reduce the charge by $12.50. That's a difference of $2.50. I'm happy that they have been able to find the money to be able to reduce it by $12.50 because it's a benefit to a lot of people in my electorate. Why? Because I happen to have an electorate that has an older cohort of people than most other electorates in Australia. The electorate of Monash is older and I would like to think wiser—and that's why I'm still here, but that's probably not the truth. If they knew me well then I probably wouldn't be here, but I am here and I'm honoured to represent them. I do have an older cohort right across my electorate. It's a regional rural electorate. At this point it hasn't had the massive growth that you are seeing in many electorates down the east coast of Australia and in Western Australia, but that is now encroaching in one part of the electorate—in the Drouin-Warragul area. Within a very short time those regional areas will become very large areas, which will bring the young families in This change to the PBS will make an inordinate difference in my electorate because of its age cohort and the number of people over 55, over 65, over 75, in their 90s and in their 100s. I want to make a point about that. The PBS enables people to live longer because they are able to manage conditions that previous generations didn't have the opportunity or the drugs to manage. So they are living longer. Since I first started as the member for McMillan the number of people over 80 who I write to has increased. The number of letters I write to people in their 90s has also increased. There used to be very few in their 100s that I wrote to, but now the number has increased. My community is not only ageing better but ageing well, and that's because of the PBS. They are able to get their drugs and organise the drugs that help their lifestyle. If you can help somebody's lifestyle, it will mean that they don't go into aged-care facilities earlier and it will mean they are a greater help to their family and are less of a burden. What I'm saying is that the PBS enables our community to live well and to live longer. Therefore, that has benefits throughout the whole community because they are actively participating in the community and, therefore, they are a benefit not only to themselves but to their children and to their children's children. That's why the PBS has been such an integral part of the health and wellbeing of communities in my electorate and I'm sure in the electorate of every other member of this House. The PBS is also very expensive for government. Many of the drugs people use cost thousands and thousands of dollars. When a government makes the decision to list a drug on the PBS that's your government taking responsibility for your health and wellbeing at a price way below the delivery price. That's why the government often negotiates for long periods of time with drug companies to make sure it is getting the best deal it can possibly get to bring the costs down as far as it possibly can while at the same time delivering the drugs for the benefit of our community. I think you'll find Australia is a great innovator when it comes to not only conducting research into new drugs but also introducing them as quickly as possible. Sometimes this is for the benefit of only a few people, but we have the luxury in this country of saying, 'One life, two lives, three lives are important.' I'm saying to the Australian people: you are important. I'm saying to my electorate: you are important. That's why the government continues to invest in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. We invest in it on behalf of families and we invest in it on behalf of very ill young children. This is a commitment to this scheme and to this reduction from all members of parliament, on both sides. Therefore, I support this legislation, I support the process that we go through and I support the ongoing benefits that this legislation will bring to families right across the electorate of Monash. 12:35 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham With the National Health Amendment (General Co-Payment) Bill 2022, Labor is taking action to ease the cost-of-living pressures Australian families are facing after nine years of coalition government neglect. Labor is taking action to make medicines cheaper so Australians do not have to choose between the health care they need and providing for their families. The relief that this bill brings will be welcomed by the people in the electorate of Cunningham, and I thank the Minister for Health and Aged Care, the Hon. Mark Butler, for his work on this. Last night I met with Trent Twomey, the National President of the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, and they are also really excited about this legislation. We spoke about how much there is still to do but how happy we are that this government is moving in the right direction—and so quickly as well. Our government is introducing this bill because we believe in access to universal health care, to health care that can be relied upon when Australians need it and to health care that is world-class and the envy of other nations. The Labor government story is very different from the record of those opposite. After nine years of neglect from the former government, many Australians are having to choose between vital medicines and putting food on the table, and many are forgoing those medicines due to the cost. The Albanese Labor government is making medicines cheaper for approximately 19 million Australians. We are reducing the PBS general co-payment from $42.50 to just $30. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in 2019-20 more than 900,000 Australian families delayed getting or did not get a script filled due to cost. This is a terrible statistic, but it is easy to forget the individuals that make up this number. They are people in our families, in our communities, in our workplaces, in our sporting groups and in our religious organisations. They are people who, because of financial pressures, are not able to buy their medicines. Australians deserve much better than this. This bill acts on our government's commitment to reducing the maximum amount Australians pay for their PBS medicines. New medicines are regularly added to the PBS. This enables more patients to access cheaper medicines for their conditions. Some of the medicines available through the PBS can cost thousands of dollars per script. These medicines are supplied to patients at a reduced cost, with the government paying the rest. The cost for the patient is capped and referred to as a co-payment. Since the year 2000, the PBS co-payment has doubled, placing increasing pressure on Australians buying medicines. Currently, the maximum co-payment a general patient will pay is $42.50; for a concession cardholder, this is $6.80. This bill ensures that, from 1 January 2023, the general patient co-payment will be reduced to $30. This is a reduction of $12.50 for PBS general patient co-payments. Around 19 million Australians will be eligible for savings under this bill, and these general patients together could save $190 million each year. A person filling one script per month could save around $150 per year; someone filling two scripts a month could save around $300 per year. The Albanese Labor government has also committed that no patient will be worse off following the co-payment reduction. Pharmacies will still be able to offer optional discounts to general patients where the cost of the PBS medicine lies between the new $30 price and the previous price of $42.50. The amount paid by the patient will still count towards the PBS safety net. For my electorate of Cunningham this bill will have a huge impact. The 2021 census data shows why this bill will be so important to my constituents. Cunningham's rates of long-term health conditions are higher than both the New South Wales and national averages. These are conditions such as arthritis, cancer, mental health conditions, stroke, among others. Lowering the co-payment will help people in my electorate afford the medicines they need to manage and treat their conditions. Many constituents have shared with me their concerns about the cost of living and the difficult decisions they are increasingly being forced to make. Through the reduction in the co-payment on PBS medicines to $30, some of these cost-of-living measures will be addressed. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank our local pharmacies, who do great work in helping our community every day. Like other frontline workers, they have worked so hard over the last three years. Over the past year they have administered COVID vaccines in addition to the many flu shots that they administer in the lead-up to winter. In preparation for World Pharmacists Day recently I had the great opportunity to meet Ahmed Sawan, pharmacist and owner of the Priceline Pharmacy at Woonona, with his son and my good friend Aboudi Sawan. Ahmed invited Ryan Park, the local state member for Keira, and me to meet with David North, the president of the Illawarra Pharmacists Association, and Amanda Fairjones, the state manager of the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia. Ahmed and David told Ryan and me about the work they do in our community and their goal to provide even more services to local residents. This bill supports broader health reform that has occurred since the Albanese Labor government was elected. From 1 October 2022, Australians will also pay less at the pharmacy for PBS medicines, thanks to the government's price disclosure policy. This will make medicine cheaper for thousands of families, representing out-of-pocket savings of over $130 million for Australian patients and almost $930 million for taxpayers. Australians with conditions such as migraines, arthritis, breast cancer, stomach ulcers and bipolar disorder will have access to cheaper medicines because of this. From 1 October the government is also expanding the number of medicines under the PBS. These include newly included medicines used to treat a number of conditions, including some types of cancer and growth hormone deficiency in children. Labor's suite of health reforms also extends to the creation of our Medicare urgent care clinics. These clinics will help to take pressure off our hospitals by providing medical care for Australian families who have an urgent but not life-threatening medical issue. The Medicare urgent care clinics will provide bulk billed appropriate care for many Australians while helping to minimise unnecessary emergency department presentations. These are just some of the actions that Labor is taking to improve access to health care and to protect Medicare. Labor built Medicare and we will always protect it. Our community deserves universal, prompt and world-class health care. The Liberal government spent a decade attacking Medicare. They tried to introduce a compulsory $7 co-payment, freezing rebates and cutting $2.6 million from Medicare. They abolished psychiatric telehealth items and removed regional bulk billing incentives. Under the previous government, average out-of-pocket costs to see a GP increased by 33 per cent. But Australians know they can trust a Labor government to look after their health system. It is a history of action that we are immensely proud of. The Labor government is making medicines cheaper. We are taking action on cost-of-living pressures. We are repairing nine years of neglect, and we have hit the ground running. I have chosen to speak on this bill today because access to universal health care is something I care deeply about. Many of my constituents face daily financial struggles. They don't need the added pressure of being unable to afford the medical care that they or their families may need. But we on this side of the chamber know that there are two major factors that can turn aspiration into reality for working families: access to health care and access to education. The Labor government knows that Australians are resilient and hard-working. They just need to be given the chance to succeed—a leg up when times get tough. By increasing the availability and affordability of health care for Australians, as this bill does, the Labor government has proven once again to the people of Australia that we are on their side and we will always fight for better health care for Australians and their families. I commend the bill to the House. 12:44 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I rise to speak on the National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill 2022. It was interesting listening about Labor's urgent Medicare care clinics. The minister opposite was just saying, I think, that they're going to build 50 around the country, which sounds like a good thing. I do hope that they're a lot more successful than the last Labor commitment, around GP Super Clinics. I remember when I was elected in 2013 that we had a GP Super Clinic that was just sitting empty for three years. Then it took us to get actual doctors in there. That was at the Redcliffe GP Super Clinic on Anzac Avenue. Many people in my electorate will remember that when the coalition came in we got it up and running, and operating well. The coalition does have a strong track record of providing Australians with timely, affordable access to effective medicines, cancer treatments and services. As other coalition speakers have mentioned, during our time in government, under the Liberal-National parties, we listed over 2,900 medicines, worth over $15 billion on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. I remember that when we came in the previous government had frozen those listings. So 2,900 medicines in nine years is an exceptional record that people are aware of, not just in the Petrie electorate but right around the country. In the 2022 budget, which the former government handed down this year, we provided greater access to cheaper medicines for 2.4 million Australians, with fewer scripts needed for free or further discounted medicines. To further reduce costs, during the election campaign the coalition announced that we would lower the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, or PBS, medicines general copayment from 1 January 2023 by $10 per script. The Labor Party would agree that the coalition has a strong record on reducing the costs of medicines, because three days after we announced our election commitment this year to lower the PBS medicines general copayment the Labor Party copied that announcement and introduced a $12.50 reduction—an extra $2.50—starting on the same date, mind you! But that's okay—an extra $2.50, well done, that's good. We support it; the coalition and I, as the member of the Petrie, will be supporting this government bill. We're debating the National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill today: this is good policy and I'm happy that it's going through. It's something that the people of Petrie will appreciate and, as their voice here, I'll be supporting it. The medicines under the PBS medicines general copayment help people suffering from cancer, heart disease, epilepsy, spinal muscular atrophy, multiple sclerosis, cystic fibrosis, severe asthma, severe osteoporosis and chronic migraines. This will really help people who suffer daily with those medical issues. Some of these cost thousands of dollars and, thankfully, because of the PBS up until now these things have only cost a maximum of $42.50. But if you're someone who has multiple issues, which many people do, that can add up significantly each month. So to help Australians who receive these medical treatments, throughout our time in government we made medicines more accessible and affordable. In opposition, we'll keep doing the same thing; we'll keep the pressure on the government to make sure they do the same. I don't think the current government will revert to what the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government did when they stopped listing them. I think the current government will do the right thing and will have bipartisan support across the chamber here. The reason that the coalition supports the reduction of the cost of medicines is that we understand the needs of Australians. When in government, through our strong economic management, and throughout the whole pandemic, we prioritised the health and safety of all Australians. And that's important; people know that during the pandemic the coalition government invested a lot into health. And we didn't do it just in health; we did it with employment, through programs like JobKeeper, as well. We all remember—those people in the gallery, you'll remember—that, when the pandemic hit, people were lined up outside Centrelink. In my own electorate—in Deception Bay, in Margate and in Chermside, down on the border—people were lined up out the front of Centrelink offices, concerned about what the pandemic would do. But the former Prime Minister, the member for Cook, established the National Cabinet. He brought bipartisan support across Labor and Liberal state governments because he wanted to deal with this once-in-a-generation pandemic, as the leader of the Liberal-National government, in a bipartisan way. That is something that I think he will be remembered for. In years to come it will be remembered that during the pandemic it was the member for Cook and the coalition government—and the former health minister, Greg Hunt—that stepped up and helped Australia, not just in saving lives but also in saving jobs and businesses. They put us in the economic position we're in today, where the Treasurer just found $50 billion in the back pocket! The Moreton Bay region and the Brisbane City Council area, where my electorate is located, are known popular retirement destinations, and I can understand why. They have some of Queensland's most beautiful coastline throughout Deception Bay, Burpengary East, Redcliffe Peninsula and—on the other side of the bridge, in Brisbane City—around Brighton. It's a wonderful place to live. In my electorate of Petrie, 20 per cent of people are over the age of 65. Many people say that with age comes wisdom, and it does, but unfortunately it often comes with a decline in health as well. Not everyone is blessed with great health as they get older. With that decline, many rely on medical treatment in the form of prescription medications. The Liberal-National coalition remains absolutely committed to ensuring that, if required, Australians have access to affordable medicines when they need them. Pensioners are just one demographic that will benefit from this co-payment reduction. Self-funded retirees, who are often paying for high-cost scripts, will too. In addition to the rise in the ageing population is the rise in chronic health conditions. The recent census revealed that almost one-third, 31.6 per cent, of people in my electorate of Petrie report having one or more chronic or long-term health conditions. These long-term health conditions include diagnoses such as arthritis; asthma; cancer; dementia; diabetes; heart disease; kidney disease; lung conditions; mental health conditions, including depression and anxiety; and stroke. This is not an exhaustive list; it only scratches the surface of long-term health conditions. Let's not forget that these are everyday people. It could be your grandmother, your mother—your child, in some cases. It could be your neighbour or friend. These are people who rely on regular medications to manage their long-term health conditions and maintain a quality of life that every person deserves. It was these people that the former coalition government were thinking of when we first committed to reducing this as part of our election commitments earlier this year. I recently spoke to Andrew Twist, a pharmacist in my electorate working at Priceline Pharmacy in Kippa-Ring. And I do want to join former speaker Wallace in thanking pharmacists, particularly those in the electorate of Petrie, right through Brisbane City and throughout the Moreton Bay region, for the work they do every day to help people who walk into their pharmacy—filling scripts and, for people with multiple medications, packaging them up and putting them in bags so people get their medication right each day. They even deliver them to the homes of people who are unable to get out to the pharmacy. So thank you not just to Andrew at Priceline Pharmacy Kippa-Ring but to all the pharmacists in my electorate. Andrew informed me that the reduction of the PBS co-payment would benefit local people in my electorate. When there is a policy that will benefit people, we support it as we have been elected to represent them. Andrew also told me that the constituents who will benefit the most in my community are the 10,000 people with type 2 diabetes; the 21,000 people who suffer with respiratory conditions such asthma, COPD and emphysema; and the 6,000 people with cancer. I was speaking to a constituent last night who lives in Scarborough, on the Redcliffe peninsula, and uses the drug Breo Ellipta, which helps with asthma. That can cost the full $42.50 a month. It obviously costs a lot more, but the Australian government through the PBS pays that. Traditionally, this constituent would have been paying $42.50 a month, and what we're legislating for now will put it down to $30 a month. That drug has changed her life. She also has diabetes and uses two different types of insulin that can also cost $42.50 a month. She also was very thankful when the former coalition government brought in the continuous glucose monitoring sensors, which were costing her $150 every seven days. When you combine all this—reducing the $42.50 down to $30 and also what was done with the continuous glucose monitoring sensors that were costing $150—that's a big saving each month for this one constituent in the Petrie electorate. So I'm pleased with what the government is doing here. It will support local people. The coalition welcomes the National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill 2022. My fellow Australians are feeling the cost-of-living pressure right now and will tonight with fuel excise going back up, which will equate to 25c a litre—22c plus GST—to fill your car up if you can in the next five days. With electricity bills going up, with rents going up—and during our MPI yesterday we spoke about the cost of living under this government—this one measure will help, and we are thankful for that. The people of Petrie are thankful for that. Finally, the coalition calls on the Labor government to continue to reduce the cost of living like this bill will. People are hurting out there, it's not just families that have kids in child care. It's also single people and 'double income, no kids', as I spoke about yesterday. Their mortgage repayments are increasing significantly at the moment. So I encourage the government, in the budget that they are handing down later this year, to continue to help with cost of living so Australians can make ends meet. 12:58 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on the National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill 2022. This bill, which is going to relieve cost-of-living pressures for so many families in my electorate of Newcastle, is welcome news indeed. It comes off the back of a very historic week in this parliament. The Australian people voted for change back on 21 May and, my goodness, has this government been delivering. This week we have seen the introduction of the anticorruption commission legislation, a matter that the former government kicked down the road year after year after year. That legislation is now before the Australian parliament. We have finally seen legislation that covers the implementation of all the legislative reforms that are required to deliver on the first Kate Jenkins review, Respect@Work. Again, the government had a lot of opportunities to act on and honour their promise to implement all 55 recommendations but they squibbed it. They were deaf to the demands of Australian women, and they were punished for it. We saw what happened at the last election. Again, people are crying out for some relief when it comes to cost-of-living pressures, but they are also crying out for a government that genuinely cares about the health and wellbeing of the Australian people. This is a government that went to the last election saying we would consider the aspects of both access and affordability when it came to health. We have all just lived through years of a global pandemic, where we got to see, firsthand, the pressures upon our health system. People in Newcastle are extremely appreciative of the efforts from all those men and women working in our health system. But they, like so many families across Australia, are really feeling the pinch of the massive inflation that is occurring. The economic position that we've inherited from the former government is now playing out in the quality of life that families get to live. So providing relief, wherever we are able to, is a great thing. This is a great piece of legislation that is before the Australian parliament today, where we've said, 'Instead of you paying the current maximum rate of $42.50 for every script at the pharmacy, there will now be a maximum payment of $30—and that's per script.' We've all heard reports in our electorates—and, indeed, we've heard them on a national scale—that the high cost of medicines has been forcing patients into a situation where they're beginning to make choices about their health care and providing for their families. They're weighing up those two different pressures that they're facing. There's not a single doctor in Australia who would think that this is a good place for families to be forced into—a situation where they are making decisions about how to manage their health care because of the high cost of medicines. The PBS co-payment rate for general patients has doubled since 2000. According to the ABS figures, more than 900,000 Australians delayed filling or, indeed, did not at all fill their prescription in 2019-20 due to the cost alone. This isn't something that has snuck up on us; this is an inequity that has been baked into the system over time, while the former government had ample opportunity to act. But it has taken the election of a new Labor government in order to get some action and to deliver on demand from the Australian people that we do something. We have a quality health system—no-one disputes that—but we know it's under extreme pressure, and we are now doing everything we can, as a government, to deliver on those two questions about accessibility and affordability. This is a critical part of Labor's commitment to ensure that health care is of a high quality, accessible to people and affordable. In my electorate, I have seen this time and time again. The chances of you finding a bulk-billing doctor in Newcastle now are nearly Buckley's. That is a radical shift that has occurred over time, and it has everything to do with the very long pursuit of freezing Medicare rebates. There are lots of complex reasons why this is occurring. We are seeing a shift from people getting quality primary health care from their GPs—which is, absolutely, where we want people to reach out and get their health care from—to emergency departments in our hospitals, because of affordability issues. Tertiary health is the most expensive way to deliver health care in this country. The idea of putting unnecessary pressure on our emergency departments, and the cost is quadruple what it is to deliver through the primary health system—if you don't need to be in hospital let's not encourage people to be there. Let's not force people to be there because of other inequities that have been baked into the health system along the way. We're going to do everything we can to make remedies to those inequities in the system. This bill before the House will amend the National Health Act and, therefore, reduce the maximum general patient co-payment under the PBS from that current maximum level of $42.50 per script to just $30. That's a deduction of $12.50 and represents a saving of 29 per cent for consumers on each and every script, and that is a great thing. That is very good news for Novocastrians and families where I come from. Nineteen million Australians will be eligible for savings under this bill. Nineteen million Australians are going to get some relief because of good laws being made by this Albanese Labor government. And we should celebrate that. We should be celebrating but also doubling down on our efforts to keep up the great reform work that we have planned, the reform work that we took to the Australian people and received a mandate for. So 19 million Australians will be eligible for savings under this bill, and that's going to present a total savings for consumers, it's been calculated, of almost $200 million per year. These are big figures. No longer are patients going to have to make choices about whether they can afford particular prescriptions in order to help prevent stroke in their lives. Where I come from we have an extremely high prevalence of asthma, and so many of those medications will be made affordable, will be life changing. We know the difference between people who take their medications as prescribed by a doctor—there's a reason why a doctor says you should take it this frequently and in this manner. But if there are financial barriers and obstacles in front of people, then they are making those difficult choices themselves: 'I can't take it that frequently; when should I take it? Do I fill it?' For most doctors, that is a nightmare. That is not following a care plan that has been delivered by their trusted GP. Making sure that these drugs are within reach for people with chronic health issues, like asthma, diabetes or stroke prevention, is a really worthwhile investment in trying to keep people healthy. This is what we've learnt about the health system. If you invest at the front end of our primary healthcare system, and you are making the investment in ensuring that people can access a GP and take the prescribed medicines, it's keeping them out of health options that are not good for their health and wellbeing, down the track, but also they're super, super expensive. We are adding important medicines to the PBS each and every week. That is the job of government. As we learn about improvements in medicines, if they stack up—and it is the job of the manufacturers to ensure that they have run their clinical trials and they have a good argument about the cost-benefit of these drugs—then they are listed on the PBS. This is a terrific system. It is a great Labor initiative. It is a scheme that you would want to see continue to grow and serve the Australian people for generations and generations to come. Having watched the dramatic increase of PBS co-payments over the last couple of decades, I know this legislation couldn't be more timely. It is vital that this legislation be passed. And I am very pleased to hear that members opposite have seen their way clear to support this bill. It is good policy. It is good public health policy. And it is deserving of support from all quarters of this parliament, because, right now, Australians are paying the price for a decade of missed opportunity and drift in health. This bill will make a real difference to their household budgets for millions and millions of Australian people. So this is a sign of the Albanese Labor government taking action. As I said, it has been a massive week, where our government has been getting on with the business of governing. We don't have a day to waste. We've got an agenda that is full. We are ensuring that we honour those commitments each and every day in this parliament. We don't have time to waste. All of us have commitments that we are adamant about delivering, both in our electorates and for the national agenda. And this is a very important contribution towards ensuring an improved healthcare system for all of those Australians. The pandemic gave us insights into how marvellous our healthcare system is in Australia but also the pressure points within that system. We are a Labor government. We are the party that built Medicare. We are the party that has always stood up to defend Medicare, whenever it has been under attack from conservative governments over the decades. We are a party that understands the importance of universal health care. It is a fundamental principle for each and every one of us on this side of the House. I see Dr Mike Freelander, the member for Macarthur, joining us—a man who was inspired to do medicine because of his passion for our universal healthcare system in Australia. We need people like him in health care. We need them in the parliament as well, and I'm very pleased he's here. You can always depend on a Labor government to deliver better health outcomes for the Australian people. We will always look to ensure both equity of access and affordability for each and every Australian, because health care matters and we will be here to defend Medicare, universal health and the PBS each and every day in this parliament. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D I thank the honourable member for Newcastle. The question is that this bill be now read a second time. I call the honourable member for Bowman, and I congratulate him on his election to the 47th Parliament. 13:13 Mr PIKE 300120 Bowman Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, and it is a pleasure to see you, my neighbouring MP, in the chair; it's always good to see a friendly face and a fellow Queenslander. I'm sure we look forward to returning to the Sunshine State and enjoying the rest of the week up there after the parliament rises this evening. The National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill 2022 amends the National Health Act to reduce the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme general co-payment by $12.50, commencing from 1 January 2023. The bill reduces the PBS general patient charge by allowing pharmacies to apply an optional discount to the PBS dispensed price of certain PBS medicines with a Commonwealth price between the new co-payment of $30 and the current co-payment of $42.50. We support this bill but note that it is copying coalition policy. I've just spoken in the Federation Chamber about the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Incentivising Pensioners to Downsize) Bill 2022, which is another initiative of the federal coalition government that the current government have appropriated and adapted and introduced as a bill in this new parliament. I don't begrudge them that. There is no monopoly on good policy. If the government wishes to implement the policies of the previous government, then I encourage them to do so. We can give them plenty more good policies from this side of the House which we would welcome their adapting and implementing. We want them to do well. They are our government: we want them to do well and we want Australia to do well. We'd encourage them to continue to use the playbook established by the previous government to grow Australia's welfare and to grow Australia's communal support and how we're assisting our citizens. Hopefully, we can be as one on that. It was the coalition's policy to reduce the co-payment back to 2008 levels, a policy that, obviously, was adapted by the Labor Party ahead of the recent election. There are of course no intellectual property rights in politics, and I encourage the government to copy away. I welcome the government putting forward this bill, which will largely enact a coalition policy. We all recall that under the last Labor government they had to stop listing medicines on the PBS because they couldn't afford it, a direct result of poor management of the budget. They also slashed funding for mental health support and tried to rip funding out of medical research. Today, I want to take the opportunity to compare that to the coalition record. We had 2,900 new or amended listings on the PBS. That represents an overall investment by the government of $16.5 billion. The coalition government established the landmark $20 billion Medical Research Future Fund, which has funded 722 projects by last count. Medicare funding, of course, grew from $19 billion in 2012-13 to $31.4 billion in 2022-23. The GP Medicare bulk-billing rate reached a record 88.8 per cent, up from 82.2 per cent under Labor. And, of course—a more recent development following the pandemic and the disruption that we all had to our daily lives, to medical provision and even to the operations of this place—we saw the government introduce permanent and universal telehealth. More than 100 million new telehealth services have been delivered at the last count I have information of. I'm sure the new government might be able to update us on some of those statistics, but the last count I had was that over 100 million new telehealth services had been provided to over 17 million people. The former coalition government also doubled funding for public hospitals, from $13.3 billion in 2012-13 to $27.2 billion in 2022-23. That is certainly reflective of the investment that I've seen within the electorate of Bowman. We've had a record level of investment in the Metro South local health network, and there are also a number of critical projects at Redland hospital that we've gotten federal funding for. I certainly don't think there was that level of investment under the previous Labor government, but I hope the new Labor government will look with positive eyes on any projects that I put forward in relation to health investment in my neck of the woods—or, indeed, in your neck of the woods, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta; I'm sure it would be most welcome. The provisions of this bill were announced as a cost-of-living relief measure, but Labor has taken its time to implement the bill, which won't commence until next year. While a useful cost-of-living measure—I certainly accept that—it is the only cost-of-living measure the government has announced while in office, and they must do more. The bill follows through on Labor's promise to cut the PBS charge by $12.50. This was a policy, as I mentioned, that was introduced in response to the coalition committing to a $10 reduction. It's another case of this government copying coalition policy and, certainly, a little bit of one-upmanship there with an extra $2.50. It's reminiscent of some commitments that were made during the recent federal election. I recall one within my electorate, where a $100 million commitment for a road project was trumped by a $110 million commitment the next day. I'm sure these things happen; I can't complain, and I absolutely welcome it. The coalition has always been, and always will be, committed to ensuring that Australians have access to affordable medicines whenever they are needed. We have a strong track record regarding timely access to effective medicines, treatments and other services. I'm keen to remind the House that, while in government, the coalition listed no less than 2,900 new and amended medicines on the PBS. I will repeat that number: that's 2,900 new and amended medicines on the PBS. I was going to try to list them today, but I know we have time constraints; we do want to get away from here at some point and, of course, a lot of those medicines are very difficult to pronounce and I wasn't intending to make a fool of myself in this chamber! But that's almost 30 new medicines a month, if you do the calculations. Following consultation with all components of the pharmaceutical supply chain, the coalition shifted drugs to be listed in line with the recommendations of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, ending the negative impact of government bureaucracy in this space. So the coalition certainly has a proud track record of making medicines more affordable. I've noted that some of the contributions from those on the government benches would have you believe otherwise, but when you go through those numbers that is a very proud track record. I've certainly seen the impact that this has had firsthand in the division of Bowman. I've seen the impact these policies have had and the differences they've made to local households. But I know there's certainly a long way to go in terms of affordability of medicines. The Pharmacy Guild of Australia does excellent work. They recently supplied me with research undertaken in my electorate which found some very interesting statistics, and I want to share some of these today. One is that 25 per cent of adults in the Bowman electorate have delayed the purchase of prescribed medicines because they could not afford them. That's quite a high percentage. Then 13 percentage of adults in Bowman have gone without prescribed medicines because they could not afford them, and 41 per cent of women in Bowman aged 35 to 55, and without a concession card, have struggled to pay for medicines in the past three years. And then 74 per cent of adults in the electorate of Bowman were concerned about the affordability of health care. These statistics are quite high, comparatively; I had a look at some of the other electorates across the country which the Pharmacy Guild of Australia conducted some research in. I have an older demographic in the Redlands; traditionally, we have been a retiree area. I think that, while not anywhere near some of the other regional electorates in Queensland, which have much higher aged cohorts, we certainly have an older demographic in terms of a suburban seat. So it's a very real concern for the people in my electorate and we certainly welcome this bill. This is because it will assist them in being able to purchase these medicines and also assist in preventing the erosion of the value of their dollar in such high-inflation times. That's an issue which is not going to go away any time soon. This bill will make a real difference to these Australians. Approximately 19 million Australians will be eligible for savings under this bill. Total savings for consumers is calculated to be almost $200 million per year—that's certainly not an insignificant saving for Australians. It's an important step to ease the cost-of-living pressures, and the bill has potential to help in that regard. In 2020-21 nearly 70 per cent of people were supplied at least one PBS medicine. That's quite a remarkable number. I was surprised at how high that was. The Pharmacy Guild of Australia, the Australian Patients Association, Chronic Pain Australia and Musculoskeletal Australia have issued a joint press release welcoming this bill. I want to refer to that joint press release because I think it's quite illuminating. Having worked for a number of different industry associations, I know how difficult it can be at times to get stakeholder groups together to support anything, let alone a bill in front of the parliament. I want to have a little look at that press release. This is a very significant endorsement of this policy. It's from 1 May and it quotes the National President of the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, Professor Trent Twomey, as saying: On behalf of patients, we and our partners the Australian Patients Association, Chronic Pain Australia and Musculoskeletal Australia are thrilled that both major parties have now committed to making medicines more affordable if they are elected. Of course Labor, who were then in opposition and are now in government, followed the lead of the coalition government and adopted this policy. It continued: A bipartisan commitment to address the cost of prescription medicines is a win for patients around the country who have been doing it tough … …   …   … This announcement is an acknowledgement of the importance of medicine affordability at a time when Australians are struggling with the cost of living. I note that word 'bipartisan', and I'll come back to that in a second. Another section of that press release was attributed to Fiona Hodson, who is the President of Chronic Pain Australia. Fiona wrote: The reduction in the co-payment will be welcome news to the one in five Australians living with chronic pain. Medicine affordability is a key issue for these patients as they manage their complex and chronic conditions. I note there all these wonderful advocacy groups who offered their support for strong bipartisanship on this issue. This was pre election. Whilst I was on duty here last night I noticed—with wonder—some of the statements made by Labor members. There certainly wasn't a spirit of bipartisanship. You'd be forgiven for thinking that the former government had cut medicines from the PBS rather than having an additional 2,900 new or amended listings, an investment of $16.5 billion. You'd be forgiven for not thinking that Medicare funding grew from $19 billion in 2012-13 to $31.4 billion in 2022-23 or that Commonwealth funding for public hospitals grew from $13.3 billion to $27.2 billion. I note that one speaker last night even tried to accuse the Liberal Party of having opposed a measure by John Curtin—a measure that predated the existence of the Liberal Party of Australia! You would expect that sort of partisan theatre in question time—in half an hour's time—but not when you're speaking to a bill that is a carbon copy of coalition policy. I will wrap it up now because I have about 30 seconds left. This bill will achieve a welcome outcome—$200 million of savings in subsidies that are accessible to 19 million Australians. It builds on the great work of the former Liberal-Nationals government, a government that listed more than 2,900 new and amended medicines on the PBS. I encourage the government to immediately outline what further actions they're going to take to relieve cost-of-living pressures, particularly in relation to combating inflation. This is a good start, but more is required. 13:28 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I'd like to congratulate the Minister for Health and Aged Care for introducing the National Health Amendment (General Co-Payment) Bill 2022. This is a really momentous health bill. It demonstrates to all the measured approach of the Albanese Labor government to our program that we will put in place over the next three years. It also continues Labor's history of understanding health care in Australia, supporting health care in Australia and making sure Australians have access to the best affordable health care around the world. Australia has had a wonderful record in health, thanks to Labor governments. From the introduction of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme by the Curtin and Chifley Labor governments in 1949 to the introduction of Medibank by Gough Whitlam in 1973, which we know was destroyed by the Fraser government subsequently and was reinstated as Medicare by the Hawke government in 1984—the year I started my private practice— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I'm sorry, but the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate will be resumed at a later hour. The member's speech was interrupted, so he will be granted leave to speak when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 60 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Regional Australia 60 13:30 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I rise today to speak on behalf of my electorate and regional and rural Australia, because what we are seeing and reading about is the predictable way, sadly, that Labor governs. Two weeks ago in the lead-up to the budget, there was a newspaper article both in the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age which headlined 'Tens of billions of regional funds at risk in search of budget cuts'. What is it that Labor has against regional and rural Australia? What is it that Labor has against investing in regional and rural Australia? This is a leaked article in the lead-up to the budget; they are preparing the ground to cut our road funding, to cut our telecommunications funding, to cut our Building Better Regions Fund, to cut programs about investing in energy-saving measures in regional and rural areas and to cut the ways our communities are going to flourish and make sure they can be strong into the future. I say this to all those members opposite and to the Treasurer and the Prime Minister: we will be going through your budget line by line and we will be identifying every single cut to regional and rural Australia and pointing it out. We know you're coming after regional and rural Australia, and we will not let it happen. Probus Day 60 13:31 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin Saturday, 1 October, is Probus Day throughout Australia and New Zealand. It is also the United Nations International Day of Older Persons, acknowledging the important contribution that older persons make to society. With more than 1,400 clubs across Australia and 100,000 members, Probus provides retired or semi-retired people with an opportunity to join a local club, make new friends and participate in numerous social activities that will improve mental health and wellbeing. This year's Probus Day theme is: 'Probus provides unlimited possibilities in retirement.' In the Makin electorate, people have access to 11 nearby Probus clubs, and there are several more in the surrounding region. They all operate independently and pursue initiatives in response to the priorities and interests of their members. Over the years, I've been invited to and attended many Probus club meetings, and I've also seen how welcoming and interesting they all have been. As we all know, many older people struggle with isolation and loneliness and it affects their quality of life. I therefore encourage any retired or semi-retired person who is looking for some friendship and a social life without any onerous obligations to contact a Probus club in their local area. It could change their life for the better. Vass, Mr Donald 60 13:33 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest I want to acknowledge today the passing of Don Vass. Don Vass was the local vet in my community in Harvey. In all those years, we had a significant cohort of dairy farmers just like myself. Don is survived by his wife, Jenny, and their children, Tim, Sue and Sarah. I would like to especially offer my condolences to his grandson, Harley. Don was a legend in Harvey. He was a happy, positive vet, no matter how sick your animal was, what he was doing or what hour of the day or night it was. Don was always singing, happy and positive, no matter what he was dealing with. He was a wonderful asset as a vet, offering wonderful advice and support to us as farmers. There was one instance when, after what was known in those days as the agricultural bull, we had a cow that had a really serious problem. She'd dropped her uterus in the course of calving and so we had to ring Don Vass. I said to my husband that he was at the ball. My husband said, 'He still has to come out here.' He came, swinging his bucket in his overalls and whistling. He said to that cow, 'This isn't all it's really cracked up to be, is it?' He was a wonderful part of our community, and I offer my deepest sympathy to his family. Holt Electorate: St Agatha's Catholic Parish, World Day of Migrants and Refugees 60 13:34 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt I was pleased to provide St Agatha's Catholic Parish with the Australian Aboriginal Flag last week to recognise the traditional custodians of the land on which it is based. St Agatha's parish has been an anchor for my community since its founding as a chapel in 1861. Like the suburb of Cranbourne, where it is located, the parish prides itself on being a diverse and welcoming institution that promotes multiculturalism and inclusiveness. On Sunday, St Agatha's organised their annual World Day of Migrants and Refugees celebration. This event commemorates the shared belief in the oneness of all, irrespective of race, gender, birthplace or origin, through performances, a potluck and a parade that showcases everyone's traditional culture, cuisine and costumes. This year's theme, Building the Future with Migrants and Refugees, promoted Pope Francis's message of recognising and valuing how each person can contribute towards ensuring a better future for us all—a future in which no-one is held back or left behind. Events like these uphold parish priest Fr Joseph Abutu's words that coming to Australia is like visiting the world. Cybersecurity 61 13:36 Ms LE 295676 Fowler I rise to speak to the recent data breach that has affected Optus and nearly 10 million Australians. Passports, drivers licences, birth dates and addresses have all been compromised. To make matters worse, many Optus customers have been left in the dark, not knowing what's happening with their data. I have written to the CEO of Optus, calling on her to allow any distressed customers to exit their contracts without facing penalties and to provide support to those Optus storefronts weathering the brunt of public scrutiny as they are inundated with frantic calls from customers. In places like Fowler, these hardworking individuals are the face of the Optus brand and they do not deserve to be penalised. The Minister for Home Affairs has herself noted that Optus left itself open to a basic breach. Given the sheer volume of data that corporations expect to take freely from customers and store for as long as they wish, such poor approaches to security infrastructure are unacceptable. Many Australians signed up to Optus or to other carriers with the expectation that their telecommunications are secure and reliable. Therefore, the carriers must respect their customers' desire to exit their contracts when trust is lost. The common practice around the globe is to take a tough stand on companies taking data security lightly. Australia must follow suit. I hope this major breach will force big corporations to tighten their security measures or face losing customers. National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill 2022 61

