2022-10-25 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 25 October 2022

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

STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 1 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Thorpe, Senator Lidia 1 12:00 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I seek your indulgence to make an explanation. Mr Speaker, I want to address the issues that have been raised publicly last week. Senator Thorpe has advised me that she remains friends with a Mr Martin and that her connection with him began in 2021. This means that she was the Greens' justice spokesperson and also a member of the Joint Committee on Law Enforcement at the time. Senator Thorpe has acknowledged that this should have been disclosed. Following my request, Senator Thorpe has resigned from the position of deputy leader in the senate. As I said last week, I first became aware of these matters when recently contacted by the media. After I made inquiries and as has been reported, it became clear that Senator Thorpe's then chief of staff raised the connection with Mr Martin with my chief of staff in 2021. My chief of staff tells me that he advised Senator Thorpe's chief of staff that the issue should be raised with Senator Thorpe. He has also told me that after a subsequent conversation between the two chiefs of staff my chief of staff understood that the issue had been addressed. He did not inform me of these matters at the time and I wasn't aware of these matters until the media raised them. I have a very good and competent chief of staff who makes many good decisions. The failure to inform me of this matter was not one of them. I should have been told, but I wasn't. In failing to inform me my chief of staff did not meet the expectations of staff in my office on such matters. I have counselled my chief of staff. I have also since reinforced with my senior staff the importance of raising any such matters with me directly. I also consider the principal responsibility for disclosing these issues to me sat with Senator Thorpe, and she has agreed that she should have disclosed this to me. Senator Thorpe has assured me that committee information was treated in confidence. She completely rejects any suggestion she would do anything other than treat all such information confidentially. I also note that no-one has suggested otherwise. I note also that Senator Thorpe has not held the justice portfolio since the election. Senator Thorpe is an incredible fighter for her people. Senator Thorpe has important work to do on First Nations justice including on progressing truth, treaty and voice. I want her to be able to do that work. In making inquiries about this matter I have also caused a search of the emails sent to my private and public parliamentary email accounts to be made. It appears that in 2016, prior to me becoming Greens leader and prior to the matters the subject of media reporting, a Mr Dean Martin sent an email to our public inbox about the deportation of Mr Shane Martin as part of an email chain that referenced both the former minister for home affairs and other members of parliament. As Mr Dean Martin was not a constituent of mine at this time, it does not appear that my office took any further steps on his behalf, but I am making further inquiries on this front. It appears that a number of people were advocating for Mr Shane Martin at the time and that the emails were sent to a number of politicians. Matters have also been raised publicly about the handling of a complaint made to my office by a former staff member and about the Greens parliamentary complaint process. In the initial ABC report last week there was a suggestion that we had not followed our own rules in dealing with a complaint made by staff to our office about Senator Thorpe. In respect of that complaint, I am advised that an independent review of Senator Thorpe's office, auspiced by the Department of Finance, was commenced as requested by the complainant. We are awaiting the outcomes of that review, which will then be dealt with in accordance with our processes. I've also asked the PWSS to independently review the Greens' internal complaints processes and recommend any changes. It's absolutely vital that current and former staff feel supported in coming forward and raising any issues they wish. We are currently reviewing our processes, including in light of recent events, to ensure that this is the case. I want to assure anyone who wants to raise any issue with us and wants it to be dealt with either by us or by an independent body: we will support you. The actions I have taken, including this statement, are based on inquiries I've made, searches of my private and public emails I've caused to be made, advice I have received and the facts as I understand them to date. However, as I have made clear publicly, if any further information is provided to me or becomes apparent, I will of course consider it and act on it, including updating the House if necessary. BILLS 2 BILLS Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022, Defence, Veterans' and Families' Acute Support Package Bill 2022, Military Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment (Incapacity Payments) Bill 2022, Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Self-Employment Programs and Other Measures) Bill 2022 2

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

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

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

Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Self-Employment Programs and Other Measures) Bill 2022

Assent 2 COMMITTEES 2 COMMITTEES Implementation of the National Redress Scheme Joint Committee, National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation Joint Select Committee 2 Membership 2 12:05 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received messages from the Senate acquainting the House that Senator White has been discharged as a member and appointed as a participating member of the Joint Standing Committee on the Implementation of the National Redress Scheme and Senator Bilyk has been appointed as a member of the committee and informing the House that Senators Bilyk, Sterle and White have been appointed members of the Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Joint Committee 2 Reference 2 12:06 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a message from the Senate informing the House of a resolution of the Senate referring a matter to the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. Given the length of the resolution, I do not intend to read the terms of it, which will be recorded in the votes and proceedings and incorporated in Hansard. The message read as follows— That the following matter be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs for inquiry and report by 1 December 2022: Community safety, support services and job opportunities in the Northern Territory, with particular reference to: (a) the preparation for the sunsetting of the Stronger Futures legislation; (b) community safety and alcohol management; (c) job opportunities and Community Development Program reform; (d) justice reinvestment community services; and (e) any related matters. National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation Joint Select Committee 2 Membership 2 12:06 The SPEAKER 53517 On 30 September 20222 I received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating Ms Lawrence to be a member of the Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation in place of Ms Murphy. In accordance with section 4 of the resolution of appointment to committee, the appointment became effective on that day. I now call the minister to move a motion to resolve the membership of the committee. 12:07 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt by leave—I move: That Ms Murphy be discharged from the Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation and that, in her place, Ms Lawrence be appointed a member of the committee. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 3 BUSINESS Suspension Of Standing And Sessional Orders 3 12:07 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That standing order 31 (automatic adjournment of the House) and standing order 33 (limit on business) be suspended for this sitting. This is the standard change to procedure we do on budget day on each occasion, and there will be a similar procedure with regard to budget reply that I will move later in the week. Question agreed to. BILLS 3 BILLS Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Lifting the Income Limit for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card) Bill 2022 3

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

Consideration of Senate Message 3 Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill 2022 3

Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill 2022

Second Reading 3 12:09 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff The coalition believes in and has always been a strong supporter of choice. We want Australians to have a choice on where they live, where they work and how they raise their kids. We believe that all parents who work or study should have access to care for their children if they want it or if they need it. The coalition has always been passionate about getting Australians into the workforce. Whether it's their first job, a new job or supporting families back into the workforce after having their children, we have a strong record when it comes to this. Under the coalition women's workforce participation rates were at an all-time high at 62.3 per cent in May 2022. It was 58.7 per cent in September 2013 when Labor last left office. We want to see more women in work. We want to see more children and families access early childhood education, which is why the coalition will not oppose this bill. However, we have several concerns with the government's legislation, and we call on the government to address these concerns to ensure the sector is not placed under further pressure come July 2023. We are disappointed with the government's lack of detail in the early childhood education policy, given they had nine years in opposition to perfect it. It's clear the government has no effective plan to address the current workforce shortages or the pressures faced by our early childhood educators. Over the last four months I've held roundtables with educators around the country to discuss issues within the sector, and every single one I've spoken with has expressed the concern that this legislation will create more demand and so put more pressure on them—a workforce already under great pressure. There are more than 7,000 vacancies currently across the sector. Almost every centre I've spoken to is desperate for more staff right now. They know that by July next year without additional staff there's no way they can take on more children. According to Goodstart, the biggest not-for-profit early childhood provider in the country, an additional 9,000 educators will be needed in the sector under these changes. Goodstart, like many other providers around the country, is concerned about the additional pressure 1 July will bring. As John Cherry outlined at the Senate inquiry just last week, 'The ability of the sector to accommodate extra demand for places next July given current staffing challenges should be of concern.' And it should be of concern. So I asked the government, 'What are you doing to address shortages in the workforce right now? What are you doing to address the concerns of educators so we can't only retain good educators in the sector but continue to provide the best start in life for our youngest Australians?' The Treasurer said there will be an additional 37,000 full-time employees created from this bill. But 15,000 ECEs and ECTs will be needed to support these measures. So I asked the Treasurer, 'Will almost half of those new entrants be qualified as early childhood educators and early childhood teachers?' The answer is a resounding no. The numbers just don't stack up. The government has talked about new TAFE places for early childhood educators. The coalition has always been and will continue to be a friend to TAFE. We want to see more Australians in vocational education, but these extra places won't do anything to address the current workforce shortages and they won't do anything to support the current educators. It takes time to qualify as an early childhood educator. In fact, when asked about it the government conceded itself that it will take time to get those educators trained and on the ground—time we simply don't have. Another thing we don't have from this government is a plan to improve access. With $4.5 billion of spend not one single new early childhood education place will be created under this policy. It is a shame for Australian families who currently don't have access. They won't get access under this bill. There won't be new access. The government needs to be upfront with families and explain how they plan to increase access to services when their policy will put higher demand on a system already under great pressure. Centres are capping enrolments. They're closing rooms and they're already considering additional pricing increases as we speak, and it's across the board. It's possible, and likely, that some of the increased childcare subsidy could be lost to price rises between now and July next year—lost to inflationary pressures on fees. Be they large for-profit providers operating centres across the country or locally run community centres, the same issues are being faced by all providers. How will families send their children to the local early childhood education centre if there are no new places or services in their area? Can the government promise that families in Port Augusta will have the same access to services as families in Mossman? And how will the families of the community in Kingston SE, for example, utilise the additional subsidies when they're still waiting to hear from the government on whether they'll deliver on the $1.8 million early learning funding Minister Rishworth promised them? There's no point in having $4.5 billion in subsidies if families who need it most can't access it for their children. Of course, the devil is in the detail, of which we're yet to see. According to the Mitchell Institute, a third of Australian families live in a childcare desert—that's nine million Australians. Fifty per cent of those deserts are in regional, rural and remote areas. Our side of the chamber understands how important it is for families to access services, no matter if they live in our big cities or in the regions. And we know that Labor don't care about the regions. They don't care about building infrastructure. They don't care about new early learning centres in the regions. Not one extra centre will be built due to this bill. The hypocrisy of the government is literally jaw dropping. On one side of their mouth they say they want to improve women's workforce participation and childcare access, and on the other side of their mouth they say they've axed funding from the Building Better Regions Fund for a new childcare centre hub and early intervention service in Bourke. They have a waiting list there of between 26 and 29 children, who are at risk of significant harm, and the community in Bourke was only told yesterday that the deal is off. It's a shame. There'll be no new places to benefit communities in regional cities and women's workforce participation in rural and regional Australia—not under this Labor government anyway. We've seen it time and time again, and my Nationals colleagues are all too familiar with the lack of action for regional Australia from Labor. This government has no plan to increase access in areas that are crying out for services, areas where women and men want to return to work but can't, because there are no services to accommodate their children. Labor haven't said whether they'll continue the coalition's Connected Beginnings program, which aims to deliver 50 sites by 2025, providing much-needed access for Indigenous Australians living in rural and remote Australia. They've also yet to commit to new rounds of the Community Child Care Fund, which provides grants to services and providers in regional areas. We've heard the government bang on about how every family will be better off under their 90 per cent subsidy scheme, but how can a family be better off if they can't access a service that's near them, or if they're stuck on a waiting list for months just to get into their nearest centre? They simply won't be. If the government really cared about improving access to care, they would address the areas struggling the most and build new centres. Four point five billion dollars and not one extra new place. Can we even trust that that figure is correct? The figure started at $5.4 billion, then it went to $5.1 billion, and now they're saying it's $4.5 billion. What is the figure? The government has changed it so many times it's hard to keep up. We all know that Labor's track record is bad when it comes to money. They can't manage it. The bill is a structural spend and the costs are not yet properly understood. The last time Labor was in government, childcare fees skyrocketed by 53 per cent in just six years! Let that sink in. Costs are going to skyrocket again under this policy. The last CPI data, from June 2022, showed that childcare costs came down 4.6 per cent in the year to June 2022. That's thanks to the work of the former coalition government and our childcare reforms—the biggest reforms in 40 years. Labor has no plans to address rising out-of-pocket costs or rising cost-of-living pressures in child care. The ACCC inquiry they announced last month will cost a whopping $10.8 million, and it won't report back to government until late 2023, after this policy is implemented. It simply won't help to alleviate current pressures in the sector, including workforce and access. Australian families cannot wait that long. They need cost-of-living relief now. In true Labor fashion, it appears they've undercooked their policy, and it will blow out to a much larger number. Let's see the structural consequences to the budget from these measures. The government have only costed this policy for three days a week, which is the average number of days a child attends early childhood education. If the outcome of this policy is to get more children into ECE more days a week, why wouldn't they cost it for, say, four days or maybe five days? It's clear the government haven't done their due diligence on this policy, and they have done next to no modelling to show what the outcomes of their policy will be. They have not done modelling on the impact on women's workforce participation. They simply haven't done it. Also, we know that the department's evidence last Friday in the Senate inquiry was that this bill brings confusion to the definition of 'Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children'. The coalition would like to see this definition the same across all policies, and there's work ahead to clarify that meaning so that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians have the