National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill 2022

13:37 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby Today this House has been debating the government's bill to cut the maximum cost of prescriptions from $42.50 to $30 as of 1 January. For many Australians, and for many in Boothby, this will come as an enormous relief. There will quite literally be people in my electorate who will no longer be forced to choose which medicine to prioritise when the family budget gets tight. A few years ago, I ran primary healthcare services for SA Health. Primary health care focuses on preventing the onset and escalation of disease and illness. Ensuring that all Australians—particularly those doing it tough financially—can afford the prescription medicines they need is crucial, if we want to do this. Many people in our community are managing chronic health conditions or risk factors on a daily basis through the effective use of prescription medicines. But of course the medicines only work if they're taken regularly and as prescribed. What I have heard from the community is that, when the family budget is tough, sometimes these medicines aren't the priority. Reducing the cost of medicines also has benefits beyond the individual. It's one of the truisms in primary health care that one dollar of prevention saves nine dollars of hospital care. Reducing the cost of prescriptions is money well spent, both for the individual and for the health system. Donations to Political Parties 61 13:39 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin Restoring trust in our politicians was a significant issue for my electorate in the lead-up to the election. The introduction of the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill into parliament today is an excellent start, but rebuilding trust will require more than an absence of corruption. The lack of transparency about who is funding our political candidates and parties undermines our democracy. At a federal level, disclosure of political donations occurs six months after an election and is only required for large donations, but the real picture is worse than this. Last year, only nine per cent of coalition income and 17 per cent of Labor income were disclosed donations. Most political party income is undeclared or falls into a messy bucket called 'other receipts'. I don't think this passes the pub test. I ran a transparent campaign, with all cash donations declared in real time on my website. This level of transparency is not difficult. It took a week to build my website. This made me think twice about which donations I accepted. I declined some generous donation offers where I thought that there might be a perception of influence. These were agonising decisions, but this is a good thing. We want our politicians to be thinking carefully about from whom they accept money, rather than feeling comfortable that no-one will ever know. Neither major party is likely to voluntarily make this change; they have too much to lose. Community pressure will be required to increase transparency and rebuild trust. Human Rights: Iran 61 13:40 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen There is widespread global condemnation regarding the killing in Iran of 22-year-old Kurdish woman Mahsa Amini. We're all distraught over the deadly and disproportionate measures Iranian authorities have implemented to crack down on the ongoing protests. We're deeply alarmed by reports that dozens of people have been killed and many more injured, including children, due to the heavy handed measures Iranian authorities have implemented to crack down on protests against oppression and tyranny. I stand with the courageous and patriotic Iranians who not only aspire to live in a country where everyone's rights are honoured fully and equally but also are keen to work through a peaceful process to get to that goal. We strongly support Iranian women and girls in their struggle for equality and empowerment, and we call on Iran to cease the oppression of women. Iran's people deserve a free and fair society, the freedom to practise their faith without hindrance and the opportunity to build their life on security offered by a functioning government. The Australian government remains deeply concerned about the human rights situation in Iran, including the use of the death penalty, in particular for juvenile offenders; violations of political and media freedoms; and discrimination against religious and ethnic minorities. We call on the Iranian authorities to exercise restraint in response to demonstrations and support a prompt, impartial investigation into Mahsa Amini's death by an independent body which ensures her family has access to truth and justice, with those responsible held to account. No Sheikh, no Shah. Warburton, Mr Michael 62 13:42 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner It is with a heavy heart that I rise to pay tribute to father of three and Bonner local Michael Warburton. On the night of 26 September 2022, Michael passed away from a tragic hit-and-run incident in Hemmant. A victim of youth crime, Michael was driving his beloved Vespa home from the gym when he was hit by a stolen car being driven by a 15-year-old teen. Michael was only 59 years old and recently celebrated 33 years of marriage to his beloved wife, Anita. Michael had no greater love than his family, and it is heartbreaking to think that Anita; his mum and dad, Jean and Graham; and his three children, Jessica, Blake and Riley, will now spend the rest of their lives without their husband, son and father. Michael's other great love and passion after his family were the Penrith Panthers. He was ecstatic to watch his favourite team fight for another premiership win this Sunday, and he wore the Panthers jersey every chance he had. Michael was a Navy man and dedicated much of his life to the service and protection of this great country. Michael was known as a kind, generous and caring man who would go out of his way to help those in need. No family should have to go through this heartbreak. We wish his family all the very best. Southwell, Ms Jesse 62 13:43 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter The Commonwealth Games have now concluded, and, once again, Australia had a successful games, finishing at the top of the medal tally with 67 gold medals and 178 medals in total. The Hunter was lucky to be well represented by 17-year-old Jesse Southwell. Jesse helped bring home yet another gold medal for the Aussie women's rugby sevens side. As someone who has been to four Commonwealth Games and won three Commonwealth gold medals, I know what it takes to represent our country on one of the biggest stages. Jesse's achievement is nothing short of remarkable for someone of only 17 years of age. I have no doubt her future is bright. Jesse is now a starter for the Newcastle Knights in the NRLW and is regarded very highly by some of the best players in the game. It's great to see women's sport and female athletes receiving the recognition they deserve. Jesse has been a shining light in the Knights women's team and not only led them to their first ever win this season but will play a vital role in the field as our mighty Knights play the NRLW grand final on Sunday against Parramatta. Congratulations, Jesse, for all that you have achieved in your short journey so far. The Hunter is proud of you. I look forward to seeing you continue to dominate the field for the Knights and further Commonwealth and Olympic Games for Australia. Go the Knights! Casey Electorate: Tourism 62 13:45 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey Yesterday was World Tourism Day, a day celebrated annually to promote tourism. In my electorate of Casey tourism is vital to our economy. We are spoiled for choice of amazing places to visit. We are famous for our superb Yarra Valley wines and produce, not to mention the stunning scenery of the Dandenong Ranges. There's no greater time to visit than right now. The grapevines are budding, the orchards are flowering and the tulips are putting on a colourful show. You can experience the TarraWarra Museum of Art in the morning, then move to lunch on one of the many wineries in Coldstream or Dixons Creek, and finish your day with cheese tasting at the Yarra Valley Dairy in Yering. But you'll need more than one day to really experience the magic of Casey. A visit to Casey would not be complete without a ride on the famous Puffing Billy from Belgrave to Gembrook, a bike ride on the Warburton rail trail, visiting the Yarra Valley Chocolaterie. The cherry orchards are in full bloom at the moment. A picnic amongst the blossoms in the orchard is a unique experience. Healesville Sanctuary is a must for visitors, where they can see our beautiful Australian wildlife in natural habitats. Our community is proud of our region and work hard to bring its beauty to others. Tourism not only strengthens our local economy but brings joy to so many people. Robertson Electorate: Live Music 63 13:46 Dr REID 300126 Robertson The Central Coast live music scene is coming back to life after the devastating effects of COVID-19. The pandemic impacted the live music scene on the Central Coast immeasurably and cost the livelihoods of many musicians and live act performers during the pandemic. I am pleased to see in my electorate of Robertson venues again hosting live music performances and live acts. Drifter's Wharf is one venue that is seeing a resurgence in its live music performances. They have recently hosted well-known musicians such as Kate Ceberano, Daryl Braithwaite, San Cisco, Holy Holy and Sneaky Sound System, to name only a few—all outstanding and excellent Australian musicians and bands. I would like to commend Drifter's Wharf, its employees and owner, Isaac Aristobil-Adele, on continuing to provide a quality live music venue for young and old on the Central Coast to enjoy. Another excellent live music venue in Robertson is the Lyons Den in Gosford. The Lyons Den offers brilliant live entertainment throughout the week. I have enjoyed visiting during its monthly LGBTQIA+ Pride evenings. The night's music is taken care of by the phenomenal Nick Kelly, DJ, radio producer and all-round Central Coast legend. Nick ensures that guests are dancing on their feet in no time at all. My appreciation and thanks to the owners, brother and sister duo Jared and Claire Lyons, and to all the Lyons Den employees for your commitment to live music on the Central Coast. Fisher Electorate: Rail Transport 63 13:48 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher Since 2016 I have called on state and federal governments of all colours to get on board with Sunshine Coast rail. This is a traditional passenger rail line beginning in Beerwah in the south of my electorate and travelling through Caloundra and Kawana to Maroochydore. It will create nearly 10,000 jobs, bust congestion and connect the hinterland to the coast and regions to the city. Twenty-six weeks ago—exactly half a year ago—the Member for Fairfax and I secured $1.6 billion—billion with a B—from the previous Coalition government to make the Sunshine Coast rail project a reality. It was the biggest single investment by the federal government into any project on the Sunshine Coast. The state LNP are on board. Once upon a time, on the eve of the election, the federal Labor government gave a somewhat tacit commitment to retain our funding. For over two decades all parties have supported this project. In fact the current Queensland Labor Premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk, listed it as one of her priority projects in her 2010 rail revolution. Fast forward 12 years—or in Labor terms three election cycles—and amidst all the gerrymandering and union pleasing, Queensland Labor are still to come out in support of the project. Their own state members in Caloundra and Nicklin refused to make the case to their colleagues. We need to get on board. The current federal Treasurer needs to get on board and keep the— (Time expired) Labor Government 63 13:49 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck I rise to update the people living in Hasluck and in this House on how, in a few short months, this Labor government has taken long strides to implement the agenda we took to the election. All of us on this side of the chamber were elected, at least in part, on a promise to provide relief and a helping hand to working people, families and everyone left behind by the coalition's long decade of denial and neglect. We are getting on with that job, making a submission to Fair Work for an increase to minimum and award wages, making medicines and child care cheaper, and increasing pensions. Hasluck has a burgeoning mortgage belt, with 55 per cent of residents having a mortgage, well above the national average of 35 per cent. Additionally, almost 20 per cent are renting. Three-quarters of the people in my community have been directly affected by the recent rises in interest rates. In my role as member of the House economics committee, I questioned the governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia in relation to the RBA's decisions to increase rates. I was able to represent the Hasluck mortgage holders and renters and to ensure that those who make the decisions to increase interest rates continue to do so with the full knowledge of the impact that these rises are having on the families and workers in Hasluck. I take my responsibility in this regard seriously, and I will keep presenting my constituents where decisions affect their livelihoods. Engadine Rural Fire Brigade 63 13:51 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I'm delighted to rise to acknowledge the Engadine brigade of the Rural Fire Service, located in my electorate of Hughes. The Engadine RFS was established in 1916. As with all rural fire services, the Engadine Brigade is fully staffed by volunteers, currently numbering 65. Led by President Pip Wells, Captain Steve Goddard and deputy Deb Sharp, the brigade provides invaluable services to our community, including fire suppression, hazard reduction, community education, as well as recovery operations from storms and all other emergency situations. Australians choose to live in the electorate of Hughes because of their love of the sunburnt country, epitomised by our beautiful natural environment. This includes the Royal National Park and many large pockets of urban bushland that adjoin our home. However, the beauty brings the inevitability of having to protect and defend our homes and environment against the infamous droughts and flooding rains. That's why the RFS is particularly important in Hughes. I recently had the pleasure of attending the Engadine brigade's Get Ready Weekend open day, an annual day where the brigade provides education to the local community. This year, Pip and his team focused on the new fire danger rating system and how to prepare our homes. I thank all volunteers of the Engadine brigade and reinforce how proud our community is of the work they do for us. National Disability Insurance Scheme 64 13:52 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I rise today to welcome the new appointments to the National Disability Insurance Scheme board, which were made by Minister Shorten this week. Australian Paralympic legend and disability advocate Kurt Fearnley has been appointed chairman of the board of the NDIA. He will be the first person with disability to chair the board, heralding a new era for the scheme. Mr Graeme Innes and Ms Maryanne Diamond have also been appointed to the board, and Mr Denis Napthine has been returned to the board. There are now five people with disability on the NDIA board, including current board members Leah Van Poppel and Meredith Allen, the largest number in the scheme's history. Having more people with disability in leadership positions is critically important to pivot the scheme and rebuild trust within the disability sector. After an extensive recruitment process, Ms Rebecca Falkingham has been appointed the new CEO of the NDIA. These appointments are so welcome. In opposition, as a member of the NDIS committee and as a local member, I have heard far too many heartbreaking stories of people with disability left behind by the scheme, feeling ignored and not having its true promise of choice and control delivered. There were many reasons why this country desperately needed a Labor government, and fixing the NDIS was essential among them. It begins with a minister and a government that really understand why choice and control need to be central to the scheme. We're getting on with the job and putting people with disability back at the centre. Rural and Regional Health Services 64 13:54 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee I was pleased to meet with the Assistant Minister for Rural and Regional Health, the member for Dobell, this week. I brought to her attention the desperate need for health workforce in the regions and the risks that face those who reside in Mallee, my electorate, due to the lack of doctors, especially GPs, and other allied health workforce. This is not a new challenge for those of us who choose to live in the regions; in fact, there are nearly nine million Australians living in rural and regional settings who experience problems with health delivery. The minister and I constructively discussed long-term solutions and short-term solutions to this knotty problem. I talked with her about the funding the coalition had promised during the election, for infrastructure to enable students from year 12 to complete the undergraduate biomedical science course at La Trobe University in Mildura, so that they could go on and complete their medical postgraduate degree at Monash, also based in Mildura. We know that people who train in the regions stay in the regions. I urged her to fund the La Trobe wet lab infrastructure, as the coalition had promised. The short-term solutions are, of course, varied, and we discussed many of these. As regional MPs, the member for Dobell and I understand the necessity of a specific approach to regional health delivery, and that one-size-fits-all for urban and regional electorates will never work. Australian National Women's Basketball Team 64 13:56 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon, for signing up to the parliamentary friendship group for women's sport this week. And thank you to all members in the House doing the same for the soon-to-be Parliamentary Friends of Women in Sport. I rise today to celebrate our great Opals, who have gone through the qualifiers and will play in the quarterfinals tomorrow night against Belgium. What a team! It is something for all Australians to be proud of. I know that everyone in this House will wish them well in their campaign. And there's an important piece here. I want to wish Coach Sandy Brondello all the best for this campaign; I want to wish Captain Tess Madgen, from the Barossa, who has played 65 games for the Opals since 2011, all the best; but most importantly, I know, for those of us who played basketball with Sandy and Lauren Jackson last year, I want to wish the GOAT all the best on her return to the Opals. Good luck, Opals! Do us proud. Bring it home for Australia. This parliament sits behind you. Honourable members: Hear, hear! Armenia 65 13:57 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I rise to speak about the ongoing attacks against the Republic of Armenia's sovereign borders by Azerbaijan, which commenced on Tuesday 12 September 2022. These attacks are a grave breach of Armenia's sovereignty. I call on Azerbaijan to respect the sovereign territory of Armenia and to retreat immediately to the agreed borders. As a result of this military aggression, the Azerbaijani army has advanced up to 7.5 kilometres into the sovereign territory of Armenia along an 8.5-kilometre-wide front, displacing up to 7,600 Armenians. This is a serious violation of the ceasefire agreement concerning the Armenia-Azerbaijan border. The many Armenian Australians in my electorate of Bradfield and across northern Sydney are, rightly, very troubled about this issue. Last Sunday, hundreds of Armenian Australians took to the streets to call on Australian media outlets to report on this matter. They have my full support. All who value the norms of international law and respect for human dignity will, I am sure, share these concerns. I call on the Australian government to signal clear and unambiguous support for the protection of Armenian citizens and civilian infrastructure according to international law and to signal Australia's strong support for regional peace and stability and the protection of sovereign borders. Abe, Mr Shinzo, AC 65 13:58 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler on indulgence—This morning I returned from the memorial service for Shinzo Abe. During that very moving ceremony yesterday I was accompanied by former prime ministers John Howard, Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull. It says a lot about the importance of the relationship between Australia and Japan that we had the current Prime Minister and three former prime ministers there to pay our respects. We were able to pay our respects to Mrs Akie Abe as well. She obviously has suffered a great personal loss, but this is a great loss for the people of Japan. I know that when we travelled there it enjoyed bipartisan support in this parliament. 13:59 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa on indulgence—I associate the opposition with the fine words of the Prime Minister and thank him for his representation at the funeral of Shinzo Abe, who was a shining beacon of democracy and hope across the globe. What he achieved is something that should be celebrated. Thank you for the honour that you bestowed on him along with those former prime ministers. It's a great honour, and thank you for all you've done. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 65 CONDOLENCES Webster, Hon. James Joseph (Jim) 65 Report from Federation Chamber 65 14:00 The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the motion moved by the Hon. the Prime Minister be agreed to, and as a mark of respect I ask all present to signify their approval by rising in their places. Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places. MOTIONS 65 MOTIONS Bali Bombing: 20th Anniversary 65 Reference to Federation Chamber 69 14:22 Mr BURKE DYW Watson by leave—I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 69 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 69 14:22 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, Labor left hundreds of billions of dollars of debt, supported every dollar we spent during COVID and proposed $80 billion more in spending. Unemployment has now hit a 50-year low and our economy, though, is stronger than those of the US and the UK, which look certain to go into recession. Prime Minister, Australians are hurting and the cost of living is going up and up under your government. Before the election you had a plan to help; now you only have excuses. Prime Minister, where is the plan? 14:23 Mr R36 Grayndler ALBANESE (—) (): Well, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his projection in that question! The fact is that the former government has left Australia with a trillion dollars of debt— Opposition members interjecting— Mr ALBANESE R36 They left Australia in a position without any economic strategy going forward and without having an energy policy, in spite of 22 efforts. We on this side have been very busy implementing our plans. There's our plan for cheaper child care, which has been introduced this week. We'll wait and see if they vote for it! Remember that when we announced that, in my first budget reply, they opposed removing the cap. They said that it was reckless, but then, of course, they did it. But they didn't go down the track of where they needed to, because they never understood that women's workforce participation is something that can benefit the entire economy—something that leads to growth and that boosts productivity. It's just like they didn't understand the support that we had. They tried to jump on for the cheaper medicines but didn't quite get there. We'll wait and see. I don't know if they're supporting our cheaper pharmaceuticals plan, the first reduction in pharmaceutical costs since Labor introduced the PBS 75 years ago. The first ever reduction, making an enormous difference to families out there. Of course, what they say is, 'We forgot to do it in our first year, our second year, our third year, our fourth year, our fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth years. If you had elected us four or five times, we would have got around to doing that. But we just didn't get around to doing it.' We brought together business, unions and civil society groups at the Jobs and Skills Summit again to make sure that we work for our common interest. The leader of the Nats was there—he wasn't going to miss out on that opportunity—but of course the Leader of the Opposition showed just how irrelevant he was by refusing to participate, even though the shadow Treasurer called for an invite and wanted to go, then boycotted as well. And remember this: they opposed the increase in the minimum wage. They opposed it and said the sky would fall if the minimum wage went up by $1 an hour. That's their record. National Anti-Corruption Commission 70 14:26 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering on its pledge to return accountability, transparency and integrity to government? 14:26 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Higgins for her question and for the contribution that she is already making in her short time in this place. I can confidently say she is the best member for Higgins that this House of Representatives has ever seen. The legislation that we introduced today is fulfilling yet another commitment: the introduction of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Quite clearly we do need to restore faith in our political system. We need to make sure that there is transparency, accountability and integrity. We said we would introduce the legislation and we did it today. It delivers on our promises. We promised broad jurisdiction. This legislation will allow for the investigation of serious or systemic corrupt conduct across the Commonwealth public sector by ministers, parliamentarians, their staff, statutory officeholders, employees of all government entities and government contractors. We delivered. We promised that it would be independent, and indeed it will be independent of government, with discretion to commence inquiries into serious or systemic corruption on its own initiative or responding to referrals. This legislation delivers on that. We promised oversight. The body will be overseen by a statutory parliamentary joint committee empowered to require the commission to provide information about its work. This legislation delivers. We promised retrospective powers, and we will deliver that through this as well. We promised public hearings. The commission will have the power to hold public hearings in exceptional circumstances or where it is in the public interest to do. It will make the decision as to whether there will be public hearings or not. On findings, we promised that it would be empowered to make findings of fact and refer matters to the Director of Public Prosecutions or to the AFP. We have delivered on that. We promised procedural fairness. As contained in legislation, findings will be subject to judicial review. So this legislation delivers on all of our commitments. We're not the first government to go to an election committing to a national integrity commission, of course. The former government did that prior to 2019. They just didn't get around to it. They didn't get around to even moving the legislation, let alone passing it through the chamber. So we will wait and see what those opposite do, but this legislation is worthy of support of the entire parliament. Taxation 70 14:29 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance have all failed to rule out increases to taxes on franking credits, negative gearing and superannuation. Given the strength of the economy and the budget confirmed today, will the Prime Minister rule out increasing taxes on hardworking Australians at a time of acute cost-of-living pressures? 14:30 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the shadow Treasurer for his question, and I can understand why the Treasurer is so happy with life at the moment—so happy!—because they ask questions about taxes— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume has asked his question. Mr ALBANESE R36 See if you can work out what were the two highest taxing governments in the last 30 years, because, to be fair, it wasn't the former government of which they were a part; they just ran second—second to the Howard government, which was even more. But of course the shadow Treasurer has had a bit to say this week at the CIS. Now, here he is. He gave a speech yesterday promising a back-to-basics approach. And boy did he get back to basics! Here he is explaining inflation. Honourable members interjecting— Mr ALBANESE R36 I'm about to quote him. Mr ALBANESE R36 They're your words. The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause and I will hear the— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my right. Members on my right— The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer. The Minister for Resources. When the House comes to order, I'll hear from the member for Hume, on a point of order. Mr Taylor 231027 Relevance, Mr Speaker: it's a simple question. It's a simple question: will they— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. You don't need to restate the question when you raise the point of order. It was a broad question regarding franking credits, other measures and taxes, and would the Prime Minister rule out increases, dealing with cost of living—a very broad question. I call the Prime Minister. Mr ALBANESE R36 And, talking about cost of living, I'm about to quote the shadow Treasurer about inflation, which has something to do with the cost of living. And here's the shadow Treasurer. Now, I read this overnight—you know, you're trying to stay awake, reading the shadow Treasurer's speeches. Now, here it is: Growing up on a farm, my dad—a farmer—explained in agricultural terms: Inflation is more money but the same number of cows. That was his great explanation! The price of a cow goes up, along with the price of everything else. … I got it straight away, and I've never forgotten. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Members on my left— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 He used to understand cows, but he's better with bull now! He's better with bull now, because Australians know that those opposite— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 On my left, members will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 left us with a trillion dollars of debt—deficits as far as the eye can see—after having promised, way back in 2013, a surplus in their first year and every year then on. That's what they promised. That was the basis of the election. They produced the mugs, but they never, ever produced a surplus. And this shadow Treasurer—if that's the best we can do, if that's the best that he can do, then they really are at the bottom of the barrel. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. There's far too much noise in the chamber. Members on my left and right will cease interjecting. I will hear the member for Bean in silence. Budget 71 14:34 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean My question is to the Treasurer. What are some of the pressures on the budget in October, and how will it start to deal with the economic challenges Australians confront? The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Hume will cease interjecting. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume will cease interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 as will the Manager of Opposition Business. I give the call to the Treasurer. 14:34 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I take the interjection from the shadow Treasurer. It hasn't dawned on him that the $50 billion that was in last year's budget isn't available for either side of the parliament to spend. This really should be obvious to the shadow Treasurer, but it isn't. I thank the honourable member for his question and for the way that he represents this community here in Canberra. When the parliament next meets, I'll be handing down the October budget on behalf of the new Albanese government. That budget will be handed down in the context of intensifying global pressures on the economy, pressures on spending here at home and pressures on Australian families as well. We know it's not the usual thing to deliver a second budget inside a year, but these are not usual circumstances. Over the past few weeks, we've been levelling with Australians about some of the growing challenges to the economy and to the budget. Some of those challenges are from overseas, like the downturn in global growth, but some of them are homegrown as well, like a decade-long failure to properly invest in skills or in cleaner and cheaper power. Some of these challenges are temporary, and others have been building for some time and will take a little while to turn around. So these are the circumstances that we're working with as we put together this budget. We begin with a trillion dollars of gross debt in the budget's saddlebags. What that means is that not every priority can be funded and not every issue in the economy can be fixed overnight. It means we do have to make difficult decisions like we have with the fuel excise returning to its normal setting as scheduled in the legislation passed by our predecessors. It will take more than one budget to clean up the mess that those opposite left and to build the better future that we all want. But the work has begun. It's begun when it comes to trimming wasteful spending. It's begun when it comes to investing in skills and energy and in our broken supply chains. And it's begun when it comes to providing responsible cost-of-living relief in a way that delivers an economic dividend and doesn't force the Reserve Bank's hand even more. Throughout the course of the week, those opposite have been asking us about cost of living. If those opposite genuinely cared about the cost of living, they'd support our childcare package. If those opposite really cared about the cost of living, they'd support our tax cut for electric vehicles. If those opposite really cared about the cost of living, they wouldn't have spent the best part of a decade going after people's wages and working conditions, making it harder for them to make ends meet. I thought that the shadow minister for finance made a humiliating error on Sunday when she said that those opposite wouldn't have any policies, but, now that I see the intellectual horsepower in the shadow Treasurer's speech and in the questions he asked in this place, I think it's probably for the best. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 72 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Jenkins, Mr Henry Alfred (Harry), AO 72 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 72 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE National Disability Insurance Scheme 72 14:37 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan My question is for the Minister for the and on behalf of the thousands of NDIS participants and their families in Ryan. Is it the minister's view that the NDIS is costing too much? Can you confirm that there will be no reduction in funds allocated to the NDIS in October's budget? And, for NDIS funds not spent this year, can you confirm that these funds will be retained within the scheme, or will they be removed from the scheme? 14:38 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I thank the member for Ryan for her question on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Obviously, when the Treasurer hands down the October budget, matters about what is contained in the budget will be revealed. The principle that I think the member is going to is the security of the interests of people in the NDIS: will they be improved or will there be a question mark over them? I can assure not just the member for Ryan but all the members here, the 540,000 people on the scheme, the 270,000 people who work in disability care and the people who love and care for the participants that, under the Albanese government, the scheme will be positive and the participants will be secure. There's no discussion about cutting the funds to the schemes. There was a change of government in May, and now the NDIS participants have got a government who won't introduce independent assessments designed to cut the benefits of people on the scheme. Mr Robert HWT Bipartisan bill! Mr Howarth 247742 Bipartisan bill! Mr SHORTEN 00ATG I take the interjection from those opposite about bipartisanship. The scheme should be bipartisan but not at the lowest common denominator of the maladministration of the previous government on the scheme. So let me reassure the member for Ryan that NDIS participants are going to benefit from the new board of directors and the new chairman. We've announced Kurt Fearnley. For the first time ever the scheme is going to have a person with lived experience as the chairperson. We are also going to reassure participants by the appointment of Graham Innes, former Human Rights Commissioner, Maryanne Diamond, former president of the World Blind Union, and in a demonstration of bipartisanship Labor has reappointed former Liberal premier of Victoria Dennis Napthine to the board of the scheme. Because we don't just talk about bipartisanship; we deliver bipartisanship. I am pleased to inform the member for Ryan that we have now appointed a new CEO to the scheme, Rebecca Falkingham, the first woman in the history of the scheme to be the CEO. So we look forward to the challenges that we have been confronted with and we look forward to reassuring participants in the scheme that we will do everything we can to make sure that their experience is excellent. One thing we can say and the member for Ryan can take back to her constituents—I acknowledge the presence of Greens Senator Jordon Steele-John, another supporter of the scheme—is that under Labor participants will be treated fairly. The objectives of the legislation of choice and control will be restored. We will rebuild trust in the scheme, and we look forward to working with people of goodwill from across the House to make the NDIS the best scheme in the world for people with disability. National Anti-Corruption Commission 73 14:41 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce My question is to the Attorney-General. How will the National Anti-Corruption Commission legislation introduced today restore accountability, transparency and integrity to government? 14:41 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I thank the member for Pearce for her question. Today is an important day, not just for this government but for this parliament and for the nation. Today we introduced to this House the first government bill to establish a National Anti-Corruption Commission. The National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill delivers on a key election commitment, first made prior to the 2019 election, to establish a powerful and independent anticorruption body at the federal level—a watchdog with teeth. It is a commitment we have never wavered from, and today we have delivered. The former government, having made their own pledge to introduce a federal anticorruption body in December 2018, never even got to the stage of introducing a bill. The Commonwealth is the last jurisdiction in this country not to have an anticorruption commission. It is past time for this to be fixed, and I'm proud the Albanese Labor government will be doing the job. Today's bill is the product of an extraordinary amount of work. It has been shaped by constructive consultation with experts and with members of both Houses. It aims to learn the lessons from existing anticorruption commissions across the nation, balancing the need for transparency with the need to prevent undue damage to reputation. The ultimate aim of this body, once established, is to both prevent and expose corruption at the federal level. The Australian people sent a clear message at the last election that this is what they want. It is now incumbent on this parliament to deliver. Shortly after introducing the bill this morning, I moved a resolution to establish a select committee of both houses to scrutinise this bill. We welcome that scrutiny and the dialogue which will flow from it, reflecting our genuine desire for this bill to have support across this parliament. There can be no more important task of those elected to this place than maintaining the trust placed in us by the Australian people and keeping our democracy strong. Today's bill is an important part of that task, and I look forward to the support of members across this chamber. Energy 73 14:44 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the still advertised promise on the Labor Party's website which says: 'We will cut power bills for families and businesses by $275 a year compared to today.' Will power bills for families and businesses drop by $275 a year and, if not, why won't the Prime Minister finally apologise for breaking this promise—a promise he repeated 97 times before the last election but not once since? 14:45 Mr R36 Grayndler ALBANESE (—) (): I thank the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party for her question. It goes to the issue of the cost of power in this country. What we know is that the cheapest form of new energy is renewables. We know that and business knows that, and that's why our plan for cheaper, cleaner energy is supported by the Business Council of Australia, but opposed by those opposite; supported by the Australian Industry Group, but opposed by those opposite; supported by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, but opposed by those opposite; supported by the Clean Energy Council, but opposed by those opposite; and supported by businesses, including investor groups. They all understand that Australia has the potential to be a renewable energy superpower. Individuals in their electorates, as well as in those represented on this side of the House, know that it makes economic sense to put solar panels on their roofs—not just to protect the environment but because it lowers people's power bills. You make the capital investment and then your power bills go down, therefore it is economically rational to do that. And it is that principle, extrapolated across the economy, that will do it. Today, indeed, we had a very significant announcement by the Queensland Premier: the Queensland energy jobs plan, with the biggest pumped hydro scheme in the world; ramping up rooftop solar and batteries; building a super grid to connect solar, wind, battery and hydrogen generators across the state; and creating thousands of jobs in regional Australia. And what— The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister will pause. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will state the point of order and not restate the question. Ms Ley 00AMN The point of order is relevance, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister hasn't said 275 once, and the question was very tight— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. The Prime Minister does not need to say any words. He is answering the question; he is being relevant regarding the question, which was about the Prime Minister's commitment and promises to cut power bills. I call the Prime Minister. Mr ALBANESE R36 And the way that you do that is to manage the change that is occurring in our economy. Those opposite pretended that they were going to have new coal-fired power stations. They pretended that Liddell Power Station was going to be kept open. They used to talk about it at this dispatch box and then it just disappeared as part of the 22 energy policies they announced but didn't deliver. Of course, not everyone in the coalition is like that, because the coalition government in New South Wales is implementing Renewable Energy Zones, including in New England. But of course the member for New England has said, 'I think the whole renewable energy thing is a load of rubbish!' That's their sophisticated response— (Time expired) Renewable Energy 74 14:48 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. What actions will the Albanese Labor government take, and what actions will the Albanese Labor government reject, to ensure Australians can access the benefits of cheaper, cleaner energy? 14:49 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable member for Macquarie for her question. I remember the hundreds of people who came to her renewable energy round table in Katoomba in the election campaign. They know she's a champion for climate change action and renewable energy! The member asked what we will get on with. We will get on with the job of deploying renewable energy, because it's the cheapest form of energy. Just this morning, I introduced legislation, the final piece of legislation, for offshore wind in Australia, and I look forward, in the coming weeks and months to making further announcements about jobs to be created and energy to be generated from offshore wind in the Gippsland, the Illawarra, the Hunter, off Portland and the Indian Ocean off Perth. We will work with the states, and the Prime Minister has referred to the excellent announcement from the premier of Queensland today. We will continue to work with the states, all states, in terms of deployment of renewable energy. I thank all state ministers, including the NSW minister, Minister Kean, who said, after our recent energy ministers meeting, that it was the most productive meeting of energy ministers he'd been to in four years. That's what the NSW energy minister said. Four years he mentioned, and this was the most productive. But the member also asked me about what we will reject, and after deep consideration we will reject the installation of the most expensive form of energy, and that is nuclear energy. I can report to the House the ideas factory over there has been whirling away again, and there have been Liberal and National senators and members promoting nuclear energy again today. But they don't have much detail. They don't have much detail; they've just got a vibe. I feel obliged to assist about what nuclear energy would mean in Australia. I'm grateful to the group nuclear energy for climate action, a pro-nuclear group which made a submission and gave evidence to the Senate inquire into the government's climate change act. They explained what it would look like. They told the Senate inquiry that in their analysis we would need 24 gigawatts of nuclear power in Australia. At 300 megawatts a nuclear power plant, which would be a small modular reactor, that means there'd be 80 nuclear power plants to come. That's one every second MP. Through you, Mr Speaker, put your hand up if you'd like one. There we go. You get a nuclear power plant, and you get a nuclear power plant, and you get a nuclear power plant! There are plenty to go around. They also told the Senate where they'd go. The Mid North Coast. There would be the Big Banana and the small nuclear reactor next door, a favourite for the kiddies! In Bowral, the Southern Highlands: the clipped hedges and the Bradman museum and a nuclear reactor for the good people of the Southern Highlands, I have to inform the member for Whitlam. They don't want the detail. They want to have their yellow cake and eat it too. Well, we're not going to let them get away with that. If they want a nuclear policy, they're going to be held accountable for it. Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories 75 14:52 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories. Did the minister or her husband receive any dividends from shares they held while the minister was in breach of the Prime Minister's ministerial code of conduct? 14:52 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro No. Cost of Living 75 14:53 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering on its election commitments to make early childhood education more affordable and accessible for Australians to help ease cost-of-living pressures? 14:53 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I thank the member for Macarthur for his question, and I acknowledge his lifelong commitment to children, as a paediatrician, and his strong advocacy for early childhood education here in this chamber. The member for Macarthur, like those on this side of the House, understands that many Australians are doing it tough right now, with cost of living increases right across the board. We are taking action to ease that pressure on Australian families. Our early childhood education and care reforms tabled here in the parliament yesterday are the first step to delivering on our election commitment to make early childhood education and care more affordable. Our plan corrects years of inaction by those opposite, with fees for centre based care rising by 41 per cent in the last eight years alone. That high cost of early childhood education puts early childhood education beyond the reach of so many Australian families. Our government wants Australian families to have choices and, particularly, women to have choices as they are, most often, the primary caregivers. But, at the same time, we believe that the main beneficiaries of our reforms will be children, ensuring that Australian children have greater access to the benefits of that really important foundational learning. Our reforms will mean that 1.2 million Australians right across every state and territory will benefit and that their children will be able to get more and better access to quality early childhood education and care. We know that in making these reforms possible we need to undertake some really essential work to recruit, train and attract more high-quality early childhood educators to the sector. This is something that I'm deeply committed to. We are already acting on this. We are bringing forward fee-free TAFE places. We have university places to build that pipeline for more workers. We are committed to wage growth. You won't hear anyone here saying low wages are a central part of our economic strategy. That's why we successfully argued for a pay rise for the most low-paid workers. We are working to address the gender pay gap, as well as allowing the Fair Work Act to allow for multi-employer bargaining. National Cabinet has recognised the importance of this work, and we are working with state and territory counterparts through the national children's education and care workforce strategy implementation and evaluation plan. This government has done in its first few months what its predecessors failed to do over eight years. I look forward to continuing this work with the sector and doing what they— (Time expired) Litigation Funding 75 14:56 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra My question is to the Attorney-General. Can the Attorney-General inform the House of the decision he announced on 2 September to relax regulatory restrictions with relation to class actions? Does he expect this will lead to more opportunities for class actions being funded by litigation-funding businesses? 14:57 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I thank the member for Berowra for his question. One of the most extraordinary things about the conduct of the former government during the pandemic was that it found time to try to prevent access to justice for ordinary Australians who were wanting to sue large corporations, companies with much deeper pockets than them. In order to get access to justice, we have class actions. You would think that a government that actually cared about ordinary Australians would not have done what the former government did during the pandemic, would not have found time during the pandemic to engage in the sort of nonsense that the former Treasurer, the former member for Kooyong, engaged in, which included not just the introduction of a requirement for Australian financial services licences for litigation funders but also an attack on the continuous disclosure regime which actually supports the raising of capital for all Australian companies. What an extraordinary thing for a Treasurer of this country to do! But that was one of the things that the former Treasurer engaged in. Another thing, as I have mentioned, was the introduction of an Australian financial services licence requirement for all litigation funders. The extraordinary thing— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The Attorney-General will resume his seat. Members will cease interjecting. I would like to hear the Manager of Opposition Business in silence on the point of order. Mr Fletcher L6B It's a very specific question: will it lead to more opportunities for class actions being funded by litigation-funding businesses? The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the Manager of Opposition Business. The Attorney-General has provided a lot of context. I ask him to return to that part of the question before he concludes. Mr DREYFUS HWG We are very happy to restore access to justice for ordinary Australians. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 76 14:59 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. How is the Albanese Labor government easing the cost of living by delivering cheaper medicines to millions of Australians? 14:59 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the member for Cunningham for her question and for her really deep understanding of the importance of those great Labor legacies, Medicare and the PBS, in the health of her community, the community she has the honour of representing, in this place, right now. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker will cease interjecting or be warned. Mr HWK That's why Labor promised at the last election to strengthen Medicare and to cut the cost of medicines, and we are delivering on that promise. Later today, I expect that the House will pass our legislation to deliver the biggest cut to the cost of medicines in the 75-year history of the PBS. From 1 January, millions of Australian patients will see the cost of their medicines cut from $42.50 to just $30. A patient filling two scripts every month will save $300 each and every year. That's not just great for household budgets, it's also fantastic for the health of the nation. We know from the ABS that as many as 900,000 Australians, each and every year, go without a script that their doctor has said is important for their health, because they can't afford it. Today, the member for Dobell, the first female pharmacist elected to this parliament ever, spoke about her experience working as a pharmacist, with families coming in to her pharmacy asking for her advice about which scripts they could go without because they couldn't afford to fill them all. The member for Robertson, an emergency physician working on the Central Coast, talked of his experience of patients presenting to EDs because they couldn't afford to fill their medicine scripts. Australians know how important this bill is not just for their household budgets but also for their health. Cherie from Bribie Island wrote to me and talked about her experience of buying medicines but still having difficulty finding the money to buy groceries and to pay her rent. She said she didn't want to have to choose between those essentials in life. She said, 'I know this will make a big difference to me and my friends.' Grace, a 20-year-old with type I diabetes, wrote to me and said, 'I'm so thankful that insulin will be cheaper for me now that I've moved out of home.' As well as this bill, as early as Saturday 1 October the cost of more than 2,000 brands of medicine will also come down, delivering another $130 million into the hip pockets of Australian patients. That is delivering on our commitments to strengthen Medicare and to cut the cost of medicines. National Anti-Corruption Commission 76 15:02 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi My question is to the Attorney-General. Congratulations on tabling the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill today. Under this bill, the commission's hearings will be in private unless the commissioner decides it's in the public interest and there are exceptional circumstances that justify a public hearing. Why is the exceptional circumstances test necessary when it could lead to protracted legal challenges and hide corruption for longer? 15:03 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I thank the member for Indi for her question, and I thank her for the intense engagement that she has shown to this topic, from really the day in which she arrived in this parliament, and pursuing the matter through the course of the last parliament with a private member's bill and making sure that there's been active debate in our country on what an anti-corruption commission should look like. We brought a bill to the parliament today to establish a national anti-corruption commission. I think today is a very good day for this parliament, it's a good day for the nation and, as I've already said, it honours the government's commitment to legislate a national anti-corruption commission this year. It's the single biggest integrity reform this parliament has seen for decades. Going to the honourable member's question, as she has said, the National Anti-Corruption Commission will have the discretion to hold public hearings, in relation to an investigation, where the commission decides that exceptional circumstances justify the holding of the hearing in public and it is in the public interest to do so. The key to this is that all of the anticorruption commissions that have been established in Australia have had to make a decision—one of them, in fact, does not have the power to hold public hearings at all, but the others all have to make a discretionary decision as to whether or not to hold a hearing in public. The experience of all these anticorruption commissions has been that the overwhelming majority of hearings that they hold are, in fact, in private. That's for very good reason. It's because commissions like this have to be concerned with whether or not there would be an unfair prejudice to people's reputation. They have to be concerned with whether or not there would be an unfair prejudice to someone's privacy or, indeed, to their safety. There are a whole range of factors, and, as I mentioned yesterday in the House, there's always a concern about whether exposing a matter in public is going to prejudice a forthcoming criminal prosecution or whether it's going to prejudice an existing criminal prosecution. We've given careful consideration to the question of public hearings, unlike— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Indi, on a point of order. Dr Haines 282335 Yes, it is a point of order on relevance, Mr Speaker. I asked the Attorney-General if this would lead to extended legal proceedings and delay corruption investigations. Mr DREYFUS HWG I was coming to the second part of the honourable member's question. Subject to the standing order about not giving legal advice, we've very carefully considered the question of whether or not this discretion, vested in the commissioner, might give rise to legal proceedings. We are confident that this won't be a matter that is going to be readily litigated. Cybersecurity 77 15:06 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the government responding to the Optus data breach? 15:06 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Blair for his question. The Optus data breach is of great concern, and I acknowledge the stress and worry that this has caused millions of Australians. When customers hand over their data to companies in Australia, they expect that it will be kept safe, and this kind of data breach should be an absolute wake up call to corporate Australia. The government has been working with Optus around the clock to obtain the crucial information and evidence needed to conduct a complex criminal investigation led by the AFP, in cooperation with the FBI. I spoke to the CEO of Optus on Saturday, having had a brief from the head of the Australian Signals Directorate on Friday night, and I know that Minister O'Neil and other ministers have been working around the clock on this issue. As the government continues to actively monitor risks for those customers impacted by the breach, our message to Australians is to be vigilant, to not divulge data to unknown entities and to take advantage of the credit monitoring services. We know that this breach should never have happened, and the government expects Optus to do everything within its means to support affected customers. Clearly, we need better national laws, after a decade of inaction, to manage the immense amounts of data collected by companies about Australians and clear consequences for when they do not manage it well. We're committed to protecting Australians' personal information and to strengthening privacy laws through the Privacy Act review. Those opposite want taxpayers to pay for a problem caused by Optus and their own failures on cybersecurity and privacy regulation. I was surprised to read a media release from their shadow minister saying Labor must provide new passports for Optus victims. What that means is that taxpayers should provide for that. Well, that's not our approach. We believe that Optus should pay, not taxpayers. Senator Penny Wong, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, has written to the CEO of Optus, Ms Bayer Rosmarin, today, asking for that. I table the letter from the Minister for Foreign Affairs to Optus. That is a big difference between us and those opposite, who are somehow attempting to play politics and say that taxpayers should fund this, after they sat on a failure to legislate appropriately for nine long years. We are dealing this issue. We know that it does need to be dealt with. We know that this has been an absolute priority for Australians. On that note, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 78 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Member for Kennedy 78 15:10 The SPEAKER 53517 Before members exit, I want to draw to the attention of the House an incident that occurred during a division yesterday. I believe it's in the best interests of the House if I give the honourable member for Kennedy an opportunity to address this issue. 15:10 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy I must apologise to the House for my actions yesterday in attempting to enter the chamber after the order that the doors be locked. I also apologise to the security attendant who was closing the doors. I acknowledge he was doing his job as directed by the Speaker. Thank you for the permission to make that statement, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the member for Kennedy. DOCUMENTS 78 DOCUMENTS Presentation 78 15:10 Mr BU DYW Watson RKE (—) (): 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. BILLS 78 BILLS Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Workforce Incentive) Bill 2022 78

Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Workforce Incentive) Bill 2022

Explanatory Memorandum 78 15:11 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I present the explanatory memorandum to the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Workforce Incentive) Bill 2022. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 78 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Housing 78 15:11 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Mayo proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: Housing affordability in Australia—has the great Australian dream become a nightmare? 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— 15:11 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I rise to speak on this matter, which I believe is of great public importance—housing affordability in Australia—because I believe what has always been a great dream for generations of Australians has become a nightmare. Australia is now among the worst in the world for housing affordability. I think we're No. 2, behind Hong Kong. Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Brisbane and Perth—all of those destinations—are within the top 20 least-affordable cities in the world. This has happened in one generation. As a young woman at 24 years of age, I was able to build my own home. It is very rare for a 24-year-old to be able to do that today. Indeed, we've gone from a median house being about 2.4 times the average annual income back in 1980 to now being around 10 times the average income. That's happened, really, in one generation, and it's largely because of the policies that have happened in this place and in various state parliaments. This will have a huge effect for generations because we know that if home ownership decreases that as people get older their ability to live a life in their older years without poverty also diminishes significantly. And those who are lucky enough to own their own home right now are feeling immense pressure with the rapid increase in interest rates. How did we get here? We have, for much of my time in this parliament, always looked at the demand side, and we've put through policies that really do increase demand without necessarily looking at supply. I also draw the attention of the House to an excellent report recently released by the Grattan Institute called The great Australian nightmare by Brendan Coates—it was released just a couple of weeks ago. There are other factors as well that have created the nightmare that we're in right now. Post 2005, surges in migration led to dramatically significant increases in rents to the point that, the Grattan Institute says, it was increased by around nine per cent higher by 2018 than it would have been if we did not have that high level of migration from around 2005. Now, that could have been addressed if we had increased housing supply at the same time as bringing more people into our nation. I don't want to sound like a NIMBY here, but, if you're going to bring more people in, naturally you have to have the houses for them to live in; otherwise, you just create more and more pressure. Right now in my electorate we have people who are living in tents. They are living in caravans. These stories are filling my inbox and I'm sure they're filling everyone's inboxes right now. Just today a woman contacted me. She's in Normanville. Her adult son is living in a caravan out the back of her house because he's on JobSeeker and he can't afford even to share a place and certainly can't afford to rent his own place. We also need to look at NRAS. I've talked myself blue in this place about the National Rental Affordability Scheme. While I really do commend the government on their plan to build an extra 30,000 social and affordable housing properties with the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, my concern is that there are currently 24,000 properties in the NRAS scheme that are going to expire by 2026. The great problem we have is that we're going to have a valley of death, because many of those properties will be sold. I know the minister thinks that they will just continue on, but I urge the government to consider extending those currently in the scheme, because you're not going to have enough of a replenishment of stock in between. The crossbench today is very keen to talk about this. We can fix this. We can turn this around. We need to focus on trades and skills to get the next generation of carpenters and builders. Not enough young people are going into apprenticeships in this space. We need to fix land use planning. We need state, federal and local government to work together. We need to make sure the NRAS continues. I also believe we need to raise rent assistance, because it is just unaffordable. I can't have people in my community living in tents for months on end. 15:17 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin My electorate of Curtin has a slightly higher proportion of households owning their house and a slightly lower proportion than the national average paying off a mortgage, with a fairly average 31 per cent renting. But, even in this context, one in four renters in Curtin are paying more than 30 per cent of their household income in rent and there are plenty of examples of housing stress in my electorate. For example, Lucy contacted the office for assistance with her elderly friend, Margaret. Margaret's in her 70s, and the home she rents in Swanbourne had recently been sold. When she contacted us, Margaret had six weeks to find another home but was having trouble accessing affordable rental. Margaret was distressed and confused about her rights as a renter as well as government support options. She didn't want to leave her community or her local part-time dog-walking job. There are two main issues with housing, and both require a long-term approach. These are affordability and access. Affordability is an issue that isn't going away. When I bought my first house in the nineties, the median house price was, as pointed out by the member for Mayo, 2.5 times the median income, and now it's up to 10 times. To address household affordability, we need to balance the interests of four different groups: current homeowners, who have their savings tied up in their houses as their key asset; prospective owners, who want to own a home but can't get into the market; renters, who may not want to or be able to get into homeownership; and investors, who may have invested their superannuation or other savings in property based on expectations about the regulatory environment in the property market. All these groups have valid concerns, some of which are in direct conflict. To address these conflicts fairly, we need to take a long-term view and return to the purpose of housing, which is to provide people with homes. Successive governments have taken a short-term approach to this issue, throwing fuel on the fire, increasing demand and putting upward pressure on housing prices. Government assistance has mainly pushed up purchase prices for first-home buyers rather than making the first purchase of a home more affordable. Our tax settings are aligned with maintaining or increasing house prices. They favour property investors at the expense of people trying to buy a home, which fuels speculative investment, causing house prices to rise much faster than incomes. It's understandable that successive governments have shied away from addressing underlying affordability issues, because the decline in house prices is politically unpalatable for those who are already in the housing market as owners or investors. We can't ignore this issue. It will require a long-term approach, including the community in conversations and phasing in changes over time to minimise the impact on current property owners. The second key issue is access; access to safe housing is absolutely vital. Yesterday I met with Angie, who was deeply worried about the security of her housing. She was renting privately with her three kids and because she was owed, but hadn't been paid, child support her Centrelink payments had been unilaterally cut. This means she's now paying 70 per cent of her income to maintain her housing. If you don't have stable housing it's very difficult to provide a stable environment for kids, let alone address mental or physical health issues or find a job. Housing is increasingly seen as the foundation stone for people to get their lives back together when they're experiencing hard times. As of May 2022 there were nearly 19,000 households on the social housing waitlist in my home state of WA, and 163,000 across the country. In WA, the average wait time for social housing is more than two years. Even on the priority waitlist—for example, people who have young children—the average wait time is 43 weeks. If you have a disability the situation is even harder; Western Australia has not picked up the amendments to the National Construction Code that require all houses to have minimum levels of accessibility, so there are limited numbers of homes that are suitable. The proposed Housing Australia Future Fund is a start but, with the provision of 20,000 homes for social housing over the next five years, it will only meet one eighth of the social housing waitlist. We must do better than this. We must decide whether we want to live in a country where people have access to safe and affordable housing, and can reasonably aspire to home ownership, and then set our policy priorities accordingly. 15:21 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I genuinely want to thank the member for Mayo, the crossbenchers and the member for Curtin for raising what is really a very serious issue. Housing affordability across the country really is a very desperate challenge for many Australians—for far too many Australians. It is incredibly difficult for too many Australians to find a safe, affordable place to call home. Indeed, as a local member—and even before I became the Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness—I had seen quite a change in the last 18 months. As a local member for 14 years, I had not seen so many people contact my electorate office or come to see a local member of parliament about insecure housing. Many of them were actually at risk of homelessness. Surprisingly, there were two-income families with children coming to say that their lease was up and there was actually nowhere to rent. Whether they could afford it or not, there was actually nothing available. I know that in my home state of Tasmania, the vacancy rate for renters in Hobart is less than 0.4 per cent. And I know it's pretty diabolical in Adelaide, Perth and other parts across the country. It really is a very critical issue, and we do need to do better—we absolutely need to do better. Indeed, the last census, back in 2016, said that there were 116,000 Australians who had nowhere to call home. I am concerned about when we get the data next year from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, that it would have increased significantly. I'm very concerned about that. I understand how important having a safe and affordable place to call home is. I'm one of the few members in this place who has lived it. I spent my early childhood in a broadacre public housing estate—indeed, the poorest suburb in Tasmania at the time. Like the Prime Minister, I know how difficult it was for my family to lift us out of poverty and how difficult it can be. But it should be possible—it should be possible in Australia and, sadly, I think it has become less possible than it used to be. The member for Mayo is absolutely right: for the last decade, under those opposite over there, we've had very little action when it comes to a coherent national strategy or policy around housing and homelessness. Indeed, some of their policies, as the member for Mayo indicated, have increased the cost of houses. What we've seen in the last decade is construction costs up 46 per cent—half of that in the last 2½ years. We do understand that some of it's in relation to the pandemic and supply chain issues in relation to the Ukraine war, but it is increasing the cost of building new homes. There are also of course really significant constraints in the construction industry at the moment. They are averaging about 200,000 new dwellings across Australia each year, and of course the completions are the issue, because there simply isn't the labour and there aren't the materials to build much more than that. That is the critical point here. In our discussions with the construction sector, and indeed with the industry more broadly, what we're hearing from them is that they expect things to ease in the second half of next year—as I've discussed with quite a few members of the crossbench who have come to see me or have written to me who are concerned about this issue. Indeed, we did go to the election with a fairly ambitious housing agenda, in terms of housing reform, so I do just want to run through, for the crossbench, our housing agenda. We are going to have our Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee scheme. That starts this weekend. We've brought that forward because we know that, for many people living in regional Australia, rents have increased considerably and many of those who are paying rent could service a mortgage. But we know that that 20 per cent deposit is a barrier that they can't get over. So, with a deposit of as little as five per cent, we can get more people into their first home, with those 10,000 places across the country from 1 October. We also understand that this is an immediate issue and some of our other reforms will take a bit of time, and, through the Jobs and Skills Summit and the discussions that we had there, we understand that, in particular, workers' access to housing has been really critical. So we are widening the remit of the National Housing Infrastructure Facility. Previously it was available just for head works, for local governments and state governments, but that fund wasn't being utilised. So there will be up to $575 million available for investment in social and affordable housing. What we also want to do with that is to try to leverage private investment and investment from superannuation funds, to try and get more homes on the ground sooner, while we legislate our Housing Australia Future Fund and then invest that and wait for the returns from that. So those are two things that we're doing really quickly that we want to be able to get to work on. We also, of course, have had two ministerial council meetings—meetings with state colleagues. Now, when I had the first meeting in July, it was the first meeting of housing ministers in almost five years. That shows the lack of leadership that we've had. It was a terrific meeting. The enthusiasm and encouragement from the state ministers left me feeling quite optimistic that we could actually get some movement here. Then we had another meeting at the end of the last sitting week, where we talked more about how we were going to work together. We all have a view that not one tier of government alone will solve this—that we're going to need all three tiers of government, but working, importantly, with homelessness services, social housing providers, investors and superannuation funds. We all need to be working together and heading in the same direction if we're going to try and solve this housing affordability issue that we have at the moment. Unfortunately, some of that is going to take some time. That is why we're doing some of those immediate actions now. We also made an election commitment around the government equity scheme, to get more people into a home, and that is available even for people who've owned a home before but currently don't own a home. So it might address some of those older women who have not been able to maintain a family home after divorce and things like that. That's the Help to Buy scheme. We're looking at how quickly we can introduce that. That is government equity of up to 30 per cent for existing homes and up to 40 per cent for new homes. So we're working on that quickly. The Housing Australia Future Fund I've talked about. That is 30,000 social and affordable homes—20,000 social homes and 10,000 affordable homes—in the first five years of the fund. From our conversations with social housing providers, the construction sector and the state and territory governments, as well as local government, we think that that will be achievable. We are concerned, though, about some of the constraints in the construction sector at this time. We also want to get up an affordability and supply council. We need to look at some of those critical issues that are stopping more properties coming onto the market more quickly. What can we do? Which tiers of government have the levers? But, importantly, we also need to ask: what is the evidence around what those interventions actually do to the market? We need to have more evidence based policy about the interventions that are taking place and how they're impacting across the sector, because there are so many inputs into the housing sector in Australia. You can do something on one bit and it impacts everywhere else. We need to be really careful about the interventions and innovations that we're doing, so we understand exactly the impact it's having across affordability in the entire housing spectrum. We want to get that affordability and supply council up and running. I'm hoping to have it up and running late this year or early next year. Then, more long-term, we want a housing and homelessness plan, whereby we have short-term, medium-term and long-term agreements on which direction we're heading in. We need to be able to work together and we need to be able to say, 'This is what we are all going to do in the short term, the medium term and the long term.' The other thing we need is some accountability around that and some measurement about how we are travelling in terms of what our plan is and where we want to be. We do need to do a lot of work; we need to bring a lot of people together and get a lot of agreement. So it's not going to be an easy task, but I can assure the members that I have been from Gladstone all the way down to Greater Hobart in my own state, talking to stakeholders, talking to the construction sector, talking to homelessness providers, talking to people with lived experience of homelessness, talking to many of the people that are writing to me and talking to me about the critical situation that we're in right across the country. I've also got a lot of caucus members over here who are critically concerned about this really serious issue and who are contacting me and making sure that the government doesn't lose sight of how critical this is for people in their electorates as well. We are all getting this, as the member for Mayo said, in our electorate offices. I have never seen it quite so much. We need to do a lot more to make sure that more Australians have a safe, affordable place to call home, and I'll be doing my best every single day. 15:31 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy I wish I had 15 minutes on this. I had enough money to build 400 houses when I was a minister in the state government—400 houses! Thanks to Greg Wallace, Gerhardt Pearson, Lester Rosendale and Eric Laws—all First Australians—we built 2,000 houses with the same amount of money. Unfortunately, Minister, all you talked about was increasing demand. You're going to help them get deposits, so that'll increase demand. The member for Mayo quite rightly pointed out that this is not a demand problem; this is a supply problem. Heavens, you live in a country where the average price of land is $400 a hectare. Why are we paying $400,000 a hectare? I'll tell you why: it's because of the cancer of government intervention. In Charters Towers—as with 700 major towns, Gympie being one of them—we were under the Mining Act, and under the Mining Act we walked in and said to a local bloke, 'Can I have that piece of land divided into three?' And he said, 'Yes.' We signed a form, walked out and sold the land the next day. That was the process of subdivision. In Queensland now, it will take you 3½ years and cost you on average about $25,000 to get through the barriers that have been put up by the government. It's government that has created this problem. Not only that, they've restricted the provision of—let me use an example. If we dig a tunnel through the range at Cairns, which will cost $2,000 million, we'll open up 20,000 housing blocks within 20 minutes of Cairns, a city of arguably 300,000 people. It's as big as Canberra. We can do that. All you need to do is to give us $1,500 million to $2,000 million to build that tunnel through the range. So give us the infrastructure, and we'll give you the cheap land. But you need to take away the restrictions not only on the land but on the housing. There's another $15,000 in environmental demands coming upon housing, which is already $25,000 in environmental demands, and the safety requirements are another $35,000 on top of that. You added, with your legislation, nearly $100,000 to the price of a house to deliver absolutely nothing. In fact, what you are demanding of housing architecture in Queensland is entirely inappropriate for the housing that is required. Look no further than Malcolm Turnbull who did a report on this with an Oxford don, and he said the problem was supply not demand. If you increase the demand, the problem gets worse. You increase the supply. Supply is the chokehold of government on the subdivision of land. To have this situation in an empty country is just appalling, and it reflects upon the intelligence of this place. 15:34 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills I've spoken many times in this place about the importance of affordable and public housing. I come from a migrant family; my parents came from Egypt in 1971, with not much. But we got a roof over our head—we got access to public housing. That allowed me to get a good education. It allowed me to make a contribution. It was really thanks to Labor governments, at both the federal and state level, that my family got that fair go. Now, we've got a Minister for Housing who also grew up in public housing. We've got a Prime Minister who grew up in public housing. We're all housos—the three of us! So we know how much that means to tens of thousands of Australians across this country—to have a roof over their heads, and the very fairness of that. That fairness, in many respects, embodies the Australian spirit of the fair go—that, no matter where you come from, no matter what your background is, socioeconomic or ethnic, you get a fair go. You've got housing: the baseline that allows anyone, any Australian, through their hard work, to achieve their goals, to get that good education, to get a job that gives them a sense of purpose—to achieve their dreams. Yet today, after nine long do-nothing years of coalition government, the security of housing, the access to affordable housing, is now often out of reach. Year on year, house prices continue to rise. We know that, over recent months, particularly this year, the challenges—the exacerbation of global inflation and the war in Ukraine—have had an impact as well. But it can't be a free pass for the mob on the other side—the opposition, the former government. For nine years, they oversaw an increase in housing construction costs: 46 per cent over the last decade. Their legacy is of higher house prices, higher rents and greater housing stress—a legacy that has left many Australians unable to buy their own home and many in my electorate of Wills knowing the knock-on effect, as renters, and the stresses. My community is made up of people from all walks of life, and they're stressed in the community. Whether it's the young family trying to manage alongside child care fees—although we're doing something about that, as we have heard—or whether it's the university student juggling study with part time work, or whether it's older Australians, who are relying on their pension or their super, housing affordability and rental stress are issues that cut across all sectors of our community. And of course we have far too many Australians experiencing homelessness. Now, the Albanese government, being made up of some very significant housos—and I'm talking more about the PM and the minister—at its core believes in safe and affordable housing as an essential part of people's dignity. It gives them that dignity that we all deserve. That's why we're taking action to make housing more affordable by bringing forward the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee to 1 October, helping up to 10,000 eligible Australians into home ownership sooner, and unlocking up to $575 million by widening the remit of the National Housing Infrastructure Facility to invest in social and affordable housing, providing opportunities to partner with other tiers of government and social housing providers, and enticing private capital to invest in the provision of affordable housing. It also allows us to fulfil our commitments as part of the Housing Australia Future Fund, with a $10 billion commitment to build 30,000 new social and affordable houses in the first five years of our government—supplemented by the states, who are building another 15½ thousand houses. So there's your answer on supply by 2024. What did the other mob spend? Was it even $10? We're spending $10 billion. I can't get an answer because none of them are here. The fund will provide social and affordable housing providers with the certainty and the capital to invest in building more affordable homes. We've got the Help to Buy program. We've got the National Housing and Homelessness Plan which the minister is developing. We're taking real action on these issues to provide durable solutions to people in extreme housing insecurity, because, for the Albanese government, housing is not a privilege; it's a necessity. It is literally the basic building block to a successful life. It is essential to everything else in our lives, whether it be to get education or to secure a decent job. So I say to those opposite and to the crossbench: join us. Join us and support the government's plans to make housing more affordable for all Australians. 15:40 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth Housing affordability is one of the critical challenges facing this parliament. The government has appointed a Minister for Housing and plans to legislate a Housing Australia Future Fund. Their policy is to build 30,000 new homes, mostly social housing, over the next five years. It sounds like a lot, and it is, but let's be honest: this is absolutely a drop in the ocean compared to the fundamental shift in housing that we need in this country if we are fundamentally going to address housing affordability for everyone. Australia has 400 homes per 1,000 people of our population. That puts us among the lowest in the OECD. We would need two million more homes in this country to reach the OECD average of home supply in the world. We've talked about 30,000 more social housing homes, and I applaud that, but we have 163,000 people on the social housing waitlist. We need to address this at all levels of government and at all levels of society. Let's look at the consequences that this is building in our community. I come from Wentworth, and in Wentworth this is an issue that is raised with me constantly. People are concerned for their children. I have many people who have built wealth and happiness having a house, but they do not believe that their children will have the ability to do that. I hear deep concern from my schools and my health communities about how nurses and teachers cannot live in our community because of housing affordability. I went recently to Friendship Circle's Friendship Walk, which brings people who have children with disabilities together with other families around the community. During that walk, I spoke to so many parents who said their children are going to need to have housing as adults, independent housing for people with disabilities, and there is absolutely no chance of that being built in the community of Wentworth. I applaud those parents for their concern. Because of housing affordability, there is no chance that they're going to be able to live near their children when they move into independent care. I'm talking about this in compassionate terms, and these are compassionate issues, but this is actually absolutely an economic issue. This is an issue that goes to the heart of our productivity as a nation. The consequences of a dysfunctional housing market are much more deep and more damaging to the economy than so many realise, and many of the problems that our society faces are because of worse housing affordability. It pushes people away from where they want to live into where they can afford to live. It imposes huge costs in terms of billions of dollars building roads and public transport systems to move people around, and this also generates pollution. It is detrimental to our overall productivity, because our housing structures mean that people do not change their modes of housing and we do not have the right sort of housing to meet the needs of our community. Even with those who are trying to build a business, for example, if they're trying to turn their business plan into reality, they realise that commercial and industrial space costs can also be prohibitive. It's not just housing costs that are important; it's our broader cost of living and the cost of commercial property. Fixing housing, as we have talked about tonight, will take a lot of changes, big and small, but the heart of this is supply. We need to build more homes. We need to build them in the CBDs and inner cities where so many people want to live. We need to build them close to active public transport options. Supply won't solve every problem—we need more action on social housing and we need rental assistance—but supply is absolutely crucial to this solution. I will say again that if we were making the OECD average in terms of the supply of housing per 1,000 people we would have almost two million more homes in this country. There is not a single part of this government or previous governments that has really dealt with this as an issue. Housing is primarily a responsibility of state and local governments, but this is a national problem, and the Commonwealth must take a lead on this. The Labor Party is in government in many, many states in this country. This is the opportunity for the government to take real leadership and truly make a difference here. I think that we need to pull every lever we can on housing, but we absolutely need to focus on supply if the idea of having a house in Australia is not going to become a dream for past generations. 15:45 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I want to thank the crossbench for bringing forward this matter of public importance today, because I believe every member of this chamber would agree that housing affordability is absolutely a matter of public importance in all of our electorates across this country at the moment. I'd also like to thank Minister Collins for her speech and her commitment, in all the work she is doing at the moment, to addressing housing affordability, as well as for sharing her own story and firsthand experience of understanding exactly why this is so important. I thank her for her work to get the government's national housing and homelessness plan off the ground. She has already held two meetings with state and territory housing ministers to help deliver our reform agenda, and I would encourage all who are speaking today to contribute to that process. I want to start my contribution by briefly talking about a constituent of mine, Nick, who is a bright young man I first encountered last year during the Raise our Voice Youth Voice in Parliament competition. Nick, who was 18 at the time and experiencing homelessness, wrote me an incredibly powerful speech, which was the speech I chose to deliver in the 46th Parliament. In his speech he said: The pathway to end homelessness won't be easy. It will involve more funding, more NGOs, more youth workers and overall more care for the tens of thousands of young Australians each and every night that face homelessness. But I truly believe that with these steps, and more, in 20 years no-one else like me will ever have to wonder: where will I sleep tonight? Nick made some really important points in that speech. We know that fixing the housing affordability crisis and getting people into secure housing is going to be difficult. We need to have the ambition, as Nick does, that we can make that happen, because affordable housing is central to the security and dignity of all Australians, as the minister has said. In my electorate of Canberra we have high median incomes and relatively low unemployment. We also have the highest rents in the country. It's this reality that makes our city a particularly difficult place to be on a low income. I have met again with Nick since the election, and, devastatingly, he is still experiencing insecure housing. He said to me that, in spite of working and studying and doing everything right, as he put it, he still cannot get the housing piece into place for himself. We all need to do much better to address that. The reality is that in Australia we are in the middle of a housing crisis. It's tough to buy a home, tougher than ever before. Research by the Grattan Institute found that 40 years ago almost 60 per cent of young Australians on low and modest incomes owned their own home but, sadly, now it is only 28 per cent. I'm really proud that housing was a central part of the agenda that Labor took to the election and that, as a government, we are already doing important work to address this national crisis. One of the most important parts of that agenda is the national plan for housing and homelessness. Fixing our nation's housing issues requires all tiers of government to work together towards a commonly agreed objective of providing shelter for all Australians. As I mentioned earlier, housing ministers from the states and territories have already started meeting to coordinate our efforts to deliver these reforms and work together on a new national housing and homelessness plan. This plan will set and deliver short-, medium- and long-term goals to improve housing outcomes across Australia. It will be developed with the support and assistance of key stakeholders. The Housing Australia Future Fund was also one of Labor's key commitments. The $10 billion of this fund will help end a decade of underinvestment and neglect. It will help ease pressure on people right across the country who are trying to find somewhere to call home. It will build 30,000 new affordable and social housing properties in its first five years, and states and territories have committed to building around 15,000 properties in addition to those. This will include 20,000 social housing properties, 4,000 of which will be allocated for women and children fleeing domestic and family violence and for older women on low incomes who are at risk of homelessness. We also have the Help to Buy program and our Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee, which, as Minister Collins has said, we have brought forward. I'm nearly out of time, but I want to also mention federal Labor's commitment to Canberra's Youth Foyer, which will help assist young people in Canberra experiencing homelessness. 15:50 Ms LE 295676 Fowler I also grew up in housing commission and know too well the challenges of buying one's first home. I thank the member for Mayo for raising the issue of housing affordability. The Australian dream of buying a first home to start a family and raise your kids is now just that—a distant dream. According to an international study by Demographia, Sydney is now one of the top three most unaffordable cities in the world to own a home. ABS data shows that Fowler has the fourth worst housing affordability in Australia after Blaxland, Watson and Reid. This is before the upcoming interest rate rises foreshadowed by economists. In Fowler, where the median income is 20 per cent less than in the rest of Australia, homes have also hit the million-dollar mark. One of my constituents, Simon Chau, came to our office. Twenty-seven years of age, employed and living with his parents, he was looking for a financially realistic option to buy a house. He wasn't optimistic that young people like him would ever own a home. I feel for young people like Simon. Many like him will be forced to rely on their parents as a guarantor just so they can enter the property market. The 'bank of mum and dad' is now the standard and no longer an anomaly. Across NSW, the median house price is $1.1 million. I can't see how low-income families and young people can ever afford a million-dollar home, let alone a deposit. Homeownership is falling fast for this group of Australians. As many members have mentioned today, the Grattan Institute shows that homeownership rates amongst people aged 25 to 34 fell from more than 60 per cent to 40 per cent between 1981 and 2021. For low-income earners aged 45 to 54, homeownership dropped from 71 per cent to 53 per cent. A recent report from the ANZ says it could take nearly 11½ years for an average-income household just to save a deposit for a $750,000 home. But housing affordability isn't just for those who have mortgages. It's also hitting the hip pockets of those who rent. According to ABS census data, 42 per cent of my electorate of Fowler rent rather than own their own home. That is nearly 10 per cent more than the national average. Fowler also has the fourth worst rental affordability in the country, and 46 per cent of our rental households have rental repayments 30 per cent more than their household income. With the cost-of-living crisis hitting the hip pockets of many Australians right now, how can people afford to save for a deposit while they pay rent? When they're struggling to simply put food on the table, pay for petrol and buy medication, how can hardworking families that are renting ever save enough to get off the rental cycle? It doesn't have to be this way. There are measures both state and federal governments can take to ensure the next generation can afford to buy and live in their own homes. I look forward to seeing the federal government's plans for the upcoming budget, in particular to see how they will deliver on their promise to improve the 30,000 new social and affordable housing properties for our most vulnerable as well as for our frontline workers. While I'm a huge supporter of migration and the contribution migrants make and will provide to our nation, I ask whether the government's plans to allow an intake of 190,000 migrants include measures to mitigate additional housing pressures on the migrants and first-home buyers who will be competing for housing. According to the Grattan Institute, building an extra 50,000 homes a year for a decade could leave Australian house prices five to 20 per cent lower than what they would have been otherwise. With close to 200,000 migrants proposed to enter Australia each year, even the building of an extra 50,000 homes would only accommodate their needs for a roof over their heads. Let's look at how countries like New Zealand and Canada tackle housing affordability. The former has banned non-residents from purchasing homes, and the latter is introducing new measures to implement a ban for two years. With some of these measures in place, it will be a small but significant step to helping low-income households and young people buy their own homes. 15:55 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins I'm pleased to follow the member for Fowler, another aspirational immigrant just like me, and I thank the crossbench for raising this very important issue. Let me begin by saying that the sins of society wash up in two places. They wash up in public hospitals and they wash up in the judicial system. In my 26 years on the front line in one of the busiest hospitals in this country, I lost count of how many patients I looked after every single day who were homeless. Let me describe one person to you: Brett. I will never forget Brett. I met him in the emergency department. He was a gentleman in his 30s and he came in with an infection of his leg called cellulitis. It's a common infection. Brett was an otherwise fit gentleman, and he broke down and cried when I saw him. And it still affects me. He said to me: 'Doc, every night I get harassed by the construction workers. They move me on. They don't want me there. They come and push me away, and I have to find another place to sleep.' And so my daily routine with my patients who were homeless was always the same. I would keep them in hospital, and I would usually keep them in hospital longer than necessary just so that they had a feed, had a shower and had somewhere safe to be. And then, inevitably as night follows day, they were offered crisis accommodation by our hardworking social workers. Crisis accommodation is really not fit for purpose, at least not where I worked in my area. It was often boarding homes with people who had significant mental health issues or drug and alcohol substance abuse problems. They were chaotic, unsafe places, and this is where we discharged our homeless patients to. But that is not the only face of insecure housing. In my electorate of Higgins, one of the wealthiest electorates in this country, disadvantage hides in plain sight. The median age of my electorate is 37, which means half my population are young people, and in my electorate 42 per cent of private dwellings are renters. They're mostly young people. Fourteen thousand people—adult children—are still living with their parents. During the campaign I doorknocked thousands and thousands of homes, and I frequently was greeted by a young adult, someone in their 20s or sometimes early 30s who would greet me, and I could see clearly from the electorate roll that there were other young adults living in that house. I met one young woman: Jess. An accomplished young woman in her early 30s, she was a teacher working full time. I met her in an apartment block. She was renting and she pleaded with me. She said: 'Michelle, I have done everything right in life. I have acquired a skill. I have a full-time job. I pay my taxes. I work hard. And I will never be able to own a home.' And she's right. In South Yarra, the median price of a home is $2.2 million. 'Median'—which means half the properties are below that and the other half are above that. Who on earth can afford to live in South Yarra? And yet so many young people gravitate to that area because it's a village and they love it—and why wouldn't they? So it is of some cold comfort that we have been labelled the richest people in the world. Clearly that is not the case. A week ago Credit Suisse told us that the median wealth for Australian is over $400,000, but clearly a lot of Australians are being left behind. We are taking this problem of housing affordability seriously. You have heard from the other speakers on my side what we doing. The Housing Australia Future Fund is $10 billion devoted to building 30,000 social and affordable homes over a period of five years, of which 10,000 will go to essential workers like nurses, policemen, and people in the emergency services. We've got the Help to Buy scheme, a shared equity program that will release to 10,000 Australians a year, which will help cut the cost of buying a home by up to 40 per cent. We are going to be working with the states and territories, in all three tiers of government, to resolve this wicked problem after a decade of inaction. 16:00 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith It's abundantly clear that Australia is facing one of the worst housing crises in our country's history. We have millions of renters facing some of the worst rental stress they've seen in their lives. In fact, we know that rents have increased seven times faster than wages since the pandemic began. We know that mortgage holders, who were encouraged to take on significant debt under the promise that interest rates wouldn't increase over this period, are now facing skyrocketing mortgage repayments. We know that right now there is a need for over half a million social homes. We know the social housing waiting list alone, which continues to be restricted by government criteria, is now 163,500 people. There are also over a hundred thousand homeless people in this country. We know that it will now take 11 years for the average person to save a deposit on a home, and that's only going to get worse. And that's before you take into account all the other debt, low wages and other significant financial stress people face in buying their homes. Today in this place we've heard a lot of stories of MPs doorknocking—which I'm very glad about; it's good to hear that MPs are doorknocking—when, time and again, they encounter people who (a) realise that maybe their kids won't be able to buy a home in the area in which they grew up, (b) are themselves struggling to pay the rent, or (c) are stuck on a social housing waiting list. It's good to hear that the government have recognised this as a problem, but it's important that we break down just how deeply inadequate Labor's housing plan is. The reality is that under Labor's housing plan the situation will get worse. It not a marginal improvement, not a tiny improvement in people's lives; the situation will literally get worse. The first thing to say is that 20,000 social homes over five years breaks down to about 4,000 social homes a year. Since 2018, the social housing waiting list in Australia has increased by 7,600 applications. That means that the increase in the social housing waiting list is greater than the number of homes Labor plans to build every year. That's before you get to the total need for social housing. We know that over the next 10 years there will be a total need of about 800,000 social homes in this country. Labor's plan addresses three per cent of that. Government members interjecting— Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Once again we hear objections from the Labor government in this place, from people on the Labor side of this House. Why is it that, whenever we get up and talk about the inadequacies of your plan, instead of your contemplating it we hear rhetoric and defensiveness? Get angry about the fact that your plan will see more homeless, more people on the social housing waiting list, more people struggling to pay rent—more people in tougher lives because of the deep lack of ambition of this government. It is beyond frustrating when we know that the solutions are staring us in the face. In the first instance, we keep hearing talk about rental stress but complete rejection of the notion that we could freeze rents right now for the next two years. Scotland has just done it; there's no reason that we can't do it here and finally give renters some relief. We could, finally, phase out capital gains exemptions and negative gearing—something that Labor now pretend they're never going to touch—because we know that they continue to drive up property prices and make it easier for someone to buy their fifth investment property than it is for someone to buy their first home. Finally, we need actual ambition when we talk about constructing social housing. We should be planning how we build a million social homes over the next 20 years. Any expert will tell you that 50,000 social and affordable homes per year is the ambition we need right now. And there are places around the world where this has been achieved. I met some people from Vienna recently. Twenty per cent of Austrians live in some form of social housing; 60 per cent of those in Vienna live in some form of social or affordable or rent-subsidised housing. It means they have some of the lowest rates of homelessness and housing stress in the world. There is absolutely no reason why we can't build beautifully designed social homes not just for the people who are on the waiting list right now but for the teachers, nurses and other workers right now who need a good home to move into. There is absolutely no reason why we can't do that. It remains deeply frustrating that, instead of looking at what works around the world, those opposite do a tiny bit on the side that allows them to get the media bite. We know what works around the world. It is significant investment in social housing. It is about removing tax breaks for property investors and about building a housing system that isn't designed to generate millions or billions of dollars in profit for property developers and banks, who happen also to be some of the major donors to the major parties. It is thinking about housing as, first and foremost, a way for someone to build a good life, raise a family and get on with living without having to worry about how they're going to pay the rent or make their mortgage repayments. That's what the Greens are fighting for. 16:05 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa Having secure, affordable housing provides so much, allowing you to find secure work, perform better at school and reduce stress. Like the member for Wills, the Minister for Housing, the Prime Minister and so many others in this House, my parents first rented in a public housing flat. They then bought a home, through a rent-to-buy scheme, from the Housing Commission in the 1960s. That made so much of a difference to my sister and me. It meant that I'm here. It meant that she has a PhD. That's what a difference secure housing makes. These experiences shaped the way that I feel about the importance of affordable and available housing. It's a common theme throughout the entire country, in all communities. We're seeing the struggles across all generations and too many people who've entirely given up on owning a home. It's been an issue for more than a decade, and, under the previous government's watch, housing became more unaffordable and out of reach for ordinary Australians. The legacy of the previous government has only compounded the pain that Australians are feeling. The decade of deliberate wage suppression under the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments left workers financially insecure and unable to juggle the rising costs of living and increasing price of housing. Insecure work means you can't get a loan, let alone anything else. According to the ABS producer price index, house construction costs have increased 46 per cent over the past decade. The actual materials have been so hard to get because of COVID. That's the previous government's legacy—a legacy that's still being felt by every Australian renter and prospective homeowner, with rising interest rates and rents. What was the previous government's solution to this? It was to allow workers to raid their super so that they could buy a house. That was their really brilliant idea. They wanted young Australians to pull out $50,000 from their super, not taking into account that the median superannuation balance for those aged 25 to 34 was probably less than $25,000. It was an incompetent policy from an incompetent government. The situation left us behind and is an incredibly difficult challenge, but it's a challenge that the Albanese government realises and, moreover, is committed to taking a leadership role to address. We won't sit on our hands and pretend there's nothing government can do to ease the pain of all Australians. We understand that no one policy can solve this challenge. That's why the Albanese government will use the multiple levers available to us in order to get Australians into their own homes. There are immediate actions, which our government has already taken, as well as medium- and long-term goals to help. We've brought forward the regional first home buyer guarantee to 1 October this year. That will get 10,000 eligible Australians into homeownership. We've already acted to unlock $575 million through the National Housing Infrastructure Facility to invest in social and affordable housing. We've taken these immediate actions alongside holding meetings with federal, state and territory housing bodies. These are the first meetings in five years. Housing will require leadership and initiative at all levels of government, from local to federal, and we are committed to ensuring that we talk to every level and that we work together. In the medium-to-long term, we'll build 30,000 new social and affordable houses under the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund. Twenty thousand of them will be social housing, 4,000 of which will be for women and children fleeing domestic and family violence and for older women who are at risk of homelessness. The remaining 10,000 will be affordable houses for our frontline workers, such as police officers, nurses and teachers, who kept us safe during the pandemic. They deserve to be able to own a home where they live, close to where they are. Multiple policies are what we have to offer, and we will not require Australians to sacrifice their financial security in retirement just to put a roof over their head. The Albanese government understands that Australians deserve a government that will support and ensure that the Australian dream of owning a home is available to all Australians, especially our younger Australians to come. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265979 The discussion has now concluded. BILLS 87 BILLS Military Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment (Incapacity Payments) Bill 2022, Defence, Veterans' and Families' Acute Support Package Bill 2022 87

Military Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment (Incapacity Payments) Bill 2022

Defence, Veterans' and Families' Acute Support Package Bill 2022

Returned from Senate 87 Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill 2022 88

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

Report from Federation Chamber 88 Third Reading 88 16:11 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. COMMITTEES 88 COMMITTEES Human Rights Joint Committee 88 Report 88 16:12 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the following reports: Human rights scrutiny report 4 of 2022 and the annual report 2021. Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr BURNS 278522 by leave—I'm very pleased to present the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' fourth scrutiny report of 2022 and its 2021 annual report. In the committee's fourth scrutiny report, the committee has considered 17 new bills and 48 legislative instruments and commented on two bills. This includes the consideration of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill 2022. This bill seeks to extend by a further 12 months the operation of a number of counterterrorism related provisions which are due to sunset on 7 December 2022. These include the operation of the control order regime, the preventative detention order regime, and stop, search and seizure powers relating to counterterrorism. In this report, the committee notes that these powers are intended to protect Australia's national security interests and protect against the possibility of terrorist acts in Australia, and so extending these powers could promote the rights to life and security of the person. However, the committee has previously considered the human rights compatibility of these provisions and found that while all of the measures seek to achieve the legitimate objective of trying to prevent terrorist acts, there were questions whether the measures would be effective to achieve this objective, and the measures did not appear to be proportionate. As a result, the committee previously found the measures were likely to be incompatible with a range of human rights. I note that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security conducted a review of the provisions being extended by this bill and reported in October 2021. The Attorney-General has stated that extending the operation of these provisions by a further 12 months will give the government time to consult on, and then implement, the government's response to that report. The committee supports the Attorney-General in using the extension to consider the recommendations of the PJCIS and undertake appropriate consultations with stakeholders. However, noting the committee's previous comments, the committee draws its human rights concerns around extending these provisions to the attention of the Attorney-General and our parliament. Turning to the committee's 2021 annual report, this report covers the period of 1 January to 31 December 2021—a period that I was not the chair of the committee, but I'm pleased to present the report nonetheless—and details the substantial amount of work of the committee. In 2021 the committee tabled 15 scrutiny reports examining 223 bills and 1,679 legislative instruments, commenting on 84 of these. I'm pleased to note that during 2021 in 96 per cent of cases the human rights analysis of new bills was available to inform members of parliament prior to the passage of the legislation. The report also provides information about the work of the committee, including the major themes and scrutiny issues arising from the legislation which the committee examined. For example, the committee reports details of the committee's August 2021 inquiry examining a legislative instrument relating to Parents Next. This is a program that some parents must participate in to remain eligible for the parenting payment. The committee considered there to be a considerable risk that the Parents Next program would impermissibly limit the right to social security and an adequate standard of living. Following the tabling of the committee's report, a motion to disallow parts of the legislative instrument that rendered participation compulsory was narrowly defeated. So Parents Next remains compulsory for some parents receiving parenting payment. No formal response to this inquiry was received in the last parliament, but I'm pleased to advise the House that the committee has now resolved to write to the new Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations inviting him to respond to the committee's findings. I encourage my fellow members and others to examine these reports, and I commend the committee's scrutiny report 4 and the annual report to the chamber. Finally, on indulgence, I pay tribute to Ingrid Zappe. Tomorrow will be her final day of 33 years of serving the Senate, including the human rights committee. I'm reliably told that on Friday Ingrid will be hitting the road to spend time with her growing family. On behalf of the committee and the House, I thank Ingrid for her outstanding contribution and wish her well for the next chapter in her life. BILLS 89 BILLS National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill 2022 89

National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill 2022

Second Reading 89 16:16 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise to speak in support of the National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill 2022. I welcome the measures on behalf of the people of Warringah. These measures are intended to ease in a small way the cost of living crisis that affects so many Australians. I have to say that I was shocked and disappointed to learn the extent to which people have been impacted by the cost of the current general co-payment. When we are provided with the numbers, it is quite staggering to understand the extent to which it has had an impact. Easy access to healthcare should be a right afforded to all in Australia. Unfortunately, it's clear that the current co-payment of $42.50 per script has been too expensive for a large segment of our population. Reducing the maximum co-payment to a capped $30 per script will be a welcome relief to many people. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, some 900,000 Australians either delayed purchasing medication or missed script refills altogether between 2019 and 2020 due to the prohibitive costs of medicines on the PBS. That's a shocking number. It's unacceptable that any Australian should be forced to forego regular health care due to costs. It's not the Australia that we aspire to or the goal of legislation in this place. So I welcome the 29 per cent saving on PBS medicine costs that will benefit Australians and help to ease some of the cost of living strains currently experienced. We must remember that patients are often prescribed multiple concurrent scripts at a time. Some one in five Australians live with chronic conditions that require perpetual treatment. While we are incredibly lucky to have subsidised health care in Australia, the cost of the general co-payment, when applied to each script, can add up very quickly. It can be a substantial cost to individuals to keep themselves and their families healthy. We should not and cannot allow health care to be unaffordable even under a subsidised scheme. If passed—and I sincerely hope it will be, as this should have the bipartisan support of everyone in this place—the bill will positively impact approximately 19 million Australians, who will be eligible for savings when accessing medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The savings to individuals will be substantial, with those filling a single monthly script estimated to save nearly $150 per year. For those filling multiple scripts each month, the savings will continue to increase accordingly. I support the bill, and I urge the government to ensure that access to medications is not compromised with a more affordable cost. We must ensure supply always meets demand, and we may see a sharp increase in uptake. I certainly hope that there's been preparation for this. I seek the government's assurance that the co-payment reduction is the most efficient way to improve affordability to PBS medication. Affordable access to health care needs to be the core goal of the amendment, with the benefits being afforded directly to the Australian public. In Warringah, constituents seek my help to combat cost-of-living pressures. Many are doing it tough. It's expected that things will get worse. We need to appease cost-of-living pressures. I certainly hope there will be more announcements from the government in the upcoming budget. But, in the meantime, I believe this bill seeks to do this in part and is a good first step. The government needs to implement this correctly and thoughtfully to ensure access and quality is not compromised at any stage, of course. It's not a luxury to have access to quality health care. It always must be ensured. As federal representatives in this place, we must implement reasonable improvements to access and affordability to health care. I'm aware there are many more things that need to be addressed and changed, but I welcome this initial step. I commend the bill to the House. 16:21 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders I rise to speak to this bill, the National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill 2022. While this is a government bill, like most good public policy in this place, it follows the former coalition government's lead in a commitment made in April of this year to reduce the PBS general patient charge by $10. This was the single most significant change to the cost of and access to medications since the PBS was introduced more than 70 years ago. The coalition has a strong record of providing Australians with timely, affordable access to effective medicines, cancer treatments and services. In this respect, I acknowledge the unequalled work of my predecessor, Greg Hunt, who, as health minister between 2017 and 2022, was the best friend of those who rely on Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. During the time of the previous government, more than 2,900 new or amended listings on the PBS were made at an overall investment of around $16½ billion. By listing these medicines on the PBS, the coalition ensured Australians can have access to affordable, life-saving medications that would otherwise cost thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars without any subsidy. This took medicines which were out of the reach of almost every Australian, costing hundreds and thousands of dollars, and made them accessible for less than $6.80 with a concession card. Some of the final listings of the previous government under the then Minister for Health, my predecessor in the great electorate of Flinders, Greg Hunt, were life-altering medications. Zolgensma is for the treatment of spinal muscular atrophy in children less than nine months old. This treatment serves approximately 20 patients each year, but before subsidy it would have cost $2.5 million per treatment. Now, it's less than $6.80 with a concession card. Then there was Trodelvy, for the treatment of triple negative breast cancer, which now saves an average of 580 patients a year $80,000 per course of treatment. In my first speech in this place on Monday, I discussed the loss of my mothercraft nurse, Molly, to melanoma in 2015, a cancer I myself had developed but survived a few years earlier. In just that time, since 2015 to now, the changes made to the PBS by the former government mean melanoma is now a manageable form of cancer for many, if not most. In March 2020, the coalition government expanded the PBS listing of Opdivo for advanced melanoma. Opdivo is a breakthrough immunotherapy drug which helps the body's own immune system to find, attack and destroy cancer cells. Without that PBS expansion, around 1,500 patients a year would have had to pay more than $100,000 per course. I know better than most that these listings change lives. The coalition remains absolutely committed to ensuring Australians have access to affordable medicines when they need them. Of course, while this copying of coalition policy is most welcome, we on this side do know what Labor's record has been on the PBS in the past. In the 2011 budget, the then government deferred the listing of products on the PBS 'until fiscal circumstances permit'. For those who question this, I can help you with your homework: it can be found in the 2011-12 budget papers, section 2, departmental outcomes, under part 2, 'access to pharmaceutical services'. In layman's terms, the Labor government stopped listing medicines. This included medicines for endometriosis and IVF, schizophrenia, prostate conditions, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma. In addition, in 2011, Labor's then Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, put out a media release which stated: 'The government has also considered a number of other medicines, such as medicines for conditions where existing treatments are already available on the PBS, but has decided to defer listing of these medicines at the current time. These medicines will be reconsidered for listing when circumstances permit.' In announcing this legislation, the Albanese government highlighted the reduction as a cost-of-living relief measure. However, it does not take effect until next year. While the opposition supports reducing the cost of medicines, we note that it does not kick in until January and that this is the only cost-of-living relief measure the Albanese government has announced and implemented so far. Australians need help now. The government must outline what actions they are taking to alleviate the significant cost-of-living pressures families are experiencing across Australia. We support Labor's announcement to reduce the maximum general co-payment for medicines on the PBS, noting its copycat nature, made after our own election commitment to reduce the co-payment back to 2008 levels. Given Labor's record of failing to list medicines on the PBS, we will be watching them carefully when it comes to this extremely important part of our healthcare system. The coalition will continue to hold Labor to account for its promises to the Australian people and advocate to make medicines cheaper for Australians. 16:27 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper Over the last two days, the House of Representatives has debated legislation to introduce the biggest cut to the cost of medicines for Australian households in the 75-year history of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, a cut for general patients of almost 30 per cent of the maximum cost of their scripts, from $42.50 to just $30. It was a Labor government that first introduced the legislation to make life-saving drugs more affordable, and the Albanese government remains committed to ensuring that the PBS continues to enable Australians' access to affordable medicines. After almost a decade of Liberal neglect, the costs of living are soaring, with many Australians cutting back on essentials to make ends meet. They're being forced to choose between filling prescriptions for potentially life-saving medicines and providing for their families. The National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill 2022 amends the National Health Act 1953 to reduce the maximum general patient co-payment under the PBS from the current maximum of $42.50 to $30. From 1 January 2023, around 3.6 million Australians with current prescriptions over $30 will benefit through this Albanese government initiative. People filling a prescription for one medication per month will save around $150 a year, while a family filling prescriptions for two or three medications per month could save $300 to $450 per year. The bill will ease the cost-of-living pressures that Australian households are experiencing around the country. This bill will also have a profound benefit for public health. There's no doubt that all Australians place great value on the medicines and essential health care the PBS provides. All Australians deserve access to universal, prompt and world-class medical care. As the member for Robertson reminded us through his contribution to this debate, the essence of this bill can be captured in three words: equity, equality and access. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has told us that as many as 900,000 Australians every single year are choosing to go without medicines that their doctors have prescribed for their health—medicines that their doctors have said are important for the maintenance of their good health. Pharmacist after pharmacist has told stories of their customers coming into their pharmacy, putting a number of scripts on the counter and asking for advice about which ones they can go without because they can't afford to fill all of the scripts that the doctor has said is important to their health. Members contributing to this debate have highlighted the positive reactions they have received from their local communities in support of this bill and have recounted many community interactions which highlight the direct and significant impact the passage of this bill will have on individuals and families right across Australia. We heard from my good colleague the member for Dobell right here that, as a pharmacist, she has seen firsthand patients who have walked into her pharmacy after a medical appointment, handed her a bunch of prescriptions for their family and asked which medications they could skip or avoid. She spoke yesterday about a mother who asked her if her two children could share a bottle of antibiotic mixture because she couldn't afford to purchase two. We heard from the member for Corangamite, who related the experience of a local pharmacist who's working every day with people in the community who can't afford their prescription medicines. Some of these people come with chronic illness and are forgoing their own health needs in order to pay for necessary medications for their children or to pay for food or power bills. We heard from the member for Robertson, who saw patients present at his emergency department because they were unable to afford any of their prescription medicines. We know this policy will make a difference because Australians are telling us it will. This bill will ensure patients receive the essential medical care needed to prevent serious illness and stay healthy. It will also allow Australians to shop around to get the best price for their medicines. The bill will ensure that no Australian will be worse off under this change by including provisions to allow pharmacies to continue offering discounts at current levels to their customers. Right now, Australians are paying the price for a decade of missed opportunities and drift. Through this bill, we will make a real difference to household budgets for millions of families but also to people's health. Just like with Medicare, it was Labor that built the PBS, and Labor will always protect it so that all Australians can access affordable medicines when they need them. I thank all members for their contributions to the debate on this bill. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Third Reading 91 16:33 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2022, Financial Sector Reform Bill 2022, Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy Bill 2022, Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy (Collection) Bill 2022 91

Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2022

Financial Sector Reform Bill 2022

Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy Bill 2022

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

Second Reading 91 16:34 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume Australia has a strong financial services sector. It's one of the bedrocks of our economy, and we want it to remain that way. It's been remarkably strong over the past decade. In fact, it served us extremely well through the financial crisis. When many financial services sectors suffered badly, around the world, ours was very much amongst the strongest. It's important that it stays that way. It's also important that legislation that builds on the coalition's work on implementing the banking royal commission recommendations be followed through. We will not delay the progress of these bills through the parliament; however, I should say it is disappointing that the government has sought to expand the scope of these bills from what was introduced before the election, without further consultation. It's extremely disappointing. For these reasons, we will support the bills going to committee to truly examine the impact of these new provisions. We think that's the right way to deal with the fact that there hasn't been consultation on the changes along the way. Let me start with the banking royal commission. Whilst our financial services system has served us well, we cannot ignore that the royal commission was necessary. We called it, we committed to implement its recommendations, and we committed to taking action on all 76 recommendations and additional commitments contained in the final report of the banking, superannuation and financial services royal commission. Significant progress has been made and the long road to implement these changes is now reaching its conclusion. On 11 March this year our former government released the Quality of Advice Review's terms of reference and announced the appointment of Michelle Levy as the reviewer. That review has now been delivered, in its draft form at least, and it's expected to finalise its report by the end of the year. With the reintroduction of these bills, the last of the legislative commitments to implement the royal commission's recommendations will be completed. But with the final pieces of legislation being introduced in the last sitting week, we now have an opportunity to look at what is next for the banking sector. We won't impede the bills coming through the parliament. We do welcome the introduction and the government's decision to retain the primary financial accountability regime and compensation of last resort legislation largely in its same shape and form. However, it's important to note that the decision to staple consumer credit reform onto the Financial Sector Reform Bill means that more scrutiny is required. It's particularly necessary as these reforms, unlike the primary banking commission legislation, have been substantially revised from the legislation that was before the previous parliament. We won't wave through reforms that could have material impacts on consumers and small business. We will ask for this to move to committee. There are a couple of other comments I would like to make about this legislation. The Financial Accountability Regime Bill, which is part of the package here, took action to implement five recommendations to the financial services royal commission. In response to the commission, the coalition made a further commitment to extend the executive accountability regime to entities regulated solely by ASIC, particularly in the insurance industry and the broader financial services industry. We will progress this further commitment following the initial implementation of the regime to all APRA regulated entities as well. Those BEAR standards that were established for the banking industry are absolutely appropriate for this extension. I have a couple of comments to make on the financial services compensation of last resort scheme. We introduced this legislation to facilitate the payment of compensation to eligible consumers who have received a determination from the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, AFCA, which remains unpaid. This forms part of the first tranche of the legislation to implement the government response to the Hayne royal commission. It will facilitate the payment of compensation to eligible consumers who have received a determination from AFCA. Consumers who have an unpaid AFCA determination relating to personal advice, credit intermediation, securities dealing or credit provision will be eligible to receive up to $150,000 in compensation. That's broadly equivalent to the 85,000-pound limit on compensation that's available under the UK Financial Services Compensation Scheme. In fact, with the recent movements in the pound I suspect it's very generous, relative to the UK scheme. We provided in MYEFO $45 million in new funding under the measure 'Compensation Scheme of Last Resort—establishment' to support that proceeding. We do note that a broad based scheme risks exposing the financial system to significant costs, and we've certainly seen that in the UK. But, like the Financial Accountability Regime Bill, the bills are largely identical to the legislation we introduced when we were in government. The same applies to the Financial Sector Reform Bill: the components are very close to what we proposed. However, it is important to get the balance right in this area—it's hugely important to get it right. Getting it wrong can have some very unexpected and untoward impacts. We did take action to implement reforms to enhance financial inclusion and to ensure Australian consumers accessing small-amount credit contracts and consumer leases are better protected. We are disappointed with the alterations we've seen on the initial legislation. Under the legislation we brought forward, new consumer protections would have reduced the risk of consumers being overcommitted to small-amount credit contracts and consumer leases by limiting the proportion of income which can be attributed to these products. Under the coalition's bill those SACC—small-amount credit contract—providers and consumer lessors would be inhibited from providing a SACC or release that would result in a person who receives 50 per cent or more of their net income from Centrelink from devoting more than 20 percentage of their income to SACC and consumer lease repayments, with no more than 10 per cent of this being allocated towards SACC payments. We had established what we think is an appropriate balance. But under the government's reforms as currently drafted, there are likely to be substantial impacts to loan terms and access to consumer credit. That is a matter of concern to us. While consumers do need to be protected, particularly with rising interest rates and cost of living, it's important to make sure that those customers and lenders who do utilise small-amount credit contracts responsibly are not shut out from the credit that can help them manage their cash flow and deal with unexpected life events. This is not a time when we want to shut down credit provision to consumers; we want to make sure that that credit is available. I think that as we go into a period where interest rates are pushing their way up, for mortgagees, towards seven per cent, or approaching that kind of level, and with bond rates for May already expected to reach more like 4.3 per cent, this is a time when access to credit is going to be absolutely crucial to people across our regions and across our suburbs. We don't want to see people who most need access to credit for a short-term reason to get through some of life's contingencies locked out of those credit opportunities. So whilst we won't deny the bill a second reading, it is important that the parliament assess and monitor the impacts of this change on consumers. Subject to those caveats, we commend the bill to the House. 16:43 Ms PAYNE 144732 Canberra I rise to speak on the Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2022 and the related bills, and I congratulate the Assistant Treasurer and the Treasury for their hard work in getting these bills ready so early in the 47th Parliament. Without the shadow of a doubt, these bills will make the financial services sector in Australia a fairer place for consumers and will protect vulnerable citizens from predatory business practices. The main part of the package that I wish to focus on today is the introduction of regulations regarding small-amount credit contracts, or SACCs. SACCs encompass things like payday lending and buy-now pay-later lending. For too long these companies have been operating in what is essentially a regulatory wild west. With no government oversight, they've taken advantage of that fact. The activities of these companies prey on Australia's most vulnerable, and their predatory practices put countless low-income families and individuals under severe financial stress. We've known about the problems associated with SACCs for a while now. The former government commissioned a review into the laws governing SACCs in 2015 which reported back to government in early 2016. Unfortunately, and despite early signs that the former government would implement the recommendations of the report, legislation was never passed. In the 46th Parliament there were a number of attempts by both Labor and the crossbench to bring reform to this sector. Unfortunately, these attempts were not supported by the former government and, as a result, and despite knowing about the problems for at least six years following the review, nothing had been done to fix them. That's six years where this parliament should have acted yet didn't; six years of predatory organisations exploiting weak regulations to rip off consumers and push Australians into financial crisis. Now, in the first few months of the new government, we are acting to do what the former government failed to do. We are acting to strengthen consumer protections and help to ensure that predatory lending practices are stamped out. If you want to get a picture of the extreme predatory behaviour of some of these companies, you just need to walk down a main street of some of the poorer suburbs of Australia—areas with disproportionate levels of low income. If you walk down streets in suburbs like Dandenong in Melbourne or Campbelltown in Sydney, you will find there are actually ATMs offering instant payday loans. These ATMs are in those areas for a reason. They're not in Manly, they're not in Toorak—they're in the most disadvantaged areas of the country, preying on people's desperation and vulnerabilities. They're there for the sole purpose of making money off the most vulnerable in our society. SACC providers use glossy marketing and slick campaigns to draw people in. They promise the world but rob you in the fine print. Excessive handling and establishment fees mean that while no interest is charged, by law, people are paying 20 per cent extra on their principal loan as an establishment fee and an extra four per cent each month. This means, for example, that for a loan of $2,000 paid off over 12 months, consumers will pay $3,360. These loans are insidious and they are becoming unavoidable. They're everywhere. More and more, everywhere that we turn, wherever we shop, we are bombarded with options to buy now pay later or to take out loans to provide an immediate solution to a financial issue. You can even buy now pay later for food deliveries. You genuinely can't make this up. It is the worst excesses of the capitalist system when left unchecked. That these financial companies are offering people unaffordable loans in order for them to buy food is unbelievable. To give you an idea of some of the harm these lenders do, Care Financial Services from my electorate has provided me with a few incredibly troubling case studies. Of course names have been changed. Frank is in his mid-30s. He works full time and has a partner and young son. About 18 months ago every parent's worst fears became a reality for Frank when his 18-month-old son became ill and was hospitalised for nearly six weeks. Whilst still working, Frank travelled back and forth to be with his son, staying in hotel accommodation during this time. He turned to payday loans to help meet unexpected expenses during this stressful time. He took out about 10 payday loans during the time his son was in hospital and in the weeks after as he struggled to keep up with accommodation costs, household bills and the high repayments incurred on his growing payday loan debts. Frank says payday lenders allowed him to borrow multiple loans, and he doubts they could have reasonably concluded that he had the capacity to repay them. He estimates that he owes more than $6,000 to about 10 different payday loan providers. Some of the loans were taken out to keep up with the debt spiral he was in. Frank says these debts have left him feeling overwhelmed and stuck. He's now on a mental health treatment plan. Unable to keep up with his debts, Frank states he tried to deal with the payday lenders himself, including negotiating payment arrangements, but some of the payday lenders have been difficult to deal with. Sara is a single parent whose primary income comes from the disability support pension. In early 2019 Sara and her child both needed a computer to study and access course materials at home. Sara went to a local store and saw a computer advertised for just under $1,000. She didn't have the money to buy the computer outright, and asked if there was a layby option. She was advised this wasn't possible but that she could apply for a loan to buy the computer. She took that advice and applied for a $1,000 payday loan. This application was rejected, but the lender advised Sara that she could have a greater chance of obtaining a loan if she applied for a higher amount. The application for a larger loan was approved. This assessment of sustainability described Sara's monthly expenditure on groceries as just over $220, and there was no mention of her rent obligations. In the documents the lender recorded that the borrower's purpose was to buy a computer for a little over $1,350—a computer that was advertised for just under $1,000. The loan documents also say that a commission of approximately $200 was to be paid by the lender to the store for introducing Sara's credit business. The loan documents state that the total amount payable for the loan was a little over $2,300—for a computer that retails for under $1,000! This is the kind of behaviour that we're dealing with here. This bill is also relevant to consumer leases. A consumer lease, which is also marketed as a rent-to-buy scheme, lets people rent items—for example, a laptop, whitegoods or furniture—for a set period. The person makes regular payments until the lease ends. Despite often being charged significantly more than the recommended retail price of the goods, at the end of the lease the consumer does not own the goods. In one case the Australian Securities and Investments Commission found that a dryer with a retail price of $345 cost $3,042 through a consumer lease. This is equivalent to an interest rate of 884 per cent. Of course, these leases are usually marketed to people who cannot afford the relatively small amounts of money to purchase these goods upfront. This package of bills implements a range of measures to reform this sector: firstly, the establishment of an accountability regime for financial sector companies, as recommended by the banking royal commission; secondly, the establishment of a compensation scheme of last resort for victims of financial misconduct, which was also recommended by the banking royal commission; and, thirdly, the implementation of the government's response to the long-outstanding SACC review. The previous government introduced but never passed legislation that responded to some recommendations of the SACC review. The consumer protections in this legislation go further than those proposed by the previous government. Schedule 4 of the bill introduces a number of amendments to the National Consumer Credit Protection Act to strengthen consumer protections for both SACCs and consumer leases. These include caps that limit what lessors can charge under consumer leases; caps on net income that consumers can spend on SACC and consumer lease payments; requiring SACCs to have equal repayment intervals to prevent providers extending loans to increase the amount of fees they can collect; extending the prohibition of unsolicited offers of SACC products to previously unsuccessful loan applicants and prohibiting certain predatory marketing practices for consumer leases. The bill also introduces broad anti-avoidance provisions. The CEO of Financial Counselling Australia said of this bill: Financial counsellors are delighted that this long-awaited legislation has finally been introduced to the Parliament. Every day we see clients with high-cost payday loans and consumer leases that they struggle to pay. The most important part of this Bill will be in the accompanying regulations that will cap the amount a person can pay for each product to 10% of income. This will make it less likely that people will end up trapped in a never-ending cycle of debt. I want to use this opportunity to really thank and acknowledge the incredible advocates of these reforms and in particular the thousands of financial counsellors around the country who help people in their lowest moments. These people are dedicating their lives to helping others and they are really at the coalface with the worst excesses of capitalism and their impact on vulnerable Australians. I want to particularly thank the counsellors from Care Financial Counselling in my electorate, the CEO Carmel Franklin and specifically Deb Shroot. Care is an incredible institution that helps thousands every year. In 2021, through Care's counselling, over $1,546,000 of debt held by Canberrans was either waived or reduced, and almost $171,000 of assistance was provided to members of the public in the form of a community loan to help them get through hard times. As I often say in this place, Canberra has a high median income, and that does make it a particularly difficult place to be poor. It is the most expensive city in Australia in which to rent. The work of Care and other counselling institutions is vital for the financial wellbeing of so many in our community. But Care can't do it alone; they need governments, both federal and territory, to provide help to those who most need it. This bill goes some way to ensuring that the worst abuses don't continue in this space, and it protects consumers from the more predatory aspects of this type of lending. Financial counsellors have been ringing the alarm bell for years. It's their tireless campaigning that has ensured these changes have happened. Again, I want to thank them for fronting up every day and the important work that they do. I think it would be remiss not to acknowledge that part of the problem here is that people are facing a cost-of-living crisis on terribly low incomes. Last term, when I did the Care financial counselling A Day in the Life program and met some of the clients, it was obvious that people who are living on social security payments are already some of the best budgeters in Australia. They have to be in order to make ends meet on these fixed and relatively low incomes. Part of the problem, it became clear in talking to these people, was not the way that they budgeted but the fact that these incomes were simply too low to live on. I want to acknowledge that government really does have a role in ensuring we have a strong and adequate social safety net. These reforms will go some way to addressing some of the worst things that people on very low incomes in our country are facing, but there is more that we can do to ensure we better address poverty in this country. 16:57 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde It's a pleasure to rise and speak on the Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2022 and its three associated bills in cognate debate. As you well know, Madam Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, I have a deep and abiding interest, having had a background in financial services prior to coming into this place, in stuff we are doing in the financial services sector. Can I say at the outset that we in this country should be proud of our financial services sector, by and large. If we go back to the global financial crisis, it's fair to say that, whilst not everything was perfect, our economy and financial services sector came through it reasonably well. That being said, there were errors, missteps and things that could have been done better, which ultimately led to the banking royal commission. The member for Wide Bay, who's in the chamber, was one of those on our side who pushed for that royal commission. I think it's fair to say that the revelations from the royal commission were disappointing to all of us in this chamber. The reason I say that is that our big financial services companies—our banks, our insurance companies—have a social licence from our community to do what they do, and I expect, as I'm sure everybody else in this place does, those organisations to uphold that social licence and the responsibility that goes with that. The revelations of the financial services commission were enormously disappointing to me, as somebody who'd had a career in that industry before coming to this place. So I'm pleased to see this latest tranche of bills come to the House to further implement the recommendations from that royal commission. As we look at these bills, it's important to reflect on what they are seeking to achieve. The coalition has already taken action to implement five of the recommendations from the royal commission. The Financial Accountability Regime will extend what is currently known as the Banking Executive Accountability Regime to all entities regulated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and impose a strengthened responsibility and accountability framework within those institutions. In response to the financial services royal commission, the coalition made a further commitment to extend the executive accountability regime to those entities regulated solely by ASIC, and the coalition will progress this further commitment following the initial implementation of the regime to APRA regulated entities. The BEAR establishes clear standards of conduct by imposing a strengthened responsibility and accountability framework for directors and the most senior executives of ADIs, and the Financial Accountability Regime in the Financial Accountability Regime Bill will extend this responsibility and accountability framework across all APRA regulated industries. In doing so, the FAR is intended to increase the transparency and accountability of our financial entities in these industries, and we would hope, as a result, improve risk culture and governance for both prudential and conduct purposes. The bill introduces these new financial accountability regimes across banking, insurance and superannuation, and it will strengthen the accountability framework for those sectors. In addition, this set of bills introduces the Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort, which the coalition, when it was in government, brought to this House in late 2021. It was subsequently referred to a committee for further review, and that committee recommended the bill proceed. With the fluxion of time and the election, that lapsed, and the government is now reintroducing this bill into the House. The compensation scheme of last resort is designed to provide compensation to those consumers who have had a determination through AFCA that remains unpaid as a result of maybe the organisation that had to pay the compensation going broke or into administration and not having the funds available to make the payment. The scheme will limit the compensation to $150,000 per case, and this is broadly equivalent to the 85,000 pound limit of compensation available under the UK financial services compensation scheme. I do note that, whilst the government was in opposition, they did raised the possibility of including MISs in this. I can see the minister in the chamber and thank him for the discussion that we had today, and I'm pleased to see that the government has sought not to include MISs in this legislation. Otherwise I think the cost to this would be unmanageable and unbearable. As I said, we're holding our superannuation funds and our are banks and our insurance companies to account through this legislation. I would put them on notice that I'm firmly of the view that MISs managers and promoters equally have a judiciary responsibility to their investors, and this is certainly not in any way a carte blanche for them to do some of the reprehensible things we've seen done in that space over the years. All of these measures are designed to ensure that when consumers get the advice or the services that they are seeking it is in accordance with what the requirements are that they're seeking the assistance for and that, if it is not, they get appropriately compensated. I'm proud that that we have a body like AFCA to make those determinations and that, when we were in government, we established AFCA through the merging of a number of other complaint resolution processes into a one-stop shop for all financial services queries, complaints and concerns. I think AFCA by and large do an extraordinary job in that case. The Financial Sector Reform Bill also implements some of the recommendations from the small-amount credit review, and those have been around for some time now—since 2016, I think. I agree with much of what the member for Canberra had to say in her contribution on the small-amount credit contracts. I would, however, want to ensure that people, in some instances where they do require credit, still have access to credit where it's needed. But I certainly concur with the position that they shouldn't be paying well over the odds for the white goods, the computers or other things they require in that process. I'm pleased to see the measures in this bill and I hope that, through this continuous process of improving the regulation in the financial services sector, we see a sector that is better run and more focused on the needs of consumers in our society and in our community. We know, ultimately, that it is our financial services sector that provides the finance, the payment systems and the capacity for our economy to operate. It is critically important that the Australian people have confidence that our financial services sector is delivering the services and the products in a way that benefits them, that they can trust and that ensures that the services that they are paying for or seeking are properly delivered. If, through complaints mechanisms like AFCA, they're found not to be appropriately delivered for their benefit, and compensation is due as a result, they should be duly compensated. I support the bills. 17:08 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to speak in support of the Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2022 and the other two bills that we're debating concurrently here before the House. We continue to work through the recommendations of the Hayne royal commission, and I'm not certain whether there are many final recommendations from that, after these bills are progressed, that need to be brought before us to complete that process, but I'm very pleased to be speaking on the progression of these bills. I think that all the outcomes of these bills will be a good thing for ensuring that we've got a robust, transparent, well-run financial system that is doing what it needs to do for our economy, is being kept properly regulated and also has an appropriate amount of oversight in place so that we are protecting the people of Australia and we don't have a financial system that can in any way, to be blunt, unfairly exploit vulnerable people or any people. The first element is the Financial Accountability Regime, which is about expanding the current BEAR, the Banking Executive Accountability Regime, to include other financial institutions. I think the BEAR is a sensible and very necessary piece of legislation that absolutely is ensuring that the highest standards are in place for people who hold significant positions in banking institutions, on boards and in senior executive roles. We had, unfortunately, seen far too many examples of poor, if not bad, conduct in those institutions and an inability to properly hold particular individuals to account for their role in leadership positions in these institutions and therefore perhaps not having as much pressure on them as there should have been to ensure that their conduct was at the highest of standards. Extending that to insurance companies and other institutions in superannuation et cetera in the financial sector seems completely obvious. I know this part of the bill, in some way, shape or form, was meant to come before us in the previous term. So I commend the government on bringing this forward for us now. I think the evolution of the BEAR into the FAR is very sensible. Hopefully, that is as comprehensive as we need to be. But no doubt when it comes to the regulation and oversight of the financial sector, which is a very robust, complicated and fast-moving sector, at some point we'll look at it again. But I do believe on the face of it that that does pick up the necessary elements for the financial sector to have the same sort of oversight that deposit-taking institutions have. So we welcome the outcome of the BEAR becoming the FAR. Next is the compensation scheme of last resort. We've seen examples of people who have received determinations through AFCA, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority. To quickly digress a bit, as members of parliament I'm sure most of us at some point have had cause to refer constituents to AFCA with matters. They are a very important institution. They do a lot of work for people in an extremely frightening circumstance. I've certainly dealt with constituents who have had large amounts of money disappear from bank accounts and things like that and experienced other scams et cetera. So it's good to have a robust organisation like AFCA to work with when people are in a desperate situation, having experienced things like that. This compensation scheme of last resort creates a fund from this one-off levy for when people get a determination of financial misconduct and that's not very helpful if the entity has perhaps become insolvent or gone bankrupt in the meantime and there's no money for that guilty party to meet the determination against them. We have these schemes of last resort in other parts of our society for different reasons. We are talking about people who have been taken advantage of, who have probably lost something close to, if not the entirety of, their life savings. These are large amounts of money for the people involved. It's capped at $150,000. I think that's important. That $150,000 for vulnerable people getting these determinations would be an extremely significant amount of money. If they had a determination towards or over that amount, they clearly lost a very significant amount of money. Where there's been a determination to say that there's been financial misconduct and they should be compensated by an amount of money up to, or maybe exceeding, $150,000, they can get up to $150,000 under the scheme. I'm sure for a lot of people this will be a life-changing outcome after an awful situation that they will have been through. If they've gotten to the point of having that determination from AFCA, this compensation to them of up to $150,000 will hopefully mean in most cases that they've had a very just outcome and they'll get the money back that they deserve to get back. I think that's a good outcome that I'm pleased to support progressing through the House. I know small credit loans have been an area of a little bit of friction in the past—not that I recall in the last parliament but in the parliament before. There have certainly been times when small-amount credit—effectively, payday loans—has been discussed and debated in this chamber. To be fair, this is an area where there's no absolute black and white, right or wrong answer, because there is a risk that, if we are too prescriptive with regulation in this area, the criminal world steps in and does something that the legally oversighted sector should absolutely do. We don't want anyone in a situation where they're engaging with organised criminals and dark actors out there that prey on vulnerable people in a variety of ways. We all know that, within organised crime, one of the many elements to their business model is lending money, and we clearly don't want to get the regulation in this area wrong or so tight that people are forced into the criminal world out of absolute desperation to get access to short-term loans because we've closed off legal avenues for them in a desperate situation. I absolutely concede that there are many problems on the other side of having too lax a regime in place and that vulnerable people can be tricked and preyed upon by legitimate operators in the lending marketplace if we don't properly oversee them and their conduct of operations. Unfortunately, we are talking about extremely vulnerable people who have to access this kind of finance. It's almost always in circumstances of significant desperation, and that means that they are very easily preyed upon. So getting that balance right is not just a current challenge; it will be an ongoing challenge. The other thing that we clearly will have to be wary of in this small-amount credit contract space, as it's formally known, is technological developments for other people to operate in this marketplace. This is a broad challenge in the financial sector, of course. Again, the online world and other technological development may lead to avenues being created, particularly in this space, to prey upon people and exploit them. We are going to have to be vigilant. I think there will be ongoing reform, including at a legislative level, that we will need to consider in this space into the future, but I do commend this set of measures to the chamber. The royal commission has given us a lot of valuable recommendations to pursue. They have been worked through over a number of years now. This is really a part of that process to put in place recommendations where there's legislation required. Without completely recapping the remarks I've already given, I think that in each of the cases that are addressed we are going to see a good outcome for the people of this country and the protection of them from exploitation. We will also have a robustness around our financial sector because it is absolutely the engine room of our economy. The financial sector really is the life blood, the artery of the economy. We're seeing and understanding now. People for the first time in their lives are starting to see changes in the financial sector that they didn't fully understand. There are things like interest rates moving up rapidly et cetera. People are better understanding just how significant the financial sector is and how aware they need to be of these sorts of things, and also how important the sector is to our economy and how important it is for us, as a government, to undertake the appropriate amount of oversight and regulation without getting in the way of the system doing all it can to contribute to the growth of our economy and the betterment of our country. With those comments, I commend the bill to the House. 17:20 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin I welcome the introduction of the Financial Sector Reform Bill 2022 as the response to the royal commission that made recommendations in 2019. Efficient financial services regulations are essential to ensure accountability within the sector and to ensure that our financial institutions are acting with honesty, skill and diligence. Financial regulations are particularly important when they affect people who are already vulnerable. We owe a duty of care to the most vulnerable to ensure that the financial sector is transparent, coherent and truthful. This is why I'm pleased to see more stringent regulations applied under schedule 4 of the bill to small amount credit contracts, which most of us know as buy-now pay-later services. The catchphrase for buy-now pay-later is that it's easy and accessible. Buy-now pay-later is not marketed as credit, and, with no affordability assessment, it can easily get you into debt. The final review of the small amount credit contract laws review, which was established to consider and report on the effectiveness of these laws, was published in March 2016, so 5½ years ago. Some of the recommendations included enhancing consumer protections for the buy-now pay-later schemes, putting a cap on the cost of consumer leases and making a more robust anti-avoidance provision so that all buy-now pay-later schemes are regulated equally. Each of these recommendations is essential to protect our kids, our elderly and our low-income earners in the community. I'm not convinced by the member for Sturt's argument that the only alternative to buy-now pay-later is loans from criminals. We need to accept the challenge to ensure that we have a safety net that produces other alternatives other than exorbitant interest or loans from organised crime. I want to tell the parliament about the impact of buy-now pay-later on people in Perth who have sought support from financial counsellors. Earlier this year, Alex and Ash, aged 19 and 20, presented for financial counselling accompanied by their parents. At the initial appointment, a total of 12 buy-now pay-later accounts and four loans were disclosed, amounting to more than $20,000 between them. All these loans were obtained online, with no financial assessment or proof of income required. The credit was accrued largely for retail items like clothing and shoes. These young people were employed, earning under $20,000 per year each, supplemented by Centrelink allowances. As their parents considered them financial dependents, they had paid to clear previous debts, but as it was a recurring issue, they sought help through financial counselling for education. All buy-now pay-later providers insisted on repayment arrangements, with some matters having to be escalated to internal dispute resolution. The financial counsellor revisited the budget based on the agreed repayments. With the repayments, their expenses exceeded their fortnightly income. These young people were fortunate to be supported by their parents, who would cover the cost of food and housing. While this was a learning experience for these young people, it's an example of the consequences of easily accessible credit online. This is just one of many stories. Data from the Financial Counselling Network in Perth showed that 62 per cent of buy-now pay-later users were on government benefits, 37 per cent were not in the labour force, and many of these clients presented for financial counselling as they were struggling to manage on low or restricted income and many were impacted by mental health. Financial counsellors and financial coaches told me some of their concerns with buy-now pay-later. Buy-now pay-later services are used to supplement insufficient income. Many clients are reporting purchasing gift cards from buy-now pay-later providers to purchase essentials, including food and petrol. For low-income users, a significant percentage of their income goes towards meeting buy-now pay-later repayment obligations, impacting other financial obligations and leading to higher reliance on emergency relief, as well as contributing to growing utility debt and rent arrears. It's too simple to access buy now pay later, with no safeguards such as income, serviceability or credit checks by various providers. Financial coaches have observed the behavioural change in mindset as buy-now pay-later services become popular. It has prompted a potential decline of long-term saving habits, as buy now pay later enables impulsive spending and overcommitment. There's heavy advertising of buy now pay later in stores and online, and many counselling clients report having multiple accounts and don't view buy now pay later as credit. Clients were hesitant to seek hardship assistance for buy-now pay-later debts and generally preferred to prioritise these instalments and seek hardship for utilities and essentials. Often, and shrewdly, buy-now pay-later services are marketed as a budgeting tool, and clients view buy-now pay-later as a contingency plan and don't want to risk losing access. The tightening of the regulations around accessing buy now pay later is overdue, and this bill is a welcome step in the right direction. Promoting fair and transparent marketing of buy-now pay-later services would be a good further step to ensure that people understand they're effectively credit and treat them with appropriate caution. 17:26 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam Firstly, I thank all the members who have contributed to this debate. I'll refer to some of them in my summing-up comments. It's been a useful and enlightening discussion in the House. Together, the Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2022, the Financial Sector Reform Bill 2022, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy Bill 2022 and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy (Collection) Bill 2022 implement the Financial Accountability Regime, the compensation scheme of last resort, and small-amount credit contracts and consumer lease reform. Through these bills, 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. The Financial Accountability Regime delivers on the government's commitment to finalise the implementation of five recommendations from the banking royal commission. The FAR will increase the accountability of financial institutions in the banking, insurance and superannuation industries and of their most senior executives and directors, restoring trust and confidence in a sector that plays an integral role in the wellbeing of Australians and our economy as a whole. The FAR imposes four core sets of obligations on accountable entities and accountable persons. 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 and diligence; dealing with the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, hereafter APRA, and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, hereafter ASIC, in an open, constructive and cooperative way; preventing adverse impacts on the accountable entities' prudential standing; and, finally, preventing breaches of certain specified financial services laws by the accountable entity. An important point to make is that through this regime not only will the entity be responsible but certain named individuals within that entity will also have responsibilities. Further, accountable entities must ensure clear identification of accountabilities for accountable persons in the organisation across key areas of operations and must defer at least 40 per cent of the variable remuneration of accountable persons for a minimum period of four years. Variable remuneration will be reduced where accountability obligations are breached. That is the sting in the tail. The FAR will be supported by the imposition of notification obligations, which require accountable entities to provide APRA and ASIC with information on the responsibilities of their accountable persons and, secondly and importantly, information on breaches of those obligations. APRA and ASIC will jointly administer the FAR. They will have the power to disqualify accountable persons, to investigate suspected breaches of the FAR and direct entities to take remedial action, and to apply to the Federal Court to impose a civil penalty on accountable entities. There's been quite some discussion about the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort, and I'd like to reiterate and clarify a few matters that have come up in the course of the debate. The government continues to build trust in Australia's financial system's external dispute resolution framework and remains committed to improving consumer outcomes. Establishing, for first time, the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort, or the CSLR, implements recommendation 7.1 of the banking royal commission. In doing so, it delivers on one of the key outstanding recommendations of the banking royal commission but also, as the member for Curtin alluded to in her address, the earlier Ramsay review under the former government. The Compensation Scheme of Last Resort will provide compensation of up to $150,000 to consumers. Importantly, those consumers must have received a favourable Australian Financial Complaints Authority determination that remains unpaid. Obviously, it remains unpaid because, in the overwhelming number of circumstances, the entity has gone into administration or is in liquidation, or the funds just aren't there. The scheme will apply to personal advice on relevant financial products to retail clients, credit intermediation, securities dealings for a retail client and credit provisions, and it will be paid for by industry, reflecting their obligations to their rights and wrongs. The scheme will be operated by a subsidiary of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority. The Compensation Scheme of Last Resort will ensure that eligible consumers can have their case heard and be confident that, where they are owed compensation, it will be paid. In putting together the CSLR, particularly in relation to the compensation caps, we think we've got the balance right. I know that not everybody agrees with this, but we think we have got the balance right. There has been some discussion, including in the contribution from the member for Forde, about the scope of the CSLR. I know there are many who have been pushing the government—and people can look at my speeches on this in previous parliaments and elsewhere—to look at the inclusion of managed investment schemes into the CSLR from the beginning of the operation of this scheme. I've considered their submissions, the government has considered their submissions, and Treasury has provided advice. On the overwhelming balance of all of that advice and all of those submissions, we have decided, at this stage, to exclude managed investment schemes from the scope of the CSLR. That is not to suggest that there is not a job of work that needs to be done within the managed investment scheme sector, in particular looking at the risks and regulations within that sector—there is. There are questions to be asked about regulation within that sector, and this is something that the government is actively considering. But it would not be appropriate to move MISs into the scope of the CSLR until that job of work has been done. It would be unfair to the existing participants, and particularly those on whom a levy will be imposed, to include the much riskier MIS sector into the scope of the scheme at this stage. Can I say something about small-amount credit contracts. The SACCs and consumer leases reform deliver 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. Safe and well-regulated markets for consumer credit products are necessary to protect vulnerable consumers from predatory lending. Credit markets safety is essential for credit market efficiency, which also benefits lenders, merchants and the broader economy. The reforms will strengthen the consumer protection framework for consumers of small-amount credit contracts and consumer leases through the introduction of new obligations for these providers. The measures include enhanced and extended caps on the amount of net income a consumer can spend on a SACC or consumer lease. This will be known as the protected earnings amount. There will be a cap on the total amount of payments that can be made under a consumer lease. SACCs will be required to have equal repayments and equal repayment intervals over the life of the loan. The new law will prohibit licensees from charging monthly fees in respect of the residual term of a loan where a consumer fully repays the loan early. It will prevent certain undesirable, unsolicited marketing practices for payday loans and consumer leases. It will improve the information that must be taken into account in according a lender's assessment of affordability of payday loans and consumer leases. It will improve disclosures to consumers and recordkeeping, and it will enhance penalties and sanctions for breaches of credit laws. There will be broad anti-avoidance measures to ensure that payday lenders and consumer lease providers cannot circumvent the law, and providers of consumer leases with indefinite terms will be regulated. I'll say something, finally, about buy now pay later, as the member for Curtin raised that in her contribution. I thank her for bringing to the attention of the House the examples of her constituents who have been affected by the behaviour of certain BNPL providers. There is a separate job of work going on inside government and there are actually deep consultations going on inside the sector about the appropriate regulation within the credit laws of the buy-now pay-later sector. So I say to all members of the House, and I invite the member for Curtin to feed this back to her constituents, that the government is onto this. The government believes that BNPL should be treated as credit products. We aren't interested in having an argument about whether cleverly drafted contracts fall inside or outside the credit laws; we want to have a conversation with the industry about the appropriate type of regulation so that this product can be offered safely to consumers and that there is a level playing field in the operation of the credit market. The government is committed to ensuring providers do not take advantage of financially vulnerable consumers. Once again, I thank all members for their contribution to this debate and I commend the bills to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 100 17:37 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Financial Sector Reform Bill 2022 100