certainty they deserve. The coalition has always been committed to our Closing the Gap outcomes, and we want to see more First Nations children attending early childhood education. Under us, the percentage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children attending the year before full-time schooling increased to 96.7 per cent, beating our target of 95 per cent by 2025. But there's still work to do. We want to see new early learning places for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. To summarise, the coalition calls on the government to do more to address concerns raised by educators, the sector and families. The government needs a plan to increase access. The government needs a plan to increase the pipeline of educators and retain them in the sector. Otherwise, this policy will not deliver on the promises they have sold to Australians, leaving many children and families and the sector much worse off. For the reasons that I have highlighted above, I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: (1) notes that this bill does nothing to address broader challenges for access to child care in Australia, namely: (a) child care service gaps in regional Australia; and (b) early childhood education and care workforce shortages which are preventing families from accessing the care they need; (2) notes that the Government's child care package, which costs $4.5 billion, does not add one additional child care place; (3) notes that child care providers have already increased fees since the Government came to office and the additional demand placed on child care services as a result of this bill will put further inflationary pressure on fees; (4) calls on the Government to ensure that the promised savings for families will not be eroded by higher fees due to the additional demand for child care services as a result of this bill; and (5) notes that the bill commits to higher ongoing structural spending and calls on the Government to manage its spending commitments to improve the budget while standing by their promise to deliver legislated targeted income tax relief". The SPEAKER 53517 Is the amendment seconded? Mr Vasta E0D I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 12:23 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Two years ago this month, I stood across there at that dispatch box and announced Labor's plan for cheaper child care in my first budget reply. It was the centrepiece of the first budget reply and the first step which saw those now on this side of the House walk across the chamber and form government. It was a critical commitment that we made to the working people of Australia, and we did it with the support of the business community, with the support of our electorates and, importantly, with the support, particularly, of working families. Here today we had an opportunity for the 'noalition', who sit over there for a reason, to prove that they were actually capable of listening to the very clear message that consigned them to opposition on 21 May, and yet what we just had from the shadow minister is, again, a statement of objection to expanding child care—objection to expanding the support for working women. I wait for the class war rhetoric to come from those opposite—that we're helping wealthier women in terms of families. The truth is that this is a policy that will boost productivity, boost workforce participation and boost population: the three Ps. If you're looking at economic growth and how you grow an economy, they are known by all economists as the three Ps: participation, productivity, population. This policy delivers on all three, and it is very clear that we have an absolute mandate for this policy. I was back in Eden-Monaro this morning with the member, again visiting an early learning centre, talking to the workers there—the fantastic workers who provide such support for our youngest Australians. That is one of many, many dozens of visits to early learning centres that I have made since we announced that policy in 2020. And yet those opposite still have not got the message. They're incapable of actually moving at all. They think that they will just oppose everything, including a policy that we have an absolutely clear mandate for. This not a welfare policy; this is about economic reform. The bill will boost productivity, lift participation and remove one of the biggest structural barriers to economic equality for working women. When we announced this policy, part of it was to lift the cap. Those opposite said that was economically irresponsible and that would be a disaster for the economy—before they then announced it themselves. It was a disaster, but then they adopted it! What those opposite are incapable of doing, though, is precisely what is in the title of the bill, the cheaper childcare bill. They're incapable of providing support for the cheaper child care that we will deliver for 1.2 million Australian families, starting in July next year—not a single family worse off but 96 per cent of families better off. Ninety-six per cent of families will be better off, but those opposite are angry about that. They're angry about that. They carry on about the cost of living. Here we have a practical measure that will make 96 per cent of families better off, but they're going to vote against it. That's fine. They'll be held to account for it. The plan we are delivering means significant savings for household budgets around the country. A family on a combined income of $120,000 with one child in care will save $1,780 in the first year of this plan alone. That's $1,780 more in their pocket in the first year alone. This bill helps with the cost of living, it invests in early education and it delivers overdue economic reform. The greatest untapped resource in our economy is the full, equal and resourceful participation of women, and the childcare system should be all about facilitating that, empowering it, helping parents return to work when they want to and helping mums and dads balance their career and their caring responsibilities in a way that works best for them. Yet at the moment it does the exact opposite. For so many families there's a cut-off, a financial cliff, where one partner—and it usually is the mother—is effectively penalised if they want to work more than three days a week. How does it make any sense at all that, if you want to more fully participate in the workforce and you work a fourth or a fifth day, then you receive very little, minimal, economic benefit from that? Sometimes you can actually go backwards. It can actually cost you money in real terms for you to fully participate in work, and that flows through, because it penalises not just those families but the businesses who don't benefit from having full-time workers. Not only does that impact working families at the time; it flows all the way through the system to lower retirement incomes for working women. Women retire with much less in superannuation and retirement savings than men—much less. One of the things that we're seeing in this country is that the fastest-growing cohort of homeless people, of people really doing it incredibly tough, is older women. They might find themselves by themselves, not part of a family with a male breadwinner or an male ex-breadwinner who is on a higher income. They are left by themselves, and they struggle to get by because they don't have the same retirement income that others do. This is much-needed reform. The productivity agenda: if you speak to anyone in the business community—those opposite used to say that they represented the business community, but on climate no, not so much; on productivity no, not so much; on this area, not so much either. The Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group, ACCI, every local business chamber will tell those opposite that this is about productivity for their business. This is about boosting productivity as well. As the Minister for Education noted when he introduced this legislation, Treasury estimates that in the next financial year our plan for cheaper child care will mean up to an extra 1.4 million hours of paid work per week for women with young children—1.4 million hours of paid hours worked additional. Those opposite might not have got the memo, but there are skill shortages in this country. There are businesses crying out for workers. Here we have a measure that will produce up to an extra 1.4 million hours of paid work per week. But those opposite say, 'no, not good'. It's the equivalent of finding an extra 37,000 full-time workers. So it's about assisting families; it's about productivity; it's about economic reform. In the course of campaigning over the last two years for this reform I have spoken with a lot of families about this issue. It's my experience that nearly every Australian parent with a child in child care tells you the same two things about the system. The first thing they say is that the people working in it are remarkable. I have met some more of them again today. The Minister for Education proved that he was much better at art than I was today—the teddy bear that he drew there at the early learning centre will hang with pride of place; my bunny rabbit not so much. Parents trust early childhood educators with the most precious thing in their world, and across Australia they perform the vital work with love and care and creativity and a seemingly endless supply of patients. I do want to give a shout out to them. So if the first thing that any parent tells you about child care is how great the educators are, the second thing that every parent tells you about child care is that it keeps getting more expensive. The figures are there—it's not a feeling, it's not a vibe. Costs have gone up by 41 per cent in the past eight years; 41 per cent on the former government's work. Let's be very clear. Childcare bills are not going up because educators are suddenly being paid a lot more. The rising fees vastly outweigh any increase in wages. That's why we have put the ACCC on the case, to make sure our investment gets prices down and keeps them down. That's why a key part of this legislation is about increasing transparency, making sure that the big providers in particular are reporting their profits and revenues to the Department of Education and are being upfront with parents about where their fees go. We're making child care more affordable and accessible and providers more accountable. Our Labor government is helping families with the cost of child care because we know the value of early education. Education opens the doors of opportunity for individuals, and it makes us a smarter, more productive, more future-ready nation. That is the third element to this as well: it's not only good for families, it's good for the economy, but it's also good for the young children themselves. All the experts tell us that over 90 per cent of human brain development occurs in the first five years. That is why it's astonishing that we are so far behind most of the OECD when it comes to providing this support. Education is a lifelong journey, and early education gives you such a great start. That's why it's important to note as well that this bill gives more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children access to child care—to help close the gap in education at the very outset. Labor's plan for cheaper child care benefits two generations of Australians simultaneously. It gives access to early education for a great start in life, flexible support for families, and a multibillion dollar boost to productivity and participation without adding to inflation. That is why we see this bill as the foundation, a hugely important first step—because in this term of government we are tasking the Productivity Commission to chart a course for universal, affordable child care. Just as universal Medicare guarantees every Australian the right to quality and affordable healthcare, just as universal superannuation ensures every Australian can know dignity and security in their retirement, we want universal child care to guarantee every Australian family the support they need and every Australian child the opportunity that they deserve. I'm very proud we're delivering for families who voted for cheaper child care. You'll see it there in tonight's budget along with the other commitments that we have a mandate for—that Australians voted for in May. And there is nowhere a policy that we talked about more. This is the biggest single on-budget commitment that we made, and we made it in my first budget reply, so it isn't like they didn't see this coming. It isn't like Australians didn't have an opportunity to scrutinise this policy. We made it very, very clear from the outset, and Australians voted for it. That's because this is economic reform which particularly benefits working women. It was one of the themes, of course, of the Jobs and Skills Summit, held just a short time ago in this parliament, that those opposite couldn't be bothered to attend, with the exception—the honourable exception—of the leader of the National Party. I'm determined for this to be the beginning, not the end, of making early education affordable for every Australian family that seeks out the opportunity. I encourage those opposite to wake up to themselves and go and talk to working parents and ask them if they support cheaper child care. Go and talk to businesses about whether they support the position. They're saying now, having moved an amendment condemning it, that they might vote for it! Now, that's the sort of consistency that I expect from those opposite! I commend the bill to the House and I encourage this parliament to vote for this legislation. 12:38 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar I support moves to make child care more accessible and more affordable for all Australian families. Not only is this sensible economic policy; it will also provide our children with the best possible start in life. It will increase female participation in the workforce. It will reduce the gender pay gap and make child care affordable for all families. Early education plays a crucial role in our society. However, right now, many families struggle to access child care places, and the cost of child care is a huge barrier for many women as they seek to return to the workforce. This bill is a step in the right direction towards universally accessible and affordable child care. When it comes to female participation in our economy, Australia is behind our international peers. For although the World Economic Forum's global gender gap index ranks Australia No.1 for education of women and girls, we are ranked way down the line, 70th, for woman's workplace participation—a slide from 12th in 2006. According to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, the gender pay gap in Australia has also worsened this year and now stands at 14.1 per cent. This equates to the average Australian woman earning nearly $264 less every week than the average Australian man. In other words, a woman must work 60 extra days a year to earn the same amount. Women are also retiring with 42 per cent less super than men, and women aged over 55 are now the fastest rising segment of our population experiencing homelessness. Obviously, this is not fair and not right, nor is it economically viable for our nation to continue to disincentivise over 50 per cent of our population from working. For too long, women have been economically left behind in this country, and reform to make child care more affordable and accessible is long overdue. Research also illustrates the crucially important role early education plays in the development of our children. According to the organisation Thrive by Five, nearly a quarter of children are starting their primary school years in a vulnerable state due to a lack of quality early education, and evidence shows that most never catch up to their peers. If we do not make high-quality early education affordable and accessible to all Australians, we will simply fail our children. A child should never be denied critical early learning, nor should a women lose the opportunity to work because child care is too expensive. Many mums in Mackellar and on the Northern Beaches have approached me on the street or emailed my office to tell me that something absolutely must be done about the rapidly rising cost of child care and that the cost of child care is the main reason they have not returned to work. The cost of child care has risen 14 per cent in just the last 12 months. Intelligent, hardworking, qualified and willing workers from all sectors of the economy are choosing not to work and not to re-enter the workplace, because it doesn't make economic sense to do so. As the Grattan Institute's Danielle Wood told the Jobs and Skills Summit earlier this year: I can't help but reflect that if untapped women's workforce participation was a massive iron ore deposit, we would have governments falling over themselves to give subsidies to it and get it out of the ground. Modelling shows that the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill 2022 will create around an extra 37,000 full-time jobs, covering up to 220,000 additional days of work each year. This bill goes some way to mining that amazing talent pool that we are currently ignoring, and that is Australian women. However, we can't pretend that this policy will be a silver bullet. There are a number of issues that must be addressed for the cheaper child care bill to be successful. Currently, one-third of families live in what is called a 'childcare desert', where there is simply no child care available. So it doesn't matter how affordable child care becomes, these families still won't be able to access child care, as it doesn't exist in their area. These childcare deserts are predominantly in rural and regional areas, but they also exist in all capital cities. The Productivity Commission review of the childcare sector that was promised at the Jobs and Skills Summit must examine these supply constraints in the early childhood education sector. There must also be regulation to ensure that the increase in the childcare subsidy for families does not end up with childcare services simply increasing their fees and neutralising the benefit to families. Additionally, the activity eligibility test, which looks at whether or not both parents are working, should allow for a base entitlement of 36 hours a fortnight for all children, regardless of whether their parents do or don't work. Often, it is the children of parents that do not work who are most vulnerable and are in most need of the intervention and support that early childhood education provides. However, one of the biggest challenges to the success of this bill is the fact that we are in the middle of a jobs and skills shortage, and the early education sector is one of the industries that is struggling to find enough workers. As we make child care more affordable and more accessible, so too will demand for early child educators rise. In August this year there were already 7,200 vacancies in early childhood education, and modelling shows that on top of this an extra 9,500 full-time educators will be needed to make this policy work. Fiona Spencer is someone who lives in my electorate. She has operated childcare centres in Sydney and Canberra for over 11 years. Fiona told me that, despite welcoming this legislation, she has grave concerns for the future of the industry and worries about where the extra workers will come from. Fiona told me how COVID has made labour shortages even worse. In her words, she said: The system is failing children and failing staff to support the children. It needs a structural approach and a massive overhaul. While I commend the Australian government's commitment to the fee-free TAFE positions for early educators and to increasing the number of positions available to early educators in our skilled migration program, more can be done. From my discussions with the sector and other experts, it is clear that the No. 1 thing that we can do to halt the exodus of workers from early education and to attract more people to the sector is to increase their wages. In many places, you can earn more at Bunnings than you can working in child care and early education. Analysis by the Australian Association for Research in Education and The Parenthood shows that the early education sector has an attrition rate of 35 per cent, up from 20 per cent. A survey of 4,000 workers during COVID showed that 73 per cent intended to leave the sector within the coming years. Data from the national early childhood education regulator reveals that in the first quarter of this year 8.1 per cent of childcare providers operated with a staffing waiver, which allows them to remain open despite having inadequate staff numbers. Despite having similar qualifications, early childhood educators are paid, on average, 30 per cent less than their counterparts working in the school system. We need to reverse this figure for this policy to be successful. To do so, The Parenthood has recommended that government fund a 10 per cent increase in wages for early educators. With cost-of-living pressures paramount in people's minds, this would help people to choose a career in early education and child care and it would send the message that their work is valued and vital. The Parenthood has calculated that a 10 per cent wage supplement for two years would cost $700 million. I support this measure and call on the government to support this pay rise for our early educators, most of whom are women. Supporting a thriving and viable early education sector and making child care accessible and affordable for all Australian families is good economic policy. It's good for our children and it's a positive step in reducing the gender pay gap. I commend this bill to the House and congratulate the government for prioritising this legislation in order to get our country moving forward again. 