Financial Sector Reform Bill 2022

Second Reading 100 Third Reading 100 17:39 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy Bill 2022 101

Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy Bill 2022

Second Reading 101 Third Reading 101 17:40 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy (Collection) Bill 2022 101

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

Second Reading 101 Third Reading 101 17:42 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Incentivising Pensioners to Downsize) Bill 2022 101

Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Incentivising Pensioners to Downsize) Bill 2022

Report from Federation Chamber 101 Third Reading 101 17:43 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. High Speed Rail Authority Bill 2022 101

High Speed Rail Authority Bill 2022

Second Reading 101 17:44 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I can inform the House that the opposition will support the High Speed Rail Authority Bill 2022, but we will introduce some substantive amendments to it—not to change the intent, but to bring greater accountability and transparency to the new agency that this government is forming. We acknowledge that this was an election promise. The Australian people have voted. They have given a clear indication of their intent. It is important that we allow the government to get on with it but also make sure that transparency and accountability for this new agency is put in place. That will be through the amendments that we put through this place. We would like to work constructively with the government to work through those to make sure that we can give confidence around where high-speed rail may go into the future. High-speed rail has a long history of support on both sides of this parliament, as far back as the 1980s. We have sought many ways in which to expedite it. While we acknowledge that this new authority will put greater emphasis on it, there are already existing agencies that have undertaken much work around the possibilities and opportunities of fast rail in this country. It's important to understand that the cost of high-speed rail is significant. We acknowledge the fact that in the election the now government pledged $500 million towards that, and the New South Wales government has recently pledged around $500 million towards that as well. But, to put this into context, there was a review undertaken in 2012 that estimated the cost of fast rail across the eastern seaboard at around $131 billion. So $500 million will not scratch the sides. If you look at what is estimated by some experts now in real dollar terms today, it's somewhere between $200 billion and $300 billion. That is a significant amount of money that Australian taxpayers will have to bring forward. Therefore, we believe it is imperative that there be accountability measures and transparency for the Australian people around such an investment and also around the journey towards delivering this. There has been, as I articulated earlier, since the 1980s much intent to try and bring high-speed rail to this country but little delivery. It's important that we have that accountability for the people of Australia in spending their money in trying to bring this to fruition. Understanding the opportunities that are there, it's important that we are honest with the Australian people about the challenges that this piece of infrastructure will bring. It's also important that this doesn't come at the expense of other infrastructure items, particularly Inland Rail. The former infrastructure minister here who is behind me, the member for Riverina, has been a champion of Inland Rail, along with the member for New England, in making sure we can get freight from Melbourne to Brisbane in 24 hours. That was a real economic mindset that he bought to the portfolio in trying to get freight out of this country and to start to pay the bills. You can only pay the bills when you put product from this country on a boat and it goes overseas and we get paid for it. Getting those supply chains moving more efficiently means money will come back to this country quicker and into the pockets of those that have the courage and conviction of their own wallet to have a go. This is a significant investment in our nation's future. The member for Riverina championed this and has delivered much of it. It's important that these commitments towards high-speed rail are not at the expense of Inland Rail or the many other projects particularly for regional and remote Australia, such as roads and airports, in making sure that we are the ones that pay the bill for this. So, in giving support to this bill, much of what the opposition want to talk about in terms of what we would be asking for is around ensuring that there are arrangements for the Productivity Commission and Infrastructure Australia to undertake independent assessments of the cost-benefit analysis of high-speed rail. We have to be honest with ourselves. If it costs too much, if it's not affordable, if it's not achievable, let's look each other in the eye and say, 'It can't be done.' We need those reports to be made public and tabled here in the Australian parliament. This is the people's House. The Australian people should see this with the transparency that both sides of the House should be prepared to give. It's their money. We also believe that extensive consultation with those communities along proposed corridors need to be continued. But also I think it's important to understand—and we acknowledge that there will be a five-member board—that on that board there should be at least one person from regional Australia. This will traverse much of regional Australia along the eastern seaboard, and it's important that those voices are heard—that their lives will be impacted by this is—and have representation on that board. This is all about equity, transparency and accountability. That's all the opposition is asking for. We don't intend to get in the road of what we have all agreed is something we should explore. But it's important that we are honest with the Australian people and that we have the measures that give them the confidence that this parliament, this government, and future governments are honest with them about the future of high-speed rail in this country and that we're prepared to make those decisions predicated on science and economics. If we all believe that, then the sound amendments that we're putting forward aren't irrational; they are ones that both sides should work constructively towards, to making sure we give confidence to the Australian taxpayer. After all, it's their money. 17:51 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins When it comes to transport, Australians want options. It's all about alleviating congestion, boosting convenience and protecting the climate. The relatively small size of Higgins, at 39-square kilometres, means that my constituents face the irritations of road congestion on a daily basis. The people of Higgins welcome measures that take cars off the road and they also care deeply about the environment. Transport in Australia is the third largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for 18 per cent of our total burden. Emissions from transport have been increasing every year since 1990, with the exception of 2020 during the early phase of the pandemic. Road transport makes up the bulk of our transport emissions, indicating that any intervention that reduces our dependency on cars is going to have an impact on overall emissions. Australia is a wide brown land with horizons stretching as far as the eye can see. Distances are vast. As a result we have become over-reliant on planes for intercity travel. Aviation accounts for nine per cent of our transport emissions, far less than road vehicles but nevertheless significant. At this election Higgins voted for progress to end the gridlock on climate action. The passage of our historic Climate Change Bill a few weeks ago is a signpost in a forked road that course corrects our country. Higgins had a key role in that outcome. My constituents, like many Australians, want transport options from EVs to alternatives to aviation. Frankly, we are not all enamoured with the airport experience either. I must confess that I feel guilty flying from Melbourne to Canberra as often as I do. There must be a better way, and there is. High-speed rail is a gift for a country as vast as ours and on the frontline of climate change. With Australia's population projected to increase to over 35 million by 2050, it's time to begin long-term planning, especially as we race to net zero. Globally, several advanced economies operate high-speed rail. Japan's Shinkansen, in 1964, was the first but high-speed rail now exists in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK and the Netherlands. China started relatively late, in 2003, but now has the world's largest network, stretching a whopping 38,000 kilometres, with plans to double by 2035. I am proud to be part of an Albanese Labor government that is establishing a high-speed rail authority to oversee and plan the construction of high-speed rail down the east coast from Melbourne to Brisbane. As a statutory agency the authority will provide independent and impartial advice to the government. This has been a passion project of our Prime Minister who has been championing it for over a decade, initially from government and then from opposition. Our Prime Minister never gave up on the vision, tabling a high-speed rail bill five times between 2013 and 2018. In 2013 the coalition abolished the High Speed Rail Advisory Group, killing off the dream—until 2022, when Higgins and a slew of seats around the country voted for change. An Albanese Labor government will provide $500 million to start work on the connection between Sydney and Newcastle as a matter of priority. This link was identified in a feasibility study commissioned by our Prime Minister in 2010, when he was the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. The funds will go towards corridor acquisition, planning and early works. But we are not stopping there; Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney and Brisbane are in scope. We will have trains made with Aussie know-how and Aussie green steel and powered by our sunshine. Through Labor's National Rail Manufacturing Plan we will ensure that we build capacity in onshore manufacturing and local jobs that upskill our people. My only desire is that 250 kilometres an hour is a floor and not a ceiling. Frictionless systems, like the maglev intercity link being built in Japan right now, offer a glimpse into the future. Labor governments turn aspiration into action. We raise, not dim, ambition. Melbourne to Sydney in 2½ to three hours? Bring it on! 17:55 Mr McCO 219646 Riverina RMACK () (): Back in 2012, in my first term as the federal member for Riverina, I called a high-speed rail forum in Wagga Wagga, and I was stunned by the response. More than a hundred people turned up to that forum, including one Bryan Nye. Many people, including the Prime Minister, would remember Bryan Nye. Sadly, he passed away in 2016. He had family links to my home city of Wagga Wagga. He joined the Australasian Railway Association in 2003. I think Bryan Nye would be looking down upon us today, and he would be pleased. I think Tim Fischer, the great patriarch of the member for Cowper in my party, the National Party, would also be pleased. They would both be wanting the government not just to talk about this but to get on with this. They would be saying that they also played a big part in this. As the Nationals leader, the member for Maranoa, said at this dispatch box this afternoon, the opposition will be supporting the High Speed Rail Authority Bill 2022, but there will be some caveats, there will be some amendments and there will be some parameters which need to be put in place. This is something which is nation building, and I acknowledge that. Let me talk a little bit about the late Mr Nye, because it's important. He was one of the absolute staunchest advocates for high-speed rail in this nation. When Mr Nye passed away, Bob Nanva, the National Secretary of the Rail, Tram and Bus Union—yes, I'm quoting a union—said that Mr Nye had made an enormous contribution to the rail industry and was highly regarded and respected. He also said: Bryan Nye was a passionate advocate for Australia's rail sector. Bryan not only had an encyclopaedic knowledge of the industry, he knew his way around the corridors of power— yes, he did and he was often in this place— His greatest skill, however, was in bringing people together and finding consensus. Whether it was bringing competing interests to the table on a united industry position, or managing negotiations between industry and government, Bryan used his skills to great effect. That he did. I think what we're seeing tonight when we're discussing and debating the High Speed Rail Authority Bill 2022 is people being brought together—people who may not necessarily always agree but who want to do things in the common interest and in the national interest and make sure that we build the infrastructure fit for purpose for this nation. Bob Herbert AM also talked about Bryan Nye. Bob Herbert was very influential in transport. He said he remembered that Bryan established the Rail Industry Safety and Standards Board in 2005, which enabled the industry to harmonise practices and establish national standards. That was so important, and it fits in so well with what we're discussing: high-speed rail. I concluded that 2012 forum with a question, which, given all the reasons and benefits outlined today, is still valid: can we afford not to do it? Around the time of that forum, and we just heard the member for Maranoa talking about those years, high-speed rail was costed at $131 billion. That was a significant amount then. Goodness knows what that figure would be now. I know that even the Inland Rail, originally costed on a desktop analysis of around $9½ billion, is now costed around $14½ billion. When I took over as Deputy Prime Minister, and the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, the states signed up to the Inland Rail. I have to say that two of the great helpers who provided great assistance in the project were Jacinta Allan, a Labor minister from Victoria; and also Mark Bailey, from your home state of Queensland, Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz. I will give those two Labor ministers credit for the vision they had to come on board with the federal government with Inland Rail. I do also recall signing the pact with the New South Wales government, and the representative at the time, John Barilaro, at Parkes on the east-west north-south intersection for freight rail. As I told the Federation Chamber earlier this week, it will be a boom town when it comes to Inland Rail, getting goods from the regions to Melbourne or Brisbane ports within 24 hours, or the opposite way, getting goods from the metropolitan ports to regional areas. Certainly, as the member for Maranoa has indicated, getting our product from paddock and pit to port for our exports is going to be so important. I come from Wagga Wagga, and I appreciate that at the moment there is a lot of conjecture and submissions to the New South Wales planning authorities about the actual route of Inland Rail. It's is a bone of contention at the moment, and I appreciate that; I want what's best for the community. With Inland Rail going right through the corridor of our city there have been a lot of calls for a bypass, which would be very costly—just like this would be very costly. I appreciate what the member for Higgins said earlier about the 1980s and high-speed rail in Japan. In actual fact, high-speed rail began in Europe in 1938, would you believe, and they have certainly been championing that. The member for Whitlam was talking earlier about his experience with high-speed rail in Japan. Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu and Shikoku are the four main Japanese islands, and I know how interconnected Japan is with high-speed rail and that it's so important. Indeed, a representative of the Japanese company which ran the Osaka-Nagoya-Tokyo link, said they moved 386,000 passengers a day—and this is going back a little while—in high-speed rail trains. The average annual delay per train was—wait for it—six seconds. Six seconds! That's efficiency. This bill, which the government has introduced, establishes a high-speed rail authority as an independent body—and that's important—to advise on, plan and develop a high-speed corridor in Australia. I know others opposite have been championing their Prime Minister, and I've had discussions with the Prime Minister, the member for Grayndler, about the importance of rail, freight rail and high-speed rail. In particular, this is talked about between Newcastle and Sydney. Labor allocated $500 million for the project, and, as the member for Maranoa pointed out, that is barely scraping the sides. That is but barely a drop in the ocean compared to what would be needed, even for the Newcastle to Sydney link. But it's a start. I see the member for Hunter there nodding, and I suppose you need to start somewhere. That is why there won't be opposition from the opposition, unlike when we were in government and those opposite were in opposition and they opposed everything. We want to see this nation reach its potential. We want to see Australians be their best selves. Yes, there do need to be some caveats and some amendments, as I said earlier, but I appreciate the member for Grayndler's long held ambition to have select corridors preserved. If you don't do that, you end up with what we had even on projects such as the Hume Highway when it was duplicated. Even near the Wagga Wagga Airport, there has been provision talked about and indeed action taken on preserving a corridor for a potential high-speed rail link in the future. I appreciate that we have some Greens in the House. I know that a previous Greens proposal—which I read carefully, because I always carefully read everything that the Greens put up—talked about an Inland Rail link along the coastline. We need it inland. We need high-speed rail to come inland, through Canberra, through Wagga Wagga, down somewhere beside the Hume freeway—possibly through Shepparton because, if nothing more, that will boost regional Australia. That will create jobs. I appreciate that the member for Maranoa talked, too, about what it might do for other transport stakeholders. I appreciate that Wagga Wagga and inland Australia are well serviced at the moment by Rex Airlines, an award-winning airline, and by QantasLink. We can't do anything that is going to damage the airline industry at a time when the airline industry is on its knees because of COVID-19. I was the minister who provided a lot of money in domestic aviation network support, regional airline network support and, of course, tourism incentives. We put those in place to ensure that people were still able to fly; to ensure that we were still able to get personal protection equipment and health professionals to, particularly, remote Australia during the height of COVID-19; and, as we, hopefully, come out of the back of COVID-19, to ensure that people can have confidence in the aviation sector again. We're talking here about something very, very important, and that is, of course, the High Speed Rail Authority. It needs to be there to lead, to plan, to develop, to coordinate, to oversee and to monitor the construction and operation of a high-speed rail network in Australia, just like Ministers Allan, Bailey and Barilaro did in agreeing on a state level with Inland Rail. You cannot do this sort of nation building without the agreement, the say-so and the help and support of our state governments and, indeed, of local governments as well. There's a lot of work to be done, but we have to start somewhere, and I commend the government for making that somewhere here, because it is going to be important. The coalition has a very good record when it comes to high-speed rail. We released our 20-year national Faster Rail Plan in 2019, and the 2022-23 budget committed a further $3.72 billion—not an insignificant amount—to deliver faster rail, bringing total commitments to faster rail projects to $6 billion. So I do not want to hear Labor saying, 'This is all about us,' because it's not. It is about bipartisanship. I see the member for Newcastle rocking her head back and laughing, but it is. We have to be bipartisan. When I go out there, I hear that people actually like to see us getting on. Even in the years of Julia Gillard as Prime Minister, something like 88 per cent of legislation was actually agreed to on a bipartisan level. People don't realise that. They think it's always argy-bargy. They just think that we're always opposed to everything, and we're not. Indeed, on this, let's just say—pardon the pun—we're on one track. It's just how we get there that might take some work and some diplomacy. I know the Leader of the Nationals is committed to getting around the table and talking about these sorts of aspects, and I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition will be too, because this is important. High-speed rail along the Australian east coast has been examined by both sides of politics since at least the 1980s, but we also need to ensure that if we're going to do high speed rail we're going to do it inland. If it's from Newcastle to Sydney, that's well and good, but we need to make sure that we extend it to the Northern Rivers. We need to extend it not only to those populated areas up north but also through the inland, through the Riverina, and through the electorate that the member for Nicholls serves so well to make sure that we take advantage of giving those people options. What we don't want to see is the continuance of our overcrowded metropolitan cities. Melbourne is the fastest-growing city in Australia and, potentially, the world. What we want to see is people being able to live in one of those outer regions and get on a high-speed train to Sydney, Melbourne or, in the future, Brisbane, and commute not just for leisure and pleasure but also for work, because our satellite cities are going to become so important. We don't have a lot of those larger inland cities that America has, and we can have that when we build the right infrastructure. High-speed rail is important infrastructure, just like water infrastructure is going to be so important in the future. I commend what the government is doing here and support it. There will be some amendments needed, but, in principle, I'm very much in favour of it. 18:11 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I do acknowledge the passion and interest that the member for Riverina has in rail. There's quite a heritage in his National Party of interest in these matters. There's nothing like a high-speed rail bill to bring out all of the infrastructure nerds in this parliament, including me. It was on this historic day 25 years ago that hundreds, indeed thousands, of Novocastrians caught the train down to the Sydney Football Stadium to watch good beat evil and watch the fairytale grand final come true when the Knights won their first ever premiership, staging a terrific comeback from 8-6 to shatter Manly's hopes. Anyone who knows a Novocastrian knows how delighted we were to see that moment when Darren Albert came up the wings and scored in the last 17 seconds. The town erupted. Here we are, 25 years later, and the Knights' prospects for a grand final victory have certainly changed, but the time it takes to catch a train from Newcastle to Sydney hasn't, and that is the point. Just as this was a historic day 25 years ago, today is a historic day because we are discussing the bill that is going to establish a high-speed rail authority. This is an authority that will act as an independent body to advise on, plan and develop a high-speed rail system in Australia. The Prime Minister, a well-known infrastructure nerd, came to Newcastle on 2 January this year not just to launch Labor's 2022 election campaign—the good member for Hunter joined me at the time—but to, indeed, announce to the people of Newcastle that, if elected, an Anthony Albanese Labor government would prioritise fast rail between Sydney and Newcastle, as a first step towards a much larger network of high-speed rail in Australia. Now, in government, we are putting the wheels in motion. That's what we do here. High-speed rail on this route will ultimately deliver speeds of over 250 kilometres per hour and include stops on the Central Coast. My colleagues of Dobell and Robertson will also be thrilled with this news. It will cut the journey from Sydney to Newcastle down to just 45 minutes from the current 2½-hour trip. As I said, that has not changed since I was a teenager. Indeed, possibly the only piece of technology that's managed to get slower over time is the Sydney-Newcastle train. We, in Newcastle, are delighted with this news. Labor's plan is in line with the New South Wales government's existing plans to progress faster rail between Newcastle and Sydney. The most recent report in high-speed rail—commissioned by the former Labor government and, indeed, commissioned by the Prime Minister when he was the then minister—identified the Sydney to Newcastle corridor as the first component of that much larger line-up through to Brisbane. The Albanese Labor government is making this stage of works a key priority for the High Speed Rail Authority. We've provided $500 million as a down payment in our first budget—this will be revealed to all on budget night!—which will begin the corridor acquisition that is required, the planning and early works. Seriously, the great worry for us all through the last, wasted, decade was that when we actually got to the point of forming government and introducing a high-speed rail authority bill the corridor might not be there. So there's not a moment to waste! With the population of the Hunter Valley and the Central Coast forecast to grow by 200,000 people by 2040, Labor know that the planning for Australia's long-term future requires vision, dedication and commitment to working cooperatively with the states and territories. High-speed rail opens up so many choices for our communities. Without it, you have to live closer to where you work or sacrifice time with your family through being stuck in traffic. I know this because so many people I've spoken to in Newcastle in fact work in Sydney. They're stuck with the option of spending over two hours driving to Sydney, and tackling the traffic and the parking, or spending close to three hours on a train to get there. With high-speed rail, you will have more choice. You can move out of the city—taking the pressure off the outer suburbs—and into regional areas, with all the benefits that brings. You can have a whole lot more time with your family—not to mention a life that's a whole lot better in a city like Newcastle! Without high-speed rail, it's not only the connection to work but the connection to your wider family and friends that's made more difficult. With high-speed rail, catching up more often becomes more possible, and that's a good thing. Connecting people is a great thing. It's not only an easier people-mover but a job creator and an industry builder. I come from a city with a long history of making trains. It is criminal that we have been sidelined in the production of those trains. Indeed, we end up having to repair all the dodgy work that has been contracted out overseas. We have to do the repair job and make trains fit for purpose again. So let's go back to building these trains in communities like Newcastle. I know that's the ambition of the Labor government. It's staggering that over the last 10 years the coalition has turned it into 'snail rail', as we refer to it, by doing very little on developing the previous government's work on high-speed rail. We want our regions, like Newcastle and the Hunter, to grow and prosper. We want those regional economies to be strong and to deliver benefits right across the country. The high-speed rail network has the potential to do that; city centres are not the sole beneficiaries here. We want public transport to be a big part of the green economy. The coalition seem not to want to act quickly enough to enact that vision. The Labor Party has always been the party of nation-building and is committed to delivering long-term infrastructure that helps drive economic development in our regions, ensuring the continued prosperity of regional centres and cities. Investment in transport infrastructure, and in rail in particular, plays a significant role in connecting people to families and employment opportunities and improving the accessibility and liveability of our regional communities. Rail infrastructure also helps to decarbonise the economy by taking more cars off our roads and, for long-distance rail, reducing our reliance on air travel. Investment in rail has always been a priority of the Labor Party. During our last period in government we invested more in rail projects than all previous governments combined. When the Prime Minister was minister for infrastructure in the former Labor government, he commissioned this HighSpeed Rail Study phase 2report. The benefits identified in the study were significant—not just the substantial reduction in travel times but the unlocking of regional economies, providing significant employment opportunities and supplying a remarkable economic boost in the medium and long terms. The study found that for every dollar of cost there would be a return of $2.30 in benefits to society—they're good odds. The report identified Sydney to Newcastle as forming the first component of that larger line through to Brisbane, and this government is determined to continue that legacy and the work undertaken into high-speed rail by the former Labor government. We recognise the potential of our regions and the vibrant jobs and lifestyle options they offer to Australians. For too long we've seen the former coalition government use infrastructure as a partisan issue. I'm delighted to hear that at least the National Party are on board with high-speed rail, and I hope that they continue to support us in this regard. We are committed to nationbuilding and infrastructure investment that plans for our country's future. That's why the Minister for Infrastructure—who's in the chamber with us now, I see—has initiated a review into Infrastructure Australia, and why we are legislating to establish the High Speed Rail Authority. No project captures the imagination of Australians quite like high-speed rail, and we are committed to realising the massive benefits that this project could bring. This is a long-term project, but with the pragmatic advice of the High Speed Rail Authority we can take a genuine path forward. High-speed rail has already been embraced in countries throughout Asia and Europe, and with Australia's population projected to increase to over 35 million by 2050, it's time to start the long-term planning for high-speed rail here. Japan introduced its first bullet train in 1964; France's was in 1981; and China's was in 2003. This is a long-term project for us, and the High Speed Rail Authority will be established to lead, coordinate, plan and oversee the construction of high-speed rail networks through Victoria, Queensland, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. The High Speed Rail Authority is critical to lead and coordinate planning and to oversee construction of a reliable, safe, efficient and cost-effective high-speed rail network, working closely with the relevant state governments. It will play a key role in providing strategic directions and policy advice to states and territories for the effective development and interoperability of a high-speed rail network along the east coast of Australia. As a statutory agency, the authority will provide independent and impartial advice on the policy and standards, develop business cases and secure those corridors. Specific measures will be taken to prevent and reduce environmental impacts, and the authority will coordinate and consult with the state and territory governments, industry, business and communities. The government will provide $500 million as a down payment in the 2022-23 budget to start that corridor acquisition, planning and early works for the Sydney-to-Newcastle corridor. While Sydney to Newcastle will be the first priority—and as a member for Newcastle I am obviously delighted by that—this is a long-term vision, and the High Speed Rail Authority will also work on advancing other sections of the line, eventually connecting Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney and Brisbane. High-speed rail can improve the prosperity of regions by enhancing connectivity between regional centres, our major population centres and our international gateways. High-speed rail will revolutionise interstate travel, providing a fast alternative to other modes of moving between capital cities. Providing the option of high-speed rail for intercity travel will also help the transition to net zero. Delivery of the high-speed rail network will provide economic benefits and enhance connectivity through a fast alternative mode of transport, increasing price competition in the market and providing jobs. Seriously, everyone is a winner. Australians in regional areas will benefit from improved liveability through enhanced connectivity to urban areas and international gateways. The high-speed rail network will reshape settlement patterns along Australia's east coast, alleviating pressure on those outer suburban areas in the growth corridors of major cities—and we know our major cities are struggling in this regard. So this is a welcome measure to alleviate some of that pressure. The construction of high-speed rail will also secure significant jobs and is a great boost to regional economies. In regional economies like ours, which are heavily carbon-dependent economies, this is an important addition. It is an important introduction of alternative sources of an economic future for us. Interconnectivity with other centres of commerce and productivity is critical for Novocastrians and people in our region. Through Labor's National Rail Manufacturing Plan, the Australian government will also ensure that more trains are built in Australia by local manufacturing workers and that every dollar of federal funding spent on rail projects will go towards creating local jobs and providing a sustainable industry. That is great news for the people of Newcastle. As I said, we have a long history of being builders of rail. Sadly, consecutive conservative governments have, to the detriment of our nation, sent those contracts elsewhere. 18:26 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to speak in support of the High Speed Rail Authority Bill 2022, with the caveat given by the Leader of the National Party that we in the coalition have some amendments that we intend to move on this bill to put some more robustness and accountability mechanisms in place around this new authority. But I'm absolutely a supporter, as we are in the coalition, of major long-term infrastructure concepts like high-speed rail and having a framework to look, very properly, at the feasibility of something such as this, which, as has been outlined, in its completed vision will see the linking of our major east coast metropolises of Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane and other major centres along the way. People will have different views about which other centres should or should not be picked up on the route. Can I firstly say how outrageous it is that Adelaide isn't being considered to be linked to this. That is bitterly disappointing. The people of Adelaide are tuning in right now to this debate to hear whether I can succeed in convincing the government to not treat Adelaide like a second-class city in this great continent, let alone Commonwealth. But evidently we don't make the cut. Nonetheless, that's not going to prevent me from doing the right thing by the people of Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and other communities that would benefit from this. We've just got to be realistic here, though. There are benefits. There are also costs. The benefits are obvious, and I don't dispute any of them. I hope the benefits outweigh the cost of this piece of infrastructure. I just point out that there are two major high-speed rail projects in places we in this country could understand very well. One is in California and the other is in the United Kingdom. The UK one involves linking London. I think it goes up through Birmingham to Manchester and/or Liverpool, picking up other Midlands centres through there. My recollection on the California high-speed rail project is that it is from Los Angeles to San Francisco. I think there may be longer-term plans for Sacramento and down to San Diego. Those are both projects that link a much larger number of people than this one. The reports are that they are struggling financially. They're progressing, but they are struggling financially from what their initial concept was from a costing and time frame point of view. I certainly don't hope that befalls the work that this will allow to progress around looking at high-speed rail in this country. But I think it is very important that we temper some potential realistic outcome of a process that this bill and this authority will facilitate, which is undertaking all of the proper robust planning and processes to consider this. I note the government's commitment, which no doubt will be put in place in the upcoming October budget, specific to Sydney to Newcastle, and I'm sure there are benefits to that proceeding. That is a worthy project, even if this authority finds that the broader vision doesn't necessarily stack up financially. The scale or the quantum of the estimated cost has also been commented upon. I know that we're dealing with some figures, which are more than a decade old, that approach $100 billion, and there's speculation from previous contributions that this project could cost a few hundred billion dollars. Just using the term 'a few hundred billion dollars', without being able to pin it down much more specifically than that, just goes to show how much work needs to be done and how impossible it is for us to say, at this point in time, whether there is any likelihood or not of the cost-benefit analysis and all the various other elements of planning that will see this progress. But we definitely support doing that body of work. It's just as important if we find that it doesn't stack up economically as if we do, because this is a debate that's gone on for a long time—way more than 10 years. I lived in Canberra for a couple of years as a child in the nineties, and they were talking about Canberra being a part of some kind of rail link. High speed in those days may have been different to what we call high speed these days. I've certainly been on some very high-speed networks. The maglev from the Shanghai airport into—it doesn't go into the middle of Shanghai unfortunately. You get off and then get in a cab, depending on where you're going to. It doesn't connect that well with the broader rail network. But that, from memory, gets to over 300, maybe up towards 400 kilometres per hour. It's a magnetic, sort of suspended thing. We are talking about speeds in excess of 200, I believe up to 250 kilometres per hour. I've had the opportunity in Japan, and of course in Europe with the TGV and other connections to experience high-speed rail. It would be fantastic, if it stacks up economically, to have that option of getting from Melbourne to Sydney. I'm sure a lot of Melbourne and Sydney members will excuse themselves from this vote, because they'd love to take that high-speed line to Canberra and back rather than all the challenges of flying on the short hop that you need to. It's worth doing that work, but I am very cautious. We support this because we need to do the work and find out the answer to the ultimate question of what are the economics around the broad vision of linking Brisbane to Melbourne and everything along way. Of the places that have done it, obviously Japan is one of the best examples and France as well. Neither of those examples involve connecting just two cities. They are a major network, and that I think has lent itself to the economics there. Of course, the populations of both those countries and the cities that they interconnect are larger than what we're talking about here, but I don't necessarily believe that the economics don't stack up, particularly around linking cities like Sydney and Melbourne. I'm sure it's not the case since the pandemic, and I don't know what data is available, but certainly I seem to recall, at times, the Sydney to Melbourne air route was the second busiest on the planet. I think that's after Tokyo to Osaka, but I'm not sure if I have got that right. It's certainly one of the most lucrative air routes. Any of us that sit in the Sydney airport or the Melbourne airport, looking up at the board, are not surprised at the number of passengers that move between those cities and the number of flights that go between those cities. Certainly for those cities there is really only one option, which is flying. To drive from Sydney to Melbourne is beyond that reasonable amount of time for the purposes that most people are doing that travel. High-speed rail certainly should be able to compete between two great, wealthy cities like Sydney and Melbourne, which, as has been pointed out in this debate, are also growing extremely rapidly. Realistically, we know the time frame that we are talking about to link cities like Sydney and Melbourne with each other in a high-speed rail corridor. That first trip is way more than one decade away, and you would see the population of those two cities, by the point in time at which a link is put in place and the first passengers were using it, be way beyond five and maybe even six million inhabitants each. That's why this is very worthy. The broader point I make before finishing is that we in the coalition and in this country do a better job than most at recognising that these major expenditure decisions, particularly infrastructure decisions, should have a lot of robustness around them before decisions are made. There are a lot of spectacular white elephants around the world that have been linked to political decisions, promises made out of populism and seeking to win votes, that have not been judicious allocations of public funds. I really do commend the creation of Infrastructure Australia, which I absolutely acknowledge occurred under the Rudd government when they were elected. The now Prime Minister, from memory, was the infrastructure minister that put that in place. I was not an elected member; I was the chief of staff of the Premier of South Australia when we put in place the Infrastructure SA body, which was modelled on Infrastructure Australia, with great support from Sir Rod Eddington in particular and from Mark Birrell in designing that mechanism for the South Australian government. This was so they could get maximum value from working with Infrastructure Australia to have robustness around infrastructure projects when we were making decision about putting billions and billions of taxpayer dollars—in the case of this proposition, hundred billions of dollars—towards them, subject to how the financing of it was structured. And so we are lucky that we are now in what I think is towards the 15th year of Infrastructure Australia and have processes in place that ensure that we are making the best decisions on these major infrastructure projects. I think that has become part of the culture now in federal politics, which is a great thing. No-one is suggesting with any seriousness that we embark on major infrastructure projects that a body like Infrastructure Australia has said should not be invested in, and that's very important. Having said all of that, we're creating an authority here that probably will have some interaction with Infrastructure Australia but will be doing a lot of the work that Infrastructure Australia would do on this kind of proposition, because, of course, it is of such magnitude that it is appropriate that we have a special statutory body to take control and governance over this nation-building infrastructure proposition. I wish them well. I wish the idea well. I sincerely hope it stacks up. The spectacular magnitude of what expenditure we could be committing to is why I believe the amendments we will be seeking to move are very important, why we must make that decision with the best possible facts before us—particularly the economic analysis and the cost-benefit analysis of the expenditure—before we lock into such a significant project for the nation. On the basis of those comments, I welcome the opportunity to support this bill and I commend it to the House. 18:39 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth The High Speed Rail Authority Bill 2022 is about building renewable powered transport for the next generation and making sure that we have those great pieces of infrastructure that really do so much more than just get us around and actually bring our country together. As I reflected on this bill, I remembered the first time I got on a high-speed train, the Eurostar, which travels at 300 kilometres an hour. It was a bit like the first time you sit in an electric car and go vroom. You do not forget that first acceleration, and it's exactly the same on an electric train—indeed, on a high-speed electric train, which this bill will enable to become a reality here in Australia, something which has been talked about for decades and decades. I remember as a child—slightly smaller technology when it came to Perth—when we transferred the Perth rail network from diesel to electric trains. That happened in 1992. I remember the Transperth officers coming to my primary school, educating us about how we needed to be safe around electric trains, which even involved a slightly naff but nevertheless memorable Maggie the Magpie who'd tell us how to properly behave around electric trains. While Perth has electric trains, I acknowledge that we won't be part of the initial high-speed rail rollout, but, nevertheless, as an Australian, I'm excited. And maybe I can have a little bit of hope in my heart that, while we have high-speed rail for the east coast of Australia connecting communities, for Western Australia and those of us who travel across the country regularly, maybe Qantas and Virgin will start to get serious about investing in the next generation of super sonic airliners that are currently being developed. The High Speed Rail Authority Bill is an example of bringing the country together, creating faster, more efficient connections for our cities and our regions, giving people more freedom about where they choose to live, where they choose to work, where they choose to holiday, and being able to more affordably stay in touch with family and friends. I agree with the previous speaker that we should not use infrastructure as a political tool. We should use infrastructure to grow our nation. Investing in infrastructure is about investing in the future of Australia, and this is about a better future for all Australians. It gives people stronger connections, and it will open up new opportunities for business. We also know that this does have a grounding in good economics for our country. Previous studies by the department of infrastructure have found that the benefits of a high-speed rail network go well beyond travel times—unlocking regional economies, creating jobs, creating a significant boost for the economy in the medium and the long term. A report by the University of New South Wales found that the option of a high-speed rail network across the east coast could result in $140 billion of value uplift. This will make it easier to live in our regional centres. And we know that the studies completed in 2013 on the phase 2 rail study released by the previous Labor government showed that for every dollar spent there'd be $2.30 of economic benefit. That's before you go on to all of the social and environmental benefits. As I said, this technology is about building renewable powered public transport that can give people more choices about how they get around this great country. This is not a new idea. The idea of a high-speed rail link between Melbourne and Sydney was first proposed in 1984 by none other than the CSIRO. We know that 20 years before that, Japan introduced their high-speed rail network in 1964. We saw in the 1980s Europe begin to build their network, which now operates across France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Belgium, the United Kingdom and Netherlands. China, who only started building such a network in 2008, now boasts one of the world's largest, with 37,000 kilometres of lines in operation. Needless to say, it's Australia's turn. We know that, if we get this done here, the technology is there. Yes, we have unique and beautiful geography that will be a challenge for those who seek to build this, but the preservation of the corridors has already begun. We now just need to start planning that first link that the member for Newcastle spoke about a few moments ago, the Newcastle to Sydney link. I mentioned before that this does have unique benefits when it comes to the question of climate change. This is technology that's uniquely placed to take advantage of our 80 per cent renewable energy mix, which we will meet by 2030. The International Energy Agency tells us that rail is already the most electrified transport sector. Three-quarters of passenger rail runs on electricity worldwide. Half of rail freight operates on electricity. So, if we are going to tackle that big challenge of decarbonising the transport sector, we need to be serious about expanding the rail networks that operate in Australia. We know that, compared to aviation, high-speed rail uses 90 per cent less energy per passenger kilometre. When we look at a country like Australia, that makes a huge difference. And we know that people want these transport alternatives. As you can probably tell, Deputy Speaker, I am someone who loves being in modern, fast versions of transport. One of the things I always appreciate about being in a train rather than an aeroplane—and I studied aviation when I was young, and I love the aviation sector—is that the windows are just a little bit bigger on a train. In a country as beautiful as Australia, to be able to sit and go from the member for Whitlam's electorate— Mr Jones A9B Very beautiful! Mr GORMAN 74519 A very beautiful part of the world, and I'm sure it's equally beautiful at 300 kilometres an hour. That's why we need this essential, independent, impartial body for the effective and responsible development of Australia's new high-speed rail system. The authority will bring together state and territory governments, industry, business and communities, to optimise our nation's first long-term investment in fast rail. The first priority of course will be an updated analysis of the commencement of work on that fast, reliable, cost-effective connection between Sydney and Newcastle, part of eventually connecting Sydney all the way up to Brisbane. The High Speed Rail Authority will provide expert advice on policy and standards. It will secure the corridors necessary to build this nation-building project and allow for the wider expansion of the network over time, eventually bringing in Canberra, Sydney, Melbourne and many regional centres. This is about vision. It's also about knowing that, if you want to do something that requires long-term planning, you've got to act quickly. That's why, in the first four months of this government, we're bringing in this legislation, because we are 100 per cent committed to making sure that talk turns into bureaucratic action, that bureaucratic action turns into policy action and that then we actually start building this thing. Over time, we won't be debating the legislation about the authority, but I'm sure we'll see members from all over this chamber start to advocate as to why it should stop in their particular town or why it should have an extra train service from time to time. I look forward to the day when we have a granular debate like that, because that will be the time when we have had a truly successful implementation of the high-speed rail network that Australia has waited for for so long. I commend the bill to the House. 18:48 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan I move the second reading amendment circulated in my name: 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 that private ownership and delivery of essential infrastructure often leads to worse outcomes for the community and the environment, as corporate profits are put ahead of everyday people's interests; and (2) calls on the Labor government to: (a) deliver a fully publicly owned high speed rail network, from infrastructure construction to service delivery, that is run for the public good, not for profit; (b) ensure high speed rail infrastructure development utilises to the greatest extent possible green steel and other green technologies to minimise carbon emissions during the construction phase; and (c) ensure the new trains and other associated infrastructure are manufactured in Australia, helping to reinvigorate domestic manufacturing and create jobs". High-speed rail represents an incredible opportunity for Australia. What an exciting prospect—linking capital cities, including Brisbane, and regional centres on Australia's the east coast. It's going to go a really long way to helping us decarbonise domestic travel, by significantly reducing domestic flights. And it can open up new economic opportunities, particularly in regional centres, as earlier speakers have mentioned. Politicians have talked about it for decades, so now is the time to get it moving. This bill for a new authority, the High Speed Rail Authority Bill 2022, could be the moment we finally get this crucial infrastructure happening. But I am currently a little concerned that there could be some embedded difficulties caused by underfunding it and putting forward a framework that could lead to partial or wholesale privatisation. At the 2022 federal election, the Greens brought a policy of committing $17.7 billion over the next four years for the initial stages of high-speed rail development, because we do support the idea of high-speed rail. This government has committed only $500 million over the same period. As previous speakers have measured, this is a completely inadequate amount to get the high-speed rail off the ground. At best it will allow the purchasing of some land, the commissioning of route planning for the Sydney to Newcastle link and the hiring of core staff. The 2010 feasibility study estimated the cost of the overall project from Brisbane to Melbourne would be $114 billion or, in today's terms, about $135 billion. So where's that extra $134.5 billion going to come from? The government hasn't clarified this, but it's pretty clear that much of it could well come from private finance, who would end up with a significant if not a majority stake in the operation and want their profit from this investment. As is always the case in public-private partnerships, this could lead to chaotic and slowed project delivery, higher prices for passengers, downward pressure on rail worker wages, and potential corner-cutting on regulations on environmental and social impact. Unfortunately, nothing in this current bill ensures this privatisation—partial or wholesale—won't take place, and that's our concern. The very fact that the authority will have to spend so much of its time just trying to secure finance for this operation could itself be an enormous delay on the project rollout, which is a huge concern, given that Australians have already waited decades for this infrastructure and that any feasible time frame for delivery is at least a decade long. This is such crucial public infrastructure. It needs to be publicly funded and publicly owned. We believe that that's the only way to deliver it quickly, cheaply, efficiently and with environmental sustainability and social benefit at the centre. Before members of this chamber ask how else would the government pay for the infrastructure itself, I want to question why they aren't asking the same of the over $100 billion the government intends to spend on nuclear submarines, or of that $244 billion we mention a lot that the government will hand to the billionaires and megarich as part of the stage 3 tax cuts. There's $350 billion or so sitting right there which could be used. Why not use that to fund an obvious social good like high-speed rail? Long story short, we can afford to deliver a fully publicly owned high-speed rail network; we can't afford not to. Underfunding and partially privatising our public infrastructure can set it up to fail. It's what happened to our NBN, with its highly corporatised structure, reliance on private finance and delivery via subcontractors. Even if the government is committed to full public ownership of this high-speed rail infrastructure—and that in itself isn't clear, as the bill doesn't explicitly stipulate it—what's to stop a future government from using the exact same framework of this authority and this funding arrangement to push for an extremely privatised model? I think we need to lock in a far more robust plan for public funding and public ownership now, or we could end up paying an enormous price in years to come. I want to add that keeping this infrastructure entirely in public hands means we could ensure that the trains and other infrastructure are made in Australia. We could ensure that the infrastructure is rolled out as much as possible with green steel so that we can keep the emissions of the set-up phase as low as possible. We could ensure that the rail corridors and stations are planned in a way that is ecologically sustainable and socially beneficial. We could guarantee lower cost ticketing so that everyone in Australia could enjoy the benefits. If we do fund this through public investment, not private interests, like those very complex land value uplift schemes, we don't have to worry about those private interests being prioritised over quality infrastructure and service delivery for the people. As we said, and everyone agrees, it is a crucial piece of infrastructure and it needs to be done right from the get-go. We've some of the busiest flight routes in the world. Melbourne to Sydney is the world's second-busiest domestic route. Brisbane to Sydney the world's eighth-busiest domestic route. Pre COVID, these had reached close to 100,000 flights a year in total, producing enormous emissions. The International Energy Agency has shown that the introduction of high-speed rail around the world has led to significant reductions in air travel on many specific routes—Paris to London, and Seoul to Busan, for instance. In these cases, air travel was halved when high-speed rail was introduced. High-speed rail in Australia can do the same thing, massively decreasing our transport emissions and providing people with a high-quality, comfortable and enjoyable transport alternative to flying. With all the delays and chaos at airports at the moment, I think people are begging for a convenient and reliable alternative to air travel. Many members of my Ryan community are affected very badly by constant flight noise. They are rightly concerned about pollution over their homes and our natural surrounds from these round-the-clock flights that they are suffering through. High-speed rail is crucial to cutting flight noise and this pollution long term. The only way to truly reduce flight noise in the long run is to reduce the overall number of domestic flights at our airports. Caps on flights and curfews will be easier to sustain with high-speed rail available as an alternative. More tranquil cities and suburbs—what a wonderful thought. It would be a more efficient and environmentally friendly mode of travel. It's a huge win-win. So it's commendable that the Labor government is finally making a first step, but there remain some gigantic question marks over the authority and the plan for delivery and service of this infrastructure. I think we all agree it's time to get moving on high-speed rail, and this bill is a good first step, but we need to ensure that we set up this crucial infrastructure to truly benefit all Australians long term. The government's current plan just leaves one wondering if the settings are absolutely right for that. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Is the amended seconded? Mr Bates 300246 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Ryan has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be disagreed to. 18:56 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith High-speed rail has the potential to be a game changer for Australia—a game changer for productivity improvement and a game changer for environmental outcomes, with a reduction in urban congestion and better, more efficient and convenient travel options for Australians. For far too long we have delayed and procrastinated about high-speed rail in this country. If we do go ahead with this bill and get on with the process of planning a high-speed rail line along the east coast, we have the potential to improve productivity in our nation. We all know that too many Australians spend too much time in traffic on their daily commutes to and from work. It's not only having an effect on their productivity; it's also having an effect on the quality of lifestyle that Australians can enjoy. We know that high-speed rail can improve environmental outcomes by taking more cars off roads that people are using these days to commute to and from work. And it would take pressure off some of Australia's busiest airline routes, in particular the Sydney-to-Melbourne route, which is the second-busiest airline route of any in the world. High-speed rail has the potential to dramatically reduce urban congestion. We know that history shows that, where high-speed rail stations are situated, over time cities and services will spring up around those stations. Think of this: a station in the southern highlands could provide the opportunity for new development and new opportunities for residential accommodation around that station, providing an opportunity to reduce urban congestion in Sydney and for people to live in a region like the southern highlands yet be able to commute in an efficient time without having to sit in traffic going into the city or into Western Sydney to do their work. It really has the potential to be a game changer for urban congestion and to take pressure off our major cities. And, of course, it will deliver better, more efficient and more convenient travel options for Australians. I find it remarkable that we haven't already gone down this path of high-speed rail in Australia. High-speed rail has been a feature of most European cities for almost half a century. It certainly has been in Asia, particularly Japan, for well over half a century, and more recently in China and other large nations. Most of Europe and Asia move around on high-speed rail, and it's remarkable that a nation like Australia, with such a dispersed population and large gap between major cities, hasn't taken up this transport option in the past. The reason we haven't, unfortunately, is that we have had a wasted decade under the conservative government. It missed the opportunity to get on with planning for high-speed rail. When Labor was last in government, the Rudd government commissioned a comprehensive study into the viability of high-speed rail. That study showed that an east coast high-speed rail network would be viable and economically sustainable. That plan was released by the Prime Minister, then infrastructure minister, in 2011. The plan prioritised where most of the cost would be in reserving the corridor up and down the east coast—in other words, the government buying or securing the land for the high-speed rail lines to go down, to transport people on the network. To do that, the government planned to establish an authority to buy that land, to reserve that network and get on with the planning process, which is most of the work associated with planning a high-speed rail line. Unfortunately, the Rudd and Gillard governments lost office and we never got the opportunity to do that. But this isn't the first time a high-speed rail authority bill has been introduced into this parliament and debated. A bill was introduced in 2013 by the member for Grayndler, then shadow infrastructure minister and now Prime Minister. What was the response of the government, at the time, when the then opposition introduced that bill? They opposed it and refused to debate it. So it's remarkable that many members of the opposition are now coming out in support of this bill. I think they're doing it because their constituents know that this is a popular infrastructure proposal and is nation-building and would be a game changer for many communities. This important bill now seeks to establish in this parliament—finally—a high-speed rail authority to plan and oversee the construction of a high-speed rail network through Victoria, Queensland, New South Wales and the ACT. The authority will build on the previous work, including that comprehensive study that was commissioned by the former infrastructure minister and now Prime Minister. That work, back in the early 2000s, found that a high-speed rail line was not only viable in Australia but will return $2 for every $1 of investment that was made in the project. That's what productivity investment is all about. During our last period in government, we invested more in rail projects than all previous national governments combined. And that is nation-building. We're committed to delivering long-term infrastructure that drives economic development, ensuring the continued prosperity of our regional centres and Sydney. High-speed rail would substantially reduce travel times, allowing passengers to travel between major cities and significant regional cities at speeds exceeding 250 kilometres an hour. That means a crucial unlocking of regional economies and the generation of significant employment opportunities. I mentioned earlier that where you have these stops, particularly in rural and regional areas, cities will spring up over time. Business will start to locate there. Government services will be delivered there. Populations will move there because they have the transport options to get them to and from employment, in particular, and other destinations in a reasonable time. It could help to change the lives of millions of Australians, especially in our regions, while also bringing our east coast capitals closer. We know that rail infrastructure also helps decarbonise our economy, by taking more cars off the road and, for long-distance rail, reducing that reliance we've traditionally had in Australia on air travel. The first priority of the authority will be planning the corridor works for the Sydney to Newcastle section of the high-speed rail network. That's backed by a $500 million commitment from the Albanese government. This was a commitment that was promised in the election campaign. The Australian people voted for it, particularly along the Central Coast. Those seats that changed hands to the Labor Party were very much a reflection of those communities saying they wanted a big transport project like this and access to high-speed rail for their communities. The commitment will see the corridor planning and early works progress in this fast-growing east coast region. While the authority works closely with the New South Wales government on this section, it will continue to advance plans for other sections along the broader network. This will eventually connect Brisbane to Melbourne, with stops in Canberra, Sydney and other regional centres. The authority will provide independent advice to governments on high-speed rail planning and delivery, leading to coordination with states and territories. The authority will be overseen by a board drawn from experts in the rail and infrastructure sector. Faster rail will also continue to be advanced under the authority, with the functions of the National Faster Rail Agency being undertaken by the authority and the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts. High-speed rail will help to revolutionise interstate travel along the east coast. It can provide fast alternatives for people to move between capital cities compared to other modes of travel. And the option for high-speed rail for inner-city travel will also help in the transition to net zero by 2050. Delivery of the high-speed network will provide economic benefits. Think of all the jobs that will be created, not only in the planning phase but also in the construction phase of this important infrastructure. It will enhance connectivity through faster alternative modes of transport and increase price competition in the market for travel along the east coast. Australians in regional areas will benefit from improved liveability through enhanced connectivity to urban areas and international gateways. The high-speed rail network will reshape settlement patterns along Australia's east coast, alleviating pressure on outer suburban areas and growth corridors in major cities. The construction of high-speed rail will also secure significant jobs for the economy through Labor's National Rail Manufacturing Plan. The Australian government will ensure that more trains are built in Australia by local manufacturing workers and that every dollar of federal funding spent on rail projects will go towards creating local jobs and providing sustainable industry. We know that Australians can build efficient and effective train carriages for our rail networks. It happens in Victoria. There is no excuse for governments to continue buying off-the-shelf products internationally or from other nations and having to rework them in Australia to fit along stations, along the rail gauges and along the networks that we have on the east coast and broader Australia. It never made sense. It actually led to cost overruns because of the modifications that had to be made to the carriages once they arrived in Australia to sit within our network. We have a dispute in New South Wales at the moment that is all about that particular issue, the government having to modify those carriages so that they're suitable and provide a safe form of travel for Australians in the rail network. In conclusion, I wholeheartedly support this bill. It's a long time coming, but it represents the new Labor government getting on with the job of planning better transport options for Australians and finally getting on with planning a high-speed rail network up and down the east coast of Australia. 19:08 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I've always been a big supporter of high-speed rail and have advocated for this type of infrastructure since my maiden speech in 2013. Many of us across the parliament have been regular participants in parliamentary friendship groups on high-speed rail and work with numerous stakeholders to continue progressing this long term. I want to compliment the former member for Bennelong, who was indefatigable in his attempts to get the coalition on board with high-speed rail a lot sooner. But, as you know, we can only build one railway at a time, and we're busy building the mighty Inland Rail. I'll have more to say about that later. In 2019, the coalition government—that's us—announced a 20-year plan for a faster rail network. I often joked it was going to be a 'less slow rail network'—it was improving on our existing transport corridors by rail, but it wasn't high speed. We actually did establish a dedicated National Faster Rail Agency, which this bill will wind up and roll into the new authority. That agency has been busy and has been working with the states since 2019, and we ended up with a $5.9 billion plan. There are too many people in this House that say we did not support rail. Unfortunately or fortunately, the way the Constitution works is that the rail networks are owned by the states, who generally run them in the big cities, but ARTC has a long-term lease on a lot of their rail infrastructure. The establishment of the High Speed Rail Authority is welcomed by me and many in the National Party. It will drive great outcomes, but it's got to be done in a really efficient way. It will have to be really fast. The idea of building it between Sydney, Newcastle and Maitland—between two big cities—is exactly the model that the Japanese followed when they built it. It's the hardest bit, but it's the first bit, and then you'll find every city in the country will want to be part of it. Only China can build these networks with big bang money; we've just got to build the first bit. And we're not competing against planes. A lot of coalition opposition was that, 'It's a lot easier to go jump on a plane.' Well, it is, but this original build will be displacing cars. It will be competing against 40,000 people who drive down from the Central Coast every morning and drive back in the evening. What business case won't survive with 40,000 potential customers? If you add further, up to Port Macquarie, which is the plan, you'll be going into a rapidly expanding North Coast network. That is a reasonable first build. Then you go down through the outskirts of Sydney to the new international airport. As soon as that's there, Canberra will want to be hooked up. And then, as soon as Canberra's hooked up, Victoria will be saying, 'We want to get hooked up.' That's how organically built bits of infrastructure happen. We can't do it like Japan. Many people will get on board with this project and say, 'We want you to go from Brisbane to Adelaide in one go.' That just can't happen, but it will be a great piece of infrastructure. Just so the good things we did on rail aren't forgotten, I'm going to put them on the record. As you know, we are building the biggest bit of freight infrastructure, the Inland Rail, from Melbourne up to Brisbane. We advocated for it to go all the way to Gladstone to get the industrial complexes there and get another harbour hooked into it. It will pay, going through to Brisbane, and I hope Queensland—which has been a recidivist objector to the high-speed rail—will, now that they can see political value in linking in with the federal Labor government, get on board and that project will go ahead. It will get trucks off the road. It will make the existing rail infrastructure a lot more efficient. The resistance and the energy involved in bulk rail transport is infinitely more efficient than rubber on tarmac or on cement roads. We put in $1.6 billion for the Brisbane to Sunshine Coast line Beerwah to Maroochydore rail extension, $1.12 billion for the Brisbane to Gold Coast rail upgrade and $1 billion for the Sydney to Newcastle faster rail upgrade. That built on $2 billion for stage 1 of Fast Rail between Geelong and Melbourne. There was $178 million for the Brisbane to Gold Coast line, for the Kuraby to Beenleigh section preconstruction works. There was other work completed—$15 million for the next stage of planning for the Sydney to Newcastle corridor. Sydney to Wollongong plans were completed and Sydney to Parkes plans were completed. Melbourne to Greater Shepparton planning was completed. Now, that was a proposal put forward by the CLARA Consortium, whereby they were going to employ the value capture of the land to be opened up near these rail corridors, and, in particular, near the railway stations. If you look at any of the great rail networks in the world, the real estate around stations is essentially the part of the business plan that delivers the greatest economic viability, because everyone wants to be next to a railway station. If you're a commuter, you want it; if you're a business, you want it. It's such a no-brainer, this idea. But, anyhow, I think the government is aware of these possibilities. I support the plan. As to this plan, one thing that is going to be really important—and something that bedevils this whole nation—is the red and green tape in any of these projects. It not only delays things but also adds enormous costs. So we need synchrony between the planning laws that are state run, and the state governments, to make sure these corridors are secured under local planning instruments. If you go local government by local government, it will just be dragged out forever. It is just incredibly frustrating. Anything in this country costs double or triple what it would in any other country. And we can't afford to do that stuff anymore. We have to get all levels of government on it. It's a national project. It's not going to be delivered overnight. It will be delivered long beyond when I am and everyone here is out of this building—unless you're really one of the young ones, like the member for Menzies, who might be here. But it's going to be a lasting legacy. Again, I'd like to congratulate John Alexander, the former member for Bennelong. Your plan will happen. It's just that credit for it will go to those on the other side. So, here we go. It's a great development that I look forward to seeing. And if the planners are out there, I'll just tell you about the mighty Lyne electorate. I liked what the member for Kingsford Smith was talking about—the local builds. People have got to realise that when states—either nations or state governments—are doing business, the bean-counter philosophy only makes sense so far. If they're getting local construction and local sovereign manufacturing capability for trains in this country, then, sure, it might cost a bit more, but, if you give long-term plans and long-term contracts for continual builds and for maintenance, all to local companies, then there will be plenty of existing rail contracts and carriage contracts that will support huge industries. In my electorate, we used to have UGL constructing rail bogies at Lansdowne. It was a tragedy that it shut down. It used to get a contract to make three bogies or five bogies, and then the state government would dry up the contracts. Their first bogie would cost X amount; the second would cost 80 per cent of X. The third would end up being 50 per cent. When they got on a roll and all their systems were in place, it would be half the cost of the original bill. And these are the efficiencies. But all the GST and the PAYE—all those taxes that are generated by local employment—will grow a huge part of our sovereign manufacturing capability that we've lost. Even if we were to start not just building the railway but assembling and maintaining the carriages here, it would be so great. We have a huge rail site in the Lyne electorate that used to build trains forever, and it's lying vacant. There's some plastic recycling. But this will be a breath of fresh air. I call on any railway constructors to come on down and have a look at the beautiful Lyne electorate. We've got an unemployed workforce; they're in other industries now, but they know how to make trains. And we'd welcome them with open arms. I commend this bill to the House. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 115 COMMITTEES National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation Joint Select Committee 115 Membership 115 19:19 The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Mr Speaker has received advice from the Chief Government Whip and the Chief Opposition Whip nominating members to be members of the Joint Standing Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation. 19:20 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond by leave—I move: That Dr Haines, Mr Lim, Ms Murphy, Mr L O'Brien, Mr Wolahan and Mr Zappia be appointed members of the Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation. Question agreed to. BILLS 116 BILLS High Speed Rail Authority Bill 2022 116