12:48 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan It is indeed a great privilege to rise here today to speak in support of the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill 2022. I am proud to serve as the Minister for Early Childhood Education in an Albanese government—a government that delivers on its promises, a government that understands that Australian families are struggling with skyrocketing fees for early childhood education and a government that understands the importance of ensuring all families, no matter where they live, have access to quality early childhood education. The Albanese government's early childhood education and care reforms come after years of inaction from the previous government, with fees for centre based care rising by an incredible 41 per cent in the last eight years. I note that the shadow minister in her opening remarks said, if I may paraphrase, 'You've been in opposition for nine years; why didn't you do anything in opposition?' I turn that question around to the shadow minister and say, 'You have been in government for nine years; why didn't you do anything when you were in government?' The Albanese government's early childhood education and care reforms were an election promise. We went to the election promising to reduce out-of-pocket costs for Australian families, and this bill will do just that—cutting the cost of early childhood education and care for around 1.26 million families right across Australia. But this bill does more than that. It is about more than just increasing affordability. It's also about ensuring that we give families greater choice to participate in the workforce and give our children the best start in life. The high costs of early childhood education and care, as those who have spoken before me have noted, can put early learning out of reach for many families and can act as a massive disincentive for people to get back into the workforce or to work more hours or more days, and that can impact on career progression for primary caregivers, who overwhelmingly tend to be women. Treasury estimates that these measures will increase the hours worked by women with young children by up to 1.4 million hours per week in 2023-24. That's the equivalent of 37,000 full-time workers. This makes a difference to the economy because this means families are generating extra income. It's building careers and the retirement savings of Australian women. The Prime Minister, in his contribution this morning, noted that Australian women are more likely to be in poverty and homelessness in their later years because of an interrupted career, because they're unable to save up that superannuation. A lot of that has to do with early childhood education being unaffordable for those women. Early childhood education and care also play a vital role in supporting families and improving the education and health outcomes of our children. I really want to put an emphasis on that, because boosting access to early childhood education will ensure that more children experience the benefits of foundational learning, preparing them for a life of exploration and a life of learning. I emphasise this and say this very clearly: the main beneficiaries of the Labor government's reform are Australia's children. I know how powerful early childhood education can be for children. As a single mother, I had no choice but to go back to work. In raising my two children as a single mother, I experienced just how it important it was to have access to affordable early childhood education for them. Without it, I wouldn't have had the capacity to return to work, I wouldn't have had the capacity to return to study and I certainly wouldn't have had the ability to create a better life for myself and for my children. It's no overstatement to say that I wouldn't be here today without the quality early childhood educators who were so committed to giving my children a better-quality start in their lives. I've spoken to parents across Australia who have shared similar stories with me about the part that early childhood education played in them being able to return to work and being able to build their families. They've told me how welcomed these reforms are, particularly by women who want that ability to choose to engage with the workforce if they so wish, to add to the family income if they so wish. But, importantly, I've also seen firsthand the power of early childhood education in children's lives, in the children that I've met across this journey. Last week, as part of Early Learning Matters Week, I visited Goodstart Nollamara, in my electorate. It's a fantastic centre. And this morning we were in Queanbeyan, with Minister Kristy McBain, Minister Jason Clare and our Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese. I've visited centres in electorates across the country and, in all of those visits, I've spoken to families and to educators alike about our changes, and they have all told me that they welcome the introduction of this bill and our broader plans to make early childhood education more affordable and more accessible. I know that's the message that members on this side of the House are getting from the families they represent in their electorates. In his second reading speech, my colleague the Minister for Education, Jason Clare, outlined the key elements of this bill. I'm proud to be working closely with him to ensure that our reforms make early childhood education more affordable for around 96 per cent of Australians. One element of the bill that I want to take some time this morning to draw attention to is the changes to the activity test for First Nations families. That's an element that highlights our government's commitment to closing the gap for First Nations Australians. Access to high-quality early learning is a key measure, shown to reduce vulnerability and improve early childhood development. At the moment, only 4.3 per cent of children in early childhood education and care identify as Indigenous, despite being 6.1 per cent of the overall population of children aged zero to five. This bill provides a base level, a minimum, of 36 subsidised hours of child care per fortnight for First Nations children, and this demonstrates our government's longstanding commitment to providing extra support for First Nations children and students, and our commitment to working with communities to improve outcomes for children. These simple changes will benefit around 6,600 First Nations families in care and encourage more families to access early education. Not only do these changes help ease the cost-of-living pressures, but also they provide even more opportunities for First Nations children to access the development, education and health benefits of early childhood education and care, helping to ensure that they are school-ready. I'm also very proud to be working alongside the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney, to develop the Early Childhood Care and Development Policy Partnership between Australian governments and First Nations representatives. That partnership is co-chaired by the national peak body for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and families, SNAICC, the National Voice for our Children. The partnership will work with governments to develop community-led policies and programs that First Nations families need for their children to thrive. I note that, in her contribution to this debate, the shadow minister raised several questions regarding several programs that we're doing specifically for First Nations children and, more broadly, around workforce issues and regional access. I will answer those questions in my contribution here today. Turning to those broader issues that are being experienced by the early childhood education sector, we know that, in order to be able to deliver our commitment to more affordable, quality and accessible early childhood education and care, we need to correct the years of neglect as to workforce issues, pay and conditions and staff shortages. That's why I've met with unions, providers, educators and peak bodies to discuss the issues that they're facing and committed to work with them. We know that ECEC workers make an important contribution in the lives of our children and families, and we recognise that they are educators, not childminders, and deserve greater recognition for the important work they do. This is something that I am deeply committed to and will continue to work on, with educators in the sector, unions and my state and territory counterparts. It's also why we're bringing forward fee-free TAFE places and funding an extra 1,469 university places for early education teachers. We're also committed to wage growth, which is why we successfully argued for a pay rise for the lowest-paid workers in Australia—something that those opposite opposed. It's why we're committed to addressing the gender pay gap and will strengthen the ability of the Fair Work Commission to order pay rises for underpaid women workers and allow multi-employer bargaining. It's why early childhood education was high on the agenda of the Jobs and Skills Summit and we're acting quickly to implement some of the commitments made at that summit. It's why my colleague the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Tony Burke, will introduce reforms to deliver on our commitment to improve the industrial relations system. And I know these changes will be very significant for the early childhood education sector. National Cabinet has also tasked education and early years ministers with creating a vision for the future of early childhood education in Australia, with a particular focus on the workforce shortages. We're also delivering on the National Children's Education and Care Workforce Strategy implementation and evaluation plan, which outlines 21 practical actions to support the attraction, retention, quality and sustainability of the workforce in the long term. And that includes work on recognition of prior learning, microcredentialing, credentialing and the fantastic Big Roles in Little Lives campaign to promote carers in the sector. We're also committed to working with the sector and states and territories to find lasting solutions. The Community Child Care Fund supports early childhood education and care services to address barriers to participation in early childhood education and care in disadvantaged, regional and remote communities, something I know the shadow minister also asked about. We have committed to the CCCF, which funds around 900 services across Australia to ensure families have access to quality care where the market might not otherwise provide services. It's currently delivering approximately $533 million over four years, and over 60 per cent of grant funding supports services in regional and remote Australia. We're also developing a market strategy which will assist us to identify thin markets and areas of need and to consider solutions to address those needs. In terms of the Connected Beginnings program, which the shadow minister also referenced in her contribution, I can confirm that since we have come into government another eight Connected Beginnings sites have been opened, which now brings the number up to 32 Connected Beginnings sites, and we are well on our way to our aim of 51 Connected Beginnings sites by 2025. Our reforms build on a long-term legacy of Labor governments, who have for a long time focused on quality in early childhood education and supporting early educators. It was after all the Gillard government that introduced the National Quality Framework, a care reform to ensure all children across the country get quality education. In developing this bill, our government have engaged extensively with the sector, who we recognise have substantial knowledge and experience. That is critical to our government achieving their ambitious reform—people like my good friend Sam Page, the CEO of Early Childhood Australia, and people like Jay Weatherill, the director of Thrive by Five. So don't just take my word for it; take the word of those out there, people like Georgie Dent from The Parenthood, who know that these reforms are life changing for Australian families. We're going to continue to work in collaboration with them. Most importantly, I look forward to delivering a better future for all young Australians, no matter who you are or where you live—children like Zoe, who I met a few weeks ago in North Coburg, and Amara, who I met in Canberra. Zoe and Amara, you and children like you are this government's No. 1 stakeholder. The Albanese government wants the best for you and your future, and we will make sure that you have the absolute best start in life. I commend this bill to the House. 13:03 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise to speak in support of the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill 2022. Affordable, high-quality child care has many benefits to our society, to children, to their parents and to the economy. So what does this bill do? The government claims that around 96 per cent of families with children in early education and care will be better off and that none will be worse off, that families with a combined income of up to $80,000 will receive 90 per cent of childcare support for their first child in care, while families with a combined income of up to $530,000 will receive childcare support increase with the rate of subsidy tapering one per cent for every $5,000 earnt above $80,000. Currently, subsidy caps cap out, or stop, at $356,756, so it's a big increase to go up to that $530,000 cap. Second and subsequent children five and under will retain the higher childcare support, recognising the increased financial burden of multiple children attending child care. There are also targeted measures to improve access for First Nations families and staff of the childcare sector. Finally, there are amendments to increase the integrity, transparency and reporting requirements for childcare providers, including greater transparency of gap fees. This will assist parents enormously. So why is this bill so important? For children, we know high-quality early childhood education and care is robustly associated with positive outcomes at school entry and improvements in social development. This is an investment into our future as a nation. Affordable child care is important for gender equity and the economy. As the minister has noted, families with two or more children in day care are finding substantial financial disincentives for one parent to work more than three days a week. Overwhelmingly, the mother is the one who works part time. This has a significant effect on career progression and women's superannuation. I, like many in this place, can speak from experience of the juggle of child care. I used everything available, from my years studying to my years practising as a barrister, from public child care to family day care to long day care centres and, of course, to that group that we often don't acknowledge enough: the grandparents who are often filling the gaps in our society—unpaid and unrecognised, but doing so much to assist in actually keeping most families afloat. There's something that we haven't talked about much in this discussion: how difficult it is sometimes, with the pressure and inflexibility within our childcare systems. Take the pick-up time: I don't think there is a parent out there in Australia that has not been stressed at the idea of the deadline for pick-ups. I just don't know who came up with the hours in the first place of what a traditional day of child care should be, because very few workplaces actually have similar work hours. So that gap between long day care centres and other childcare centres, and just being able to cover that full day, is so incredibly difficult. And what about weekends for people that are rostered on or working on weekends? There is very little that I'm aware of in the way of childcare availability when it comes to weekends. And that's where you fall back on grandparents. So I think that, in looking at how this area needs to be further developed and strengthened, there should be consideration of people who work hours other than the traditional nine to five—noting that child care often caps out at three, so I don't know what was intended about the nine to five!—and recognition of that assistance from our community, from grandparents, and of what they do, and of that carers' time that so many older Australians put in to our economy. The Business Council of Australia recognises this aspect of child care when it comes to women's participation in the workforce. They noted in their submission to the Senate inquiry: 'Increasing the workforce participation of women is one of our nation's biggest economic and social opportunities.' The provision of an affordable and accessible and a quality childcare system is fundamental to that goal. If parents are supported with access to quality child care in order to participate in work, education or training, the broader benefits to the economy are manifest. And it is so incredibly tough. I remember taking my son to university on the weekend because there was no child care available and I had to go to university lectures. I remember doing the juggle, which can be incredibly difficult when starting out in a profession. I think we really need to think about this system, this area of work, which absolutely underpins so many others. So I welcome the government's initiative and the budget commitment of $4.5 billion over the forward estimates, but I'd like to make some more observations. The maximum childcare subsidy of 90 per cent of the fee cap begins to taper after a combined family income of $80,000—just that. The latest earnings report from the Australian Bureau of Statistics revealed that average full-time workers make $92,029 per year. Even with two parents on an average wage, the childcare subsidy benefit begins to erode. With childcare costs rising 41 per cent over the past eight years, and Australia's inflation rate predicted to be more than seven per cent this year, any benefits of this legislation may quickly vanish. I note that, prior to COVID, childcare costs absorbed some 18 per cent of household income for an average-earning Australian couple with two children, compared to the OECD average of 10 per cent. One of my constituents recently wrote to me about how she will be choosing to leave her job as a physiotherapist in an oncology ward simply due to the cost of child care. She's been working for $55 a day, pre tax. Her departure will not only remove her tax contributions from the government's revenue but also remove a valuable worker from an already strained health system. The government has indicated that it will commission the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to examine why childcare costs and out-of-pocket expenses are rising so much, together with a comprehensive review of the early education and care sector by the Productivity Commission. I welcome this review and I encourage it to also look at the flexibility and availability of hours and the issue of weekend care. I also welcome the transparency and reporting reforms contained in the bill. In terms of how information provided is reported, I would like to see a standard report, so that parents can make a direct comparison between providers and to make sure that the information is meaningful. I also encourage the government to ensure that exceptional circumstances exceptions for payments by electronic transfer or absences are not too onerous. We know COVID had a huge impact on the sector. During COVID childcare centres struggled to survive. One issue was the number of absent days a parent was able to claim while keeping their child enrolled. Flexibility on absent days is so incredibly important. We are now living with the pandemic but still being encouraged to stay home if people are unwell. Similarly, a number of childcare advocates made the observation about the activity test linked to childcare benefits. Again, I would encourage flexibility on the activity test application, particularly in relation to First Nations and vulnerable families. Making workplace participation a prerequisite for childcare subsidy makes it harder for those already doing it tough to begin training or looking at work. Labour shortages: we know, in so many industries, that Australia is facing shortages in many areas. Child care is no different, but it is unique in that it is an enabler for many sectors, by enabling parents to work in a range of sectors. Availability as well as affordability is vital. While Warringah is not alone in facing issues with accessibility, I do know that in recent times the Mosman Council has closed its occasional care centre, and Brookvale out-of-hours care and long day care have advised that they are also closing. This creates a huge issue for parents who rely on such services to be able to work—in particular, as I've already mentioned, that discrepancy between the expectation of hours of work and the opening times of centres. Last week was Early Learning Matters Week. I visited the Manly Community Pre-school. They're struggling to attract sufficient certificate III qualified staff, as the low pay rate means that cert III staff are simply going into other sectors that are more attractive, like aged care. They told me there is a shortage of about 7,000 workers in this area. The Parenthood group estimates that to realise the full benefit of this bill an additional 9,650 full-time educators will be needed by next year to absorb the additional demand. My constituents tell me that educators are leaving the sector in record numbers. They're burnt out. Their pay is so low. Family day care centres in New South Wales, for example, have continued to contract since 2016, and in the six-month reporting period to December 2021 they have reduced by some 7.6 per cent. Over the past four years there has been a 25.5 per cent decrease in the number of family day care approved services, and a 33 per cent decrease in the number of educators. This is incredibly concerning. As I've already said, the sector underpins and enables all other sectors, all parents, to go to work. So it is incredibly important that the sector be given the priority it needs. We know the decrease in the number of educators has a really negative impact on the diversity in childcare needs and the access to flexible and non-standard hours. Centres across the country are having to limit enrolments due to staffing issues. Northern Beaches Council staff have told me that, while the bill is a great step forward, staffing shortages are a significant barrier to enabling the bill to be sufficiently implemented. So I encourage the government to focus on the issue of attracting and keeping quality educators for all age groups. We need to be working with the education sector, with the TAFE sector, to ensure that those educators are coming down the line. It is no small task as it's a very large workforce, predominantly run and staffed by women. Family day care educators, for example, comprise one of Australia's largest network of women in small business. Electorates like Warringah are struggling to retain staff when the cost of living is so high and the pay for early childcare workers is so low. We need, as a society, to value the work these early educators are doing. I would also like to draw attention to the government in relation to the funding support for children with additional needs. I've been speaking with the Northern Beaches Council about the current inclusion development fund subsidy, which is currently $23 an hour, by the Department of Education. It has been this rate since 2017 with no CPI increase. The gap between funding and the amount paid to staff is simply growing. Currently, at the Northern Beaches Council the rate variation is $13 per hour for a casual staff member and $6 per hour for an entry-level cert. III. The annual funding gap this year is $202,000 for public centres in that council alone. The council is currently budgeting for 2023 and 2024. There is a significant increase with a growing number of children with learning support needs, likely increasing from 269 to 332 hours per week across northern beaches services. The annual funding gap will increase and this cost will be passed on, increasing our fees to all families. The government needs to recognise that there are more and more children with those additional needs. So programs like this need to be better adapted and the funding gap needs to be adjusted to CPI. Increased funding for supporting children with additional needs is important for avoiding seeing more children starting school developmentally vulnerable. It's well documented that early intervention and assistance is of huge benefit to children with additional needs and alleviates the costs incurred in the system later in the child's life. As we come to discussions around the costs—the blowing out costs—of the NDIS, the government needs to remember this. This early investment in the early stages makes a huge difference to costs incurred or needs later. I welcome the government's investment in early childhood education and care and the improvement in the integrity measures, but we need to urgently work on staffing for the sector in order to meet this demand. We need to value early childhood educators and make sure we tell our young people, as they are looking at their careers of choice, that this is a career that will be worthwhile, that you will be appreciated and valued by our society. I will continue to push for the changes to be expedited and work with the government to improve access and flexibilities to the system for the families and the children of Warringah. 13:17 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor It's an absolute pleasure to rise today to speak on the resumption of debate for the second reading for the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill 2022. It is an absolute pleasure because for nine years in this place my colleagues and I, on this side of the House now, called for dramatic change to child care to ensure that families in electorates like mine, in electorates like the member for Canberra's, could have the economic reform that would not just see child care provided better on the ground in our electorates and for our communities but would see a structural change that would mean improvement in gender equity and improvement in retirement incomes for women. The economic reform that is in front of us inside this bill has implications across decades. It is good for families, it is good for women, it is good for children and it is good for the economy. I stand here representing the seat that has the highest number of children in early childhood care and education in the country. There are 10,800 families in my electorate for whom this is excellent news. It's also cost-of-living action from this government that they can bank on that will save 10,800 families in my electorate. It's an extraordinary piece of legislation and a well thought out piece of legislation. It's a policy that addresses so many things, because it was developed thoughtfully by this government to impact on the economy, to make people's lives better and to ensure that we're talking about not just care for children but also quality education for children and the kind of interventions that we know are necessary for our youngest to be given the best start in life. It's an extraordinary day, and in my electorate early education and care takes various forms. Lots of families access family day care, and I've stood in this place many times across the last nine years to talk about the impacts of the former government's policies on that sector—pre-COVID, let alone during COVID. It's about the families who are accessing long day care through the hundreds of early learning and childcare centres in my electorate. Like most people on this side, I want to pay some homage to the people in my community who are working in this sector. It's a place that I visit often and, as an educator—having originally trained in and, for most of the decades I worked in education, worked at the secondary school level—my admiration for people working in the early years, as you can imagine, is extraordinary. Year 9s may take some work to engage, but they don't quite require the same levels of patience. I pay tribute to those workers, and not just for the care, for the nurturing, for the scraped knees and for working through with children how to play together and work together—not just for the things we all think of when we think about early education and care—but also for the planning that goes into ensuring every child in that centre is reaching their milestones. I thank them for the training that they've been doing in early education to ensure that they have the skills required to keep this sector going. I thank them, most importantly, for their work across the pandemic, when uncertainty didn't stop them from delivering for my local families and families across the country. This is a cost-of-living measure, it's an economic reform, and it also has some really important points to note. It puts measures in place that will deter fraud, something that has plagued this sector and that we've seen headlines about. It's this government that's going to put in place things to ensure that the public perception of the sector improves. People will have assurance that those people in this sector who are acting against the best interests of our community will be stopped in their tracks. It's also a really important piece of legislation because it supports First Nations children. It will provide additional support to First Nations children and families in accessing early childhood education and care. It will help close the gap in educational outcomes for First Nations children. Importantly, the bill provides 36 hours of subsidised early education and care a fortnight, regardless of activity level. This is absolutely critical to ensure that First Nations children can access early education and care, regardless of what's happening at home. This is important because in 2021 the Closing the Gap target to increase the proportion of First Nations children assessed as developmentally on track went backwards for the first time, and we need to turn this around. I note the shadow minister made the point that, in terms of children attending preschool, there have been improvements, but this is where the rubber hits the road. The proportion assessed as being developmentally on track went backwards. That's what early educators do every day—they are not just making sure that the children in their care are happy. They're doing more than making sure they are learning how to play. They're doing more than ensuring that they've had their lunch, their morning tea and perhaps their evening meal—in my electorate it's often the case that the children of shift workers are being looked after into late hours. They're doing much more than that. They're monitoring how far children are from milestones. They're putting steps in place to ensure that children reach those milestones, and, where children fall behind, they're working to ensure that they pick up that pace. This is extraordinary work. I don't think I'll be the only person in the chamber today to say it's extraordinary work—and work that should be paid more rather than less. We heard the Prime Minister earlier say that this legislation will remove a structural disincentive for women to return to work for longer hours. The estimate is that this legislation could, in fact, create 36,000 effective full-time workers for this country. This is incredible structural reform that we are looking at here, and it is work that those opposite ignored; chose not to do. Let's face it: most of these aspects were in the public domain while those opposite were in government. They chose to ignore it. In fact, they chose to bring in legislation that supported people with multiple children but left out out-of-school-hours care. Everyone knows that you can be a mum working full time while your youngsters are in long day care and then have to hit the brakes because once they start school you are not getting support for out-of-school-hours care. So people actually work less sometimes when their child starts school. But those opposite chose to completely ignore out-of-school-hours care in the last piece of legislation they brought into this chamber—an extraordinary oversight; an oversight that was pointed out to them when we were in opposition, and they still chose not to change it and not to amend it. I welcome hearing from the shadow minister that those opposite will support the legislation. I absolutely welcome them to walk into this chamber and vote for this legislation, because it is good policy, because it is good economics, because it is going to remove structural disincentives that are preventing women from earning as much as they could be and having that balance of being able to earn and look after their families. It's going to mean that women can make choices to ensure that their superannuation is building and growing at a higher rate. It has long been said by women in my family that husbands are not a superannuation package. I lived this firsthand in my family, having lost my father when I was in primary school. I watched my mum struggle on a single-parent pension with eight children from that day. In this country, we need women to earn their own living to ensure they can keep a roof over their own heads and their children's heads. This legislation goes some way to ensuring that, if you are a single parent, you are not going to be disadvantaged by a childcare system. It fixes the structural disadvantage. It supports families across the country. It supports our early learners. It supports the sector that we owe such a debt of gratitude to for their work during the pandemic and who were left abandoned twice by the then government during the pandemic without assurances, and who were left to tell families that they would not be able to attend, because they had gone past the number of days they could miss. Every time the former government played catch-up in that space, they hurt families in my community and they hurt this sector in my community. They actually risked people leaving the sector in a community like mine, where 11,000 families access early learning. I welcome this legislation. I can't wait for it to pass the parliament. I can't wait for it to come into law. It's budget day and this is great legislation that makes great economic sense as well as great educational sense. It really is a piece of work that I want to congratulate and commend the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Minister Aly, for her work in this space. Of course, I pay tribute to the member for Kingston for the work she did in this space across so many years, with support from many of us on this side of the chamber. And I pay tribute to those who worked in this space prior to that: the former member for Adelaide, who, on the day I became a member of parliament, began conversations with me about early education and child care in my community, and who was so versed in it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. If the member wishes to make any continuing remarks, leave will be granted when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 15 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Davey, Mr Paul, AM 15 13:30 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa On behalf of the Nationals, I rise today to pay tribute to the late Paul Davey AM. Paul came to Australia as a ten-pound Pom, sailing into Sydney on 19 April 1966. The