High Speed Rail Authority Bill 2022

Second Reading 116 19:20 Mr JOYCE e5d New England 'Annuit coeptis' is on the reverse side of the US $1 bill, and it means, 'God approves of those people who have the bravery to get things done.' I acknowledge that high-speed rail is an admirable cause, if you wish to get into it. The $500 million that you've put aside is not going to build even a section of it, so I'm a little bit perplexed about what exactly you're going to do with that $500 million. But the test of your mettle will be the Inland Rail and how that goes. I see the minister here, and I acknowledge that the minister now has the admirable task of driving that forward, and that's going to require quite some determination on her part because she's going to get everything thrown at her—every review, amendment, prevarication and change. Unless you actually take up the mantle and say, 'I'm going to drive this through,' it's not going to happen. That will be a test. If you can't get the Inland Rail done—which we're doing now—you've got Buckley's and none of getting high-speed rail done. The Inland Rail—1,716 kilometres of it—is great for Melbourne, great for Brisbane and great for the development of our nation, but it's also great for Gladstone. You have to push it up into that section of our nation to drive that agenda and to drive the capacity of that city to generate the export dollars that pay for so many of the things that are going to end up on the expense side of the nation's P&L. If we don't understand the logic of how our economy works, then we're not going to have the money for your NDIS or your social security. You won't have the money because our export dollars will not be there. Obviously, if you want populations to live west, then you have to provide the services there, whether it's health, education or schools. This is the social infrastructure that has to be put in place. That's why we drive for things like Dungowan Dam and Paradise Dam—to make sure that the basic infrastructure is in place so that it complements the work of such things as high-speed rail. To do that, you need the advice to government that understands these requirements. That's why it's incredibly important that we have regional representation on the Infrastructure Australia board. If we don't have regional representation, you're going to get an echo chamber of Sydney University views on what the infrastructure requirements are for Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, and that is not what is going to grow our nation. I would love to see high-speed rail. I think it will be great. I think it shows vision, and I compliment the Labor Party on that. If you've got a vision, that's great; that's what a nation needs. I look forward to it, and I hope that's the same vision you show in the future with high-paying, high-level manufacturing jobs that give people coming through high school the best opportunity of great jobs and the same vision you show with such things as small modular nuclear reactors. If you have the capacity to build those, then we have the capacity to be part of the global world with Hitachi, Hyundai, Rolls Royce, Westinghouse, General Electric, along with Scandinavia, the United States, China, South Africa, Egypt, Argentina, France and the United Kingdom. We need to make sure that our children and our grandchildren have an opportunity to be part of this new industry which is going to arrive here whether we like it or not because, to cope with high-speed rail and the technology that's required for it, you need the technology for energy as well. I hope this House has the bravery to leave certain people in this chamber alone and say, 'That's what we're going to do, because we're thinking of Australia.' The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY I call the member for Hinkler. 19:25 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler Thank you for the unexpected opportunity, Mr Deputy Speaker! I rise to speak on the High Speed Rail Authority Bill 2022 for a few minutes, until of course we reach that appropriate point in time. Only the Labor Party could suggest they're going to spend $500 million on high-speed rail and not actually build any! Only the Labor Party could suggest they're going to set up a new entity, a new body, and allocate $500 million for something that could already be done by an existing body. That existing body is the ARTC. We already have the Australian Rail Track Corporation, and guess what their job is, Mr Deputy Speaker? Their job is to operate trains and build railway lines! Who'da thunk it? We have a corporation owned by government that builds railway lines and runs trains, and yet only the Labor Party could take more of the taxpayers' money for another authority to look at more trains. There is no doubt and no argument that this is something which could be utilised for Australia. But I think those opposite, those in government, as the former Deputy Prime Minister, former Minister for Infrastructure and member for New England said, don't really get how difficult it is to pick up thousands of kilometres of easements. These have to be forced through landholders and they're always very happy to have a railway track and a station near them, just not through their place. This has always been the challenge: whether it is Inland Rail or the proposed 10,000-plus kilometres of transmission lines that have been promised by the Labor Party at the last election. To put some context around 10,000 kilometres, that is Melbourne to Cape York, Cape York to Melbourne, and Melbourne almost to Cape York again to be built before 2030 and installed and operating as part of Labor's plan. I don't think anyone out there believes that that's realistic. There aren't even enough people to build that transmission line in that time in this country, and to maintain the existing network and all the other access areas that are required to keep the lights on. The High Speed Rail Authority: sure, it's a concept but it's an expensive one at a time where we keep hearing that we need a bread-and-butter budget. This is what the Treasurer said: a bread-and-butter budget. Well, I've got bad news for the Treasurer: the cost of bread and butter is going up, and it's going up because of the cost of transport. It is going up because of logistics and it's going up because of inflation. For those individuals out there who have incredible difficulty meeting their bills—paying their bills—every single week, these are the things and these are the opportunities on which they want government to focus: how to make their lives better and easier. Whilst the $500 million for the High Speed Rail Authority as a planning body might have some value somewhere, I'd suggest to those opposite, to those in government, that they should consider utilising the existing facility. The ARTC is established and it has technical expertise, including engineers. It already has a board. If I recall correctly, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I get it wrong, it's chaired by the former Deputy Prime Minister and long-term minister for infrastructure, the former member for Wide Bay. Actually, he's a relatively all-round good guy—there aren't even those in the Labor Party who could have something bad to say about Warren Truss, the former member for Wide Bay. He is a genuine good guy who goes out and does his best every single day. So whilst we have this proposal before us, we do need to consider the cost and we do need to consider the comments of the Treasurer. If in October you're going to have a bread-and-butter budget, then why wouldn't you utilise the existing facilities, the existing skills and the existing people who are already being paid for—those who are out there who have the expertise? Bring them into the fold to do what it is that you wish, which, from all reports, is quite simply to advise on plan development for what is supposed to be the high-speed rail network. Coming from Queensland, I've got one that's supposed to be high speed: the tilt train. Unfortunately, the tilt train has had a few challenges. I think it still tilts—it's on tilt—and it's most definitely generally a bus. There are a whole lot of opportunities where people have to catch a bus from particular points because the tilt trains just don't get there. So it would be great if we could actually step up and strengthen our existing infrastructure to continue those facilities, particularly in regional Australia. It's a great plan, I'm sure, to have $500 million spent on an authority that doesn't exist, but I'd like to see money spent on existing infrastructure which needs the upgrades and the maintenance, and which needs to perform better, because that's in the interest of all Australians and it can be done much more quickly. So, Mr Speaker, thank you so much for the opportunity. Good luck: a bread-and-butter budget, let's see it! COMMITTEES 118 COMMITTEES National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation Joint Select Committee 118 Appointment 118 19:30 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that the Senate concurs with the resolution of the appointment of the Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation. ADJOURNMENT 118 ADJOURNMENT Veterans 118 19:30 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher Veterans education and veterans transition have always been something that I've taken a great interest in. I want to acknowledge the member for Menzies and the member for New England and all those in this place who have served this country in uniform. While we recently amended eligibility for existing supports through the Defence, Veterans' and Families' Acute Support Package, I believe that this parliament should take the opportunity to go further. I have long argued for the equivalent of an Australian GI bill. The GI bill was introduced by the United States government during World War II to provide free tertiary education services to GIs—veterans of World War II. We have talked a lot in this place. This week we heard the ministerial speech by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and the speech in reply by the opposition, talking about the dreadful figures involved in suicide by veterans. We all know that when men and women are serving in the military the suicide rate is about half that of the civilian population, but when men and women leave the military that suicide rate grows exponentially, to a rate that is actually higher than the civilian rate. We know that the younger a person is when they leave the military the greater the risk is. I don't for a second want to overblow this. I don't believe that the stats reveal that every person who joins the military comes out broken and busted. I'm looking at two fine men who are not broken and busted, and it is the same for the vast majority of men and women who serve in the military. So we should not and we must not allow ourselves to think that way, because if we do it becomes almost a self-fulfilling prophecy. But there are some men and women who struggle, and it is our obligation as governments and as parliaments to appropriately care for them. One minute you're driving, sailing or flying multimillion-dollar—sometimes multibillion-dollar—equipment, and then young men and women transition—they leave the military. We know that those whose transition from the military is involuntary struggle the most. So I would like to see this parliament give great consideration to implementing an Australian equivalent of a GI bill. When men and women are serving in the military, they have a sense of purpose, a sense of mission and a sense of tribe. Some, when they leave, particularly if it's involuntary, lose that sense of mission and sense of purpose. Enabling young men and women, in particular, to convert that sense of mission and that sense of purpose to a university degree or perhaps to a carpentry apprenticeship or some other form of education helps to give them the opportunity to transition into civilian life and gives them something to focus on. I believe that if you look at the success of the GI bill in the United States and the captains of industry who have resulted from the GI bill, and you look at the amount of money that we spend as a federal government—$11½ billion on the Department of Veterans' Affairs—then, if we can save one life by providing this sort of education program, it is worth the money. Over the next few months I'll be working, I'll be coming back and I'll be talking about what this is going to cost and how it's going to look. I've been working with the Australian Catholic University, which has a terrific entry program for veterans, as do the University of the Sunshine Coast and Griffith University. These unis are walking the talk—they're providing services to veterans and they're looking at recognition programs for those who don't have ATAR scores. Good on them. But it's time for this government—this parliament—to back our veterans through tertiary education. Labor Government 118 19:35 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham What a week this has been! The Albanese Labor government has hit the ground running. We are developing and introducing the reforms that Australians need: legislation to ease the cost-of-living pressures that are squeezing Australians; legislation to ensure integrity and restore public confidence in politics; and legislation to help more Australians access child care, buy their first home and afford the medicines that they need. The Labor government know that Australians are doing it tough, and we are taking action. Labor is making child care more affordable for around 1.2 million Australian families. We are lifting the maximum childcare subsidy rate to 90 per cent for families with a combined income under $80,000, and we are increasing subsidy rates for families earning less than $530,000. The Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill 2022, which was introduced this week, will be a source of relief for Australian families. Childcare costs have increased by 41 per cent over the past eight years. This is placing enormous pressure on families with young children, and many people are unable to work because childcare costs are too high. According to the ABS, last year 73,000 people who wanted to work did not look for work because they couldn't make childcare costs work for them. This represents not only a loss for families but a loss for the Australian economy, as productive workers—predominantly women—are held back from contributing. I commend the Minister for Education and the Minister for Early Childhood Education for their work on this important reform, and I thank the Minister for Social Services, who crafted this policy in opposition. Labor knows that cheaper child care is good for children, good for families and good for the economy. That is why we have taken action. We know that education, including early childhood education, is vital for turning aspirations into reality for Australians. Good health and access to universal, prompt and world-class medical care is also vital. As I spoke about earlier this evening in this House, the Albanese Labor government is making medicines cheaper for approximately 19 million Australians and helping to ease cost-of-living pressures. With the National Health Amendment (General Co-payment) Bill 2022, Labor is taking action to ensure that people are not forced to choose between their health and putting food on the table. In addition to this, we have expanded the range of medicines available under the PBS. These newly included medicines are used to treat a number of conditions, including some types of cancer and growth hormone deficiency in children. Labor knows how important access to health care is for Australians; we built Medicare and we will always protect it. The Labor government is also helping thousands of regional Australians buy their first home. From 1 October regional first home buyers, like those in my electorate of Cunningham, will be able to purchase new or existing homes with a deposit of as little as five per cent. The Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee will provide 10,000 places each year to support regional first home buyers. Regional Australians are struggling to save for a deposit. This guarantee will help them and is just one part of the Albanese Labor government's ambitious housing reform agenda. This agenda also includes the creation of a $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, a fund which will build 30,000 new social and affordable housing properties in the first five years and help to improve housing supply. We will also seek to create the Help to Buy program, which will reduce the cost of buying a home by up to 40 per cent for over 10,000 Australians a year. I will finish on this final piece of important reform, a reform that will help to rebuild public trust in our political system and institutions. Just today, the Albanese Labor government introduced legislation for the establishment of a powerful, independent and transparent national anticorruption commission to investigate serious or systematic corrupt conduct across the entire federal public sector. Constituents in Cunningham were very clear when I was out talking to them during the election campaign that they wanted to see a national anticorruption commission, a commission that would return integrity to parliament and help to rebuild their trust in government. I thank the Attorney-General for bringing us closer to the establishment of this important body. The people of Australia put their trust in Labor to lead the nation in difficult times. Our Labor government are listening and we are acting. With these bills and the many others we have introduced so far, we will deliver cheaper child care, deliver cheaper medicines, help people in regional areas buy their first home, restore integrity to parliament and restore trust in our government. Mid North Coast: Veterans 119 19:40 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper I would like to take this opportunity to talk about veterans not just in Cowper but in the entirety of the Mid North Coast—all 11,000-plus of them, the same men and women who represented and protected our country as part of Australia's armed forces. The Mid North Coast as a region has the largest cohort of veterans in New South Wales and obviously one of the largest cohorts of veterans across Australia. The Mid North Coast encompasses the three electorates of Lyne, Cowper and Page, and, as I've already said, the ABS data says we have over 11,000 returned service men and women. The Mid North Coast Veterans Wellbeing Network is led by passionate advocates, and to that end I'd like to acknowledge Louise Freebairn, Richard Kelloway, Shawn Bergquist, Justin Poppleton, Brian Willey, Steve Walton and many others— Mr CONAGHAN 279991 And Robert Freebairn—I thank the member for New England. The reason I mention the regions is that the Mid North Coast Veterans Wellbeing Network represents the whole Mid North Coast, not just one town, or one city, but the complete footprint. For the past three years, they devised a cost-effective and proven model to better advocate for and support all veterans on the Mid North Coast. It was a hub-and-spoke model. So, rather than having one centre to attend that the veterans needed to travel to, it was four, because we know from experience that veterans in distress are less likely to travel long distances. So this model, designed by veterans and veterans advocates, saw four models, where it provided a service. It provided access to those who needed it most. Also, the hub-and-spoke model would attract volunteer advocates to support our veterans, making it easier for them to access those four areas. Why should we make it more difficult for advocates to provide the necessary help? Prior to the election the coalition government announced $5 million for the hub-and-spoke model, for four regional hubs, as opposed to one, for $5 million. We made an announcement, and of course the veterans were very pleased that they were going to get the services that many other places around Australia would get. The announcement formed part of the 2022 budget, not the proposed 2023 budget. Unfortunately, Labor has now announced 10 hubs in 10 Labor seats. Despite the fact we have over 11,000 veterans on the Mid North Coast, compared with the 4,000 of the Hunter and compared with around 6,000 of the Tweed or North Coast region, the Mid North Coast and the veterans of the Mid North Coast missed out. Now, I don't want to seem cynical about these 10 centres going to 10 Labor-held seats, but, if you look at a map with Lyne, Cowper and even New England, you see a vast chasm of nothingness for our veterans. What you see sprinkled around those seats, those National Party seats, are veterans centres in Labor-held seats. I truly hope, and I call out to Minister Keogh, that our veterans are not being penalised due to the fact that they choose to live in National Party seats and choose to have National Party members represent them. I call on him to rectify this situation and provide those services for our veterans. Human Rights: Iran 120 19:46 Mr LAXALE 299174 Bennelong I'd like to use this time today as an opportunity to voice the pleas and protests from members of the local Iranian community in my electorate of Bennelong. Following the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini whilst in the custody of morality police, Iranian women—alongside men, the young, the elderly and those fed up with oppressive rules and a battered economy—have faced bullets, tear gas and arrests in the last fortnight, since protests began. Here are the facts as we know them. Mahsa Amini was a 22-year-old woman who lived in the Kurdish region of Iran and was visiting the capital, Tehran, with her family. The notorious morality police approached her, claiming her head scarf was not appropriately covering her hair, and she was taken from her family to an education centre to be taught a lesson in morality. Mahsa Amini, a woman who, her father swears, had no existing conditions, collapsed at the centre and was taken to hospital in a coma. Three days later she died. Iran is claiming she died of a heart attack. The videos that have since been released, exposing the way the morality police drag women into their vans, raises very serious questions. Quite frankly, the women of Iran and, with them, an equal number of men have had enough. For the last fortnight, they and those across the world have let it be known. Iran is in turmoil; indeed, Iranian women are in turmoil; and the next generation of Iranian students, workers, farmers, scholars and journalists are also in turmoil. For women, simply letting their hair blow in the wind is a crime. For students, studying anything that looks favourably upon the West or pre-revolution Iran is a crime. And, for journalists, reporting news of the growing unrest is a crime. In fact, in the last 48 hours, more than 20 journalists have been arrested. So far, at least 41 people have died. The actual number is most likely higher; however, large internet blackouts are making it challenging for Iranians to communicate to one another and to the outside world. This is one of the largest protests in Iran's history. All protest comes at an enormous personal risk to Iranians, but these latest protesters have done some unusually brave things. The courage they have shown is unprecedented. On the other side of the world in my electorate of Bennelong, a culturally rich electorate with a strong, vibrant Iranian community, many are kept awake with fears for their families, their friends and what they call their vatan, the Iranian word for homeland. For those in my community who may be suffering right now, I want to let you know that the Labor government is listening. Yesterday the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong, and the Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher, issued a statement condemning the violent crack down in Iran: The Australian Government condemns the deadly and disproportionate use of force against protesters in Iran, following the tragic death of 22-year-old woman Mahsa Amini. We have raised concerns into the circumstances surrounding her death in custody with the Iranian Embassy in Canberra. Australia supports calls led by the Acting UN High Commissioner for Human Rights for a prompt, impartial investigation into Ms Amini's death by an independent body, which ensures her family has access to truth and justice, with those responsible held to account. We are alarmed by reports that dozens of people have been killed and many more injured, including teenagers, during heavy-handed measures Iranian authorities have implemented to crack-down on ongoing protests. Australia supports the right of Iranian people to protest peacefully and calls on the Iranian authorities to exercise restraint in response to ongoing demonstrations. Reports of internet restrictions are also deeply troubling, and suggest an effort to stifle freedom of expression. Australia regularly raises Iran's significant discrimination against women and human rights violations with officials in both Teheran and Canberra, as well as in multilateral fora. Australia stands with Iranian women and girls in their struggle for equality and empowerment and we call on Iran to cease its oppression of women. Australia is committed to promoting gender equality and women's human rights, empowerment and ending violence against women and girls world wide. I have received letters, emails and social media messages that are clouded in desperation, many asking for hope, all asking for the stories of Iranians to be told by those who can. Today I say to those in my electorate: I can and will tell those stories in this place. I stand for my local Iranian community in Bennelong, with their fear, their anger and their dismay. I use my position and my time here today to speak for them, to ensure their message, and that of their people families, is heard. Pyne, Mrs Margaret 121 19:50 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to pay tribute to Mrs Margaret Pyne, who sadly passed away nine days ago. Her funeral was held today, and I regret that I was not able to attend it because of parliamentary commitments to be here in Canberra. I pay tribute to her. She passed away at the age of 93. She led a full life, one of great enjoyment and satisfaction, and, whilst her passing is sad, we are very grateful for the lovely long life that she led. She was a stalwart of the Liberal Party in the eastern suburbs of Adelaide, a community servant, a very proud mother of five and grandmother of 12. Of course, one of her children, Christopher Pyne, served in this House for 26 years as my predecessor, as the member for Sturt. I first met Mrs Pyne a little over 20 years ago. She was, indeed, the embodiment of that generation that is sadly coming to an end, people who were so dedicated to their community and the contribution that they wanted to make to society. Standing here in the House of Representatives, there are a lot of different elements of Margaret Pyne's life, but I would like to talk about her contribution to the Liberal Party and to politics. It's regrettable that people like Margaret Pyne don't come along very often these days. It is regrettable that we don't have those great elements of our democracy—people who want to work really hard without seeking any personal political glory, to fight for the things that they believe in, who love their country, who care about the direction that it is going in and who make a contribution to the political process. In her case, it was to the Liberal Party. It doesn't matter to me, like it wouldn't have to her, what your political views are but it is so important that we stand up for our values of democracy, of participating in the political process and helping to shape the direction of our country. That is something that Margaret Pyne absolutely did for many, many decades through her involvement in the Liberal Party. She was awarded with the Meritorious Service Award by Liberal Party more than 10 years ago. When I first joined the Liberal Party and took my first early interest Liberal Party politics and politics generally, I met her very soon after my involvement commenced. She was one of those people who was ubiquitous within the Liberal Party in the eastern suburbs of Adelaide. I remember her being in Canberra, I think it was 15 years ago, when her son, Christopher, first became a minister in the Howard government. She loved her politics. At times, he, like he did for the rest of us, could frustrate her, but nonetheless she loved his achievements in this parliament and through his career. But her involvement in the Liberal Party was well beyond the fact that he was a member of parliament. She was very committed and was dedicated to her love of politics, her love of the Liberal Party, her interest in the Liberal Party's success and being someone who would work towards that success through all the jobs that we all in this chamber know our great volunteers do that are why and how we end up in this place. We are so grateful to people like Margaret Pyne, who do so much to support and help us become representatives for our community and contribute to the great contest of ideas that happens here in the House of Representatives and throughout politics in this great democracy in our country. My deepest condolences to the Pyne and Evans family. I hope that your grief is somewhat tempered by the fact that, after nearly four decades of being apart, Margaret and Remington are together again for eternity in the kingdom of heaven. Vale Margaret Pyne. Lyons Electorate: Neighbourhood Houses 121 19:55 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons I'd like to associate the government's side of the House and express our condolences to Mr Pyne on the death of his mother. He has a lot of friends in the parliament, and we wish him all the best at this sorry time. Last week Neighbourhood Houses Tasmania held its state conference in my electorate at Iron Creek Bay Farm Stay in Sorell. The focus for the conference was sustainable living. Unfortunately, owing to a change in the parliamentary sitting schedule I could not attend as planned, which was a shame as I've heard it was a cracking three days. If you don't believe me, Speaker, there's a Facebook video from the flower-power themed conference dinner that proves Tassie's neighbourhood house community know how to have a good time. People have missed the opportunity to see in me in bell-bottom flares and some hippy power shirts. There you go. This seems like the perfect opportunity to take a minute to recognise the important role that neighbourhood houses play in all our communities—I'm sure every member in this House has an excellent relationship with their neighbourhood houses—and to give a shout-out to the dedicated and inspiring staff and volunteers from the neighbourhood houses in my electorate. Neighbourhood houses are places where people come together and find support, belonging and purpose. There are 35 neighbourhood houses across Tasmania working with our local communities, delivering essential supports and providing opportunities for social inclusion, friendship, outreach and community development. The value that neighbourhood houses provide to communities, especially across rural and regional Australia, cannot be overstated. There are nine neighbourhood houses in my electorate: Fingle Valley Neighbourhood House; St Helens Neighbourhood House; Bridgewater and Gagebrook community houses, run by Jordan River Support Services; Derwent Valley Community House; Dunalley Tasman Neighbourhood House; Midway Point Neighbourhood House; Okines Neighbourhood House; and Deloraine House. Each plays an integral role in their local community, and all their staff and volunteers deserve a shout-out. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to recognise everyone individually, but I will mention some of the amazing work currently being done across Lyons in our neighbourhood houses. The Fingle Valley and St Helens neighbourhood houses, for example, will be working together with the Break O'Day council to celebrate Seniors Week next month with a free bus trip to Woolmers Estate, also in my electorate, and a picnic lunch. The Bridgewater Community House hosted community lunch today, as it does every Wednesday, with a very tasty sounding menu of patties with gravy and herb potatoes on offer. I must give a shout-out to the excellent view of Vinnies which also provides volunteers. I've been lucky enough a few times to have a meal prepared by the volunteers at both the Bridgewater and Gagebrook community houses. They have been delicious every time. I've had a hand in preparing a few myself. I know for a fact that the member for Sydney is quite partial to the strawberry jam prepared by the volunteer cooks in the fast-foodies program at Gagebrook Community House. In the north of the electorate, Debbie and the team at Deloraine House, which hosted last year's state conference, have been hard at work at their new satellite site at Meander House, which will allow them to expand their services and programs across the beautiful Meander Valley. I also have a visit coming up to the Derwent Valley Community House, where I am looking forward to giving a donation to coordinators Dianne and Lexia to support their upcoming Halloween disco. I was very excited to see wood fired pizza making coming up this Friday at Midway Point Neighbourhood House. Unfortunately—disgracefully!—this event is for ages 15 to 25, meaning I'm just slightly outside of the age bracket, although Joe and the team have very kindly extended me an invitation. Further south, manager Matt and staff and volunteers at Okines Neighbourhood House have a fantastic school holiday program coming up, including making your own pizza, bike maintenance, scarecrow making, tote bag sewing, and workshops. Likewise, Dunalley Tasman Neighbourhood House, with Jeddah, are holding a school holiday drop-in session including games, movies and lunch. That's just a snapshot of the work that neighbourhood houses do across Lyons. Just as importantly, they have a big food-delivery service. They are a hub for providing meals to people who are doing it tough. Perhaps one of the saddest things about the last few years has been seeing how that service has grown and grown. Here's hoping that that service will reduce. To all the neighbourhood houses across Lyons and Tasmania: I wish you all the best, thank you all for your great service to the people of Tasmania and look forward to seeing you next year. House adjourned at 20:00 The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ) took the chair at 09:30.