very next day he caught a train to Wagga Wagga. After a few odd jobs, Paul settled as a journalist and worked for a range of outlets, both here and abroad, before going to work for the then Country Party. From 1978 to 2000 he held a range of senior roles within the New South Wales and federal Nationals. In 1983 Paul was appointed federal director and served for nearly a decade—our longest serving federal director to date. During his time as director he worked with five leaders: Doug Anthony, Ian Sinclair, Charles Blunt, Tim Fischer and John Anderson. Paul Davey also held the history of the Nationals in his hand and protected it fiercely. He wrote eight books on the Nationals, including one of his final publications, Milestone: A Century of Achievement, which has become a bible to each one of us here today. He was made a life member of the Nationals in 2002 and was appointed as a Member of the Order of Australia in January 2019. Earlier this year Paul was awarded our highest award, the Earle Page Meritorious Service Award, for his service to the party, which was accepted on behalf of the family by his daughter Senator Perin Davey. Amongst everything he gave to the Nationals, Paul was also father to Jim, Perin and Chick; grandfather to their children; and husband to Lindie. Our thoughts are with the family during this time. Vale Paul Davey AM. Iran: Baha'i Faith 15 13:32 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin I draw the House's attention to the ongoing persecution of Baha'is in Iran. Baha'i is Iran's largest non-Muslim religious minority. They have enjoyed 40 years of relentless persecution solely because of their religious beliefs. In recent months it has been reported that there's been an escalation of persecution of Baha'is, with an increase in the number of arrests, the confiscation of land, and the destruction of property, including Baha'i cemeteries. People are being imprisoned and children are left separated from their parents. In June alone, 44 Baha'is were arrested, arraigned or imprisoned; 26 were handed a combined total of 85 years in prison. Young Baha'is are prevented from attending university. The persecution of Baha'is in Iran has been widely reported on and condemned by numerous reputable human rights officers from around the world. It seems that there is a methodical strategy by the Iranian government to eliminate the Baha'i religion. I call on the Iranian government, through their embassy here in Canberra, to cease the violations against Baha'is, to release those in prison, to drop the charges against them and to return their properties to them. Building Better Regions Fund 15 13:33 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise today to lament the government's culling of the Building Better Regions Fund. True to form, Labor, at its first opportunity, has slashed this visionary program, round 6 of which would have benefited regional and remote Australia and my electorate of O'Connor. The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government claims the program was pork barrelling. Minister, tell that to the communities across O'Connor that have benefited from the many, many projects funded under the previous five rounds. My electorate has the most local government areas in any electorate in Australia. As minister for local government, Minister King should ask those 57 LGAs what they think of her decision. Feedback that I've received is they feel the minister's move is reprehensible. More than 20 LGAs and community groups in O'Connor prepared applications for round 6 of the fund. They all committed precious resources to the application process, which closed on 8 December 2021. In the country town of Corrigin, Juanita McGregor formed a group called 1922 & You and spent 50 hours on an application to help restore a century-old community hall to create a youth mental health space. Ms McGregor's work and that of the committee she works with is now in vain, and the time-ravaged building is not getting any younger. I will now work with O'Connor communities to seek alternative funding for their very worthwhile projects. I will resist any move by Minister King to reclassify Labor seats near capital cities as 'regional', in whatever her pale version of 'regional development' might end up being. Robertson Electorate: Community Events 16 13:34 Dr REID 300126 Robertson Recently I had the privilege of sharing morning tea with some of my constituents who have reached significant milestones relating to birthdays and wedding anniversaries and their families. It was a pleasure to have them join me and my team in our office to share cups of tea and enjoy home-baked scones. Many conversations were had alongside lots of laughs and storytelling. The morning gave me the opportunity to reflect on the word 'longevity'. Longevity means a long duration of individuals' lives, recognised as continuous. Longevity is the act of being steadfast. In most cases, if a person or people have been gifted longevity, they have fulfilled many acts of service. They have devoted themselves to servicing their families, their community and their country, and they are dutiful and loyal. At the morning tea I witnessed a collective of longevity in the room. I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone for attending and sharing their significant milestones with myself and my team. I congratulate the following celebrators: Mr Brian and Mrs Brenda Tredwell for their 60th wedding anniversary; Mr Neil and Mrs Robyn Thompson for their 60th wedding anniversary; Mr Darcy and Mrs Margaret McFarlane for their 60th wedding anniversary; Ms Eva Penson on her 100th birthday; Ms Catherine McMinimee on her 100th birthday; Mr Richard and Mrs Yvonne Busby for their 60th wedding anniversary; Mr James and Mrs Mary Pringle for their 60th wedding anniversary; Mr Bruce and Mrs Rhonda Barron for their 60th wedding anniversary; and Ms Minnie Smith for her 99th birthday. Iran: Human Rights 16 13:36 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar I rise today to call on the Australian government to do more to support the women and people of Iran. On 16 September 22-year-old Mahsa Amini was killed while in the custody of Iran's morality police. Her crime? Having hair visible under her headscarf. Mahsa's death has set off a wave of demonstrations and protests across the country, led by brave women who have had enough of the oppressive Iranian regime. Women, men and even school-age children have taken to the streets to demand equality and women's rights, chanting their motto—women, life, freedom. Iran's oppressive regime has responded to these peaceful protests with bullets. It is estimated that 222 protestors so far have been killed, some as young as 12. As a responsible global citizen, Australia must do more. We must join countries such as the US, the UK, Canada and European nations in placing sanctions on the Iranian morality police. Australia's silent support for the women of Iran is not enough. We must stand up and demand Iran's regime stop killing its people and extend full human rights to all of its citizens. It's time Australia stood up and did more to support men, women and children of Iran. Caulfield Grammar School 16 13:38 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins Someone can have a wisdom beyond their years. I was reminded of this fact when I visited Caulfield Grammar School's Malvern campus recently. The children were prepared for my visit and not only peppered but hammered me with searching questions. Question time is nothing compared to standing up in front of a class of grade 5s and 6s. I found myself answering a range of questions. From Davy: 'What impact do you make and how do you know you are making the right decisions?' Or from Hamish: 'What kind of problems do you solve?' Or from Jack: 'What are the negatives about being an MP?' Or from Edric: 'How often are you engaged in debate and do you like it?' To which I admitted that despite being a bit of an introvert by nature I found question time quite entertaining and a little bit fun. But then came a curly one from Siena: 'Have you ever disagreed with something your party said?' I was truthful and I said yes, I have, but when you're a member of a party like mine you work together and reach consensus. Working together is an effective way of getting things done; in fact it's the only way. I also said that being in government means you have to have a responsibility not only to your own electorate but to others' electorates. We need to make sure that our decisions don't adversely impact anyone else. As I left Caulfield Grammar I admired the gorgeous old buildings, the gardens, the playground and the many caring, dedicated teachers. I reflected again on how our children shape our future by challenging and questioning. Interest Rates 16 13:39 Ms WATSON-BROWN 300127 Ryan The RBA themselves have recently admitted that one in four mortgage holders are likely to go into mortgage stress after the latest interest rate hikes. In my electorate of Ryan, the median household—and that's thousands of families—will enter mortgage stress as these interest rate hikes are passed on. 'Mortgage stress' sounds abstract, but imagine if you were just making ends meet, having bought your first home on a low interest rate, maybe believing the RBA governor when he said then that interest rates wouldn't rise until 2024, and, bingo, you're now paying an extra $700, $800 or $1,000 a month. Where do you find that money? Wages aren't going up, but the cost of everything else is. This is all ostensibly to deal with inflation, but, when inflation is being driven by breakdowns in supply and corporate profiteering, how are interest rate hikes supposed to help? You know what this is? It's a vast wealth transfer to the banks from everyday Australians. We're in a housing crisis, rents are skyrocketing and there's a criminal lack of supply of public housing, and yet the RBA is turning the screws on everyday people just trying to have a secure home. We need an immediate pause on interest rate hikes and we need genuine cost-of-living relief. Salisbury Train Crash: 20th Anniversary 17 13:41 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence Yesterday, at 3.33 pm Adelaide time, the City of Salisbury held a minute of silence. The solemn occasion they were marking was the collision that occurred between The Ghan and a number of vehicles, including a public bus, at the Salisbury interchange level crossing on 24 October 2002—20 years and one day ago. This tragedy claimed four lives and has negatively impacted many others, whether they be the families of those who were involved or lost their lives, the witnesses to this horrific incident or the first responders. The Salisbury interchange level crossing is located along Park Terrace, a five-minute walk from my electorate office in Spence. In the wake of this great tragedy came great community togetherness. The Salisbury Train Crash Disaster Appeal Committee was soon established to raise funds to help the families of those impacted with expenses such as funeral costs. Residents dug deep, raising $30,000 to support this aim. Funds were also provided to commission a permanent memorial for the accident, made possible through grant funding provided to council by the South Australian Passenger Transport Board. I'm advised the sculpture designed by local South Australian artist Dave Clarke resembles a floral wreath, with four columns representing the lives lost that day—a touching tribute. We will remember them. Amini, Ms Mahsa 17 13:42 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies Thirty-nine days ago, Mahsa Amini died while in police custody in Tehran. She died at the age of 22. She was a young woman seeking a professional life, longing for freedom. Zan, zendegi, azadi: women, life, freedom. In this parliament, my electorate of Menzies has the highest number of Iranian Australians. From top students to cutting-edge entrepreneurs to doctors helping to cure cancer, I am proud to be their representative. They came here seeking a better life for their families, but I know that a piece of their heart aches over what is happening in their homeland. That is why last Saturday, in Melbourne, they turned out in their thousands in the pouring rain. They have done their part. It is now time for us to do ours. It is not good enough that Iran remains a member of the UN Commission on the Status of Women. It is not good enough that the Iranian regime sends to Russia drones to attack civilians in Ukraine. It is not good enough that the revolutionary guard corps travel freely, while they assault freedoms at home. Thirty-nine days ago, a fire was started. The rain won't put it out; neither will time. Zan, zendegi, azadi. Kovacic, Mr John Anton, PSM 17 13:44 Mr DAVID SMITH 276714 Bean Last Friday I had the privilege of attending a special event to commemorate the opening of the John Anton Kovacic PSM Hearing Room at the Fair Work Commission's Canberra office, a special event hosted by Justice Iain Ross, President of the Fair Work Commission. It's been two years since the untimely passing of Deputy President Kovacic, and it is fitting that the main Canberra hearing room has been named after him, after a career dedicated to cooperative workplace relations—or industrial relations, as many of us who were there would probably prefer. Before being appointed to the Fair Work Commission in 2013, John had enjoyed a long and successful career in the Australian Public Service and served numerous governments as a senior public servant, including as deputy secretary of the department in one of its many forms. I had the privilege to work for John when he was a branch head, being on opposite yet friendly sides of the table in agency bargaining when he was a division head and appearing before John on a number of occasions in his role as deputy president. In that role, on many occasions he used his particular skills to move the parties through conciliation, all too aware of the limited capacity for arbitration. A commission empowered to have greater conciliation and arbitration powers is well overdue. He was well loved by commission staff and had the respect of all the industrial parties. La Trobe Electorate: Roads 17 13:45 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe I rise to tell the House of my outrage and my community's outrage at the cutting of the funding for Wellington Road from the Labor budget tonight. The announcement we made in 2019 to commit $110 million was actually matched by the Labor Party in an article dated 3 May 2019, which was entitled 'Bipartisan funding for roads' and included a picture of the then opposition leader, Bill Shorten. The Labor candidate for the seat said, 'Labor will commit to upgrading Wellington Road.' Why is this road so important? Well, No. 1, at the moment it is a huge congestion issue and it is such a dangerous road for people to take. But, more importantly, in the case of a bushfire it is the major escape route for people living in Cockatoo, Gembrook, Emerald and also the Dandenong Ranges. If you go back in time to 1983, during the Ash Wednesday bushfires, locally 21 lives were lost. It is just so vital that this road get upgraded, and I am so disappointed and outraged that the funding is being cut. Previously, back in 2007, we committed $10 million for overtaking lanes. In 2010, sadly, we lost the election. My last letter before I lost my seat was to the then transport minister, Anthony Albanese, and it said, 'Please don't divert this funding.' Labor have again disgraced themselves when it comes to supporting the residents of the hills. Boothby Electorate: Tonsley Innovation District 18 13:47 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby Last week I was delighted to welcome Minister for Industry and Science Ed Husic, as well as South Australian Deputy Premier and Ministry for Industry, Innovation and Science Susan Close, to the Tonsley Innovation District in Boothby for a very exciting announcement. The Albanese-Labor government has committed $10 million towards expanding the Flinders University and BAE Systems Factory of the Future at Tonsley. This $10 million is in addition to the Malinauskas state Labor government's $4 million commitment. The Factory of the Future is Australia's first industrial-scale high-value advanced manufacturing facility. The more than 250 companies and organisations involved in the facility are driving the technological innovation vital for our future competitiveness and also providing hundreds of secure, highly paid and highly skilled jobs. There are now more people working at Tonsley than there were when it was an operating Mitsubishi car plant. This government is rightly committed to establishing Australia as a country that makes things again, and I am absolutely determined that Boothby will be at the heart of Australia's manufacturing future. That's why I'm so delighted that this government is investing in the future of manufacturing and starting with this major investment in Boothby. Sharp, Mr Christopher 18 13:48 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman I rise today to pay tribute to a local champion who sadly passed away last week. Chris Sharp—or Sharpie, as he was known to many of us—was one of those people I refer to as the BPs of the community—a quiet achiever. Chis never wanted or liked the limelight or being the centre of attention. He was much more comfortable behind a barbecue cooking a snag or helping youth at a Caboolture Rotary youth driver awareness program. Chris was a proud Rotarian and was always one of the first to put up his hand to volunteer at one of our many Rotary club events. A passionate community man, Chris was also involved in assisting with practical solutions, such as the Wunya project, which provides clothing and non-perishable food for those doing it tough in the Caboolture community, as well as with the all-abilities play space at the CREEC project in Burpengary. Chris used his considerable business contact list, accumulated over a long career in local real estate, to obtain goods and services at either reduced or no cost for community projects, unashamedly embarrassing local businesses into giving back to the community that supported their businesses. Always on the go, Sharpie continued a lawn-care business in retirement to stay busy after a back injury prevented him from partaking in his beloved golf at the Caboolture Golf Club, where I first met Chris over 20 years ago. Our heartfelt condolences go out to Chris's wife, Cheron, and the rest of his family. Rest in peace, Sharpie. You'll be missed. Victoria: Floods 18 13:50 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo I rise to say a few words on the recent flood event that some in Victoria are still going through. My electorate was not spared. Over about 48 hours, Bendigo received 117 mils of water. Now, to people from Queensland, that doesn't sound like a lot, but for my town it is. The average rainfall for Bendigo in October is usually 41 mils. After receiving that volume of water in 24 hours, our rivers, creeks and road systems did not cope. The damage to local infrastructure was enormous. Roads were washed away. Every single highway into Bendigo was severely damaged in some way. The Axedale bridge was gone; it has since been temporarily repaired, but there's a lot of work still to do. It wasn't just our roads that copped it; there was also damage to a number of homes. Whilst not as bad as in Rochester and Echuca, who are still on alert, we did lose about 40 homes in Heathcote and a number in Marong. Many in my community feel lucky that it wasn't worse, but the damage sustained by local infrastructure is enormous, and local councils are still counting the cost. From Kyneton in the south all the way to Elmore in the north, it's hard to find someone that was not affected. The community has reacted to help those in need, but more needs to be done. What alarms me the most is that people know this is not the last significant flood event we will go through, and we need to stand with people to get better prepared for events in the future. Cybersecurity 19 13:52 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson It's been nearly one month since I introduced a private members bill in this House that would ensure stronger penalties for cybercriminals and crack down on ransomware. Since that time, we've seen Medibank and MyDeal join Optus on the list of Australian companies being attacked by cybercriminals, literally impacting millions of Australians. Our ransomware bill, which is based on legislation we introduced in government earlier this year, would specifically reform criminal law to create a standalone offence and introduce tougher penalties for all forms of cyberextortion. In the week after I introduced my private members bill, the Labor members on the selection committee banded together to block the bill progressing for further evaluation. We could have been putting this important deterrent in place this week. Instead, we've seen nothing from the Labor government when it comes to actually cracking down on cybercrime, and it's been nearly a month since the Optus incident. We know that the Minister for Government Services has been missing in action since Services Australia began auditing sensitive data from the Optus breach, and we know Medicare numbers were stolen as part of the Medibank incident. We've seen a tardy and lacklustre performance from Labor's dedicated cybersecurity minister, who preferred to tweet about the AFL grand final rather than step up, when the first attack happened, to guide the Australian victims through ways to secure themselves from identity theft. Perhaps that lack of action stems from the fact the government has quietly moved responsibility for cybercrime to the Attorney-General. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 ( ): The member for Holt. Holt Electorate: Diwali 19 13:53 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt I'd like to convey my greetings to everyone celebrating Diwali—also known as Deepawali—in my electorate of Holt and across Australia. Diwali is among the most celebrated festivals in the world, and it has become a permanent fixture in the calendars of so many people across Victoria. This joyous festival is celebrated by a spectacle of lights using clay lamps, sparkles and—in India, I'm told—loads of firecrackers. In addition, families and friends gather to share food and sweets. Diwali signifies the eternal triumph of good over evil, light over darkness and knowledge over ignorance. It also plays homage to Lakshmi, the Hindu goddess of wealth and prosperity. Thus, I'd like to believe we are blessed to have this government's first budget during Diwali. Festivals like Diwali are celebrated with pomp and splendour by the large Hindu-Sikh-Jain community in my electorate. It is an opportunity to get together to celebrate our shared belief in the oneness of all and pray for health, wealth and happiness for everyone. Happy Diwali! Australia: Floods 19 13:54 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash I identify with all those affected by the floods, from the Maribyrnong to the Murrumbidgee, from Queensland to New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania. I pay tribute to the members of parliament who are dealing with this with their constituents every day, knowing that the floodwaters do not discriminate. They attack the farms, the villages, the creeks and the rivers, and they leave damage untold, as has been outlined by the member for Bendigo. This is a tragedy that each family is facing, and it's a 24-hour-a-day, seven-days-a week problem for all of them today. As parliamentarians, though many of us may not be affected, every one of us probably knows somebody who has their feet wet today in those places. It especially discriminates against those who are probably living in low-lying areas, which in a lot of places are the poorest of areas—the lowest socio-economic areas. They are the people who I know this parliament and this government—we as a group—will defend and look after. We are thinking of you, and we are prepared to protect you as well as we possibly can. This callout also goes to those first responders who are out there without sleep, working on behalf of their communities every day. I send out a message to them from this parliament that we are with you. Early Childhood Education 19 13:56 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck I can certainly attest to the words of the Prime Minister on early childhood education earlier today. I am pleased and proud of the fact that, due to the introduction of the cheaper childcare bill by the Minister for Education, early childhood education will become significantly cheaper for virtually every family in Hasluck. At a time when budgets are tight, this government has taken action that means about 5½ thousand families in Hasluck have another reason to smile. Indeed, over one million families will be smiling. We campaigned on this issue, and the government is now delivering. In my electorate, it was an issue and a campaign promise that certainly resonated with voters. To some, this simply will be a welcome respite in a difficult economic environment. To others, it will mean more than that; it will be the difference between working or not working, or between child care and no child care. I remember meeting a nurse who is a young mother while I was doorknocking in Ellenbrook. She told me that she only worked night shifts, so that she could be at home during the day with her young ones. It didn't add up for her to work days and pay for child care. She was tired and stressed and obviously really needed support. If we are not here to help people in difficulty then why are we here? With this significant boost in early education funding, this government will deliver for people in Hasluck and across Australia. Early Childhood Education 20 13:57 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff It's been nine long years since Labor delivered a budget, and it's clear they still don't know what they are doing. The government's $4.5 billion childcare package will not deliver for families, workers or the sector. They have no plan for access, no plan for workers and no plan to address thin markets and childcare deserts. The Prime Minister simply wasn't listening this afternoon when I outlined that what I meant was: the coalition will not oppose this bill. He wasn't listening. We moved an amendment to point out the enormous faults in this legislation, for the benefit of our youngest Australians and their families. The government needs to be upfront with families and explain how they plan to increase access to services, when their policy will put high demand on a system already under pressure. There is no point in $4.5 billion in subsidies if families who need it most can't access care for their children. The government has failed to address current workforce shortages, which, from July next year, will put further pressure on educators. Without a plan to increase access and to increase the pipeline of educators and retain them in the sector, this policy will leave children worse off. They have not addressed the issues in the sector. They have not addressed access issues. They have not addressed workforce issues. There is not one new place for early childhood in this country, thanks to this Albanese government. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 20 CONDOLENCES Spender, Hon. John Michael, KC 20 Reference to Federation Chamber 22 14:12 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 22 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Australia: Floods 22 14:13 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Natural disasters are a cruel part of life on this unforgiving continent. Tragically, the floodwaters in Victoria and New South Wales have claimed the lives of six of our fellow Australians. Our first thoughts today are with their loved ones. All Australians offer you our deepest sympathy in this time of grief and sorrow. Today, while some communities have begun the clean-up, there are many people in regional Victoria and New South Wales for whom the danger has not yet passed. As we speak, people in Echuca, Moama, Moree—where the Premier has been this morning—Shepparton and Kerang are still preparing for the worst. To all Australians in those areas still at risk: we are thinking of you. Please listen to the warnings, please follow the advice of the authorities, please do everything you can to keep yourself and your family safe. Mr Speaker, so often the worst of nature brings out the best of the Australian character. In recent days I've had the privilege of seeing this firsthand. In Deloraine, in Tasmania, I met with council workers and emergency services personnel calmly coordinating the flood response and recovery. I thank the member for Lyons, who joined me there that day, along with the mayor, Wayne Johnston; the captain of the Deloraine Kangaroos, Lochie Dornauf, and the club president, John Jordan; and other members and volunteers who had come to help out. In Latrobe, Michael Perkins, a dairy farmer, spoke to me about the long-term challenge of climate change and its consequences that he had seen firsthand. In Victoria at the emergency response centre in Bendigo, assistant chief officer Mark Cattell talked me through the huge amount of work they were doing. I thank the member for Bendigo, who has been so diligent in looking after the interests of her community. There, they were doing everything from flood mapping to distribution of sandbags to coordinating food supplies and emergency accommodation. So many people working there were from other agencies across the state who had mobilised to join the relief effort. I joined with the Premier of Victoria to look at towns like Rochester, which had been inundated. As we were flying over in a chopper, tragically, we could see two cars going through extensive floodwater. Again, a reminder for us here to remind people: 'Don't risk it. You don't know what's below the floodwater.' In Forbes in New South Wales at the rural fire service station, which has been converted to the SES base, we were briefed on the response before Deputy Mayor Chris Roylance drove us around to point out the areas affected and at risk. I thank the member for Riverina and the Premier of New South Wales for being with us there. We also flew into Parkes, which has had less impact but some from the floods, particularly around farms across the whole of the Riverina district. I had the chance to speak with local farmers and residents outside the council chambers about how everyone can ensure everyone can access the support that is on offer. The member for Riverina will, like me, I think, never quite forget the sight of a friend of his, Grahame Ruge, in gumboots and a Hawaiian shirt who nearly had to wade across the street, down the street and across a bridge that was flooded to talk to us about what his local town and community are going through. Like everyone we met there, Graham wasn't thinking about himself. Even though his place was right next to the river, he was thinking about other people. Across at-risk areas in Victoria and New South Wales, emergency services personnel and local volunteers are receiving vital assistance from members of the ADF. Approximately 350 ADF personnel have been working in Victoria. They have been building levees, filling sandbags and using two CH-47 Chinook helicopters to transport SES water rescue, army medics and stores to Shepparton and Echuca. Another 200 members of the ADF are available to assist in New South Wales, with 100 already on the ground in Moree, Dubbo, Condobolin, Deniliquin and Hillston. I also thank the member for Parkes, whom we talked with over the weekend, about any further support that can be given on the ground. I know that he is very concerned. He was unable to get to Moree on Saturday to see his local community. Another 100 ADF personnel are standing by to help in the Northern Rivers and Lismore. I know all members of the House will join me in recognising and thanking everyone on the front line of this disaster. I thank the Minister for Emergency Management, Senator Watt, for the extraordinary work he has been doing day in, day out in coordinating, along with Brendan Moon and the people in the department, the response to this. It can't be said enough: in hard times Australians are simply magnificent. They're brave in the face of adversity, they're calm amidst uncertainty and they're driven by an instinctive decency to look after each other. I think you see something particularly special in some of these smaller regional towns—that sense of belonging to each other. Everyone knows everyone and everyone is helping out. When disaster strikes, Australians mobilise quickly and decisively. They work together. In the same spirit, we are working quickly with state premiers and with local members from across the parliament and with local councils to make sure people are getting the support and resources they urgently need. Australian government disaster payments are available to people across the areas affected. As of Sunday more than $20.6 million in assistance has already been provided to around 25,000 people in those three states. Services Australia is also working on practical things like making sure families who miss days of child care don't have to pay for those absences. I want to thank the states, particularly the three premiers of Tasmania, Victoria and New South Wales, for their ongoing engagement and for the way that there is seamless cooperation between the Commonwealth, state and local governments jointly funded under the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements, so that we can respond quickly to needs on the ground for clean-up and repairs. It is an inescapable fact that natural disasters have become more frequent and more intense. It's what the science told us would happen. That's why it's so important that disaster recovery funding also supports efforts for better planning, for building back in such a way that it makes communities safer and more resilient so that the next time disaster strikes we are better prepared. I hope that the rains stop soon and the waters recede. But the briefings that I've had—and I know the opposition have received briefings as well—indicate that we're not at the end of this. We're more towards the beginning, probably, than we are towards the end. So there are difficult weeks and, perhaps, even months ahead. The long-term consequences are severe for our economy; for agriculture that was anticipating a bumper season there in the Riverina, the Goulburn Valley and other parts of Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and, indeed, Tasmania. It has been particularly heartbreaking for the farmers who were looking forward to something so positive. Some people, of course, have lost their homes and others, of course, have lost their lives. The most important thing for people is to stay safe, to make sure that they follow the advice when it's given. If you're asked to evacuate please do so. The authorities are acting upon the advice of the experts. We will, as a government, continue to offer every support possible. I'm sure that that will be offered in a bipartisan way, and I thank the opposition for that. All we can do is to do what we can as a parliament to today say that we stand in solidarity with those people going through this difficult time. 14:22 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson Flood, fire and drought are an inevitable part of living in our country. We don't always know where natural disasters will strike, only that they will. That inevitably does nothing, though, to diminish the shock and the sadness of the crushing news that Australians have lost their lives during these latest floods. On behalf of the coalition, we express our heartfelt condolences to the families who have tragically lost loved ones in these floods. It has been an incredibly tough time for people in Victoria, in New South Wales, in Tasmania and in Queensland. As we know, in some places, thankfully, the waters are receding, but in other places they're rising. Australians are entering, going through or emerging from their darkest hours. Yet it's in these darkest hours that we witness the very best of the Australian character—our courage, our compassion and the camaraderie. I was very honoured to be in Shepparton last week with the member for Nicholls to see those qualities on display firsthand. Many of those in the local community were instrumental in supporting the effort to respond and to recover, people who are volunteers, just ordinary Australians working for GV Cares and the Salvos, distributing food and necessities to families who were isolated and had gone without—people like Azem Elmazs, who shut his restaurant and had been cooking meals with his wife for workers, volunteers and affected residents. I want to praise, acknowledge and thank all of those across the nation who are doing such fine work: the emergency service workers; the police—the first responders, who always come to the aid of communities—especially those who have crossed borders to help their brothers and sisters in uniform; the men and women of the Australian Defence Force, who answer the call on every single occasion, injecting hope and confidence when they move into towns; and the local councillors, the community leaders and the volunteers who assist others while their own homes have been inundated. Your combined efforts have seen people rescued, food and medical supplies provided to those cut off, and homes and businesses saved. I particularly acknowledge the efforts of the members for Parkes, Riverina, Lindsay, Mallee, Farrer, Braddon and Bass, who are currently supporting or have in recent times supported their communities due to flooding. For those Australians facing the prospect of rising waters: please continue to heed the advice of emergency services, especially given rain forecasts and a likely wet summer ahead. Long after the waters have receded, the clean-up has commenced and the cameras have moved on, communities will need ongoing support for the slow and costly recovery. I acknowledge the work of former prime minister Morrison and the emergency service ministers who put in place the regime that Prime Minister Albanese referred to before. The support that we provide to communities, hand in glove with our state counterparts and local government authorities, makes a real difference in the hours, days, weeks and months after these natural disasters. Infrastructure and homes will need to be rebuilt, fences replaced and roads repaired. In the aftermath of a disaster, Australians can feel like they're on their own and like they've been forgotten by governments. The coalition encourages governments at all levels to be generous in the assistance they offer, and we provide our bipartisan support to the Prime Minister and the government to see that support delivered in an effective way to those affected by this natural disaster, not just in the current response phase but also in the all-important recovery phase over the days, months and, in some cases, many years ahead. 14:26 Mr BURKE DYW Watson by leave—I move: That further statements in relation to the floods be permitted in the Federation Chamber. Question agreed to. MINISTRY 24 MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements 24 14:27 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I advise the House that the Treasurer will be absent from question time today. The Assistant Treasurer will answer questions on the Treasurer's behalf, given that we have only one Treasurer. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 24 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Israel 24 14:27 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson The Prime Minister's reference to Labor's economic illiteracy shouldn't pass anyone's mind today, and I'm sure we'll be reminded of that tonight. I refer to the decision taken by the Labor government on a Jewish holy day to stop recognising Israel's capital of West Jerusalem, a decision which deeply offended our closest ally in the Middle East and the Jewish community in Australia but which was praised by two violent terrorist groups. Has the Prime Minister spoken to or communicated with the Israeli Prime Minister and offered an apology? 14:28 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Australia was among the first countries to formally recognise Israel, under Prime Minister Ben Chifley, and it occurred when Doc Evatt was head of the United Nations. Australia is and will remain a steadfast friend of Israel. We have reaffirmed Australia's previous, longstanding and bipartisan position that Jerusalem is a final status issue that should be resolved as part of peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian people. It's the same position that is held by the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, New Zealand and Canada. It's the same position that was held by John Howard, the same position that was held by Tony Abbott, and the same position that was held— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Prime Minister will pause. The Prime Minister is just one minute into the answer. I call the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Mr Dutton 00AKI On relevance, Mr Speaker: the Israeli Prime Minister has criticised this Prime Minister and this decision of government— The SPEAKER 53517 If you are taking a point of order, you must state the point of order, not add extra to the question. I give the call to the Prime Minister. Mr ALBANESE R36 It's the same position that was held by Menzies, Holt, Gorton, Fraser and Howard; the same position that was held by Tony Abbott; the same position that was held by Malcolm Turnbull; the same position that they sat there, up until 2018, and held. And what happened in 2018 was there was a by-election held in the electorate of Wentworth, and they said that they would change what had been a bipartisan position since the creation of Israel in 1948. They said that, but, once they got through the election, they didn't follow it through. They didn’t move the Australian embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Say what you like about Donald Trump, at least he followed it through. At least he followed through the position. Those opposite did not, thereby showing that this was not a decision of substance. It was a decision of gesture. What we need in the Middle East to secure peace is substance, not gestures. We need peace in the Middle East to be based upon a two-state solution, which recognises the right of Israel to exist in secure borders and also recognises the rights of the Palestinian people. My government will not waiver in our support of Israel or of the Jewish community in Australia. We're also unwavering supporters of the rights of the Palestinian people. What we need is a solution to the Middle East, not playing domestic politics during a by-election in order to secure a so-called advantage. Budget 25 14:31 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce My question is to the Prime Minister. At the last election, Australians sent a strong message that they wanted action to get wages moving, to get more Australians skills and training and to tackle the rising cost-of-living. How is the Albanese Labor government's first budget cleaning up the mess that the government inherited and delivering on what Australians voted for? 14:32 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Bruce for his question about the budget, on budget day. Those opposite wasted a decade, but we are not wasting a day, and in tonight's budget you will see being delivered what Australians voted for: cheaper child care, cheaper medicines, paid parental leave, more affordable housing, fee-free TAFE—a responsible budget right for the times and ready for the future. These reforms take pressure off family budgets without adding to inflation. Australians have been waiting for a responsible, reforming budget for a decade and tonight they will see one. After nine years of those opposite deliberately keeping wages low, we're getting wages moving again. You'll see some more action on that at the end of the week. After nine years of division and denial and dysfunction on energy policy, we're lifting Australia's ambitions on climate change and we're investing in renewable energy. After nine years of telling Australia's manufacturers to leave the country, we want a future made in Australia and we'll support manufacturers in this country. After nine years of shameful neglect in aged care, we're taking action to fix the crisis. After nine years of sordid scandals from those opposite, we're going to have the National Anti-Corruption Commission funded in this budget. After nine years, we're also working to bring Australians together. That's why we did the Jobs and Skills Summit—to move towards having solutions, not look towards just having arguments. Those opposite were obsessed by conflict, trying to divide people. They acted like an opposition in exile while they were on the government benches, and now what's very clear is that they've learnt absolutely nothing. Just before question time we were dealing with the childcare legislation, and those opposite are just beside themselves, saying we weren't listening. They attacked it the whole way through, and then they said, 'Oh, but maybe we won't oppose it.' Well, they should get out of the way, because what you'll see from tonight's budget is a responsible budget that takes pressure off the cost of living and is family friendly without putting pressure on inflation. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! There is far too much noise on my left and right. I'm going to give the call to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and I ask for her to be heard in silence. Energy 26 14:35 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. On 97 occasions prior to the election, the Labor Party promised to cut electricity bills by $275. Now we are told that prices will increase by up to 50 per cent. Minister, with the Energy Regulator saying people are using solar fairy lights in their houses and ice bricks in their eskies because they can't afford their power bills, why won't you apologise— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The deputy leader will resume his seat. I specifically said I wanted the deputy leader heard in silence. There is far too much noise on my right. I cannot hear the question. I'm sure the minister can't hear the question. I'm going to ask her to state the question again. Ms LEY 00AMN My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. On 97 occasions prior to the election, the Labor Party promised to cut electricity bills by $275. Now we are told that prices will increase by 50 per cent. Minister, with the Energy Regulator saying people are using fairy lights in their houses and ice bricks in their eskies because they can't afford their power bills, will you apologise to struggling Australians for shamelessly misleading them? 14:36 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I can confirm that the Australian Energy Regulator is advising ministers, federal and state, that the energy market and energy prices continue to be under pressure because of the war in Ukraine and also because of 10 years of denial and delay. Four gigawatts of power came off under them. Four gigawatts came off and only one gigawatt came on. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister has been going for 22 seconds. The SPEAKER 53517 I haven't given you the call. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 When members on my left cease interjecting, I will give the call to the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Dutton 00AKI It's on relevance, Mr Speaker. The government made a promise of $275— The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. That is not a point of order. Mr BOWEN DZS I can also confirm the Australian Energy Regulator gave similar advice to my predecessor, now the shadow Treasurer—advice that in New South Wales residential prices would go up $227 or, for a New South Wales small business, $1,130. But the difference is I can confirm this government will not hide the facts from the Australian people as my predecessor did. I can confirm I won't be changing the law to hide that fact from the Australian people as the member for Hume shamefully did. I will also confirm that we'll be getting on with the job of delivering cheaper energy— The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Nationals will cease interjecting. Mr BOWEN DZS because the cheapest form of energy is renewable energy. We'll be getting on with that like last week, when the Prime Minister announced the largest investment in energy by a federal government since Ben Chifley was the Prime Minister of Australia and he announced the original Snowy Mountains scheme. When the Prime Minister announced the investment in the Marinus Link— The SPEAKER 53517 The Manager of Opposition Business will cease interjecting. Mr BOWEN DZS and in renewable energy in Victoria and Tasmania, because we know that we need to upgrade the electricity grid, what did the opposition say about that? The shadow minister issued a release saying that this was a sweetheart deal between us and the Victorian government. This was an announcement made by the Prime Minister and me in Hobart with the Liberal Premier of Tasmania. The shadow minister said this was a sweetheart deal with Dan Andrews. He wasn't there. I'm not sure where the opposition thinks the Marinus Link goes from Victoria—the Antarctic, maybe! I'm really not sure what they think. We don't know what they think about many things. We know what this government's getting on with: the task of rebuilding the energy system in our country after 10 years of denial and delay is what we're getting on with. Budget 26 14:39 Mr REPACHOLI 298840 Hunter My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. How is the Albanese Labor government changing policy to deliver for regional Australia, providing fair and transparent investment and building and protecting the infrastructure and services— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member will resume his seat. I want to be very clear. I need to hear the questions. There is far too much noise on my left. We can keep doing this until we get it right. Mr REPACHOLI 298840 My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. How is the Albanese Labor government changing policy to deliver for regional Australia, providing fair and transparent investment and building and protecting the infrastructure and services our communities rely upon? 14:40 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat Tonight you will see a budget that delivers for our regions. It will deliver responsible reform for regional programs and deliver on our commitments that we made to regional Australia right the way across this country. The SPEAKER 53517 The Manager of Opposition Business will cease interjecting. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR The budget will include over 760 initiatives for regional Australia. In my own portfolio it will include the Bass, Tasman and Tamar highways in Tasmania; freight roads in Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory; Mandalong Road and the Muswellbrook bypass in the Hunter; jetties up in the Torres Strait; logistics and industrial hubs in Gippsland, in Townsville—I see the member interjecting—and in the Northern Territory; and cultural and sporting precincts in Alice and in Kalgoorlie. It will include two new regional programs: the Growing Regions Program and the partnerships and precincts program—a billion dollars to be invested over the next three years into regional communities across this country. The budget, of course, ends the decade of waste and rorts and cleans up the mess that has been left by the Liberal and National parties. It fixes the legacy of infrastructure projects that the previous government announced, with great fanfare, but was actually unable to deliver. It ends the mess of grants programs that saw rampant politicisation and deserving communities across this country miss out. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker will cease interjecting. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR And it cleans up projects dating back to 2016 that remain undelivered, uncontracted and, in some cases, without any proponent. Unlike the National Party, we don't believe the regions are only worthy of funding if they elect a National Party member. Our fairer and transparent regional investments will make sure they are delivered across the country. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Nationals will cease interjecting. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR We know that it isn't only grants and infrastructure that matter to our regions. Every single portfolio has a role to play, and that's why the budget tonight will deliver amongst the largest investments in regional communications that we have seen, along with the Powering the Regions Fund, the regional first homebuyer guarantee, investments in First Nations communities and, of course, defending and protecting the sustainability of the NDIS and Medicare, on which our regions so fiercely rely. Through it all, we will of course continue to deliver flood and disaster affected communities the support that they need, helping them to become more resilient and to build back better, something the previous government did not do. This is a budget that delivers for all Australians, and it will certainly be a budget that delivers for our regions. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 27 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Henry, Mr Stuart, Langmore, Professor John, AM, Ripoll, Hon. Bernie 27 14:43 The SPEAKER 53517 I'd like to inform the House that in the gallery today is Professor John Langmore AM, former member for Fraser, now known as the division of Fenner; Mr Stuart Henry, former member for Hasluck; and the Hon. Bernie Ripoll, former member for the mighty electorate of Oxley. Welcome to you all. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 28 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Energy 28 14:43 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy To the Prime Minister: would you say the North West Mineral Province is the homeland of new-age energy? Are you aware of Hughenden, with Twiggy's giant wind farm and HIPCo's pumped storage hydro? It is a world-class minerals province of copper, nickel, cadmium, lithium, cobalt and vanadium. Won't a small input of development moneys produce billions of dollars of government revenue and, more importantly, real jobs and wealth for working Australians? 14:44 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Kennedy for his question, his ongoing engagement with the government and his strong representation for Queensland's north-west, in particular. We certainly understand the potential of the North West Minerals Province, to go to the specifics in his question. I had a meeting with Andrew Forrest just last week. He is very passionate, as are other people in the business community, about the opportunities that are there for new critical minerals right around the country; north-west Queensland, in particular, has an extraordinary opportunity to advance. Last month I was very pleased to see the Queensland government's Energy and Jobs Plan, which included the biggest pumped hydro scheme in the world and building transmission infrastructure from Townsville to Hughenden and eventually to Mt Isa. As the member for Kennedy knows, I've visited the Hughenden pub with him— Mr Katter HX4 Twice! Mr ALBANESE R36 Twice, that's right! You've got to go back there because it's unforgettable as a location. That new link will spark significant investment along the transmission corridor, like the $2.6 billion Mount James wind farm already proposed for Hughenden. We look forward to working with the Queensland government on how we can best support the Queensland Energy and Jobs Plan. Just last week the Minister for Resources and I announced the development of a new national Critical Minerals Strategy, which will set out a clear vision for our growing critical minerals sector. Critical minerals, including rare earths, are crucial components in batteries, electric vehicles and solar panels, and Australia has some of the largest reserves. Since being elected, the government has committed $100 million to directly support new critical minerals projects, including Alpha HPA, EQ Resources and Lava Blue in Queensland. We will also invest $1 billion in resources value-adding and mining science through the National Reconstruction Fund. I think many of the proposed initiatives in north-west Queensland will be eligible for that and will benefit from this investment. I want to see our critical minerals processed on shore as well. I don't want to see them all shipped off, then value-added and then imported back. We need to look at ways in which we can value-add here, taking advantage of the fact that we can be a renewable energy superpower for the world. That means not only investing in transmission, in solar and in wind generation, but also developing the regions, including manufacturing in north-west Queensland; that absolutely holds the key to our clean energy future. I very much look forward to continuing to work with the member for Kennedy in a constructive fashion. Early Childhood Education 28 14:47 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to make early childhood education more affordable, providing cost-of-living relief to families and boosting the economy through workforce participation? 