Wednesday, 28 September 2022

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

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 123 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS NPS MedicineWise 123 09:30 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar Following the recent decision by the government to cut Commonwealth funding for its core program supporting quality use of medicines, NPS MedicineWise has announced it will cease operations at the end of this year. For the past 24 years NPS MedicineWise has provided reliable and trusted independent information on the safe and effective use of medicines both for medical professionals and for consumers. The not-for-profit organisation has been described as having a remarkable track record of excellence in its work. Its great strength was in being an independent organisation at arm's length from government. The work of NPS MedicineWise has successfully delivered direct savings worth $1.1 billion to Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, and it is reported to have resulted in demonstrable improvements in patient care and health outcomes for Australians. With the changes being introduced, NPS MedicineWise's core quality-use-of-medicines functions will move to the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care by January 2023. Its other functions for education were moved to a contested funding arrangement. While it is acknowledged that the commission is a well-respected body whose work overlaps with that of NPS MedicineWise, the concern for health professionals is that there will now be no agency with sole responsibility for delivering quality-use-of-medicine programs. This will now just be a small part of the work the commission must do on a very reduced budget. Additionally, health professionals worry that contestability in health care is usually code for 'given to the cheapest bidder', and that rarely delivers the best health outcomes. These changes come at a time when the complexity around medicines and their use is growing, and antimicrobial resistance is a serious and mounting threat. An independent, evidence-based, quality-use-of-medicines voice in Australia is more important than ever. In this light, the CEO of NPS MedicineWise has called on the government to conduct and publish a review of the outcomes of these changes in a year's time, including the impact on prescribing patterns and the PBS costs. The review should examine health professionals' perspectives on the changes and whether prescribers feel they still have the resources and support they need to make good prescribing choices around medicines. It should also examine whether consumers feel they still have good access to resources and information. It is also of the utmost importance that the successful work of the NPS MedicineWise's antimicrobial stewardship program continues. Radio 1RPH, Local Sporting Champions Program, Ross, Ms Kathryn 123 09:33 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner Located on the Barton Highway in Gungahlin, Radio 1RPH—radio for the print handicapped—is an independent not-for-profit organisation that provides a radio reading service to people with print disabilities, as well as to the general listening public. It is greatly appreciated by those with visual impairments but also by Canberra's taxi drivers, who often find themselves enjoying being able to listen to the newspaper as they go about their work. The radio station had humble beginnings—broadcasting from a home in Ainslie in 1985. Since then they have grown and taken on their permanent premises. I want to acknowledge the executive committee of Radio 1RPH: Sandra Purser, Libor Pelecky, Ben Signor, Amelia McKenzie and Llois Cutts. I am looking forward to being back at Radio 1RPH to take a tour of the station, to meet and thank the volunteers, and perhaps to even read some newspaper stories on air. I recently had the pleasure of meeting with recipients of the 2021 Local Sporting Champions grants. This year, basketballers, rope-skippers, swimmers and other athletes joined for the awards and came to my electorate office to hear from Paralympian swimmer Jesse Aungles. Jesse has studied at the University of Canberra, the university with the highest number of serious athletes of any university in Australia. He represented Australia at the 2016 and 2020 summer Paralympics, and was inducted into SwimmingSA's Hall of Fame in 2017. What was terrific about Jesse's conversation was that it went to so many of the issues that young athletes face: the challenge of balancing their study with their athletic endeavours; the drawbacks that come from injury and how you keep yourself mentally strong through an injured period; and the importance, which Jesse emphasised, of saying thanks to your parents, all the time, every day, for the extraordinary work that they do. I acknowledge those local sporting champions and their parents for what they give to Canberra's sporting community. Congratulations go to rower and Fenner constituent Kathryn Ross for her silver medal in the PR2 women's single sculls at the World Rowing Championships. Kathryn Ross became an Australian Paralympic rower after taking up rowing in 2006. She's a four-time world champion, and has participated in four Paralympics, from 2008 to 2020. Kathryn and her rowing partner, John MacLean, missed out on the gold medal by less than a second. I acknowledge their extraordinary athleticism, and also the work that Kathryn does part time at the Australian Sports Commission, as well as studying nursing at the University of Canberra. Biosecurity: Foot-And-Mouth Disease, Wannon Electorate: Drinking Water 124 09:36 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon Foot and mouth disease is still an enormous risk to Australian agriculture—a risk that could impact our economy by $80 billion. In May, my constituents were so concerned with the protocols that were in place, and the lack of transparency on how the timelines would be dealt with to make sure proper security was being put in place to ensure FMD doesn't come to Australia, that they held a rally in Colac and started a petition. There are hundreds of signatures in this petition that I wish to table today. More than that, we also wrote to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Murray Watt, outlining our concerns and the need for transparency around the action that the government should be taking. Sadly, we are yet to see a response to that letter. With this lack of transparency of the action that's being put in place here in Australia and in Indonesia, my farmers remain very concerned. That's why I'm seeking leave today to table this petition and to once again express our concern with the lack of transparency around what's being done for FMD—especially now that we're hearing reports from the ABC that the Prime Minister's chief agriculture advisor believes the farming of animals is cruel. We need a response from the government, and I seek leave to table this petition. Leave granted. Mr TEHAN 210911 Port Fairy is one of the most beautiful towns in my electorate. It has won tourism award after tourism award. But there is one thing which continues to hold Port Fairy back, and that is the taste of its water. Locals know that it needs improving, and tourists who go there, sadly, find out that it needs improving. Members of the Port Fairy community want to see action taken, and I have 2,000 signatures of both locals and tourists calling for Wannon Water to take action to improve the drinking quality of the water in Port Fairy. There are various options being considered as to how this should be done, but my constituents have made it loud and clear that they think that piping should be seriously considered as an option for improving the drinking water in Port Fairy. They call on Wannon Water to engage in the ability for piping—for numerous reasons—to provide better-quality drinking water for the town of Port Fairy. I seek leave to table this petition. Leave granted. Foothills Information and Referral Services 124 09:39 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan I rise today to recognise the good work of the Foothills Information and Referral Services, or FIRS, in Forrestfield. In August I met with the director, Anne Whitby, and the office manager, Sue Bateman, at their offices, with the state member for Forrestfield, Stephen Price MLA. I got to hear about the critical role that they've been playing in the foothills community. I was immediately struck by the determination of Anne and Sue to get stuff done. If you want something done, give it to a busy woman! Since 1998 FIRS has been providing accessible, non-judgemental, non-discriminatory services to individuals and families in my electorate and the member for Hasluck's electorate. Not content with a one-size-fits-all approach, FIRS understands the importance of providing wraparound services to people and families. These include financial counselling, community services, a family law clinic, training and development workshops, playgroups for general kids and autistic children, an ADF-partnered parenting program, emergency food relief, bill payment support and referrals to other organisations. This support can be ongoing. For example, people from my community may come in for emergency food relief initially and then find access to financial counselling and services such as the family law clinic or training and workshops. It's this kind of innovation and dedication that means that long-term success for those people in need of help can happen. As a mother of two children, I know that community playgroups provide a really important place in our community. Me and my children regularly meet with other families, make friends and, importantly, play. But, for some children and their families, this can be quite challenging. Children with autism spectrum disorder have a diverse way of engaging and participating in social settings, but adjustments can be made, and this is exactly what happens at the playgroup run by FIRS. They welcome families with preschool-age kids with autism and their siblings and they build community networks amongst parents and caregivers and, most importantly, the children. A child's earliest years are its most important developmentally. We introduced the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill 2022 yesterday, as part of our government's commitment to increasing the accessibility of early childhood education. We can talk about the economic benefits of this—and there are many—but I think of how enriching that socialisation and exposure that kids have in playgroups and in child care is. It's so fantastic to have FIRS in our community. It's there providing support across a person's life cycle, and I'm glad to have had the opportunity this morning to recognise some of its great work. Herbert Electorate: Community Projects 125 09:42 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert It's extremely concerning that the Labor government has decided to cut $350 million from the Community Development Grants Program. The new government must commit to continuing the Building Better Regions Fund. If it does not, these two moves would have very negative consequences for the plans for major projects in the electorate of Herbert. The Community Development Grants Program has been critical in helping to build two of the most important initiatives in Townsville, which have been well received throughout my electorate but also around the country. The first is the Cowboys Community, Training and High Performance Centre. It's really good to have the Minister for Sport here, because I expect the minister would support projects like the Cowboys Community, Training and High Performance Centre. Mr THOMPSON 281826 It's already built, Minister. You should come to Townsville, because it's already built. It's clear that the sports minister hasn't visited Townsville yet, but I'm sure the minister will visit soon. The second is DriveIt, a driver education and motorsports complex, which includes heavy-vehicle rollover recovery training, emergency services training, advanced driver training and 2.75 kilometres of racing circuit. These two projects have delivered more than $100 million in economic benefit for Townsville. During the last election, the coalition made three further commitments that would have been funded through the CDG Progra The result in the electorate of Herbert demonstrates the support for these projects, and I'm encouraging the new government to pick up these projects and announce them in their budget. The first is lighting for Riverway Stadium of a standard high enough for broadcasting. This would attract regular elite national cricket and AFL games to Townsville. For far too long we've seen these games and matches played in either Mackay or Cairns. We have the world-class facilities in Townsville and we would like to see them played in Townsville. This would be a significant boost to the participation level, as well as having great economic value to our city. We know that the Gabba is going to be closed for redevelopment for 2032, so getting lighting at Riverway Stadium would be of benefit. Meanwhile, on the grassroots club level, Jabiru Park in Condon desperately needs funding for lighting for its baseball diamonds. The project would see both diamonds at Townsville's only baseball fields lit up. That would allow night fixtures as well as evening training. We have a high number of people that get skin cancers in the north, so this would allow our young children who play these games to get out of the sun. Finally, I mention funding for the AEIOU Foundation, which is a facility for early intervention for children with autism. It's a very significant thing for Townsville and I'd like to see the government fund it. (Time expired) Lilley Electorate: Community Events 125 09:45 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley Earlier this year my electorate of Lilley was impacted by the devastating Brisbane floods. Northside residents and businesses again proved their resilience through these traumatic events and are now trying their best to navigate through the long-term flood consequences. Our community has been working together to build back and advocate to ensure that beloved places like Toombul Shopping Centre are restored. The Nundah community has really been feeling the loss of Toombul Shopping Centre due to February's floods, and there have been flow-on consequences, such as even worse parking issues over at Westfield Chermside. As a result, there are particular accessibility issues for people who depend upon Toombul Shopping Centre because it has both bus and train stations, and that is unique to shopping centre opportunities on the north side. Many residents have told me how much it has saddened them to see the site abandoned after it has served our community since 1967, so I am pleased to advise the chamber that Mirvac have confirmed that Toombul will reopen with retail shops and improved flood resilience. I look forward to Mirvac, in the coming weeks, outlining their plans for substantial community consultation about how that area will be rebuilt so that we don't have to go through this kind of thing again. I represent more than 155,000 people living in my electorate who are waiting for the first Labor budget to be handed down after nine long years of waiting. My community knows that I have been working hard for them to make sure that there will be projects for Lilley in our budget that will deliver new jobs and boost economic activity in our region. Like many places in Australia, my electorate of Lilley has felt the impacts of COVID and we need to see investment in our area, in new initiatives and in new projects that will help us rebuild. The Zillmere Festival was cancelled not once but twice due to COVID. It is now back and will be held on Saturday 8 October 2022. It is a real highlight for our community in an area that celebrates some of the best of the Australian melting pot. It's something we all look forward to, so it's been a very long wait. Organised by Jabiru, the Zillmere Festival is an opportunity for families in our community to come together at O'Callaghan Park and enjoy local performers, multicultural food and market stalls. Northsiders stick together in tough times, and another example of this is my friend Pat, whom I spoke about when passing our aged care bill earlier this year—the very first bill to pass both the House and the Senate in the new parliament. Unfortunately, this week Pat's neighbour, Patricia, called my office to let me know that Pat was in hospital after a fall. As I have been here in parliament, my valued staff member and absolute national treasure, Marian, visited Pat in hospital to ensure that she was going alright. Pat wanted me, and us, to know that she is doing better. The Prince Charles Hospital nurses, doctors and supporting staff are looking after her very well, of course, but, most of all, the food is great. Pat, we all wish you a very speedy recovery. Aston Electorate: Infrastructure 126 09:48 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston I rise to express my grave concern that the new Labor government is about to abolish $5 million of funding which had been budgeted for the Tormore Reserve in my electorate. For those that don't know, Tormore Reserve is in Boronia. It's home to the Boronia Hawks Football Netball Club. It's in the poorest part of my electorate, where there's higher than normal unemployment and where there are, unfortunately, some of the issues associated with lower socioeconomic areas. We are doing everything we can to encourage people to participate in sport as a mechanism to get them off the street, to be engaged in the community and to be mentored by older people. This a great club that does great work, and they deserve a proper pavilion. This is $5 million, which was a budget decision. It wasn't an election commitment of ours; it was a budgeted decision. Yet there has been no action taken by the Labor government to try to do anything to see this through. My deep concern is that the Labor Party is about to scrap this funding. I'm also concerned that the Labor government is about to scrap the funding for several road projects in my electorate. This is money that has been set aside for years. It is budgeted money and it's going towards projects which have been on the books, in some cases, for decades, and we finally had the money to see these projects through. The state Labor government has stalled on these projects for years now. My concern is that the federal Labor government is now going to use the upcoming budget to scrap the funding of these projects. These are projects such as the Dorset Road extension, which has been on the books for decades, and the duplication of Napoleon Road—a desperately needed duplication in my electorate. I'm concerned that they may even scrap the $475 million allocated for Rowville Rail. This is, again, a project which has been on the books for decades and is desperately needed. We have almost half a billion dollars allocated for the first instalment—to have rapid public transport through to Rowville—and, again, we're hearing nothing from the federal Labor government and, indeed, nothing from the state Labor government. We need these projects. Constituents in outer eastern Melbourne, residents in outer eastern Melbourne, deserve to have these projects seen through and delivered. I'm calling on this new Labor government to deliver on those projects, to work with their comrades at the state level—there's an election coming up—and to get these projects done. Edinburgh Industry Alliance 126 09:51 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence It's with great pleasure that I rise today to inform the House of the recent founding of the Edinburgh Industry Alliance, which is based in my electorate of Spence. Regrettably, the northern suburbs of Adelaide certainly felt the impact of the closure of the General Motors-Holden manufacturing plant in October 2017. Many thought that this would spell the end of the manufacturing industry in the suburb built around it. The north had to pivot, and it did so—particularly toward advanced manufacturing, which, of course, includes defence manufacturing. Spence is home to the Edinburgh Defence Precinct, which includes both RAAF Edinburgh and Defence Science and Technology Group, so it's no surprise that our local area is ready to have its defence industry capabilities utilised and expanded upon. In late August this year, the Edinburgh Industry Alliance was launched as a partnership between companies such as Lionsgate Business Park, who now administer the former GM-H plant; Century Engineering; Eptec Group; Levett Engineering; Sonnex; Williams Metal Fabrication; XTEK; BiORG; and Aimpoint RPL. It's an industry group with a mandate to create jobs and increase the economic output of Adelaide's northern suburbs. It should be both commended and supported. The north of Adelaide is also home to major defence primes such as Lockheed Martin Australia, SAAB Australia, Raytheon, General Dynamics and Northrup Grumman. The establishment of a defence industry group that will offer industry collaboration and specialisation when working with these primes and government will create confidence in both the quality of works capable within our local area and the capacity to undertake large-scale projects which require various forms of specialisation. There are a number of businesses, business peak bodies and groups that operate in Spence, such as Salisbury Business Association, Gawler Business Development Group, Northern Economic Leaders and the Stretton Centre that operates through the City of Playford, which is, in fact, where the Edinburgh Industry Alliance is located. The Edinburgh Industry Alliance joining this list of northern business groups is definitely welcome, particularly during economic times such as these. I would like to thank a number of representatives from members of the Edinburgh Industry Alliance and of the defence primes that they work with, such as from BAE Systems Australia, for participating in the Spence Jobs and Skills Summit Roundtable that I spoke about in this place earlier this week. I would particularly like to thank Mark Robinson and Stephan Nel, both of the Edinburgh Industry Alliance and of Aimpoint RPL and Sonnex respectively, for their collaboration throughout the process. Their involvement definitely contributed to its success. Forde Electorate: Logan Village Scout Group 127 09:54 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde I rise today to inform the House of one of the hardworking community organisations in my electorate of Forde. I'm talking about the Scout movement. They do a tremendous job in a number of areas across my electorate, but in particular I want to speak today about the Logan Village Scout Group. As we all know, the movement was founded in 1907 by Robert, Lord Baden-Powell in England and quickly spread around the world, with the first groups being established in Australia in 1908. Today the Scout movement is the world's largest youth organisation, with approximately 28 million members around the world, including some 70,000 here in Australia. It describes itself as: … a voluntary non-political educational movement for young people open to all without distinction of gender, origin, race or creed … The goal of scouting is: … to contribute to the development of young people in achieving their full physical, intellectual, emotional, social and spiritual potentials as individuals, as responsible citizens and as members of their local, national and international communities. To me, those sound like worthwhile attributes that we should be cultivating in the youth of this nation. Scouts in Queensland are trained by volunteer adult leaders and follow an achievement pathway that encourages personal progression. The Logan Village Scouts perform an important role in my community, and I'm very proud to support them, along with the Scouts at Beenleigh, Ormeau and Shailer Park as well. Unfortunately, in March this year Logan Village Scouts became the victims of crime when somebody broke into their den, causing considerable damage and stealing a number of valuable items, including a lawnmower and a trailer. Upon hearing of this senseless crime, I was more than willing to contribute to help replace the stolen equipment and to support their efforts as well. The Logan Village Scout Group successfully applied for and were granted funds through the 2021 volunteer grants fund program. With these moneys, they were able to replace the stolen mower and trailer, purchase a laptop computer and finance some training courses for their volunteers. This is a great example of why governments need to maintain grant programs like this to assist worthy community groups who would otherwise struggle to replace or purchase much-needed equipment. I want to congratulate the Logan Village Scouts for the tremendous work that they do each and every day across our community helping our youth become better persons and encouraging them to contribute and be part of our community. As I said, I had the pleasure of helping them with a small contribution towards that replacement, and I also had the joy of joining them at the Bunnings barbecue sausage sizzle to raise some more funds. Thank you to everyone at Logan Village Scouts for all the great work they do. Dobell Electorate: Roads 127 09:58 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell My community on the Central Coast is home to some of the worst roads in New South Wales. Our road network spans more than 2,000 kilometres, and, after years of neglect under the former government, the backlog of works has only grown. After recent extreme weather events and local flooding, there are even more potholes and dangerous hazards on our roads than there were before. According to a recent NRMA report, the Central Coast had the second-highest number of callouts to fix tires and wheels in the state, missing out on the top spot by just one callout. Locals have told me they avoid driving at night or take a different route to drive to work in the morning because of the state of our roads. While I'm told council has repaired more than 32,000 potholes on our road network since February, this is only a short-term fix. What we need is proper investment for the future. The former government completely overlooked the Central Coast when it came to road investment and infrastructure. But the Albanese government is already delivering for the Central Coast. Just last month the Albanese Labor government announced funding for two of the Central Coast's most dangerous roads under the latest round of the federal Black Spot Program. This includes $620,000 to upgrade Fagans Road at Lisarow between Tuggerah Street and the Ridgeway. The funds will go towards vehicle activated signs, upgrading the seal and installing barriers on the roadside to improve safety for motorists and pedestrians. We also announced $205,000 to upgrade Showground Road at Narara between Manns Road and Racecourse Road. This will see the installation of raised islands with additional 'stop' or 'give way' signs, a barrier on the roadside and upgrades to the intersection. We've seen too many accidents on these roads over the years, some of them fatal. That's why this upgrade is so important to our community. This funding will go a long way towards improving the safety of people across the coast for many years to come. I'm proud that the member for Robertson and I could deliver these upgrades for our community, but there are many others which also need investment. That's why the Albanese government committed $40 million during the election to upgrade roads across the coast. We recognise the need to invest in our road network and to make sure it's fit for purpose for the future. We will work closely with council, the state government and the local community to deliver these upgrades. During the election we also announced a $250 million expansion to Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program. This is an important funding boost for regional areas like the coast, and I'll make sure that we get our fair share—because our roads should be a priority, and under the Labor government they are. I look forward to the government's budget in October, when we'll have more to say on road funding for communities like the coast. The Central Coast has been overlooked for years. During close to a decade in power, the former government failed to deliver. But the Albanese government is already taking action to make sure our roads are safe now and into the future. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265980 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 128 BILLS Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill 2022 128

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

Second Reading 128 10:01 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom I rise to support the bill before the House. It's a continuation of counterterrorism powers held by the AFP. These powers were brought in by our previous coalition government, and they are due to sunset on 7 December 2022. This bill, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill, extends the powers until December 2023. In speaking to this bill, there are three areas that I think are crucial to address. I'll cover them in general and return to the specifics as we go through. But, firstly, this bill, in how it sits within our desire to find the balance between the appropriate level of individual freedoms and the need for government authority to protect those freedoms, speaks very much to the heart of the Liberal movement. It's an often debated position within our party—the role of the libertarian within modern liberalism. I think we can trace back, through the writings of John Locke and Thomas Paine, that idea that there are inherent freedoms that each of us brings and that exist prior to the creation of the state, while also balancing that with the need for governments to protect and to look after the common good. Finding that balance is the role of government. I don't think there is any argument that stands for one side to be in an absolutist position. Certainly, this bill, and how it sits within the suite of other legislation that has been provided to keep Australians safe, very much works within that theme. Secondly, I think it's important to view this bill within the context of not just the threats that existed when its predecessor came into being but those that exist today in the world around us, and those that we can—without risk of being too strong or forceful—acknowledge may still exist in the short or medium term. Clearly, there's an important role for governments to play in communicating what those threat levels may be, and I think it's important that we strike the right balance in speaking both clearly and robustly on the threats that exist, but also that we never go too far or delve into the dramatic. But it is clear at this time that the threat of terrorist action still exists internationally and within our own borders. I acknowledge the efforts of this government and previous governments of both persuasions in working together to address those risks. This legislation is very much the result of previous efforts that have been made. Thirdly, the other theme that this legislation speaks to and sits within is how we make the federation model work. Obviously a broader conversation has happened in this place and in the wider Australian community that speaks to the need for us to update and constantly reassess how the federation model can best come together. Clearly the responsibility for policing has been gifted to the states, but over time we've seen a growing need for the role of a federal police force. As technology changes, as new threats come to us and as the world around us changes, that desire, that need, for a federalised force continues and will continue to be a focus for us. I will come back to those views later. To quote the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security advisory report on the original bill, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Bill 2019: The Bill makes changes designed to keep Australians safer. It implements a COAG agreement to ensure a presumption that neither bail nor parole will be granted to those persons who have demonstrated support for, or have links to, terrorist activity. This decision followed the terrorist attack in Brighton, Victoria in June 2017. The perpetrator of that attack was on parole for State offences, and had previously been charged with conspiracy to commit a terrorist attack. The extension of these powers will allow sufficient time for parliament to consider more detailed amendments to existing AFP powers, including recommendations made by the PJCIS in the report I have quoted, which was tabled in October 2021. I think the underlying purpose of this bill is to ensure that our frontline forces that combat organised crime, terrorism and complex transnational crime have the right tools to keep Australians safe. I commend the government for seeking to extend this bill, and I commend those on our side of the House who brought forward the original bill. I think it's important to end by noting the bilateral support for the AFP that has existed and that will continue to exist. 10:08 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass Terrorism is one form of politically motivated violence. Under section 4 of the ASIO Act 1979, it's defined as a specific set of activities, including acts or threats of violence, that are likely to achieve a political objective, either in Australia or overseas; acts or threats of violence intended to influence the policy of a government, either in Australia or overseas; acts that involve violence or are likely to lead to violence and are directed to overthrowing or destroying the government or the system of Australian government; acts that are defined as terrorism offences; and certain other acts defined in Australian legislation relating to the taking of hostages or activities conducted on ships, offshore platforms or aircraft. This bill, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill 2022 provides for the continuation of important counterterrorism powers that ensure the safety and security of all Australians, extending three key counterterrorism powers for an additional 12 months: the emergency stop, search and seizure powers; the control order regime; and the preventative detention order regime. In October last year, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security presented its report into its statutory review of these powers and unanimously supported the extension of the powers, subject to certain amendments, including the introduction of additional safeguards. The current powers are due to sunset on 7 December this year. With the introduction of the federal election this year, I do note and support the additional time needed for the federal government to consult with states and territories in relation to any proposed amendments. By sunsetting the date by 12 months, the government and opposition can reach a bipartisan position on new legislation to amend part 5.3 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 based on the complex recommendations of the PJCIS. Just a few weeks ago, much of the world quietly observed the 21st anniversary of the September 11 attacks. For anyone in their late 30s to early 50s, these attacks were a defining moment in history, particularly as they made the threat of terrorism in our own country a real possibility. Although September 11 occurred on foreign soil and Australian lives were lost, the impact of this terrorist attack led to foreign policy decisions that have an impact to this day, most notably the decision to undertake military operations in Afghanistan. Closer to home, we are just weeks away from the 20th anniversary of the Bali bombings. On the night of 12 October 2002, large-scale terrorism inched closer to Australia's doorstep, taking the lives of 202 people, including 88 Australians. Over the past decade in Australia, we have seen several terrorist attacks and many disrupted plots, including the stabbing of two police officers in Melbourne in 2014, the murder of a police accountant in Parramatta in 2015, and the disruption of attacks allegedly planned for Anzac Day and Mother's Day in 2015. Currently, Australia's national terrorism threat is listed as 'probably', meaning there is credible intelligence assessed by Australia's security agencies indicating that individuals and groups have the intent and capability to conduct a terrorist act in Australia. This bill ensures the continuation of key counterterrorism powers to keep Australians safe. It is important to note that these powers are rarely used. In fact, no preventative detention orders have been made, and no incidents have required the use of the emergency stop, search and seizure powers. Nonetheless, it is imperative that we provide our intelligence and security agencies with the necessary means to ensure the adequate protection of Australia and Australian security. While many may perceive the threat of terrorism in the form of religiously motivated violent extremism to be the most concerning, there has been a sharp increase in people becoming motivated by other forms of violent extremism, including ideologically motivated violent extremism and, specifically, nationalist and racist violent extremism. Nationalist and racist violent extremists are more active than in previous years and pose a serious threat to Australian security. According to an interview in 2021 with the Director-General of ASIO, Mike Burgess, the threat from ideologically driven violent extremism has now reached 50 per cent of ASIO's total onshore counterterrorism priority case load for the first time. The terrorism threat facing Australia continues to evolve. Where previously the key threat had been large-scale, organised terrorist networks, it has shifted to smaller scale attacks by individuals or small groups. The extension of the sunsetting date of these powers ensures that the Australian Federal Police continue to have appropriate powers to respond to terrorism related threats and, importantly, allows the parliament enough time to consider the complex recommendations of the PJCIS on future updates to these powers. 10:13 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright The Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill 2022 is not controversial. It's a bill that's been brought to the House previously by our government, and it has bipartisan support as we move forward. It's noncontroversial because it enacts a sunset clause in the legislation. Currently, our threat level is probable, and, while I believe that none of the measures contained in this bill have been acted on previously, it's a matter of course that we arm our AFP, our brave personnel, with the instruments that they require to be effective in the art of counterterrorism. We will hear a number of contributions today. But in the small amount of time that I have, I want to expand on a recent trip. I was very fortunate to be able to travel to Israel, a country that doesn't enjoy the relaxed risk weighting that we have in our country. While we were in Israel—it was only a couple of weeks ago—we had the opportunity to catch up with the Palestinian Prime Minister and to get a sense of the constant threat that they live under and how present terrorism is in their community. Once we got through the airport, we were put into the transport to our hotel. The first realisation I had that, 'Oh my God, this is about to get real,' was when the person who opened the door in the hotel—the concierge or bellboy—was armed with a nine-millimetre Glock to take my bags up to the hotel for me. I did have a quick conversation with him, defending our nation when he made the assumption that we were all Americans. I said, 'No, we're Australians.' He said, 'Where are you from?' I didn't think he would know where Boonah was, so I said the closest large community to me, the Gold Coast. He said, 'Oh, party city!' I said: 'Yes. You know the Gold Coast?' He said: 'Yes. I was in Australia recently. I went to Canberra.' He had no idea what my job was. I said, 'My job takes me to Canberra periodically.' He said, 'Ah, Canberra—the most boring place in Australia!' Honourable members interjecting— Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 I'm just reporting the facts, just reporting the commentary! Nevertheless, the bill before us is about counterterrorism. We also learnt while we were there that the Israelis spend north of 30 per cent of their GDP on defence. The Iron Dome technology has three layers, and has north of 95 per cent accuracy in intercepting bombs that are launched at their community—mid-range, high-range and ultrahigh-range missiles. It was a daunting experience to be there and understand the gravity of what the world of terrorism looks like. When we went into the West Bank we saw memorials not that dissimilar to the memorials in our small communities where we honour our Anzacs. In the West Bank they also have memorials, but they honour those who have strapped suicide vests to themselves and gone to take the lives of innocent people. The government pays their families a stipend. It's called 'pay for slay'. The more people you take out—innocent people, children—with a suicide vest, the higher your family's remuneration, and then you're honoured in perpetuity on these memorial-like stone markings outside significant buildings. When we grasp what a country that is under constant terrorism threat looks like, and we cross-reference that to what we have here, it is a good thing that both sides of our House are united in arming our AFP personnel with the tools that they need—and I commend them for never having had to engage one of them. But the fact that we arm them gives us a sense of what our preparedness is and the lengths that we will go to to protect the freedoms and the liberties that we have, and the extent that this parliament will go to to protect those, so that, every night when we put our head on our pillow, we sleep under a blanket of security provided by our forefathers and the fact that our AFP personnel will fight to protect us on a daily basis. I commend the bill to the House. 10:18 Mr VIOLI 300147 Casey It is vital that every step is made to protect Australians' way of life from terrorist activity. The Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill 2022 stands to ensure the continuation of key counterterrorism powers that keep each and every one of us safe from criminal activity. Australians should be able to be carefree, focused on themselves and their family, their work and their future without the incessant worry of becoming a victim of senseless crime. While it is vital to implement legislation that keeps Australians safe, we must also remember that we are part of a liberal democracy, and, as lawmakers in this place, we must protect the individual rights of Australians. It is always a matter of striking a balance, and this bill achieves that. With 18 convicted terrorists due for release into the community within the next four years, the former coalition government had foresight to protect Australians going forward, knowing that some terrorists are beyond the brink. The bill before us today is just another example of us needing to do everything in our powers so that our law enforcement agencies have the requisite tools and powers to safeguard Australians from harm. As legislators, our responsibility is to prevent radicalisation and to rehabilitate violent extremists, when possible, to keep Australians safe. We need to give law enforcement agencies the resources and powers to tackle these threats, and we need to ensure our country's counterterrorism arrangements are consistent, resilient and proportionate to the threats at hand. In the coalition's time in government, the total investment in programs countering violent extremism was nearly doubled. This is a clear representation of the coalition's continued support to keeping Australians safe from violent extremist ideologies in all forms. As a new MP, it's great to see—it's not unexpected—the bipartisan support for this bill and for our AFP. In recent years, the threat of cyberterrorism has increased, with more incidents recorded now than ever before. While of different nature to the terrorist activity that the bill before us seeks to prevent, cyberterrorism has the potential to cause great harm. Last Thursday we saw what cyber incidents can look like. The Optus data breach saw 9.8 million Australians affected, with 2.8 million people losing 'significant amounts of data'. Information including customer's names, dates of birth, email addresses, phone addresses, addresses associated with their account, drivers licence numbers and passport numbers was compromised. But the seriousness of cybercrime does not end there. In 2007 Estonia was bombarded by cyberterrorist activity that led to huge communications breakdowns, banking failures and media blackouts—destabilising their whole economy. More recently, Ukraine, in the months leading up to the Russian invasion, was subject to cyberattacks that took down around 70 government websites, including those for key ministries as well as those for bank services. In this evolving world, we must keep up to date on all forms of threats and acknowledge that they can come from any angle. The September 11 attacks of 2001 occurred 21 years ago, when I was in year 11. We all remember where we were when we heard about the attacks. These attacks shaped all of our lives, and we must remember, even as the world addresses new geopolitical challenges, with much focus on cybercrime and tensions with Russia and China, that the threat of terrorism in all forms still exists. We must stay vigilant to the evils that exist in the world. With 29 terrorist organisations now listed under the Criminal Code, it is more important than ever to maintain our country's safety. We must make laws that protect our citizens from terrorism, while also ensuring our freedoms are maintained within Australia's liberal democracy. Every Australian deserves to live carefree, with the knowledge that their law enforcement agencies are doing everything that they can to prevent terrorist activity on our country's soil. The extension of the sunsetting date of these vital powers that the Australian Federal Police hold will allow them to continue to respond to terrorist threats, while giving the parliament sufficient time to ensure the complex recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on updating these powers. I am proud to support this bill, and I commend this bill to the House. 10:24 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies There's a quote that's often attributed to Benjamin Franklin—I made sure it was actually from him—and it's this: Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Like with all quotes, it's important to acknowledge its context. I dug a little deeper, and it wasn't about a circumstance such as this, in that period of America's history, where they were enforcing powers for the police to stop a terrorist group, or help with the war; it was about a tax dispute. As we know from the American revolution, tax can really get people's passions boiling and lead to a revolution. That particular tax dispute was between the Penn family and the Pennsylvania General Assembly. Despite the context, the quote is important because it goes to the heart of what's happening here. We're trying to get that fine balance between keeping Australians safe and enforcing our liberties and freedoms, including the presumption of innocence, and not detaining people unnecessarily. People often refer to judicial discretion, and it's an important part of the justice system, but something that's often overlooked is the discretion for police and for prosecutors. When you look through our criminal law history, that's probably the greatest filter for discretion. Whenever there's a debate on mandatory sentencing, I think it focuses on the wrong discretion. When we look at that discretion of the Australian Federal Police, they deserve credit. This particular regime has some really serious powers, and we rely on the judgement of the individual detectives and officers to make a call on that. When you look at the three components of the regime, the first being the stop, search and seizure powers, they've enacted it zero times. When you look at the second part—the control order regime—it has happened 23 times, and once for someone who's under 18. The third, the preventative detention order regime, has happened zero times. It's important that we acknowledge the work that's done by the Australian Federal Police in having a check on their own power. That should always be something we monitor from this place, and that is why I think that it is important this is reviewed as much as it can be. I also think that when you look at the report from the joint parliamentary committee on the additional safeguards, those safeguards are important, but it is also important that we work through the agencies and the state governments to make sure that they're enforced properly. We should never forget the history of this particular regime. It goes back to 2005. I remember I was a junior lawyer, feeling sorry for myself doing a mergers and acquisitions agreement late at night, and I noticed on the TV in the corner there was a London bus. We all know what they look like, but the top was peeled open like a tin of baked beans. I had the sickening feeling that, four years after September 11, something was happening again, and that wasn't a once-off incident. I downed tools on the particular agreement I was drafting, because it didn't matter anymore. Not only did I look in horror at that bus that was peeled open, but then I also saw smoke coming out of the tube. Many Australians have had wonderful experiences in London, and we look in envy at their train system, thinking, 'Why can't we have that in Melbourne or Sydney'—well, definitely in Melbourne. The important thing is that there were people in there. There were people on that bus. And our first duty as a government is to keep people safe. How do we do that while getting that fine balance between not abusing powers and making sure that Australians are safe. I think this regime strikes that balance. But that's not always the case, and I think it's important that we look at this again and again. I commend the report from the joint standing committee. There's a lot of work in it. They heard submissions from human rights commissioners and the Law Council, who gave quite harrowing stories of some people who were permanently affected by this and ultimately proved to be innocent. We should never forget that the presumption of innocence is such an important part of who we are—not just our judicial system but our sense of fairness. We'll have that debate about the anti-corruption commission today, but at the pointy end of criminal law is where it matters most. I think we should make sure we get this balance right. I commend the report by the joint standing committee, and I commend the amendment. 10:29 Dr GI 72184 Lyne LLESPIE () (): The Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill 2022 as proposed—continuing the sunsetting for another year while things are reviewed—is a really important bill. We are fortunate in this country that we haven't had any terrorism events recently, but there's certainly been a long list of foiled and prevented terrorist attacks. We all know about shootings of police officers in Parramatta and plans to do bad things at power stations and water supplies around the country, and the threat still remains probable. That is the existential issue that drives this legislation. The powers in the bill, if they're not applied appropriately, can be interpreted as overstepping the mark, but control orders, preventative detention orders and emergency stop and seizure powers are reasonable powers to have when intelligence comes through but the hurdle of going through a whole legal process is just not practical. But, in the application of these, there still has to be federal court involvement. There still have to be senior officers on the enforcement side of things—the AFP or state jurisdictional police. They have to have a basis of fact behind the application for getting these orders in place through a court. It's really common sense. If we don't have this, the intelligence agencies could end up being where they were with the September 11 situation, where there was all this chatter going on but people didn't have the wherewithal to connect the dots. But some of the people in the security establishment in the United States of America were putting the pieces together, from what I have read. When our AFP get information, they can only detain a person for an expected 14 days. After that, they are released or it goes to a court and is judged by normal processes. It has a limited immediate application, and I think that the powers that are embodied in this are reasonable, considering the seriousness of the possibilities of a terrorist attack when they get this sort of information. I know they've used this without legislation—the principle of intelligence. So they've gone through the process, but sometimes things move very rapidly, and I think extending it for another 12 months seems a reasonable move for exceptional situations. So I look forward to this initiative getting support in the House, and I've said my piece. 10:33 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Eternal vigilance—that's the price of freedom. Australia is not immune from acts of terror. We only have to look at the Lindt Cafe siege on 15 December 2014, when Man Haron Monis took hostages for some 16 to 17 hours, resulting in his death and, sadly, those of two hostages, Tori Johnson and Katrina Dawson. Whilst this incident was determined to be a lone wolf attack, the 2002 Bali bombings certainly were not. On 12 October that year, 20 years ago, it was so tragic. Of course, the 11 September 2001 World Trade Center terrorist attacks were still fresh in our minds at that time. A division having be en called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 10:34 to 10 : 49 Mr McCORMACK 219646 A total of 202 people died in those Bali bombings, and a further 209 were injured. Eighty-eight Australians lost their lives. Three had links to the Riverina. They were Clint Thompson from Leeton and David Mavroudis from Wagga Wagga, whose family lived opposite our family home in Tatton—two of the six members of the Coogee Dolphins football club who perished—and Shane Walsh-Till, originally from Coolamon. I knew Shane very well—I played cricket with him—and, as I said, I knew the family of David very well. Those who were left behind continue to be strangled by the evil tentacles of terrorism. They do not have the fortune to have a vague memory of a news article fading into obliviousness; they live with the cost of terrorism each and every day. We all want our freedom, and we're a lucky country, but that luck does not come by chance. We look at some of the atrocities being committed in other nations, and we should be grateful these are scenes which we do not experience generally in our own backyard. Nor do we ever want them to in future. If we do not continue to be vigilant to the threat of terrorism, our nation and our people will become more vulnerable. As we know, the current terrorism threat environment continues to be highly relevant in considering, with this bill, all of the measures contained therein. Australia's national terrorism threat is said to be 'probable'. That is worrying. This means Australia's security agencies' credible intelligence assessment indicates individuals and groups have the intent and the capability to conduct a terrorist act in this country—to wreak havoc, to destroy, to maim and to kill. This bill provides for the continuity of important essential counterterrorism powers to keep Australians safe. After all, that is the first priority of government and of parliament: to protect its people and to preserve life. Such powers are rarely used yet are key powers which are critical and essential, needed by our hardworking and highly professional intelligence and security agencies. May I just place on the record that they are the best of the best. We should be very proud of those people who occupy those very important positions. They ensure the adequate protection of Australia and our nation's security. All powers will continue to be under thorough safeguards and oversight, including by allowing the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to again review the declared area offence, before their sunsetting date. This is important. We need to uphold the sanctity of the people who protect us. We need to continue, particularly in relation to people who are civic leaders, to admire and protect what they represent and what they stand for. There is a senator in the other place, David Shoebridge, who says, 'There's a word for a group of people who routinely break the law: police.' I do not believe Senator David Shoebridge represents what most Australians think, and to hear him talking this morning about all matters integrity just defies logic. We ought not delay this bill. It should be passed as soon as practicable, to give our police and all our protective, security and intelligence agencies all the help they need. We should never decry what our police and those agencies do in the name of freedom, in the name of democracy and in the name of keeping Australia and Australians safe. I commend the bill. 10:53 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest This bill, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill 2022, is very important, given that Australia's national terrorism threat level is 'probable'. This means that there's very credible intelligence, assessed by Australian security agencies, that individuals and groups have the intent and capability to conduct a terrorist act in Australia. This bill will provide for the continuation of key counterterrorism powers that the AFP needs to help keep Australians safe. The AFP do extraordinary work. They are Australia's national policing agency, with a role to protect Australians and Australia's interest from serious criminal threats. In 2021, 411 disruptions were recorded across 22 countries, including three major counterterrorism disruptions. They were involved in drug seizure operations; terrorism investigations; child exploitation operations; working with overseas police in offshore peace, stability and security operations; capacity building; and capability development. We saw, with Operation Ironside, the biggest organised crime operation in the AFP's history, a long-term covert investigation into transnational and serious organised crime groups that were responsible for large drug importations, drug manufacturing and attempts to kill. We need to make sure that the AFP continues to have the powers it needs. As the Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Territories in the previous government, I want to thank the AFP for the work they did during COVID, particularly in supporting the significant efforts applied to keep local people and communities safe in our most remote locations. One of the things I'm proud that we did in government is, through the AFP, establishing the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation. The coalition government established this in 2018 to counter the epidemic of child exploitation, focused on countering online child sexual exploitation—a critical role. The AFP, as we know, are a very efficient, effective and successful organisation. They provide policing in international, national and community environments. They adapt constantly to the latest threats and risks and they worked tirelessly in this space. They're currently working on the Optus data breach. As situations arise, and prior to that, they are constantly at work. There are businesses in my electorate that have been victims of denial-of-service attacks, and I suspect we will see more of this in the future. There are additional cyber and online laws that we introduced while in government. Given that we are heading to 29 September, National Police Remembrance Day, I would also like to acknowledge the police officers who were killed or lost their lives while on duty protecting their community, those who made the ultimate sacrifice, including our AFP officers. There are 808 names on the National Police Memorial here in Canberra, and we show respect and gratitude for all of the officers' courage and sacrifice. Each one is represented by touchstones on that memorial wall. The names of fallen AFP officers are recorded on an honour roll at the AFP Memorial and the National Police Memorial. I'd like to thank every police officer, past and present, for their selfless service to our communities. As first responders, they deal with some of the most horrendous, dangerous and often tragic situations. I also acknowledge that the physical and emotional cost of the work they do can last a lifetime. I want to thank their families as well. I thank the police officers for their dedication to their duty and their compassion for the communities they work in. Our communities right around Australia rely on our police services to provide local law enforcement and to help ensure community safety. While we were in government, our national security agencies, including the AFP, prevented a number of mass casualty terrorist attacks. That's what they do, and often we don't hear about it. They work constantly in this space. The extension of the sunsetting date of the powers in this bill will make sure that the AFP continues to have appropriate powers, the powers they need to respond to terrorist related threats. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Incentivising Pensioners to Downsize) Bill 2022 134

Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Incentivising Pensioners to Downsize) Bill 2022

Second Reading 134 10:59 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence I rise to speak today in support of the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Incentivising Pensioners to Downsize) Bill 2022. This bill is another example of the Albanese Labor government putting legislation before this parliament to fulfil a commitment made to the Australian people before this year's federal election. This bill is one that many, particularly seniors lobby groups, have been crying out for for some time. This bill sensibly aims to reduce the impact and therefore a potential impediment for someone on income support payments thinking of selling one family home and buying a new one without falling foul of the assets test for an increased period of time. Whilst not the only beneficiaries of the provisions in this bill, age pensioners will see significant benefits as a result of these changes, and it goes hand in hand with our government's commitment to support pensioners to live with dignity and ease cost-of-living pressures for them and, indeed, for all Australians, particularly those doing it tough. This bill will benefit around 6,260 age pensioners, 600 disability support pensioners, 380 carer payment recipients and 830 JobSeeker recipients each year, with roughly 60 per cent of those being women. I'm always keen to take an interest in legislation before this place concerning amendments to social security law. My electorate office, like those of many members here in the chamber, naturally receives quite a heavy flow of inquiries relating to social security payments daily. Another possible reason for this case load could be down to the raw numbers—a big reason why this policy area is of great interest to me. My electorate of Spence, according to the latest available data, is in the top third of the 151 electorates for our number of age pension recipients. It is the sixth-highest for carer payment recipients, has the second-highest number of JobSeeker recipients and ranks first for its number of disability support pensioners. It is worth noting from the outset that this bill does not claim or intend to force people to downsize their homes. It is merely to make the decision-making process one goes through with such an undertaking a bit easier, with less time pressure. This bill aims to minimise the barriers one faces when making important life decisions such as this, whether those decisions occur by circumstance or by design. Even without the amendments this bill is introducing, 8,000 pensioners downsized last year. There are many and varied reasons why someone may wish to downsize their home, no matter what stage of life they are at. Many people out there might look to downsize due to all their children leaving the nest, meaning a larger house could now be made available for a larger family that would be able to utilise it. Many choose to downsize simply due to retirement. For some, it is due to an inability to maintain the home or yard, which I know is a cause of great sadness for many people who have spent many hours impeccably maintaining their gardens over several years. Another reason—and this goes to my last point—is the need for some people to literally downsize their home, where mobility issues prevent them from being able to traverse multistorey homes or continue with larger-than-necessary upkeep costs for their homes. Others have more tragic circumstances guiding their decision to downsize, such as losing a spouse, whether that be due to the death of their partner or to the breakdown of their relationship. These are all unfortunate facts of life that can occur no matter what stage of life someone is at. I have not touched on all of them, but the fact remains that, despite one's situation in life or circumstances, this government is eager to make the transition easier and make the process more adaptable to sometimes unavoidable and unforeseen circumstances that might hamper or prolong the process of someone buying or building their new home after sale of their principal home. Despite the long list of reasons which I've mentioned, ultimately the motivations that contribute to someone's decision or need to downsize, whilst important, aren't entirely so for the purposes of the bill. What is important, however, is that, despite what has brought someone to downsize, they needn't risk losing income support payments or their pensions as a result of those circumstances, which I know is a cause of a lot of anxiety for many, especially when these life decisions are more out of necessity than choice. This bill, concisely, has two core goals for people that sell their home from 1 January 2023: (1) to increase the time frame before the proceeds of a sale of a principal home impact an income support payment by way of the assets test; and (2) to apply a lower deeming rate to those proceeds to reduce the chance of an income support payment recipient falling foul of the income test requirements of their payments. Additionally, this bill aims to complement several other changes that this government committed to enact, such as freezing deeming rates for two years and allowing for providing for those 55 and over to make a one-off contribution of up to $300,000 of those proceeds to their superannuation funds. Currently, as things stand, after the sale of your home, the proceeds of that sale are exempt from the income test for a period of up to 12 months. This bill doubles this to 24 months, with the potential for an additional 12 months in certain circumstances. These are some commonsense amendments to the law as it stands. They account for the known unknowns that could happen, whether it be delays on a building or renovations due to development approvals, or builders or tradies going bust or AWOL partway through, just to name a few possibilities. It's the things that you'd rather not happen but that are ultimately outside your control and not something you would want being the sole cause for your income support payments being unduly impacted. After the assets test, the second key issue that this bill aims to address is the income test that many income support payment recipients must abide by. Currently, income above $56,400 for singles and $93,600 for couples, on the proceeds of a sale of a principle home, is deemed at the rate of 2.25 per cent per annum. During the increased exemption period provided for in the bill, the lower deeming threshold of 0.25 per cent will apply to deemed income from these proceeds instead, where it currently applies to deemed income below these thresholds. As a result, this bill will greatly assist many to swim between the flags, so to say, by way of a social security income test and not have their payments slashed or reduced to zero while they continue to make arrangements for the eventual purchase of their principal home or finalise renovations and improvement to it after that purchase. We, of course, cannot ignore what is a clear reason for the introduction of this bill, which is the current state of our housing market. The provisions within the bill better account for significantly higher house prices. This is relevant for the application of both the assets test and the income test. As things currently stand, given the state of our housing market, most of the proceeds of a sale will have income deemed at a higher rate. Many income support payment recipient wouldn't continue to be eligible for their payments due to the assets test thresholds. Though I briefly touched on this a little earlier, whether this is a direct intention or a by-product of this legislation, it will go a long way to increasing the availability in the market of dwellings that are perhaps more suitable to younger or larger families. While this is no silver bullet solution to the problem in its entirety, I'm happy to commend it as an outcome just the same. Lastly, though I was elected to this place recently, I have been proud to see, in action, our government fulfilling its election commitments. I am proud to be part of an Albanese Labor government that moves to support all Australians through challenging economic times in practical ways, whether it be through sweeping measures or by enacting sensible changes to our social security laws, such as this, changes many have called for over many years, which will assist many Australians out there that are about to go through the arduous process of opening an entirely new chapter of their lives.   11:09 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey This initiative contained in the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Incentivising Pensioners to Downsize) Bill 2022 was put forward by the coalition. It was a good initiative then, and it's a good initiative now. Given the tightness of the housing market in Australia, the government should respond in this way, and it gives the lie, somewhat, to the general perception of the public that we always disagree on these matters when we get to federal parliament. While the cooperation of the coalition on this isn't necessary, it's good to see the parties working together. As I said, the housing market in Australia is extremely tight, and any extra resource we can bring to the market at the moment should be welcomed, and assisting pensioners to downsize will assist in this. I do suspect, however, that the housing market in Australia and this crisis—and it's fair to call it a crisis that we're in at the moment—will return more to normal, given time. It was largely caused, I think, by the COVID crisis, and it's worth reflecting on the expert predictions—and I'm given to reflect that, when I was in primary school, we thought 'ex' stood for someone who was a has-been, and a 'spurt' was a drip under pressure. The expert predictions were that the housing market in Australia would crash, due to COVID. It's difficult for governments to always make exactly the right response at the time, given that expert advice. That's not what happened, of course; the housing market in Australia has surged. It was predicted that, because the immigration programs were stalled due to COVID, there would be all this spare capacity in our construction industry and in our housing market. In effect, what happened was that half a million Australians came home because Australia looked like a far better place to live than the rest of the world. The issue was not only that they came home but that they came with cash in their pocket and wanted houses to live in. That's my assessment of what has happened to the housing market. As COVID is put behind us, I think that position will reverse itself. Those people who returned to Australia will probably not suddenly decide to sell up, pack up their bags and move overseas again, but there will be whole a new generation of Australians—we are an adventurous lot—that will seek to spend the next portion of their lives overseas. I think some of this tightness in the market will evaporate over the next few years and, as I said, things will return to normal. We have a shortage now and, indeed, we have a crisis, and anything we can do to encourage owners to rent or lease their second homes and holiday homes may help. Neither party has come up with any initiatives in this area, but it's quite obvious to me, as a member representing a lot of seaside communities, that there is a lot of housing sitting around in Australia. I can understand why people don't rent out these properties, because they've got them for their own personal use, and sometimes the rental market can be difficult. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who have had the experience of being landlords who wished afterwards they had never gone down that pathway. Removing barriers to people downsizing as their peak need for accommodation has passed will encourage people to shift. The member for Spence went through the situations where some families need a larger home and others had their families leave home, so that they no longer needed all that space or wanted that size yard to look after. But shifting real estate can take time, and many cannot, or do not want to, commence the construction of a new building or even the purchase of a new building until they are sure that they can sell their current housing. Consequently, that time of uncertainty between selling a house and buying a new one—which has been limited to a 12-month period before that asset would come into consideration as affecting the pension—has become too short, so it's being extended out to 24 months and then, I think, there can be even a further exemption after that on special application. I suspect that, in itself, this policy will not make thousands of new homes or previously occupied homes available for the general public, but anything we can do to reduce the barriers and disincentives should be welcomed. The fact that we're talking about the exemption of the family home from the assets test for the purpose of the pension means, I think, that it's not a bad time to raise the prospect of whether or not the family home should be exempt, full stop, from that assets test. I suspect that in the long-term no political party in Australia will go to the electorate saying, 'We're going to take away the exemption for the family home from the assets test.' Politics can be divisive, and having just given a good word for our cohesiveness in this place at the beginning of this speech, if one side of politics suggested to remove the exemption for the family home from the assets test, the other side of politics would dig its heels in and probably give it a good clip under the ear. Having said that, should someone who lives in a $5 million or $10 million house be able to draw a pension? I often think these difficult decisions in life are all a matter of grey—not the electorate of Gray, I'll point out. For instance, if someone lives in a $1½ million or a $2 million house, most of us would cut them a break and say, 'Yeah, well, that house has grown in value since they've lived there; they should be given some kind of exemption.' But, if someone lives in a $20 million house, should they be able to draw a pension? They could claim to be penniless and say, 'I'm asset and income poor.' But, of course, there are any amount of financial products on the market now that would allow somebody to unlock the wealth of that house and live in it for the rest of their lives but actually draw down on the value of the asset. Sure, it might affect their children's inheritance, but it would not affect their particular outcomes in life. As I said, that's a difficult subject. I can't see anybody in politics leaping into it. But it is difficult to have sensible debates around taxation and taxation reform in Australia unless we throw all of these things into a melting pot so that they can at least be considered. While I'm on such a theme, there are other big impediments to people downsizing or, indeed, upsizing or to businesses changing premises. They might say: 'My business has grown and I need to get into a bigger premise. I want to get into a more active area where there are more people walking past my shopfront.' Or they might say,' I want to get something smaller.' These are the entrepreneurs and movers and shakers in our society. Yet, anyone who wants to make these changes are then hit with stamp duties from state jurisdictions. There was a time—before my time in this parliament and before your time, Mr Deputy Speaker—when it was proposed that, with the introduction of the GST, we would get rid of state stamp duties. Now, that didn't happen. In getting that legislation through, and with the agreement in those days with the Australian Democrats, the tax was narrowed so that it only covered about 50 per cent of Australian GDP, and then some of those aims were abandoned. If we are considering taxation reform, we should once again find a way for the states to replace that stamp duty collection, because it is really counterproductive. The very people who are taking risks to employ people and expand the economy are the ones who get hit with the tax. For my brothers—once again, I'll stick my neck out here—I would rather see a flat land tax across the states that would not reflect on a particular activity at the time so that income space is borne by the whole community and not just by the people who actually want to do stuff. The most completely illogical way to raise money is to get stuck into the people who do the right thing. It's a bit like payroll tax. I don't think anyone can make a really good argument about the idea that the more people you employ who are over a certain threshold, the more money you should pay in tax. Once again, it's a nonsensical type of tax when it comes to talking about the decisions that need to be made to generate modern economies. In the broader sense—and I'm not recommending any specific here—this parliament and the parliaments around Australia should be discussing how we can remove these artificial impediments to the efficient expansion and growth of business and employment in Australia so that, when a burden should be worn by the whole community rather than just these individuals, it is spread across that whole community. I certainly don't argue that we don't need to raise taxes in Australia. We run a very high level of service not just in our welfare economy but right across our economy. Our education system, our health system, our disability support system—all those things cost money, and are the kinds of thing that a good, civilised, wealthy country should have. Of course, you need taxation to support that, but the very idea that we tax the most productive in the economy on their entrepreneurialship seems to me to be a false economy. Like this disincentive for pensioners to downsize their living arrangements, and like my suggestion that we should be looking at whether or not the family home should be exempt from the pension test, or whether states can find another way to raise that same amount of money that they raise out of stamp duties at the moment—which are counterproductive—all of those things are, I think, things that our parliament should be discussing in a mature and nonpolitically abrasive way, where people seek to take cheap advantage of members trying to put forward ideas and propositions that we should give consideration to. I'll leave this debate with those comments. 11:21 Mr BIRRELL 288713 Nicholls I rise to the support the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Incentivising Pensioners to Downsize) Bill 2022. This bill provides greater financial certainty to senior Australians looking to downsize by extending the existing assets test exemption for principal home sale proceeds which a person intends to use to purchase a new principal home from 12 to 24 months. This extends the time people have to use the proceeds of the sale of their family home to build or purchase their future home. It's a recognition of the realities of the current market where, almost universally, land supply is tight and new builds are impacted by supply chain issues, labour shortages and rising costs. Older Australians have earned the right to make decisions about how they live in retirement, and this legislation ensures they can transition to a more suitable sized home while still being treated as a homeowner for means testing purposes so that they remain eligible for income support payments. The bill extends the existing assets test exemption for principal home sale proceeds which a person intends to use to purchase a new principal home. It's another example of Labor implementing coalition policy, and it doesn't stop there. The value of the home sale proceeds are subject to deeming provisions, so if the sale proceeds were placed in a savings account or in other financial investments, they would generate returns which a person could use to support themselves and be deemed as income. This bill will apply only to the lower below-threshold deeming rate for these assets-test-exempt principal home sale proceeds when calculating deemed income, and this rate will be applied to these proceeds for the duration of the assets test exemption. The legislative framework should not act as a disincentive for older Australians to make personal choices about their retirement lifestyle. Quite rightly, we should incentivise choice and allow people who have worked their whole lives to enjoy the fruits of their labours in retirement. In my electorate of Nicholls there are 35,843 people aged 65 or over, according to the 2021 census. That is 22.5 per cent of the population who are of retirement age or approaching retirement. From the 2016 census to the 2021 census, the percentage of the population of Nicholls who are over 65 rose by one per cent. This is partly because Nicholls is an attractive and affordable place to retire. Whether it's on the shores of Lake Mulwala in Yarrawonga, or on the banks of the mighty Murray River—which is running a bit high at the moment—at Cobram or Echuca, the region has long been a retirement destination. Oasis Village in Cobram, one of the longest-established retirement villages, has 180 homes and over 300 residents. Oasis Homes, which specialises in downsizing, has operated very successfully for 40 years. There are many new entrants into the retirement and lifestyle village sector in Nicholls. Nearly 200,000 Australians call a retirement village home, and the Property Council of Australia, through the Retirement Living Council, has advocated strongly in favour of recalibrating age pension rules to allow pensioners to unlock home equity and downsize if they wish to without their pension being cut. In February 2022 a PwC/Property Council Retirement Census snapshot report presented a positive picture of an industry that has weathered the storm of COVID-19. The report noted higher average occupancy rates and favourable affordability conditions that were a testament to the resilience of the sector, despite the steep economic and social challenges due to the global pandemic. As part of his advocacy, Ben Myers, the Executive Director of the Retirement Living Council, said they were an important part of future housing needs because they support the universal desire of older Australians to stay independent and engaged in the community. Retirement villages are not the only option for seeking a smaller, simpler lifestyle in retirement but they are significant. The 2021 Property Council Retirement Census snapshot includes 62 operators across 766 villages and approximately 77,000 units nationally. Despite an increase of four per cent in the average two-bedroom independent living unit price, from $463,000 to $484,000, between financial year 2020 and financial year 2021, they have, on average, become more affordable, with the average sale price being 55 per cent of the median house price in the same postcode, compared to 67 per cent of the median house price in that postcode in financial year 2020. One of the critical challenges in my electorate is the supply of land and housing stock for homeowners and the rental market. The pandemic caused a shift away from capital cities to the regions, driven mainly by affordability and the availability of more flexible working arrangements. The Nationals love the regions and we welcome new residents with open arms, from all around Australia and all over the world. Regional Australia has an enormous capacity to grow and sustain populations, and we should be encouraging more opportunity for people to move to the regions for work, education or retirement. The Regional Australia Institute, a great organisation, has just released a bold plan to have 500,000 more people living in the regions by 2032 than the current forecast of 10.5 million people. I support this goal and I want to see it happen. But, in order to support growing regional populations, there needs to be a steady and reliable pipeline of investment in regional communities. Now is not the time for this new government to back away from regional funding. Now is the time for renewed investment in regional Australia. This bill deals with a very specific set of measures to support older Australians to sell the family home, downsize and enjoy their retirement without facing financial penalties in the process. The incentive it provides for downsizing needs to be considered in the wider context. As I said earlier, in the electorate of Nicholls the pandemic has led to a shortage of available land for new housing development, a sharp uplift in prices for existing homes, and a depressed supply of rental housing. At the same time, the region is desperate for workers to fill the workforce gaps. We need everyone—we need CEOs, semiskilled workers and unskilled workers. They are needed on our farms and orchards, in our service industries, in our manufacturing industries, in health and aged care, in education and in virtually any setting you care to name. Those workers, if they can be found, also need suitable accommodation. Based on the 2021 Property Council snapshot, the development supply pipeline planned by participating operators of lifestyle and retirement villages has doubled from the 2020 snapshot, from 5,500 dwellings to over 10,500 dwellings for the next three-year forecast period. This is a significant number of dwellings in the pipeline, and nearly all will be filled by people choosing to sell their family home and downsize. Those homes that they sell will add to the available housing stock for purchase or rent and will play a key role in alleviating the problems with supply in Nicholls and in many other parts of Australia. I've experienced this myself, buying a large family home from a family that was downsizing. There's a lot of emotion associated with that too, with an old couple selling their family home and seeing a young family move in to raise their family. The coalition has a strong track record of helping older Australians who want to downsize, freeing up family homes in the market for young families—not only improving supply but impacting affordability. Over the last three years, the coalition government's housing policy supported more than 300,000 Australians with the purchase of a home. The coalition supported almost 60,000 first home buyers and single-parent families into homeownership through the home guarantee schemes, and the coalition provided $2.9 billion worth of low-cost loans to community housing providers to support 15,000 social and affordable dwellings, saving $470 million in interest payments that could be reinvested into more affordable housing, which is another critical need in my electorate and many other electorates as well. The coalition also established the First Home Super Saver Scheme, helping 27,600 first home buyers accelerate their deposit savings through superannuation. In contrast, what we're getting from Labor is the Housing Australia Future Fund, a $10 billion off-budget fund to support a housing program that has no substance and lacks detailed costings and an implementation plan. The target is 30,000 affordable homes over five years, but that would require a rate of return on that investment of 20 per cent annually. I'm not sure what the secret sauce is that the Treasurer has in the cupboard, but 20 per cent returns on investments are not really a reality in the current economic climate, despite the strong economy, including my very strong economy in Nicholls, that this new government inherited from the coalition. Equally, Labor's Help to Buy Scheme is limited in its ambition, and very few Australians would qualify for it let alone want to participate in it. It brings to mind the quote from Darryl Kerrigan in the great Australian movie The Castle: 'Tell him he's dreaming.' The coalition took a comprehensive housing policy to the 2022 election and, if re-elected, we would have established the Super Home Buyer Scheme to allow first home buyers to invest up to 40 per cent of their super, up to a maximum of $50,000, to help with the purchase of their first home. It would have been a great help. We would have given Australians over the age of 55 the ability to invest up to $300,000 per person in their superannuation fund outside of existing contribution caps from the proceeds of selling their primary residence. We would have helped more first home buyers get over that deposit hurdle by raising the number of low-deposit guarantees for first home buyers to 35,000 each financial year. We would have increased the supply of new homes in regional areas by incentivising the purchase of new build homes and providing 10,000 low-deposit guarantees each financial year for those moving to, or within, regional areas. The coalition also supported greater investment in affordable housing with an additional $2 billion in low-cost financing for social and affordable dwellings. Let's go back to The Castle. There's another great line from that wonderful movie where Darryl Kerrigan explains the real value of his house, which is being compulsorily acquired to extend an airport. 'It's not a house; it's a home,' he says. Homeownership remains the great Australian dream, and we know that 85 per cent of renters aspire to own their own home. This bill, by removing disincentives for older Australians to downsize, will allow people to make decisions about their family home without the burden of financial uncertainty and will have positive flow-on effects for the economy, housing availability and affordability and, based on current population shifts, for communities across rural and regional Australia. It's good policy—good coalition policy—and I'm happy to add my voice in support of this bill. 11:33 Mr PIKE 300120 Bowman I acknowledge the member for Nicholls's contribution and his reference to the research undertaken by the Retirement Living Council. During my time as the communications director nationally of the Property Council, the Retirement Living Council did an incredible job in advocating for more housing choice and more opportunities for seniors to downsize and find appropriate accommodation. I acknowledge Ben Myers who is finishing up in, I think, a couple of short weeks as the executive director. He has done a fantastic job and we wish him all the best. The Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Incentivising Pensioners to Downsize) Bill 2022 seeks to remove a couple of key barriers that are preventing Australia's pensioners from downsizing their principal homes, by reducing the impact that selling a home has on their social security means testing. The positive features of this bill, of course, were first devised by the former coalition government, and it was during the last election campaign that the now Prime Minister, the then opposition leader, took the coalition's lead by announcing—one day after the coalition had announced it—that Labor would adopt coalition policy to ease costs for pensioners and, in the process, free up established housing stock. As I make my way around the Redlands, which I'm honoured to represent in this place, I encounter many people who feel they are in a logjam in relation to their housing. I encounter families who are desperate for a family home. They might be in the rental market, and my community is not unique in currently experiencing a rental crisis. There are a lot of local families who are desperate to find that right-sized rental, but it is nearly impossible for them to find that in the current market. Also, there are many families in the Redlands who are looking to buy the right home. Obviously, we've had an affordability issue over recent years. We've had a massive increase in property prices in the Redlands, and that perennial challenge of trying to save a deposit to get that dream home or even just a foot on the ladder of the property market is proving incredibly difficult for many within my electorate. That's of course been exacerbated by the inflation pressures that Australians are facing right across the country. Increased costs of living are just making it that much harder to save that deposit. Of course, rising home prices have not made that easier. And there are rising interest rates as well. Those who have been able to get into the property market are suddenly seeing their interest rates go up significantly, and we're warned that those will continue to rise over the coming months. But, on the other hand, I often find older Redlanders rattling around in a big family home. I undertake a lot of doorknocking in my electorate. There are very big, spacious homes that were once home to multiple children who have all left the family home now, and I find an older couple there who are finding it difficult to maintain their home and want to right-size, but there are obstacles in their way. They want to do that, but they're concerned about the costs, they're concerned about the uncertainty of the market—and it is a very volatile market at the moment—and they're certainly concerned about how this transaction would impact the income support that they receive. We have this perverse situation where these Australians want to downsize, and society needs them to downsize, but they are being artificially prevented from doing so because of the structures of government income support. This bill seeks to remove that key barrier for these pensioners. This is about giving Australians more choice in deciding how they want to live the next stage of their life, as it removes financial barriers for people wanting to downsize their home. This bill amends the Social Security Act 1991 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 to double the automatic asset test exemption period on proceeds from principal home sales from 12 to 24 months. But, critically, it retains the existing option for a further 12-month extension, which may be needed in extenuating circumstances. The bill will also ensure that the lower deeming rate will apply to asset-test-exempt home sale proceeds when assessing income during this extended exemption period. I strongly support doing all we can as a parliament to help alleviate the current housing crisis. As a clear demonstration of the pragmatic approach of the opposition in such matters, I'll put all minor concerns to one side, in deference to the greater good, and support this bill. Firstly, let's consider the extended asset test exemption period. This is a welcome move to protect any income support recipient who is moving between homes from the significant impact that the sale proceeds could have on their payments. Selling a home and purchasing a new one can be a difficult process with many potential delays. Many of my constituents have shared horror stories with me recently about delays. Contracts of purchase on a new property can fall through. There can be market changes which shift the prices dramatically. You may sell your property at a low point and suddenly find the market takes off, and the buying power of the proceeds of the sale, which you thought you'd be able to use to purchase a new home, has been eroded. Many projects at the moment are experiencing building delays. There's a lot of concern around the supply of materials and labour. There are a lot of labour shortages at the moment, and they are taking a toll on the residential construction sector. There are a lot of building delays out there. And, of course, there are just the everyday elements of life that can lead to delays in this process. That can be health concerns. That can be changes in personal circumstances. That can be changes with where people want to live. Grandparents may find that their children and their grandchildren are moving to a different city, and they may want to change their circumstances. There are plenty of things that can delay that process of selling the home that you have lived in for a while and are looking to downsize from. It makes sense to give Australians more time to complete this downsizing transition. This element is greatly welcomed, as is the introduction of a lower deeming rate. Given the high and rising value of most Australian homes, the bulk of the home sale proceeds are often subject to the upper deeming rate, and this significantly impacts on a seller's pension or other payment rates. The measures in this bill will substantially reduce this significant disincentive, by changing the deeming rate used to assess income on principal home sale proceeds. This will help. This will help support older Australians confronted by the challenges of rising prices and soaring costs of living. This will help the next generation to get a foot on the ladder of homeownership, and this will help Australians struggling in the current rental crisis, by providing more investor ownership of dwellings that are suitable for them to rent. It's going to help across the board, and it's going to help all those constituents that I've mentioned earlier in these remarks. The minister noted in her remarks on this bill that there is no silver bullet to fix the housing crisis or the housing market at the moment. I made very similar remarks in my maiden speech earlier this month. Homeownership has long been an intrinsic and admirable feature of Australian society. It's been a national rite of passage. It's been the cornerstone of the Australian family unit and the opportunity for Australians to grow their wealth and achieve authority over their own future. But it's a sad reality that this dream has become less affordable over time for a growing number of Australians. I had a look at some statistics the other day. In1971, 64 per cent of Australians in my age cohort owned their own home. Today that figure has eroded down to only 50 per cent. According to the 2016 census, those aged under 65 are 14 per cent less likely to own their own home than those over 65. This disparity has worsened in the years since 2016. There are many factors that have influenced this change and this intergenerational erosion in affordability. Of course there is no silver bullet—I'll agree with the minister on that—but I do believe that this bill will go some way to achieve a more efficient market, by removing some of the unintended disincentives to downsizing. The Real Estate Institute of Queensland have welcomed the bill and anticipate it will have a positive impact on the current housing crisis. I know they do a lot of analysis, and they wouldn't make a comment like that unless they were absolutely sure of themselves. I think that's a very strong encouragement. This bill, if implemented appropriately, stands to safeguard the financial security of Australian pensioners when downsizing their homes and will lessen the risk of their support payments being cut. As I've mentioned, that's a significant concern for many locals in my electorate. That is one of the main obstacles to their downsizing. They don't want this to impact their payments. They do worry about that. It leads to a significant amount of hesitation. If done right, this bill has the potential to deliver better financial outcomes and peace of mind for those elderly Australians. These provisions may also help to free up established housing for younger families and improve market supply. But I also encourage state and territory governments to consider policy initiatives that will remove further obstacles to downsizing. It's not just concerns about the impact on support payments. There are many other elements of policy across this country that impact on the efficiency of the housing market. I encourage state and territory governments to consider stamp duty incentives and planning relaxations that support smaller age-friendly homes and to support the retirement living sector—I mentioned that earlier—in delivering more product to the market. Have a chat to Ben Myers in his final few days at the Retirement Living Council. He'll have a few ideas for our state and territory colleagues. Much is made in this country of providing first-homebuyer support, and—dare I say it?—it may be time for us to consider some more focus on last-homebuyer support. By removing further barriers for Australians downsizing to residences that better suit their needs and lifestyle, we can help free up larger homes for younger families and achieve a better and more efficient balance in Australia's housing market. This bill is in the best interests of my constituents in the Redlands, and I will support it. But this parliament must remain diligent to ensure that this Labor government will implement this bill exactly as intended. As noted previously, this bill was directly inspired by coalition policy. It was stolen or commandeered by the Labor Party the day after the former coalition government announced it, and I don't have a problem with that. There isn't a monopoly on good ideas in this place, and there certainly aren't intellectual property rights in relation to politics. I commend the government for adopting this policy and seeking to implement it through this bill. It's a policy that will benefit many Australians, including many Redlanders within my community, and I commend the bill to the House. 11:47 Mr HAMILTON 291387 Groom I think it's appropriate to say: what a fantastic contribution from the new member for Bowman! Cometh the hour, cometh the man. This is exactly the type of legislation that you get a good feel for when you undertake the sort of ground-level connection with your community that he has so clearly done. I commend him for his doorknocking campaigns. This is how we get in touch with the people of Australia and really understand their needs. I look forward to many more scintillating contributions from him. In general terms, there are four big points that I think the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Incentivising Pensioners to Downsize) Bill 2022 addresses that are core tenets of why those of us on this side of the House do what we do. Firstly, I think it's unmistakable that this should be viewed within the context of the current housing crisis, which is spread across Australia. As previous speakers have alluded to, there is no silver bullet for solving that crisis, and any step taken towards it must be seen within that broader context. One of the clear challenges that I've seen amongst the good people of Groom is that the housing market as it stands is actually quite limited in the options that it presents to them. Over a period of time, we've seen a growth in very wonderful and attractive four-bedroom, two-bathroom houses that push our suburban horizons out even further. However, unfortunately, these don't present the market with the options that people need. When we talk about downsizing—and this is clearly a need within our community—moving out to a four-bedroom, two-bathroom house further away from the city centre provides no benefit to people in their older age who want to have the support, the comforts and the services around them to be able to live their lives in confidence. As part of that, it talks to the need for efficient markets—of course, that wonderful view that markets make their best decisions when they are presented with the most options. This bill very much plays a part in the broader solution that must be provided to the housing crisis: providing more options to the market, particularly to those who are looking to downsize and particularly to those in regional centres to whom the idea of medium-density housing simply hasn't been provided before. I think it also must be viewed within the framework of two principles that the LNP hold dear: the right to private property and the absolute value of reward for effort. We must recognise that, when providing these solutions, we must maintain respect for the work that people seeking to downsize have done. They have invested and have built for themselves an ability to have a roof over their heads. This is to be commended in them, and they are to be supported. Whatever steps we take, we must make sure that we are not detracting from their efforts and are not, in their later years, reducing the reward that they should be seeking from a lifetime of contribution. I think the final generalised theme is that of what the role of government is. The previous speaker brought this up. One of the great parts of this bill is that, when enacted, it will remove a barrier that currently exists. It's a barrier that makes it very hard for the decision to downsize to be taken. I think a very important role of government is, where possible, to seek and remove barriers to good decision-making. This speaks to the efficient market idea I spoke on previously. But, within those frameworks, I very much support this bill to amend the Social Security Act 1991 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 to support pensioners and other eligible income support recipients during the sale and purchase of a new home. I do so because this builds on a body of work, begun while the coalition was in government, to give older Australians greater options and flexibility when it comes to downsizing. The sale of the family home can often be a large financial and emotional undertaking. It is often people's biggest asset, along with being the place where they have raised their kids. It's right that we give older Australians the time and the space to transition to a property of their choosing without penalising them financially. I think it's important to acknowledge the concerns of local residents who I've spoken to during my time doorknocking, particularly in some of the inner suburbs of Toowoomba, where exactly these conditions that I've described exist. People have bought a home some 30 years ago and raised their children in it. It is not just a possession; it's part of their life story and something of emotional consequence to them. There is a fear that any step taken to persuade them to downsize may be to their detriment. I think it's important that we address that and be very clear that this bill is cognisant of those fears and is purely focused on providing more options. I also speak in support of this bill today because it legislates a commitment that the coalition brought to the last election as part of our comprehensive housing policy. That suite of policies was created in the light of certain economic pressures that existed then, many of which continue or have changed—in some cases growing worse, sadly. It was also created in the light of the role that certain domestic policy settings across all three levels of government have played in creating the housing crisis that currently exists. I absolutely agree with the point that there is no silver bullet, but we must be able to look back and see why we are in the position we're in. There are roles that local, state and federal government have played in creating this, and I think that, by providing the option to downsize, we are addressing those on an even keel. We are committed to extending from 12 to 24 months the existing asset test exemption for principal home sale proceeds which a person intends to use to purchase a new principal home. A further 12-month extension will continue to be available on a case-by-case basis in extenuating circumstances. I do point out the difficulties that exist in the housing market and how quickly houses are moving off market—sometimes not even being sold on market but moving quicker than someone can find one. So there is a significant advantage in increasing that period of time, allowing people more confidence that this will take place. This commitment was to give seniors who are selling in the current property market greater confidence to downsize into something more suitable, while providing greatest confidence and certainty in their financial planning. As the Governor of the RBA has pointed out many times, confidence is going to be a key aspect of our success in negotiating the choppy waters that are ahead. The coalition government also committed to ensuring a fair deeming rate by announcing a freeze on deeming rates at the current rates for two years. The coalition announced that the lower deeming rate would be frozen at 0.25 per cent, with an upper deeming rate at 2.25 per cent. This measure would see around 890,000 Australian having greater certainty about their fortnightly social security payments. This would benefit 450,000 age pensioners and around the same number of payment recipients with financial assets who are affected by deeming rates. This bill is just another example, as the previous speaker, the member for Bowman, said, of Labor adopting very sensible coalition policies. The old expression is 'There is no plagiarism in politics'. Well, this is an absolutely clear case of plagiarism, but we accepted fully as the greatest form of flattery there is. As I mentioned, these common-sense changes built on the coalition's strong track record of helping older Australians to downsize. In the 2017-18 budget, the coalition government first announced that those aged 65 or over could make a non-concessional contribution of up to $300,000 from the proceeds of selling their home into superannuation from 1 July 2018. With the benefit of hindsight, that was a very sensible measure that we are very lucky to be able to build upon here and now. The coalition further enhanced this measure by reducing the eligibility age for making downsizer contributions into superannuation from 65 to 60 years of age. And then, at the last federal election, the coalition announced that, from 1 July 2022, eligibility would be reduced to 55 years of age, further increasing the opportunity for older Australians to downsize—another policy that is now on Labor's books. There may be some in this chamber who are closer to that age bracket than I am, and I acknowledge their tenure and fantastic service. But it is important to see that this is a growing need. The people who need this help are a growing group within our community. This is not something that is going away. This is not a problem that is reducing in the immediate or medium term. This is a growing concern for us, hence the actions that the previous government took. There was a fantastic uptake of this initiative, and a great boost to the super savings of older Australians. From 1 July 2018, when it started, to the end of January 2022, under the coalition, 36,800 individuals contributed $8.9 billion to their superannuation under this measure. This is a clear demonstration that, when good policy is developed and enacted, Australia responds. I think a clear sign of having good policy in place is that we get the rewards we want. This is not about numbers on a page, but rather that people who needed this support, people who needed this help, have taken up the option and now are in a better situation. They now have greater super savings in place. They are better positioned to weather the coming storms. This support for downsizers has also unlocked a stock of family homes for younger people. Whilst the focus of many of the previous speakers' comments have been on how we help older Australians downsize, the other side of that is what it does for younger Australians. It allows them a broader property market to look into. With empty-nesters moving into smaller homes or apartments that better suit their future needs, it means that more four-bedroom, two-bathroom homes in the suburbs of Toowoomba, Oakey and Pittsworth are now available for first home buyers. I was surprised to find advocates for this kind of housing transition in our local school principals. That's because there are a number of local state primary schools in my electorate who have had to completely ditch their catchment areas, despite having been put some 30 years ago in thriving hubs of young families. The kids have grown up and gone, and the houses still remain in the ownership of the parents. Unfortunately, these school catchment areas now have no kids in them to bring into the schools, so they're having to open enrolments across the city. Instead of suburbs like Centenary Heights, Middle Ridge, Wilsonton or Harristown being full of school-age children, families are now more likely to be found in the newly built developments in Glenvale or Kearneys Spring. Whilst those are fantastic suburbs for people to be investing in and raising their children in—they're large spacious blocks, with beautiful crisp, clean Darling Downs air—there aren't the facilities around them that families need on hand. The schools aren't there. The pharmacies and the shops aren't there as yet. So, whilst there is great future value in these suburbs, what's important is that families are growing up without those services around them that they need. And, where those services do exist, they currently aren't supported by the population that they require. We can't expect that everyone will want to move into an over-50s lifestyle village, of which we have an abundant and wonderful selection, or even out into the conveniently located suburbs. This is why I've been such a passionate advocate in my local area of the Railway Parklands project, the funding for which I was very proud to fight for and secure under the South East Queensland City Deal. This is a fantastic project that provides the opportunity for mixed-use—commercial and residential—medium-density housing right in the heart of Toowoomba's CBD. It's a fantastic opportunity for people who want to downsize and who want to take the opportunity of this exact bill to find for themselves a place where they can downsize, a place that they can live, right in the heart of Toowoomba's CBD. There's of course the other benefit that goes with this, which is what it will do for local shop owners, who are tremendous advocates for us opening up this housing in the CBD. This means more foot traffic for our local businesses, and—as the member for Riverina knows well—regional towns require that foot traffic. We want to keep our thriving CBDs going along. I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T I note that the member for Groom's comments about age came perilously close to reflecting on the chair! 12:02 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to make some brief comments on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Incentivising Pensioners to Downsize) Bill 2022, and I appreciate the opportunity to briefly contribute on this bill. This is another measure that the coalition announced in the election campaign, and, after we had announced this, the now government indicated that they would match it. So here we are, implementing another coalition election commitment. This does need to be taken within the context of some other important measures which we've also had the chance to legislate recently—in particular, the reduction in the age eligibility for people to put proceeds from the sale of their home into their superannuation. As well as doing things to make it easier for future superannuants to provision for their retirement through the sale of a family home, we should equally be looking for an opportunity, which we have through this legislation, to do something for those that will be on the age pension. As many speakers have indicated, there are two elements here. We're extending the period of time that the proceeds of the sale of a home will not impact, from an asset point of view, on eligibility for the pension. We're also applying the lower deeming rate to the value of the sale proceeds for that same period of time. In the last parliament, I served on a parliamentary committee which looked at housing affordability. There are an enormous number of challenges regarding housing affordability, and this by no means is any form of silver bullet. Unfortunately, the most significant challenges are not within the power of the Commonwealth government. The state and local governments have got a lot of work to do there and a lot of things they need to look at, but I won't digress into that report. It's freely available for those interested to look at some of the findings there. This is an equity measure to give pensioners more of a grace period, so there is less pressure on them around making a decision to sell a family home, probably, and then looking for something more appropriate for the stage of their lives that they are in. It means that they will be able to commit to purchasing a new property without the undue pressure caused by the fear of not being able to do so within a 12-month period, which would result in eligibility issues in regard to their pension. That is self-evident in the extension of time from 12 months to 24 months Of course, we think it's a good outcome. It's entirely voluntary. We're in no way seeking to force people to make a decision to sell a family home. But, if a family home is not necessary for the stage of life they are in and if we can make it easier for them to voluntarily make that decision, then we of course want to do that. We want to encourage them to do that, because, hopefully, it will provide that little bit of extra supply in the market. We do know that it is particularly challenging for people who are looking for family homes to get into the property market at the moment and buy a home that's suitable for them. They are entering a completely different stage of their life. They're starting a family, and the type of home that's suitable for them could be exactly the type of home that may no longer be suitable for people who have just gone onto the age pension, or are about to go onto it. Potentially, we can marry up the supply and demand a little better through measures like this. I made similar comments on a previous bill related to superannuation that went through, and I won't repeat myself on this bill. We want this to be voluntary and we want decision-making to still be in the hands of people who have a property that would be eligible under this legislation, as it would under the superannuation legislation. Nonetheless I think this is really sensible policy that is all about choice. It's all about taking away any concern or pressure people might feel if they were considering selling a property but have a hesitation because of the potential risk to their pension. This, I hope, in certain cases will alleviate some of that concern. It will provide ease of decision-making for people selling a property by taking away the anxiety associated with the fear of not being able to purchase another one, by providing a time frame that is more comfortable for them. With that brief contribution, I commend the bill to the House. 12:07 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina The other day, Robert Gottliebsen, the respected economy writer and former Australian journalist of the year, started a sentence in his regular column in the Australian thus: 'The building industry as in crisis, with vast segments completing fixed-price contracts at huge losses.' And he's right. It is a worrying situation, and I want to make a few wide-ranging comments in relation to the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Incentivising Pensioners to Downsize) Bill 2022—not just in relation to this motion, which the opposition supports, but in relation to particulars across the regional economy, the housing market and other factors which have made this particular bill so important. Again, I emphasise that the opposition supports this bill. Recently, Metricon announced that it was in trouble, and I appreciate that parliamentarians and business leaders have held crisis meetings behind closed doors to work out a plan for the future of this major home builder. Metricon wasn't the first—and won't be the last—in this current environment to feel the effects of a downturn. COVID-19 didn't help. In fact, it created all sorts of dramas for supply chains, in terms of accessing timber, metal, joints, concrete—you name it. And what happened in that regard was that many building companies, many construction firms, had contracts in place with customers, customers like Irna Miller from Victoria, and then prices ballooned out. It was not the fault of the customer; it was not the fault of anyone, really. People expected to have their houses constructed in a timely fashion, on budget and on time, and then the price soared because of difficulties sourcing materials and labour. Ms Miller's family have been living in a rental while waiting for construction to begin on their new home in Kyneton. She's just one of a number of people caught up in this impending housing crisis. And particularly in regional Australia, it is of great difficulty for housing companies not only to source materials but also to source people who can build houses. I regularly speak with the Regional Australia Institute's Kim Houghton, whose last advice to me said that job vacancies—and this was late August—hit a new record for regions at 86,900. He said, 'It's plateauing but refusing to go down.' The previous advice from 27 May was 86,400, so it had gone up 500 in the intervening period, and unemployment ranged from nearly eight per cent in New England to 2.7 per cent in Riverina and under 1.5 per cent in Warrnambool. He said that splitting means responses must be tailored, and better skills mean more enterprise in high regions and more workers in low regions. I understand that. What does that have to do with this particular legislation? We want to see more people in homes. We know that 85 per cent of renters aspire to own their own home. I can remember when Catherine and I were first married in 1986. We were paying anywhere between 18 and 21 per cent on our mortgage. If they were paying that now there'd be rioting in the streets. While I appreciate that it is very hard, because rates have been very, very low—and I don't point the finger of blame anywhere near Dr Philip Lowe, who, in some sectors of the media, has been unfairly criticised for conditions that are global, worldwide—Australia can't be isolated from what happens overseas. Economic conditions that happen elsewhere affect our country. We live in a global village. We operate in trading markets that are worldwide and, if there is a problem sourcing equipment to build houses in Australia, you can probably guarantee there our problems sourcing equipment to build houses elsewhere. If the economy elsewhere is faltering and Australia follows that trend, that can hardly be the fault of the Reserve Bank Governor. Homeownership offers security and stability for individuals and families. The coalition government had a good record with housing policies. We supported 300,000 Australians with the purchase of a home. That's a high figure. We understand that owning your own home is important to the living standards enjoyed by retired Australians, and retired Australians should have the very best of conditions. They've worked hard, paid their taxes and contributed to the economy and to society mightily over many years. When they come to the age and to the stage when they should be kicking back a bit and enjoying life in the sunshine, they don't want to have economic conditions such that they can't afford to either rent or home their own home. The coalition supported almost 60,000 first home buyers and single-parent families into homeownership through home guarantee schemes, consisting of the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme, the New Home Guarantee and the Family Home Guarantee, with a deposit of as little as five per cent or two per cent respectively. I commend the work that former minister Sukkar did in this regard. We protected the residential construction industry, with more than 137,000 HomeBuilder applications, generating $120 billion of economic activity. It was so important getting people back on the tools at a time when COVID-19 was having such a disastrous effect on the economy generally. Despite that, we then saw the supply chain difficulties that have led to Metricon and others having such difficulties. We provided $2.9 billion of low-cost loans to community housing providers, to support 15,000 social and affordable dwellings. This saved $470 million in interest payments, to be reinvested in more affordable housing. There's a lot of criticism, often, of the federal tier of government about housing. We play our part. All too often in this day and age, too much is expected of the Commonwealth to do the heavy lift when it comes to any area of endeavour in the economy, in society. The states sometimes get a free ride in this regard. Housing is one of those things—affordable housing, community housing, social housing. All too often what once was the remit of state governments becomes a burden that we need to carry. I'm not saying 'we' as the coalition; I'm saying 'we' as a level of government. State governments can do more of the heavy lift, I feel, in regard to housing, just as local governments can certainly do more in the area of opening up new subdivisions. The trickle-out effect of subdivisions in local government areas also has a great impact on young people trying to get into their first home and on older people. We heard the member for Groom tell us about suburbs which 30 years ago were flourishing new-family suburbs. The people have stayed and their children have grown up, become adults and left to seek out their own lives. What happens then, as he so eloquently described, is that the schools find it difficult to have the numbers in those suburbs. I know these sorts of areas in my home town. Turvey Park and Mount Austin, to the south of the central business district of Wagga, are two suburbs like the suburbs that the member for Groom described in his home city of Toowoomba. You can see it also reflected in the football results. Once upon a time these suburbs had flourishing new football clubs which did so well, and now they often find it difficult to recruit players, because the players are coming from the newer suburbs in town, where the younger people are coming through, young adolescents who are seeking sport and seeking adventure. Whilst in government, we also unlocked 6,900 social, affordable and market dwellings through our $1 billion infrastructure facility to make housing supply more responsive and demand-driven. We established the First Home Super Saver Scheme, helping 27,600 first home buyers accelerate their deposit savings through super. We did a lot in this space. As I say, we support this bill before the House. We support these amendments. The bill amends the Social Security Act 1991 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 to support pensioners or other eligible income support recipients during the sale and purchase of a new home. It does this by extending the existing assets test exemption for principal home sale proceeds which a person intends to use to purchase a new principal home from 12 to 24 months, as well as by applying only the lower below threshold deeming rate to these asset-test-exempt principal home sale proceeds when calculating deemed income. It's important that this will help older Australians and veterans. Anything that we can do to support pensioners and veterans in finding rental properties, in finding homes, and to incentivise them to downsize from the homes that they own has to be encouraged. As a good and practical opposition, we support good and practical measures. When we were in government, those opposite, now in government, all too often found fault with everything we did—just to be difficult, just to be flies in the ointment, just to make it look to the Australian public as though we were terrible as a government. Yet, as I described so accurately, we took all those measures to put people into their first homes, to help pensioners, to support veterans. There was the work that we did in infrastructure, the work that we did in the regions to help the economy of the regions, where often the receipts to the Australian tax office are far in excess of the support that those regions get by way of funding. All that's about to come unstuck, I think, in the October fiscal report, the budget that the Treasurer, the member for Rankin, is about to bring down. It is a concern. But we supported all of those areas I mentioned—pensioners, veterans, regions—and we will continue to do it. If the government comes forward with practical ideas, sensible ideas, proactive ideas, productive ideas, we will support them, unlike those opposite when they were in opposition. Everything that we did, they tried to stymie. Everything that we did, they tried to provide a roadblock. Everything that we did, they put parameters up to argue the case against it. Currently, an income support recipient's principal home is exempt from the social security assets test. This bill extends the existing assets test exemption for principal home sale proceeds, when a person intends to use those proceeds to purchase a new principal home, from a year to two years. We support this. The value of home sale proceeds is subject to deeming provisions. If proceeds were placed in a savings account or in other financial investments, they would generate returns which a person could use to support themselves. We want more people in homes. We want more people with the opportunity to be their best selves. That is why, as a constructive opposition, we do support this bill. We do support these measures. We want to see Australians get ahead. We want to see Australians with a roof over their heads. We want to see pensioners with the very best ability to use the finances that they've built up, their nest eggs that they value and that they need for the rest of their lives.   12:22 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes I rise to give support to the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Incentivising Pensioners to Downsize) Bill 2022. I've spoken in this place multiple times now about the current housing crisis, and I'm passionate about increasing affordable housing opportunities for all Australians, whether they be families, single parents or young couples. Most of my professional career before entering parliament was geared towards how local and state government planning laws and policies can be used to provide housing choice, housing supply, for end users, both potential homeowners and tenants. The federal government also has an important role to play and can address affordable housing problems. This bill demonstrates one of those ways. If enacted, the bill will benefit both potential new home buyers and current home-owning pensioners and other income support recipients. This legislation will support pensioners during the sale and purchase of a new home, by extending the existing assets test exemption for principal home sale proceeds which a person intends to use to purchase a new principal home from 12 months to 24 months. The bill will change both the Social Security Act and the Veterans' Entitlements Act. This means that this bill will support both our pensioners and our veterans. Home sale proceeds are currently subject to deeming provisions, with a lower deeming rate of 0.25 applied to the value of financial assets up to a deeming threshold of $56,400 for singles and $93,600 for couples, combined. However, for assets above these thresholds, a deeming rate of 2.25 per cent currently applies. The legislation, if enacted, will also begin to apply on the lower threshold deeming rate of 0.25 per cent to assets which are the proceeds from the sale of a home. Having regard to our current housing affordability crisis, we in this parliament must do all that we can to remove barriers of entry to the housing market. This means that we must increase the supply of available homes on the market. We must increase the variety of choice for new homebuyers. We must be innovative in the ways that we approach and address the housing supply and housing affordability issues currently facing Australians. This bill, if enacted, will provide some answers and assistance to these people. We know that 85 per cent of renters aspire to own their own home, and this has always been part of the great Australian dream. A home is not just a financial investment; it is also an investment in the family. It is an investment in the local community. Homeownership provides security. Homeownership provides a sense of place. Homeownership provides financial stability. Understandably, as a core tenet of being Australian, families want to grow in a home which they know they can call their own. Owning your own home allows families the flexibility to make renovations, to paint walls and to hang picture frames. As a parent, in many ways I dread my children growing up and moving out of the home, although, as a parent currently of 16-year-old teenagers, some days I think that day will not come soon enough! It is, however, an unfortunate, unavoidable part of the circle of life that children must leave the nest and find their own independence. When this happens, the once-full family home becomes much larger and emptier. Although a home that you've worked your whole life to pay off is an emotional attachment, it is often no longer necessary for a retiring couple to continue living in a large home, often also with a very large outdoor garden. Indeed, it can become a burden, particularly into older age. As families transition into a well-earned retirement and begin to rely on an age pension or other income support, it becomes a question of whether or not it is worthwhile to sell the principal home, an asset which they have spent their whole life paying off. Many of these couples might otherwise consider downsizing into a smaller, more manageable property. However, there might currently be a disincentive for these couples to downsize into a property which, although smaller, could also have a much lower value than their original property, leaving a couple with a cash surplus which will affect their ability to receive the age pension. Currently, the existing arrangements allow an exemption on the proceeds of the sale of a home for up to 12 months, so long as the person still intends to use the proceeds to purchase, build, repair or renovate a new principal home. This bill extends, from 12 to 24 months, the assets test exemption for principal home sale proceeds which a person intends to use to purchase a new principal home. That 12-month extenuating circumstance will be available on a case-by-case basis. Whilst this is currently a government bill, this was a coalition policy promised at the last election. The coalition firmly believes in reducing the cost of living and adopted this policy to give seniors and also veterans who are selling in the current property market greater confidence to downsize into something more suitable. This then provides greater confidence and certainty for their future financial planning. The coalition estimates that, as a result of these measures, around 890,000 Australians will now have greater certainty in their fortnightly social security payments. On our estimates, this benefits 450,000 age pensioners and 440,000 recipients of other payments with financial asset tests. The coalition has a strong track record helping older Australians who want to downsize, freeing up family homes in the market for younger families. Evidence of this track record was a major change in the budget of 2017-18, where the coalition government first announced that those aged 65 or over could use up to $300,000 from the proceeds of selling their home to make a non-concessional contribution into superannuation. Under this measure, more than 36,000 individuals have contributed a cumulative total of $8.9 billion to their superannuation. Earlier this year, the coalition further enhanced this measure by reducing the eligibility age for making downsizing contributions into superannuation from 65 to 60 years of age. This is providing far more flexibility for people as they are financially planning their future. During the recent federal election, the coalition announced that, from 1 July 2022, eligibility will be reduced to 55 years, further increasing the opportunity for older Australians to downsize. This is now a policy which the Labor government has adopted. The coalition has also supported almost 60,000 first home buyers and single-parent families into homeownership through the First Home Loan Deposit scheme, the New Home Guarantee and the Family Home Guarantee. The New Home Guarantee allowed prospective homeowners to purchase a home with a deposit of as little as five per cent, and the Family Home Guarantee allowed prospective homeowners to purchase a home with a deposit of as little as two per cent. If re-elected, the coalition would have established the Super Home Buyer scheme, allowing first home buyers to invest up to 40 per cent of their superannuation, to a maximum of $50,000, to help with the purchase of their first home. To conclude, I have now spoken on a number of occasions about housing affordability, housing supply issues and providing better choice for Australians. For all of the reasons mentioned, I congratulate the Labor government for adopting this excellent initiative of the coalition, and I reaffirm my support for this bill. 12:32 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I've got a couple of problems with this bill, the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Incentivising Pensions to Downsize) Bill 2022, but one is: so much to say, so little time. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you have probably heard me speak about in this place many times, I'm an ex-chippie. I am, proudly, an ex-carpenter and joiner. I still hold my builders licence, although I have to say that after the last six years I've been getting a little bit soft. The housing and construction sector is incredibly important to me and to the lives of all Australians, and we support this bill. This is a commonsense bill which will provide greater certainty to many Australians who are pensioners. It is a bill which follows on from the fantastic work that the coalition government has been doing in relation to the provision of housing over the last six years. I'll foreshadow that I am so passionate about this area that I may even ask for an extension of time for my speech. This bill amends the Social Security Act 1991 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 to support pensioners and, indeed, other eligible income support recipients during the sale and purchase of a home. Basically, it will extend from 12 to 24 months the existing assets test exemption for proceeds from the sale of a principal place of residence where a person intends to use those proceeds to purchase a new principal home. It will also apply only the lower below-threshold deeming rate to these asset-test-exempt principal home sale proceeds when calculating the deemed income. Why is that important? Well, we are going through a housing crisis in this country right now, despite the absolutely outstanding work that has been done by the former assistant Treasurer—and he has done absolutely outstanding work. He has provided a legislative opportunity for thousands of Australians, who would otherwise not have been able to buy a home, through such programs as HomeBuilder, the First Home Super Saver scheme and other schemes. We know that, particularly, single parents, who just haven't been able to save a deposit, have been able to get out of the rent race with as little as a two per cent deposit and in some cases a five per cent deposit. We know that one of the greatest impediments to homeownership in this country is people's ability to be able to save enough money for a deposit. In the heady days of not so long ago, where we saw ever-increasing house prices, people simply couldn't afford to keep up with their savings to be able to save a deposit to buy a home. To the coalition government's credit, but particularly to the former assistant Treasurer's credit, these various schemes were devised to get people out of the rent race and into homes. That's what this coalition is all about, going back to Menzies's days. We are unashamedly pro-homeownership. Homeownership is not just an asset. It's not just something that you can buy and sell. More importantly, homeownership gives you security, it gives you comfort and it gives you a roof over your head. It's more than just one of the principle requirements or human needs of food, water and a roof over your head; it provides a home to Australians. I'm a big believer in homeownership—that probably won't come as any great surprise, as I'm an ex-builder—because it provides that security to families. One of the best things that this bill will provide is an incentive to people whose lives have changed because the kids have left the home. I've been in that situation—we've got four daughters, three of whom have departed the nest. We once had a five-bedroom home and we no longer have a home that size. Families do decrease the size of the home as the circumstances change. But I do have a very significant problem with the explanatory memoranda of this bill, which talks about the bill being able to assist older Australians, who are said to be 55 and older. I'm not quite there yet—I'm 54. An honourable member interjecting— Mr WALLACE 265967 No, I'm not a lot older, I'm only 54. I'm a spring chicken! I say that with jest. In all seriousness, this bill—and we support it for this reason—will provide an incentive for older Australians to be able to downsize their home, move into a smaller home, perhaps, and free up those larger family homes for families. We know that, despite the great work that the former Assistant Treasurer has done over the last six years with all of the programs and all of the incentives that we have provided, there is still a massive shortfall in housing in this country. It doesn't matter where you go or what state you're in. We're all saying the same thing. Master Builders are constantly saying we are not building enough homes, and it is very clear that that is the case, because of the number of people. In my home state of Queensland, particularly around the Sunshine Coast, we have a vacancy rate somewhere around 0.2 per cent. We have people who are working and have good jobs but simply can't rent a house. They just can't find a house. This is particularly so for families. So this bill will not only assist and provide a greater degree of certainty to older Australians—people over age 55, apparently, so you'd be right— Mr Broadbent MT4 Just make it! Mr WALLACE 265967 Just make it! But it will also provide much-needed opportunities for younger Australians. It will free up, to some extent, and help add supply of family homes to the market, which is a very good thing. I've spoken about what's happening on the Sunshine Coast at the moment, and it is dire. That's despite the previous government having done things like providing some $2.1 billion to community housing providers. The parties now in opposition, when they were in government, not only took their obligations to homeowners very seriously but also took seriously their obligations to those people who are less well off—those people who can't afford to own their own home at this point in time and may not be able to afford a private rental. This coalition, when we were in government, provided some $2.1 billion to community housing providers to build or to refinance their existing loans and to help people get into a subsidised rental home. I did an inquiry in relation to this in the last parliament. Community housing providers provide a sensational service to the Australian people—far better, in my view, than traditional state public housing. State public housing has a very, very long list. In Queensland, it takes years and years and years to get a home if you are on the waiting list for a public house. But, when you finally get that house in public housing, you get a roof over your head. Community housing providers provide so much more. Community housing providers effectively want to put themselves out of a job. Community housing providers like—I'll come back to it in a minute. My mind's gone blank. But community housing providers want to look not only at providing a roof over your head but at why you are in need of assistance in the first place and how they can help you get out of community housing and into private rental, for example, and maybe even into homeownership. That is far and away better than what public housing under states and territories provides. To be able to assist a family to get out of some form of community housing and into the private rental market or homeownership is a very worthy and much-needed objective, and the parties now in opposition, when we were in government, were working hand in glove with the community housing sector. But, more than that, when we were in government, we were providing over $4 billion a year in Commonwealth rent assistance. Members opposite pilloried the coalition when we were in government about not doing enough to help people in their time of need in relation to housing. We were spending billions of dollars in helping people with their rent. The whole concept of Commonwealth Rent Assistance was that the Commonwealth would provide approximately 30 per cent of the cost of rental housing. As we've seen in the last couple of years, rents have gone through the roof, and that 30 per cent figure is probably inaccurate now. But it is absolutely false to say that, when we were in government, the coalition was not pulling its weight in relation to housing. This bill is very important in providing greater certainty and security to pensioners and veterans, increasing the assets test exemption from 12 months to 24 months. It really does build on the great work of the previous coalition government. The measure will see around 890,000 Australians have greater certainty in their fortnightly social security payments. This will benefit 450,000 age pensioners and 440,000 other payment recipients with financial assets affected by deeming rates. As I've indicated previously, the coalition worked assiduously in assisting people with housing. I've talked about the end user, but what I haven't talked about is the construction sector itself. The construction sector is worth about eight per cent of GDP in this country. It employs over a million Australians. In about June 2020, the construction sector faced an economic cliff, and a lot of my friends and colleagues in the building industry were saying how dire things were becoming. But the coalition government heard their pleas and acted with the various programs that I've talked about. When we were in government, we continued to work with the construction sector. We provided jobs and security to the people in need as a result of COVID, and that benefit is in addition to the work we've done in relation to homeownership. I support this bill with great gusto. 12:48 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash This bill, the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Incentivising Pensioners to Downsize) Bill 2022, greatly benefits those people who might like to downsize—mostly older Australians over 55, although that age has been introduced just in the last few months. When you're downsizing, you might be downsizing into a brand-new home, and it may take longer than 12 months to get the permits and have it built. This bill extends the time in which the proceeds from the former house may be set aside from all the other assets and considerations in regard to deeming and social security benefits and payments. This money in the home, in the principal private residence, would not affect social security benefits. But, as an amount of money in a bank, waiting to be spent, it would affect those entitlements. What the government is doing here is extending, from 12 months to 24 months, the time that money can be set aside before it is included in the process of computing a social security benefit. Also, only the lower below-threshold deeming rate will be applied to the asset-test-exempt principal home sale proceeds when calculating deemed income. So this applies not only to a person's social security benefit but also to their deemed income. Your existing home may be a large home with a large garden. You may be older and it may be time to move out of that residence and offer it to a family. The great benefit here is that, as part of these arrangements, when you sell your existing home, you can actually take $300,000 of the money that has been accorded to you on the sale of the residence and put that directly into non-concessional super. That is a huge benefit, over and above downsizing and moving to a new premises. That measure was the 2017-18 budget. I actually know of people who have used that benefit from the sale of their home and moved $300,000 into their super, which is a great long-term benefit for them and, broadly, their family. This bill is one of the many benefits governments have given people in relation to the family home and to benefiting themselves in later years. We in the previous government recognised that changes could be made, moving eligibility for this from 60 years of age down to 55 years of age. I hope those who are around that age don't see themselves as older people but rather see this as an opportunity. I'm sure governments would have sat down—and, Deputy Speaker Stevens, you'd know about this exactly because of your background—and said, 'How can we encourage people to open up the housing market?' You'd look at every aspect of the housing market and say, 'What can a federal government do to make some changes that may inspire people to do something they wouldn't otherwise do?' Since the end of the Second World War, the ownership of a home was the basis of the family unit. The great dream was not to have the ute and the caravan and the boat out the back, or the holiday house down at Portsea—Portsea is not a good example; I'd better go for Lang Lang Beach or something like that. The great dream was to own your own home, to come from war-torn Europe to Australia with practically nothing in your pocket and say, 'A great achievement for us would be to own our own home.' It was taken for granted by many Australians for many years. We're faced with a totally different situation now. So, over the last 10 or 15 years, governments have been saying: 'Housing affordability is an issue. How can we make a change to our policies that will encourage older Australians to either downsize or take the opportunity to open up their properties for younger Australians with families to buy?' That is outside of building social housing ourselves, which we do anyway. It is something that the market can do, because you're going to say, 'Here's an opportunity for us.' Your accountant may draw it to your attention. The government may draw it to your attention. You might be struggling a bit in your household. I am on a few acres, and that is becoming quite a bit of work for me. It was fine when I was 20 and created the garden. But now I'm just over 20—I'm 71—and these things play a part in how you are able to handle your household. Our baby boomers, people born just after the war, and those in the years following have created homes on beautiful blocks right across Australia—in Adelaide, Perth and Melbourne; in Wangaratta, Bendigo, Ballarat and all of our regional centres; in our beautiful Sydney and Brisbane and even up to Cairns. They are wonderful homes but not necessarily the appropriate homes now. One of the biggest cohorts of people within the Australian community that are at risk of becoming homeless is actually women over the age of 55. That's an indictment of us. It's about the type of housing that they might need. You don't want somebody who is at risk of homelessness going into a place with four or five bedrooms and a garden. I think there's an opportunity for us to consider that very carefully. There was a report put out only very recently about the design of future housing for that cohort of women over 55 who need public accommodation. Governments have taken responsibility for housing all along, state and federal governments—although the federal government actually gives money to the state governments to deliver the services. And I'm not of the view that state governments don't deliver on housing. I'm not of that view at all, because they do. State governments do deliver on housing. That has been their responsibility. Our responsibility has been to deliver in the area of Indigenous affairs, where we have direct involvement in supplying public housing. So, when I consider this bill, I consider how it might have long-term benefits, and not only for the owners of a house. They have a financial benefit, in that they are being protected in two ways. Their asset does not come into the calculation of their social security arrangements. It doesn't come into their deeming arrangements, so they're protected there. But they're also offered, as I said before, the opportunity to move $300,000 from the house into their super, for their benefit in retirement. That is a terrific incentive for people to say, 'Yes, I can live in a smaller house. I can even move into one of those community housing developments for the over 55s.' There's a very good one at Phillip Island. There's a very good one at Pakenham that I know of. There's a very good one at Warrigal. There are a number of them, and they're very popular for people to go and live in. They're in between their house and permanent aged care. They are communal housing areas for people who have decided to downsize. They go into those more communal, gated communities—and people who are under 55 are taking the opportunity to move into that type of housing—because there are recreational facilities and they have people to talk to. They're not on their own, loneliness is diminished, and there are activities that they can do in that type of arrangement. A number of people that I know have chosen that as the next step, especially women on their own who have a home as an asset and have lost their husband—or partner, as you call them these days. They choose that type of lifestyle. I haven't heard anybody complain about the places they've gone to. I did have one problem a few years ago, but that's passed now. But most of them actually enjoy that change of lifestyle. I say that, as you get older, you do take the opportunity for a different lifestyle—but including life. It's not a death sentence; it's life as we know it. There's a very good development that's just happened in the community of Pakenham. I live there, but it's no longer in my electorate. They are very highly sought after units within an over-55s development. And I think the happy hour on Friday is pretty well attended! Having said that, this bill is a good bill. Both the former government and this government have supported this process. They understand the importance of it. It's a way of trying to open up the market, with the opportunity for people right across the country to offer their homes to the next generation of people. Deputy Speaker Stevens, having regard to the time and the opportunity that you've given me to speak to this bill, I want to tell you that I wholeheartedly support the bill and I wholeheartedly support the process, knowing that housing has been the most important economic stabiliser for families across Australia since the Second World War, as well as for those who came here to this nation and had the opportunity to create wealth and to not only own their own home but help their children to own their own home as well. Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 16:0 5 16:05 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack It is a great pleasure to be here. I rise to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Incentivising Pensioners to Downsize) Bill 2022. Australia is currently facing a housing shortage, with many young families unable to secure suitable homes. The supply of housing is the most significant factor in this crisis. Throughout the pandemic, house prices soared, with high demand and low housing supply pushing the dream of homeownership further down the road for many young families. In order to free up family homes in the market for young families, it is vital that older Australians are able to downsize when they no longer want to maintain that large family residence and that they are not penalised for doing so. The coalition are supporting this bill, as the measures within it were first announced by us on this side. It does exactly what we committed to do at the last election—that is, to double the asset test exemption to two years when pensioners downsize from their family home, giving them more time to plan their future and, I might add, less lawn to mow. More importantly, we are supporting this bill because it will provide pensioners with the ability to extend from 12 to 24 months their existing asset test exemption for principal home sale proceeds from which a person intends to purchase a new principal home. As the shadow minister has stated, the best way to support older Australians in incentivising them to downsize is to remove the disincentives that exist in the system. The measures in this bill follow a strong framework laid out by the previous coalition government. During our time in government, we announced that Australians aged 65 or over could, from the proceeds of selling their home, make a non-concessional contribution of up to $300,000 into superannuation from 1 July 2018. Earlier this year, we further enhanced this measure, reducing the eligibility age from 65 to 60. The results of these policies speak for themselves, as we saw 36,800 individuals contribute some $8.9 billion to their superannuation under this measure, from July 2018 to January 2022. Imitation, of course, is the most sincerest form of flattery, and there is no greater measure of the success of these policies than Labor adopting our commitment from the previous election to further reduce the eligibility age to 55 for non-concessional contributions. But the flattery from the Labor government does not end there. As I mentioned earlier, the very measures sought to be implemented in this bill were first announced by the coalition at the federal election. So successful and robust is the homeownership framework built by the coalition that it can not only withstand a Labor government but continue to grow in spite of it. We have a strong track record of not only helping older Australians who are looking to downsize but also assisting young families into their first home through measures such as our home guarantee schemes. During the previous government, the coalition supported more than 300,000 Australians in the purchase of a home. We supported almost 60,000 first home buyers and single-parent families into homeownership through measures consisting of the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme and the New Home Guarantee, and the Family Home Guarantee, with a deposit of as little at five per cent and two per cent, respectively. The coalition government protected the residential construction industry, with more than 137,000 HomeBuilder applications generating $120 billion of economic activity. This action was paramount in not only keeping the construction industry afloat but ensuring that it was in a position to respond to the housing demand that the country now faces. Responding to the strains on low-income earners, we provided $2.9 billion of low-cost loans to community housing providers to support 15,000 social and affordable houses, saving $470 million in interest payments, to be reinvested in more affordable housing. In total, we unlocked 6,900 social, affordable and market dwellings through the coalition's $1 billion infrastructure facility to make housing supply more responsive. Through this framework of tangible and measurable achievements, we then announced this very policy, working in tandem and building on a variety of measures to provide further supply and removing impositions for first home buyers. While the coalition will be supporting these measures today, there is much more that should be done to address housing supply shortages and to foster growth in ownership across the country. Earlier this year, the coalition government was already providing additions to our framework to address these concerns. At the recent federal election, the coalition government made a commitment to establish a super homebuyer scheme to allow first home buyers to invest up to 40 per cent of their superannuation, up to a maximum of $50,000, to help with the purchase of their first home. We would have built upon our First Home Guarantee by raising the number of low-deposit guarantees for first home buyers to 35,000 each financial year, and we would have increased property price caps for the Home Guarantee Scheme to ensure that Australians continued to have a choice when purchasing their home. We would have also continued to support our regions by incentivising the purchase of new-build homes, providing 10,000 low-deposit guarantees each financial year for those moving to or within regional areas. Opportunities for homeownership among single-parent families would have been expanded by increasing the number of low-deposit guarantees for single-parent families to buy a home, with a deposit of as little as two per cent, to 5,000 each financial year. Finally, we would have also supported greater investment into affordable housing, with an additional $2 billion in low-cost financing for social and affordable dwellings, bringing total low-cost financing to $5.5 billion, supporting around 27,500 dwellings. In stark contrast, Labor is committing funds in an off-budget fund to support a housing program that currently has no substance and lacks detailed costings or an implementation plan. Labor's Help to Buy scheme is, at best, a niche program that very few Australians would even qualify for, let alone want to participate in. Significantly, this scheme will do nothing for housing affordability, because it does not support supply—the aspect of housing affordability which this bill directly aims to address. If there is one thing that is abundantly clear from Labor's track record in this space, it's that they are better off implementing coalition policies instead of coming to their own conclusions. Owning your own home is still a fundamental part of the Australian dream. Eighty-five per cent of renters aspire to own their own home. Homeownership offers security and stability for both individuals and families. A home is the largest purchase most Australians will make in their lives. And, without a doubt, it will be their most important and cherished asset. That's why it is so vital that government does not stifle supply, providing the economic conditions that allow these dreams to be fulfilled. I commend this bill to the House. 16:13 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne The Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Incentivising Pensioners to Downsize) Bill 2022 is a good bill. I have many seniors in my area of the country, the beautiful Lyne electorate. In fact, we have double the average number of Australians aged over 65. The last time I looked at the Department of Social Services figures, I saw that I have over 31,000 people receiving the age pension, let alone those on veterans pensions, single mothers on parenting payments, and other people on government assistance. We have the phenomenon of really major housing shortages in regional Australia since COVID came along, because people in metropolitan Australia started buying up country houses which were historically long-term rentals to turn them into Airbnbs, short-term rentals, and so that they could have the ability to escape lockdowns. Subsequently, many more metropolitan people have discovered the joys of living in country Australia, so a lot of the rental market has dried up for long-term renters. This bill amends the Social Security Act and the Veterans' Entitlements Act so that, when people sell their primary residence, their own home, to downsize to a smaller unit or a smaller house, they have two years of exemption before they purchase their next primary residence, as opposed to the current situation where they will only get that leave pass for one year. Those existing arrangements mean that, in the current housing market, you really have to be very efficient and know what house you are going to buy pretty much before you sell your own home. With the housing shortages and the rampant, runaway market over the last two to three years, that has proved problematic. With a 24-month window, there will be many more people that will take up the idea of downsizing. That means that bigger houses and bigger apartments that are available for young people will come on the market as a result, with potentially even more coming on the long-term rental market if investors buy properties to let them out—rental properties. This bill also applies only the lower below-threshold deeming rate to these asset-test-exempt principal home sale proceeds when calculating deemed income. At the moment, with deeming-rate limits $56½ thousand for singles and $93,600 for couples combined, it will be a significant change. The 24 months mean that, while they are trying to find a house, they will get some reasonable income assistance—because they will have to rent somewhere in the meantime, with rents ridiculously expensive. This bill receives our support because it was our policy, and I compliment the members of the new government on taking up good policy. We're never going to obstruct good policy. But it's copycatting; you've got to admit that. I think I should just give you a quick summary of all the other good things we did in the housing market to help people get into their first home. Property prices are very hard for first home buyers. Whether you're in a metropolitan or rural setting, house prices have gone up incredibly over the last three to four years, and some of them in my area have gone up 30 or 40 per cent. But there are corrections happening in the marketplace as interest rates rise. In the 2017-18 budget, we announced that people over 65 could make a non-concessional contribution of $300,000—from the proceeds of selling their home—into superannuation. We introduced further changes this year, in the last budget, to lower this to people over 60, rather than the 65 age limit. A lot of people took that up and created a healthy buffer in their super fund to see them through their senior years. There were 36,800 people who took up that idea, and $8.9 billion has gone into super. In the last budget, we proposed that the reduction that we had made to 60 would come down to 55 to encourage what is good behaviour for freeing up housing. We hope that that will increase the number of people downsizing so that young families have more houses to choose from. The other thing that we did on a macro scale during our time in government was to set up the National Housing Infrastructure Facility, and that has allowed cheap government loans to community and social housing providers to build many more community and social housing units. There are thousands of people who have moved out of long-term rental into community housing because it's generally available at a cheaper price than the open market. The other thing that we have done is initiated the super saver scheme. We increased the potential size of it in the last term of government so that it allowed people to put 40 per cent of their superannuation up to a maximum of $50,000 to help with either the deposit or the purchase of their first home. Australians, when they eventually sell that home, obviously have to put that money—and pro rata it—back into their super fund, but they avoid paying interest and it means they get their deposit a lot sooner. That has been a great initiative. We also, as I said, allowed people, at the age of 55, to put $300,000 per person into their super fund on the sale of their first house. We also had the home loan deposit scheme and the new home and family home guarantees so that people could borrow to buy their first home with only five per cent of the deposit. Generally a 20 per cent deposit is required by most lenders, but this scheme allows them to get an insurance policy to guarantee the missing percentage. Thirty thousand or more people got into their first home as a result of that. They're out of the long-term rent trap. The most important thing is that this has helped many single-parent families buy their first home, and we have found that single parents are the most resilient first home buyers. Because they have finally got their own home, they are very dependable repayers of their mortgage. It also means that, in the long term, they can become much more secure, because having your own home in your senior years is a great asset. The amount of money that was put aside for this low-cost financing of social and affordable dwellings started off at $2 billion, but, by the time we left government, it had risen to $5½ billion, and that supported 27½ thousand dwellings. So there have been a lot of initiatives introduced, but this particular bill will make it a lot easier for many seniors to make the decision to downsize, cash in the value of their home, put the money into their super and have a smaller amount of capital tied up in their primary place of residence. It will help the housing shortage. It will help people get into rentals, as some of these downsized houses will go into the rental market. It will allow young families who are upgrading to bigger homes to get into the market. The big issue with the housing shortage is that the supply of homes and land hasn't matched the population growth. Noting that a lot of our temporary residents and overseas migrants have had the right to buy homes here, for as long as I have been involved in politics, we have had a negative balance in new homes. But we certainly had a first home building and buyers boom during the terms of the Morrison, Turnbull and Abbott governments because we on this side of the House believe that the best form of assistance is for people to be in a job and to own their own home. To not be paying off a mortgage all their life, the sooner they can get into that home the better. I commend this bill to the House and I'm sure others will support it as well. 16:24 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass I rise today to speak in support of the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Incentivising Pensioners to Downsize) Bill 2022, which amends the Social Security Act 1991 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 to support pensioners or other eligible income support recipients during the sale and purchase of a new home by extending from 12 to 24 months the existing assets test exemption for principal home sale proceeds which a person intends to use to purchase a new principal home, and applying only the lower below-threshold deeming rate to these asset-test-exempt principal home sale proceeds when calculating deemed income. Up until recently, the 12-month period was considered to be a reasonable amount of time to build a new principal home or find an existing one. As a measure brought to the last election, the coalition committed to double that period to 24 months. This commitment was to give seniors who are selling in the current property market greater confidence to downsize into something more suitable, while providing greater confidence and certainty in their financial planning. I am pleased to see a bipartisan approach to this policy, particularly as it provides more support and financial incentives for people to downsize their houses in the hope of boosting housing stock for families across the country who are struggling to find housing and break into the real estate market. We're all aware of the rise in real estate prices all across the country, which has not left the northern Tasmanian region untouched. There have been sharp rises in my electorate that are leaving the dream of the family home increasingly out of reach, with supply and demand a core issue driving up housing costs. Earlier this year I read an article stating that almost 70 per cent of Australians believe that the great Aussie dream of owning a home is over. The Property Council of Australia's data found four out of five aspiring homeowners believe the dream of homeownership is unachievable. Property Council chief executive Ken Morrison said the findings were 'incredibly disheartening', and a Finders survey in December found that 39 per cent of Gen Z respondents felt 'extremely negative' about their ability to afford a home, with 23 per cent of respondents across the board expressing the same level of pessimism. Further research has shown that it's harder than ever for first home buyers as they battle against high prices and borrowing barriers, with saving for the standard 20 per cent deposit pushing back the time line for many hoping to break into the housing market for the first time. In my own electorate of Bass, a number of suburbs were considered some of the fastest growing in the state in the year to May 2022. Regional Tasmanian dwelling prices grew in value by 3.9 per cent in the three months to May, which was one of the fastest rates in the country and much faster than Hobart, where dwelling value increased by just 0.3 per cent over the same period, according to the latest data released by analytics firm CoreLogic. In May, the median house price for Waverley was $432,140, an annual change of 37.9 per cent; for Beaconsfield it was $444,897, an annual change of 35.1 per cent; for St Leonards it was $571,586, a change of 33.7 per cent; and for Trevallyn it was $666,738, an annual change of 33 per cent. The value of units in Launceston and the north-east grew by 4.6 per cent in the quarter, the second-fastest rate in regional Australia, while Launceston house prices grew by 2.6 per cent in the same period. In 2016, the median Launceston house price was $269,000. This July, the median house price was over $600,000. While this might speak to a decent return for some investors who are identifying Launceston as a hotspot—and I don't begrudge investors looking to set up their future finances—it's creating a significant issue around housing availability and affordability, particularly for family homes. We know that 85 per cent of renters aspire to own their own home due to the security and stability that homeownership offers for both individuals and families. However, even the standard three-bedroom one-bathroom so-called starter home for young couples is becoming increasingly out of reach. After identifying the increasing challenges that Australians face in securing their first home, the coalition implemented a number of policies to address the issues, resulting in supporting almost 60,000 first home buyers and single-parent families into homeownership through the home guarantee schemes—consisting of the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme, the New Home Guarantee and the Family Home Guarantee, with a deposit of as little as five per cent or two per cent respectively. Through our $1 billion infrastructure facility, we unlocked 6,900 social, affordable and market dwellings to make housing supply more responsive to demand, and we established the First Home Super Saver Scheme, helping 27,600 first home buyers accelerate their deposit savings through super. Addressing the housing crisis will require all three levels of government—local, state and federal—to be actively involved in providing solutions. It was the First HomeBuilder's grant, offering a combined grant of $45,000 between the federal and state government, that gave young Tasmanian couple Georgina and Campbell the opportunity to build a new home in 2021. Until the grant, the couple had been saving for five years for a deposit on a house. 'During that time, we have rented for roughly two years and spent the remainder of the time either living with family or house-sitting,' Georgina said. 'We're both thrilled that we were able to receive the two grants,' Campbell continued. 'If we didn't receive the two grants, it would have taken us another two to three years of saving and living with family or house-sitting.' I also want to take the opportunity to give credit to the Tasmanian Liberal government for providing a helping hand to enable more Tasmanians to own their own home through the new MyHome shared equity program. In partnership with Tassie's own Bank of us, the MyHome program helps people achieve homeownership by reducing the costs of buying a home, by sharing these costs with the Tasmanian government. MyHome shares the upfront costs of owning your own home, which reduces the deposit needed and mortgage repayments—requiring a deposit of just two per cent. The shared equity program also offers a new type of assistance by providing up to $150,000, or 30 per cent in equity, for the purchase price of an existing home. The program's first customer, Emma Attard, utilised the program to purchase an existing, renovated home in the suburb of Youngtown. Without the program, Ms Attard said, buying her first home would have been impossible. For people who want to build their own home, MyHome can provide up to $200,000, or 40 per cent in equity, of the purchase price of a new home or house and land package. Though certainly not a silver bullet, this program is one way of supporting Tasmanians to achieve homeownership and making the cost of owning a home more affordable. As recognised through this bill, encouraging pensioners to downsize from a family home to something smaller, without being financially penalised, will hopefully free up more housing for those seeking to purchase their first home. The coalition has a strong record in helping older Australians who want to downsize, freeing up family homes in the market for young families, beginning in the 2017-18 budget, when we first announced that those aged 65 or over could make non-concessional contributions of up to $300,000, from the proceeds of selling their home, into superannuation from 1 July 2018. Additionally, earlier this year, the coalition further enhanced this measure, reducing the eligibility age for making downsizer contributions into superannuation from 65 to 60 years of age. From 1 July 2018 to the end of January 2022, under the coalition, 36,800 individuals contributed $8.9 billion to their superannuation under this measure. While I do support this bill, addressing housing supply issues and housing affordability over the long term will need long-term strategy commitment and vision from all sides and all levels of government. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 3) Bill 2022, Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment Bill 2022, Income Tax Amendment (Labour Mobility Program) Bill 2022 154

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

Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment Bill 2022

Income Tax Amendment (Labour Mobility Program) Bill 2022

Second Reading 154 16:34 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner In 1951, Frank McEncroe, a boilermaker from Bendigo, invented the Chiko Roll. He'd been impressed by chicken rolls that were sold at Richmond games, but he decided that it wasn't an item that you could hold in one hand. And the genius of the Chiko Roll, Deputy Speaker Chesters, as you'll know so well, is that it is an item which is so deep fried that you can hold it in one hand without it collapsing. It doesn't, in fact, contain any chicken, so his initial name of the 'chicken roll' was changed to the 'Chiko Roll'. It's largely cabbage, barley and a little bit of beef, but it is also the genesis of the foreign investment scheme in Australia. The remarkable story told by David Uren in his book Takeover, on foreign investment, goes to 1972, when some 40 million Chiko Rolls were being sold annually in Australia and the US conglomerate IT&T made a bid to buy the company. The notion of an iconic Aussie product such as the Chiko Roll being sold to the Americans caused a backlash in the press and in parliament. As one commentator noted: The cabinet meeting over the Chiko Roll … was the beginning of the regulation of foreign investment in Australia. Foreign investment remains critical to Australia's prosperity. Our sugar production industry was kickstarted in 1855 by Colonial Sugar Refinery, now known as CSR. When Schweppes opened a bottling facility in 1877, that was a spur to Australian manufacturing. When Kodak set up its first film plant in 1908, when Heinz began canning baked beans in 1935 and when 3M started producing in 1951, those foreign investments provided not only capital but know-how to the Australian economy. Australia benefits from defence firms such as Lockheed Martin, from investments in quantum computing and from investments in important infrastructure projects. Indeed, infrastructure expenditure in Australia would be smaller if it were not for foreign investment. This bill deals with both immigration and foreign investment, and it's apt that it does so, because there's a tie between the two. To the extent that migration impacts on wages, it does so as a result of lowering the ratio of capital to labour. Conversely, when we take in foreign investment, we increase the ratio of capital to labour. The capital-to-labour ratio really matters. It's one of the reasons why wages in Australia, at the end of the 1800s, were among the highest in the world. So, for those of us who care about sustaining well-paid jobs in Australia, foreign investment plays a part in that. And foreign investment and migration can go together, ensuring that the ratio of capital to labour remains unchanged. If we didn't have foreign investments, then production, employment and household income in Australia would all be lower. Australia recorded some $37 billion in foreign direct investment inflows in 2021, and the total stock of FDI in Australia at the end of last year was $1.1 trillion. In the first quarter of this year, there was the largest inflow of foreign direct investment on record—some $59 billion. Quarters go up and down, and so we shouldn't expect this to be sustained, but it is a marker of the scale of foreign investment in Australia and the attractiveness of Australia as a foreign investment destination. By stock, the largest investors in Australia are, in order, the United States, Japan, the United Kingdom, Canada, the Netherlands and China. It is a reflection of our stable democracy, rule of law, highly skilled workforce, proximity to fast-growing markets, abundant natural resources and the historic strength of our economy that we've remained an attractive destination for foreign investment. But it's important we maintain that balance and we maintain community confidence in foreign investment while protecting Australia's interests. This bill delivers on the government's 2022 election commitment in doubling foreign investment fees and the financial penalties that relate to foreign ownership of residential property in Australia. It does so in order to ensure that there is strong public support in our foreign investment approach. Increases to penalties will contribute to funding the government's housing affordability policies, an issue which I know is of importance to members on both sides of the House. The previous debate dealt extensively with homeownership. The debate on the matter of public importance raised today in the House by the crossbench went to homeownership. So using these increased penalties to boost housing affordability policies will be a measure that will be warmly welcomed by many members and the community. The indexation of fee amounts needs to remain consistent and coherent and will do so as a result of this measure. The government expects the measure to remove ambiguity about the operation of the fee caps and otherwise to have minimal impact on the amount of fees payable by foreign investments. I commend the work that the Treasurer and the Assistant Treasurer have done in bringing these measures forward. They are important, and they sit hand in glove with the strong commitment of this side of the House to ongoing foreign investment and to the benefits that foreign investment can bring to the Australian economy. I'd also make brief remarks about the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme, which helps both to meet workforce shortages in Australia and to provide skills to countries in our region. That program has been evaluated and been noted to be highly successful in helping to give back to our local community. Work done by Stephen Howes and others at the Australian National University has highlighted the important role of its predecessors, the Seasonal Worker Program and the Pacific Labour Scheme, in ensuring that we provide good, well-paying jobs to people from the Pacific Islands and that those jobs allow them to remit money back to their home communities but also, importantly, that they go home with additional skills and expertise, able to start new businesses or be even more productive employees in their home countries. The current funding for program delivery supports around 27,000 workers to enter Australia under the scheme. It is a good scheme, and I'm pleased to see this measure supporting it in the bill. I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249710 I thank the assistant minister for his contribution. I was not aware of that history in relation to the Chiko Roll. I'll have a little bit of work to do there. 16:42 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I too thank the previous speaker for giving us that valuable information on the history of foreign investment in this country. I rise to speak broadly in favour of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 3) Bill 2022, but the coalition has foreshadowed an amendment to this in the lead speaker's speech in the House. That relates to schedule 5 of this bill, which is creating an exemption or a lower standard for faith based superannuation funds so that they do not need to meet the same performance test that is currently in place across the entire superannuation sector. We in the coalition take exception to this policy point. Let's just think about the principle first. We established these performance tests and the requirement for all funds that receive compulsory superannuation contributions, regulated through APRA, that they get measured and that people understand how the fund that their retirement savings are being invested in is performing. We simply expect—I think it's quite reasonable—that there be some performance standards for funds and that every single person with a superannuation account isn't expected to do an unnecessary amount of analysis of the fund that they are contributing into to properly understand whether it is meeting those kinds of performance benchmarks. I don't pretend to have a deep understanding, but my loose understanding is that these performance metrics would be across listed equities and listed debt. I'm sure it's slightly more complicated with unlisted asset classes. But ultimately you look at the benchmark for those various asset classes and expect the superannuation funds to meet those performance standards, which is the case for every superannuation fund in our system at the moment. Schedule 5 of this bill proposes that a certain category of superannuation funds, suggested to be faith based funds, can get an exemption from the requirement of meeting that performance standard. I can't for the life of me understand why people of faith, who contribute their superannuation into a faith based superannuation fund, shouldn't deserve the same standard of protection as anyone else who contributes to superannuation. As someone of faith, I think it's a particularly important principle that we don't introduce something that I see to be quite discriminatory. As an aside, I look forward to supporting a bill to protect people from discrimination on religious grounds hopefully very, very soon in this parliament. The principle shouldn't be different if you contribute your superannuation into a fund with faith-based objectives. I have no objection to faith based superannuation funds whatsoever. There are lots of other different forms of superannuation funds out there that people choose to contribute into, and I think there should be just as much flexibility around that. But it shouldn't be the case that any superannuation fund doesn't have to meet standards that are put in place to make sure that people have significant security over their retirement savings. If this exemption is necessary, it clearly suggests that some of these funds don't see themselves meeting those tests into the future, and, if these funds are not meeting those tests, it means that the people whose superannuation is held by those funds are not going to have as significant retirement savings when they need it than people in any other scheme in the superannuation system. Why would we think that is something we should allow? Why would we think that anyone's retirement savings shouldn't meet the exact same standard as everyone else's? That is what schedule 5 in this bill is seeking to do. We have significant concerns about that. It's quite clear that if this goes through it could be the beginning of a whole range of other potential exemptions that are put forward into the future, and then the whole principle of having performance standards for superannuation funds will become completely pointless. We should all cherish the requirement we've created to have that framework in place. We all know and have all had experiences of constituents and people that we know and love who have sometimes had bad experiences with superannuation funds. It's a huge sector. In March, APRA valued superannuation savings at $3.4 trillion, which is an enormous amount of money. We want to make sure that we have a robust framework in place to ensure that people don't have to stress whatsoever about their retirement savings and don't have undue burden upon them individually. Some people are in a wide variety of circumstances and have the capacity to look closely at what's happening with their superannuation fund. They should expect that their government and the framework in place are largely doing that job for them, which is the case with these performance standards. The coalition and I have great concern about us starting to create exemptions for anyone when it comes to meeting those important standards that are in place to protect the retirement savings of the members of those funds. We're very pleased to see schedule 4, which brings in a 15 per cent flat income tax rate on people participating in the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme. We're all aware of the very significant challenges around labour and seasonal labour, in particular. We also recognise how important it is to our friends in Pacific nations to have this source of remittances going back into those economies from workers that can travel to Australia within the schemes and earn income, particularly in the agricultural sector. The agricultural sector is probably under the most pressure of any sector when it comes to labour shortages, particularly seasonal labour shortages right now, and it has been for the last few years, first through COVID and border closures et cetera and now, of course, with such an extremely tight labour market, and the simple lack of supply of labour. There are the terrible stories you hear about businesses that, because they haven't got access to labour, have forgone production and, in some cases, people's regular, reliable livelihood, particularly where you're talking about produce et cetera and the inability to pick it, pack it and ship it. If it weren't for this change, people would be paying 32½ per cent tax on the income that they would earn under the current system. That is clearly a disincentive, no doubt, in certain circumstances for more people to participate in the scheme. I think we're going to really need this scheme more than ever going forward, and so we welcome this measure, which would reduce that tax rate from 32½ per cent from their first dollar earned down to 15 per cent, 15c in the dollar, throughout what they earn through that scheme. That does bring that tax rate into line with other similar schemes that are in place. Other elements of the bill are not overly controversial at all. I note schedule 2—I think it is—extends some of the measures we put in place under COVID regarding requirements for companies to hold meetings and to deal with documents in certain ways. There were lots of challenges, because of COVID restrictions, for corporations to meet some of their requirements, and some of those requirements were put in a more electronic, non-physical form. This sees some of those elements extended through. I can't possibly elaborate any more eloquently than the previous speaker on the history of foreign investment and some of the exciting changes that have been put in place there, with penalties around not complying with foreign investment rules to do with residential land. So, on the particularly exciting Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 3) Bill 2022, I urge the chamber to consider very strongly the amendment that we are moving regarding schedule 5 and I commend the other elements of the bill to the House. 16:52 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 3) Bill 2022, the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment Bill 2022 and the Income Tax Amendment (Labour Mobility Program) Bill 2022. Once again, a large proportion of these measures were supported, or in fact initiated, while the coalition were in government. For example, the income tax amendment reduces the tax rate on certain income earned by eligible foreign resident workers participating in the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme. The Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme helps to meet workforce shortages in Australia as well as providing official development assistance to Pacific nations and Timor-Leste. The Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme allows eligible businesses to recruit workers to help fill workforce shortages in any sector where no suitable Australians are available. This is a really important scheme that enables Australian businesses, particularly agricultural businesses, to utilise Pacific labour in instances where so many young Australians show a reluctance to want to work. I think of a number of strawberry farms in my electorate. The Twist brothers farm had so much trouble finding workers to pick strawberries that the Twist brothers eventually gave up and stopped farming strawberries and turned it into a turf farm. There are many stories around my electorate and across the country about crops being ploughed in simply because we haven't been able to get the labour that we need. That, whilst regrettable, was somewhat understandable during the COVID pandemic. But now that things are returning to normal it is very, very difficult for many agricultural growers to find appropriate labour to be able to have their crops picked. This is a very sensible scheme. Eligible businesses can recruit workers for short-term seasonal jobs for up to nine months, or in longer-term roles for between one and four years, to help fill unskilled, low-skilled and semiskilled workforce shortages. The change will reduce the rate of tax from a marginal 32½ per cent to a flat rate of 15 per cent. While I agree in principle with a number of the measures contained in this bill, I do have a number of reservations, particularly in relation to schedule 5. Schedule 5 of this bill implements a Labor election promise to exempt faith-based superannuation products from the Your Future, Your Super performance test. We should always be striving for the best when it comes to Australians' hard-earned money, and we need to remember that superannuation is compulsory. The concept of superannuation is a good thing. The concept of super requires workers to have a percentage of their wage—I think it's 10½ per cent at the moment—quarantined for when they retire. It's designed to take the pressure off the public purse and the pension scheme, and to reward people for their own self-reliance. That's a good thing. But because we are making it compulsory, because government says you must do this, then there's a certain obligation on government to ensure that to the maximum extent possible the superannuation scheme is transparent. The Australian superannuation scheme, as the member for Sturt earlier said, is the fourth-largest such scheme in the world. For a country of 25 million people, that is no small feat. Some $3.4 trillion are invested in superannuation. That is a very significant nest egg, and it places a very significant responsibility upon government to ensure that there are appropriate amounts of transparency. When we're talking about the hard-earned money of everyday Australians, in my view and in view of many of my colleagues in the opposition—if not all of them—we simply do not have the right to be imposing ideological restrictions on what they can and can't do with their money. Let's be very clear on this. Superannuation is the worker's money. It's not the government's money. It's not Labor's money. It's not the opposition's money. It's the workers' money. Those mums and dads run their own small businesses, they are employed, they work hard, they're our doctors, they're our nurses and they're the people who work in our grocery stores. This is their money, and they have the right to expect that their government will assess super products based on performance and integrity, not on ideology or faith. I am a person of faith. I'm a practising Catholic. I think it's very important. My faith is very important to me. But I do not believe that a faith based superannuation fund should be treated any differently to any other fund. I do not believe that the threshold for transparency or, in fact, performance should be lower for a faith based superannuation fund than for any other superannuation fund. It is absolutely imperative that, as legislators, we measure, we legislate and we adjudicate super products in light of three main things: whose money it is, what the performance of the fund is, and the transparency and integrity of the fund. These principles are the foundation of our historic Your Future, Your Super reforms. They are the most significant reforms in the 30 years since compulsory super was adopted. In case members of the government have forgotten, let me remind those opposite why we implemented the Your Future, Your Super reforms. We took these steps to protect the financial interests of all Australians by removing unnecessary waste, increasing accountability and transparency, and providing more flexibility for families and individuals, as well as their businesses. It was about doing something tangible to increase transparency and accountability. We strengthened the obligations on trustees to act in their members' interests—not those of their political or corporate patrons. It was about enhancing the information readily available to members. This would allow them the chance to engage and contribute to the way their funds were invested. But, as is Labor's wont, Labor have opted to side with the big end of town once again. Hitched to the unions and industry super funds, they've now dismantled some of those essential transparency and accountability reforms for super. It is vital that we reintroduce that transparency and accountability and enshrine it in law. The Your Future, Your Super reforms hold funds to account for underperformance, lower fees and protect members from poor outcomes. We required superannuation products to meet an annual objective performance test. For those that fail, funds are required to inform members, and persistently underperforming products will be prevented from taking on new members. This is about protecting the interests of everyday Australians. You wouldn't think that that was objectionable. You wouldn't think that anybody would quibble with those changes. It's about ensuring that those who have worked hard, and maybe even broken a generational welfare dependency, for example, can rely on the quality and surety of their superannuation fund. Our reforms under Your Future, Your Super have seen 13 underperforming funds fold or take necessary action. That's a good thing. Those underperforming funds that not only underperform but also usually charge very excessive fees and charges need to be held to account. They should be held to account. This performance needs to hold for all funds and all Australians, regardless of the individual's age, their sex or their faith. Equally, it needs to hold true to whether the fund is a for-profit fund, whether it's a not-for-profit fund, whether it's an industry fund or whether, in fact, it's a faith based fund. It is this exemption from transparency measures with regard to faith based super products which concerns me. Transparency, accountability and integrity are not optional. Members opposite talk the big talk about integrity. We're seeing that today in terms of the introduction of integrity. They talk the big talk about integrity when it comes to all manner of things, but they seem to go quiet when it refers to superannuation, particularly in relation to industry super funds. They go deathly quiet when conversation about unions like the CFMMEU—and the $10 million they've received in political donations—comes up. Transparency, accountability, and integrity are not optional. It doesn't matter what your religion, your political persuasion, your background or your agenda is. Integrity is not an extra; it is an essential element. It's about time Labor walked the talk in relation to integrity. Allowing faith based funds to deliver inferior returns is not in the best interests of Australians. Why should Australians of faith retire with a lower balance than Australians of no faith? Why should Australians who work in faith based employment—such as someone who might be employed by the Australian Catholic University, or someone who might be a teacher in a Muslim school, or a nurse who might work for an Anglican hospital—ultimately end up with less super than someone who works for the state? It's just not right. It's not fair. Why shouldn't those faith based superannuation funds be granted the same assurance? I'm not beating up on organisations of faith. As I said earlier, I'm a committed Catholic. But fair is fair. Alongside many others on this side, I am concerned that there is a slippery slope here. If the Labor government carves out special treatment for faith based funds, what is next? No fund should have special treatment effectively allowing them to underperform. All funds should be treated as equal in the same way that all Australians should be treated as equal. I do support a great deal of this bill. It's going to introduce sensible reforms, particularly in relation to labour mobility. It's great to see the Leader of the House in the chamber—this is the Federation Chamber, you might be lost! But we do want to work with the government to get this right. It is the very least that we can do for those 16 million hardworking Australians who rely upon their super. I encourage members of the government to look at our amendments. They are sensible amendments. They are good for Australians, they are good for super, and they are right and fair. 17:07 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash I thank the Acting Deputy Speaker for offering me the invitation to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 3) Bill 2022. I'm not going to take up a lot of time of the Federation Chamber. One of the important things in this bill for me is that it addresses employment of Pacific Islanders in Australia, their labour mobility clauses and the tax effects on them. Normally, international workers would begin to pay 32½ per cent tax on everything they earn immediately they arrive here. This is unfair to them compared to other workers who happen to be Australian nationals. What the government has done in this case is to say: 'All right. We'll start with you with a 15 per cent flat rate.' It's a massive change for them, but for their benefit. Why is this so important to me? It is because these workers actually work in my district. They are spread all around my electorate. They are especially useful in the asparagus season and other seasons of import. The system that the government has in place for international workers—especially workers from the Pacific Islands—has made a marked difference to the viability of many of the farms around where I was born and where I live—that's no longer in my electorate, but it's still very important to me. There are even a number of Pacific Islanders now working within the Warragul area that I represent. The treatment of the labour mobility program, otherwise known as the Seasonal Worker Progam, is of vital importance to me. I just want to make the point, on behalf of my constituency, of how important this legislation is. It is basic tax legislation, but it makes a very good point about the Seasonal Worker Program. I thank you, Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence in allowing me to speak on the matter. Debate adjourned. CONDOLENCES 159 CONDOLENCES Charles, Uncle Jack 159 17:10 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Thanks very much, Deputy Speaker Sharkie, and can I say I think it's the first time I've spoken when you've been in the chair. I just want to acknowledge the historic nature of your appointment, Deputy Speaker. It's both an honour and a real sorrow to say a few words about the wonderful Uncle Jack Charles. When he died on 13 September, we lost a trailblazer, a fearless truth-teller and a remarkable artist. We lost a beloved and respected elder, gifted actor, musician and potter. Above all, we lost a great Australian whose contribution to our country's culture will outlast us all. Uncle Jack was a true trailblazer for First Nations artists across our country. He spent his life dedicated to telling our diverse Australian stories and advocating for equality and respect. I want to acknowledge three groups of people who'll be especially grieving at this time: First Nations people across our country, who knew Jack as 'King'; people who love drama on screen or on the stage; and a special acknowledgement to the people of Melbourne. Uncle Jack was always on the streets in Melbourne. He was well known and a well-loved presence in that city. As we try to come to terms with the idea of an Australia without his warm and generous presence, without that great shock of hair and those expressive eyes that danced with such light, I extend my deepest condolences to his family, friends and the wider First Nations community, who are grieving his loss. He was an example of tenacity and strength. As a survivor of the stolen generations, Uncle Jack's creativity formed a platform to earnestly share his painful and personal truths. But the toughness of his life never succeeded in hardening his heart. Every time he opened that heart to us, he opened our eyes. Every time he shared himself and his story, he made the rest of us a little bigger and a little better. In the words of Wiradjuri actor Luke Carroll: 'He was so small in stature, but, once he opened his mouth and his voice came out, it could go across the Pacific.' I'm so pleased that, in his later years, Uncle Jack received the recognition he deserved. He was acknowledged through multiple awards for his life of advocacy and, earlier this year, he was celebrated as the NAIDOC Male Elder of the Year, honouring his lifetime of activism and his arts contribution. Uncle Jack paved the way in so many ways for the next generation of emerging First Nations artists, and I know the impact of his inspiration will be felt for a very long time to come. He created a window for us to witness the enduring pain amongst his community. He inspired many to persist with sharing their truths and finding strength through that truth. Uncle Jack often stated that his life was saved through theatre and the arts, but he gave so much back to them in return. As writer and actor Nakkiah Lui said: 'He lit up rooms; he lit up screens and stages.' Uncle Jack's light has gone out, but his glow remains. And what a source of illumination it is for all of us. May he rest in peace, and, as the Minister for Indigenous Australians said this morning, may he rest in power. 17:14 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I rise to speak on this very sad motion of condolence for the legendary Uncle Jack Charles. He was a Boon Wurrung, Dja Dja Wurrung, Woiwurrung and Yorta Yorta man. He was born in Naarm, at the Royal Women's Hospital, on 5 September 1943, making him, as he said, a Melbournite. Jack Charles was taken from his mother's arms. His mother lived on the Cummerangunja Mission on the Murray River, but, growing up, her existence was denied. At the age of two, Uncle Jack was placed in a Salvation Army home in Box Hill. At the home, where he was held until he was 13 years old, he was, as he put it, 'whitewashed'. He was regarded as, in his words, 'an item of interest' because he was the only First Nations person. He said the feelings of rejection and isolation were intense. He was told that he was an orphan and it was denied that he was an Aboriginal. Uncle Jack Charles leaves no heirs, but he leaves us with his story. That's his legacy. Uncle Jack was a powerful storyteller, and his life is a powerful story of someone who was a warrior for his people. Uncle Jack was an elder, a lawman and an icon of Melbourne's inner north. He was an actor, a musician, a potter, a film star, a national treasure and an icon, and we have lost a legend. Uncle Jack was routinely seen—as the previous speaker noted—on the streets of my electorate of Melbourne. While drinking a latte at Friends of the Earth cafe on Smith Street in Collingwood, members of the community would approach him to thank him for his inspiration. He created deep impressions and lasting memories. He brought to life the story of this country, of his country, of his experiences of Collingwood and Fitzroy, and the experiences of First Nations peoples. Uncle Jack bore the racism and embodied the resilience of his people. He was cheeky in the face of power—the power of the state—to deny his liberty, his culture and his existence. Uncle Jack was just one of the Stolen Generations. He was lied to, told that he was an orphan and that he wasn't Aboriginal, and that he should be glad for what white people had given him. He was incarcerated and abused. He was bashed and raped at the hands of the state, by men of the church, in institutions which claimed to protect him. He endured a state sanctioned effort to wipe out First Nations people. Yet, despite these challenges, he radiated sunshine; he radiated joy. And he spoke with the deep tones which carried the voice of an ancient culture and people. He became, according to himself, a 'Robin Hood of the streets'—robbing the rich for the poor, feeding an addiction to deal with his trauma. Yet, by his life's end, he had become a giant, appearing on everything from the Archibald to Playschool to his own stage plays and international film. He became a leader for his people and an advocate for the imprisoned and the addicted. He was the subject of colonisation, and he became the object of adulation. We must cherish his memory and fight for his cause. It was quite a life—a true king, a warrior and a storyteller of the highest order. He was incredibly funny and deeply serious. He resonated like a voice from the other side of time. He demanded that we understand the history of the warriors of the First Nations and that we understand how they fought and will continue to fight for justice, for truth and a say. At 15, he met Don Bradman. Years later, he would play the role of Eddie Gilbert on the ABC, the First Nations fast bowler who twice bowled Bradman out for a duck. He had numerous incredible stories which he would share on street corners—like surviving Pentridge, a run-in with Chopper Read, or finding out the identity of his father in 2021. It was in 1970 that Uncle Jack Charles first found the theatre. He described it as a true love, being able to, in his words, be born again. By 1971, he would co-found Australia's first First Nations theatre company. He named it Nindethana, meaning 'a place for corroboree' or 'ours'. Uncle Jack would feature in film and TV and on stage, but it was not until later in his life that he really found his voice. As he put it in the film Bastardy about his life, jail and white powders cost him many roles. He treated the pain of his upbringing with heroin and funded his addiction with burglaries. He described them as 'rent collecting' from the land which he owned. Many of the mansions which he collected rent from sit within the Kulin nation and sit upon his ancestral country, in a land which has never been ceded. He described the challenges of being a gay First Nations man in the 1950s and 1960s. He said: In those days, you had to keep it dark because it was illegal. He went on to say:. I remember the days when the police were going around to the tea rooms or the public toilets as cadets to be blooded up, blood up and bash the poofs … Thankfully, they did it at night and I'm dark, so they never saw me. Jack underwent metamorphosis to become, as he put it, 'an old reprobate'. He beat his addictions. He trained as an elder and started visiting with First Nations people in prisons. In his words, he went 'from a rogue and a vagabond to a person of note and a role model', as he told the National Portrait Gallery when his iconic image was submitted to the prize. By 2016, he would be Victorian Senior of the Year. Most recently, he was named Elder of the Year by NAIDOC. As I mentioned, staggeringly, it was not until 2021 that Jack truly discovered who his father was or who his ancestors were. Uncle Jack's ancestors came from Tasmania, where his five times great-grandfather Mannalargenna was a leader of the Pairrebeenne/Trawlwoolway clan. His ancestor was conned into convincing those of his people who hadn't been killed or married into white society to move to a death camp on Flinders Island. We all need to know these histories and we all need to know who we are and where we come from. As Uncle Jack said: It is never too late to learn who you are. Uncle Jack's life shows us why we need a treaty. He told Senator Lidia Thorpe a treaty would mean 'we could be treated seriously'. I know that Uncle Jack's passing means a lot for Senator Thorpe, who he counted as a friend. Uncle Jack's life shows us why we need truth. First Nations people have suffered and lost so much. The least we can do is listen. There have been thousands of massacres since colonisation. There have been thousands of stories like Uncle Jack's childhood. We cannot heal and move forward until we take the time to listen. Uncle Jack's story shows us why First Nations deserve truth telling in this country. For too long, First Nations people have had their children stolen and their country ruined and have been denied the most basic rights by the Crown, by the Commonwealth, by the states and by the citizens of Australia. We have been uniquely and unapologetically racist towards the people who've inhabited this land since time immemorial. We have not paid the rent. Treaty, according to Uncle Jack, means First Nations people can be treated seriously. In his words, 'We can seek an audience as leaders in our own right and our dreaming, our desires, can be realised. We need a treaty to have a voice in parliament.' He said, 'If you want to move on, you have to be honest with yourself.' My condolences and deepest respects to his community, to the people of my area who loved him so deeply, to the theatre community of Melbourne, to all who had the pleasure of his company or the company of his stagecraft, and to all the young people he mentored and those he inspired. We extend our sorrow at your loss. As his family said: We are so proud of everything he has achieved in his remarkable life … may he be greeted by his Ancestors on his return home. Vale, Uncle Jack, vale. 17:24 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle It's a real honour to be able to stand here today and make a very modest contribution. I want to acknowledge the words earlier of the Minister for Indigenous Australians, the Minister for the Arts and the member for Melbourne and thank them for their heartfelt and insightful comments. I wanted to have the opportunity to say thank you. I am so thrilled to have been able to live a life where someone like Uncle Jack Charles was able to be an influencer. That has different meanings for many today. He was truly one of the most remarkable storytellers this country has ever known. His story—which was so beautifully articulated by the member for Melbourne just now—of trauma and struggle and survival, and, importantly, his determination to ensure that the truth was known, was the most extraordinary and generous gift to all of us in this nation. The life that he led for so long was unimaginable. No child should experience the pain, trauma and abuse that he experienced as a child. And yet we know there are still shocking episodes in out-of-home care that continue to occur here in Australia, which should remind us all of our obligation to ensure it stops. Uncle Jack had an amazing life journey full of courage and self-discovery that eventually led to an understanding of a whole other identity that he had been denied as a child. He was, without doubt, a very, very proud First Nations man. He spoke so openly about his addictions, his experiences with homelessness and crime, his convictions and his experiences with incarceration. He was always more than all of that adversity that he faced. He was profoundly shaped by his experiences and dedicated his life to his own truth. A few people have already commented that he felt he had been saved by the arts, and I totally understand what he meant. He wasn't a trained actor, but he graced our screens and our stage in a way that many actors who've spent most of their life at NIDA would have been envious of. He was such a strong advocate for Aboriginal people, establishing the first Indigenous theatre in Australia. What an extraordinary legacy. I just marvel in the generosity of this man. He was so giving of himself and he has left such a profound legacy for millions of Australians and those abroad to enjoy. Uncle Jack channelled his own experiences through his career in the arts. He was our nation's most remarkable storyteller. He became a mentor to many and is fondly known as the grandfather of the Indigenous theatre. He defined an era of Aboriginal storytellers through his natural talent and passion for the theatre, and used his gift of storytelling to make change and blaze a trail for young Indigenous actors. He described himself as 'once a lost boy, now found'. That was his comment upon learning of his father's identity, just in the last year. In 2009, uncle Jack was awarded the prestigious Tudawali Award, honouring his lifetime contribution to Indigenous media. He was the recipient of the Green Room Lifetime Achievement Award 2014, was named Victorian Senior Australian of the Year 2016, won the Ochre Award in 2019 and most recently was awarded NAIDOC Male Elder of the Year 2022. But no amount of awards or recognition could repay the generosity of Uncle Jack Charles. His deep voice and his cheeky and disarming humour are something that we are all left with as the most beautiful and remarkable gifts. He will live on in the hearts and the screens and the memories and the great recordings of his life journeys and the beautiful songs that he has sung over the years. And I couldn't agree more with the Minister for Indigenous Australians: if you haven't had an opportunity to watch both—we recently lost both Uncle Archie Roach and Uncle Jack Charles in such quick succession of each other, but their songs together are a gift for all of us to enjoy evermore. A great man loved by many, an incredible sense of humour, cheekiness and graciousness, who will be admired for all time. Before his passing, Uncle Jack's family sent him off to country. There was a smoking ceremony at the Royal Melbourne Hospital, and he will be honoured with a state funeral next month. May he, indeed, rest in power. He will be sorely missed by his community, by the entire Australian arts community, by everybody who was indeed touched by his life. He got to meet a lot of people living on those streets in Melbourne, of course, but he has impacted literally the lives of millions of Australians, many of whom he would never have met face-to-face. But that is his legacy, and for that I am, and Australia is, deeply indebted. Vale, Uncle Jack Charles. 17:32 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara I rise to speak about the passing and the life of Uncle Jack Charles. Firstly, as my colleague Linda Burney, the Minister for Indigenous Australians, did earlier this morning, I too would like to acknowledge Uncle Jack's family, who has given us permission to use his name, and I send my sincerest condolences and sympathies to his family during this time. Uncle Jack Charles was a proud Boon Wurrung, Dja Dja Wurrung, Woiwurrung and Taungurung man, with strong connections to the community of Macnamara. He was a survivor of the stolen generations. As an infant he was forcibly removed from his mother by authorities. He endured homelessness, imprisonment and a cycle of addiction for much of his life, but Uncle Jack turned it into something remarkable, and he turned it into an inspiration for others. There's a great film on Netflix called The Art of Incarceration, and in the opening of this film you'll hear Uncle Jack. This film is about turning the lives of First Nations people around and turning the lives of those incarcerated around. It was facilitated and created by an organisation in my electorate called the Torch, which engages with First Nations people and helps them create some of the most magnificent art you could ever lay your eyes on, and all of the proceeds of the Torch go into rehabilitation and to rebuilding lives. And, naturally, Uncle Jack was the perfect fit for a film and a story about turning lives around and about bringing people from incarceration into a better life and a better future. Uncle Jack used that earthy, deep voice that could easily move past the superficial conversations that usually run our day-to-day lives. Uncle Jack's soulful voice was able to touch something far deeper and to touch a deeper part of ourselves that made us think, made us feel and made us act, and that was extraordinary. In 1971 Uncle Jack co-founded Australia's first Indigenous theatre group, Nindethana, at Melbourne's Pram Factory, and he was known as the grandfather of black theatre. Although his life was marred by injustice, trauma and hardship, Uncle Jack remained endlessly generous and a relentless voice and relentless advocate for the underdog. Perhaps something that is spoken of a little less is that Uncle Jack was an out and proud gay man, and one of the last public events Uncle Jack attended was a Wear It Purple Day at the Victorian Pride Centre in the heart of my electorate, in St Kilda. This was organised by Koorie Pride Victoria, one of the permanent tenants of the Pride Centre, and Switchboard Victoria, another outstanding local organisation. Both support LGBTQI+ people in need. The CEO of Koorie Pride, Allison Toby, told us how important it was for queer Aboriginal people to have such a strong role model. Uncle Jack encouraged people to be themselves and to be proud of who they are. At this event, Uncle Jack Charles reminded everyone of the power you can find in telling your own story. And Uncle Jack told stories. He told stories to change hearts and to change minds. He used his voice—his remarkable voice. Rest in power, Uncle Jack. To all his family: Australia grieves alongside you. Federation Chamber adjourned at 17:37