14:47 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I thank the member for Solomon for his question. I know that he's very committed to relieving the cost of living for Australians by reducing the cost of early childhood education and care and making sure that children in the electorate of Solomon, particularly First Nations children in the electorate of Solomon, get the very best possible start to life. Access to affordable early childhood education and care is a vital part of a child's early years of development, but it's also critical to our economy, and that' s why a Labor budget will deliver on our commitment, the commitment that we went to the election with, to make early childhood education and care more affordable for 1.26 million Australian families. Our reforms come after years of inaction from those opposite, with fees going through the roof by 41 per cent over the past eight years. We've listened. We've listened to Australian families. We've listened to parents. We've listened to the mothers who want to go back to work, who want to take on extra hours, who want to have career progression, who want to go back to study, and we are delivering on cost-of-living relief directly in this family-friendly budget. This is not welfare. It is meaningful economic relief that gives families greater choice. In the words of former South Australian premier and the director of Thrive By Five, Jay Weatherill, 'For our economy, more affordable child care will help unlock the power of parents' workforce participation, particularly mothers, which would in turn help address the labour shortages we're currently experiencing across the country.' And that includes workforce issues in early childhood education and care. Treasury estimates that these measures will increase the hours worked by women with young children up to 1.4 million hours per week in 2023-24. That's the equivalent of around 37,000 full-time workers, and that's going to make a real difference to our economy. We know that these reforms will only be possible if we are retaining, recruiting and training a high-quality early childhood education workforce. The Albanese government is committed to wage growth, including for the critical early childhood education and care workforce. That's why we successfully argued for a rise for the lowest-paid workers in Australia—and I remind the House that those opposite opposed that; they didn't want that. That's why we're committed to addressing the gender pay gap and we'll strengthen the ability of the Fair Work Commission to order pay rises for underpaid women workers. But Australians understand this. They understand that we didn't create the challenges ahead of us, but they elected us to take responsibility for addressing them, and that's exactly what we're doing. Energy 29 14:50 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How many hectares of prime agricultural land and national parks will be impacted from the construction of 28,000 kilometres of poles and wires in communities as a result of the government's energy policies? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The House will come to order. The minister will be heard in silence, just like the leader was heard in silence. 14:51 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable member for his question. In relation to the announcement made by the Prime Minister and me last week, Marinus Link goes under the Bass Strait. That's the biggest investment we've made in transmission, and we will be working with— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Members on my right! Order! The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Kingsford Smith is not helping. I give the call to the Leader of the Nationals, who is rising on a point of order. Mr Littleproud 265585 Relevance, Mr Speaker. The question was very tight. It was around poles and wires and the 28,000 kilometres of them. That is above ground, not below it, just to help him out. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister is 20 seconds into his answer. He is entitled— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, on my left! The SPEAKER 53517 The Manager of Opposition Business will cease interjecting. So will the Leader of the Nationals. The minister is entitled to a preamble. I ask him to return to the question. Mr BOWEN DZS I thank the honourable member for his question. I understand his sensitivity, because they talked about the Marinus Link for six years; we're delivering it in six months. That's the difference. The Marinus Link is an important link between Tasmania and the mainland—the second and third links—because we believe that Tasmania can become a 200 per cent renewable economy. The SPEAKER 53517 The Manager of Opposition Business. It will not be a point on relevance because that has already been taken. I will hear from him. Mr Fletcher L6B Mr Speaker, you made a very clear ruling that the minister needed to return to the question. He is ignoring your ruling. He's talking about something quite different. The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat, Manager of Opposition Business. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister is being relevant, and I would like to hear what the minister is saying if members on my left will cease interjecting. Mr BOWEN DZS I'm more than happy to deal with the issues raised by the opposition, because they're important ones. They're important ones because Marinus and other transmission projects which it's connected to—like the North West Transmission link, which the Prime Minister and I announced with the Premier of Tasmania and the energy minister last week; the KerangLink in Victoria, which was also announced, as we are working on with other states. I presume, given the tone of questions from those opposite, that those opposite are very annoyed with the announcements from New South Wales in recent days, very annoyed by the announcement of the Treasurer and energy minister and the Deputy Premier in New South Wales about compensation for above-ground wires that have to be built in New South Wales— The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Nationals will cease interjecting. Mr BOWEN DZS by the New South Wales government, as part of the Rewiring the Nation plans. We know that transmission is necessary for transition. That is what's necessary. We've made it very clear, as part of our election commitment, that we will roll out this transmission— The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Nationals is warned! Mr BOWEN DZS We've also made this clear: we will reform what is known as the RIT-T process—the regulatory process for above-ground wires—which they left in place for nine years. We'll reform it because it is not fit for purpose, because it does not provide adequate compensation for people who are impacted, as the member for Ballarat and the member for Hawke well know and well understand because they've actually taken the time to engage in these issues. They actually understand these issues—unlike, it appears, the Leader of the National Party. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Page will cease interjecting. Budget 30 14:55 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer. In the face of growing economic headwinds, what is the importance of a responsible budget? 14:55 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I thank the member for Holt for her question. I want to acknowledge, at the outset, her many years of representing low-paid workers and attempting to get wage increases for low-paid workers—an aspiration that everybody on this side of the House shares. I'm asked about the importance of having a responsible, well-managed budget. Well, the answer is up there in the gallery. I want to acknowledge the students from Albion Park High School in my electorate who have come down to Canberra today to witness the passage of the first Albanese Labor government budget. The reason that we need a responsible government is there in the gallery; it's about their future, not about our future. It's about ensuring that they inherit a society in which they can put their aspirations and their dreams into practice. Framing a budget in October 2022 is not going to be easy. International headwinds are against us. In the United States, Europe and Great Britain, we see inflation galloping ahead and economies sliding into recession. Australia is better set than most of those economies, but we are not immune to the impacts of what goes on amongst our major trading partners. Of course, it's not just the international economy and the international impacts that are going to make it challenging for us to frame a budget, because we have inherited an absolute fiscal mess from this mob on the other side— Honourable members interjecting— Mr JONES A9B and I hear them shrieking like a mob of political bin chickens, scratching around for relevance, but the fact of the matter is: we've inherited a trillion worth of debt and the biggest budget deficits that this nation has ever seen. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Groom will cease interjecting. Mr JONES A9B We will not shirk the responsibility of ensuring that we frame a budget for the future of the people here in the gallery. Our investment in skills, our investment in manufacturing, our investment in education and our investment in energy and a clean energy future will set this country up for the future. We will also do the hard work that this mob over here couldn't do, and that is to ensure we start to pay down the debt and deal with the structural deficit that this mob over here, squawking like political bin chickens, left us to fix up. The job is tough, but we are good for it. They talk about economic management but, over nine years, did none of it. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. The House will come to order. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Members on my left, when you cease interjecting I'll give the call to the member for Fairfax. Energy 31 14:58 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax My question goes to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. On 10 October, the minister said in a speech: 'We will need to install about 40 seven-megawatt wind turbines every single month and more than 22,000 500-watt solar panels every single day to meet the government's 82 per cent renewables target by 2030.' How many wind turbines and solar panels have been installed since you've come to government? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right and left. There is far too much noise in the chamber. I will give the call— The SPEAKER 53517 Member for Barker. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Petrie will cease interjecting. When the House comes to order, I'll give the call to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. 14:59 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable member for that question—I really do!—because it gives me an opportunity to remind the honourable member and remind the House of our plans to get us to 82 per cent renewables by 2030 and of our plans to reduce emissions by 43 per cent by 2030. And, yes, I thank the honourable member for quoting my speeches. He's welcome to do it as much as he likes! I was making the point in that speech that we have a lot of catching up to do after a decade of denial and delay. We are walking out to the crease late in the match, because we are making up for a decade of doing nothing when they were in office, so now we have to work faster to reduce emissions by 2030. And, yes, those figures I quoted were correct. They underline the size of the task. They underline the size of the task of transmission, and I welcome questions on transmission, because this government has delivered a deal with the government of Tasmania and the government of Victoria. Those opposite talked about it for six years, and we delivered it in six months. You are going to see more of that type of action tonight, tomorrow and next week as well. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 31 15:01 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering cheaper medicines and how are life-changing drugs being made available to Australians? 15:01 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh I thank the member for Newcastle for her question, because she was one of dozens of Labor candidates and members who promised at the last election to cut the price of medicines for millions of Australian patients. Tonight, we will deliver on that promise. Tonight's budget will deliver the largest ever cut to the price of medicines in the 75-year history of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, bringing the maximum co-payment for millions of general patients down from $42.50 to just $30 per script. For households that fill two or three scripts every month, and there are many of those, that will deliver a saving of as much as $300 or even $450 each and every year. That's not just good for their hip pockets at a time of enormous cost-of-living pressures; we know it's also good for their health, because almost a million Australians every year go without filling a script that their doctor has said is important for their health because they simply cannot afford it. Pharmacists tell stories of their customers coming in with a handful of prescriptions asking for advice about which script they can go without, because they can't afford to fill them all. Our delivery of that promise tonight will make that choice redundant for millions of Australians. On top of this responsible cost-of-living relief measure, we will also continue listing life-saving and life-changing medicines onto the PBS. On the weekend, I announced four new listings of medicines like that. From next week, around 1,000 skin cancer patients will be able to access Libtayo at PBS prices, rather than $144,000 per course of treatment. More than 500 lung cancer patients will have access to new life-saving and life-changing medicines. I was especially delighted to be able to announce the listing of Crysvita, the first new treatment in decades for a rare but debilitating condition, X-linked hypophosphataemia, or XLH, which affects more than 200 Australians. I was joined at the announcement by Talia, who is 11, by Noah, who is 12, by their families and by Sandy, the President of XLH Australia, an outstanding advocate for her community. Talia has access to Crysvita on the community access program, and it has completely changed her life. Her family told us about being able to witness her deliver her first 100-metre sprint at her school, and how proud they were of that. Noah, who is 12 and an avid Crows fan, hasn't had access on the community access program, but, from next week he will be able to access this medicine that will give him an enormously different life to what he was facing before this listing. The lives of those families and more than 200 others will be profoundly changed by this listing at PBS prices, rather than $360,000, which is what this medicine would have cost without the PBS. Energy 32 15:04 Mr YOUNG 201906 Longman My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. RGS, a proudly Australian owned and operated manufacturer in my electorate, had a power bill under the coalition of around $39,000 last year. This year, their power bill under Labor will spike to around $73,000, an increase of $43,000—just one of the many cost increases seen by businesses in Longman this year. When will the government deliver on its promise to cut power bills? 15:05 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I'm sure that the figures provided by the honourable member are correct, because they reflect the DMO, the default market offer, which was promulgated in May but hidden by the previous government and which outlined an energy price increase, on average for a Queensland small business, of $705 or 12.8 per cent That's what the previous government knew about and wilfully misled Queensland businesses—small, medium and large—about in a matter of fundamental, direct and deliberate dishonesty. I welcome the fact that honourable members opposite are now somehow interested in energy prices. They weren't very interested when they were changing the law to hide the increase in energy prices for Queensland businesses. Queensland businesses will benefit from our policies to introduce renewable energy and introduce to transmission—which now apparently the opposition is opposed to—the Integrated System Plan— The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr BOWEN DZS which we are getting on with and delivering to reduce power prices for businesses in Queensland and around Australia. Paid Parental Leave 32 15:06 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke My question is to the Minister for Social Services. How is the Albanese Labor government strengthening and expanding the Paid Parental Leave scheme, and how will this support Australian families? 15:06 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I'd like to thank the member for Hawke for his question. I recognise that, along with many families, he is acutely aware of the challenges but also the joys of parenthood as a result of the recent arrival of baby Macaulay. So I take this opportunity to congratulate him. Supporting families is a key plank of the Albanese government's first budget. Increasing paid parental leave was one of the most frequent proposals raised to boost workforce participation at our recent Jobs and Skills Summit, because boosting paid parental leave not only better supports families at the time of the birth of a baby but also is critical to supporting women's workforce participation. Of course, the Albanese government has listened and responded in this budget to be delivered tonight, which will include the biggest expansion to paid parental leave since Labor introduced it in 2011. In addition to this, the government has responded to the calls of many families to make sure that this scheme is modern and strengthened and actually meets the flexibilities that many families need. That's why the changes that we will make in the budget tonight will give more than 180,000 families more choice about how they balance work and family. From 1 July 2023, we will implement changes to modernise paid parental leave and make it more accessible for both parents. We will move to a single scheme that will allow all parents to access government paid leave at the same time as employer paid leave. Currently, this is available only to mums, not dads. We will encourage families to share care, with an easier claiming process that will allow either parent to take leave first and removes the assumptions about mothers and fathers being both primary and secondary carers. We will expand the eligibility with a more generous household income test of $350,000, which families can be assessed under if they exceed the individual income test of around $156,000. Then, from 1 July 2024, we will add two additional weeks a year until the scheme reaches 26 weeks in July 2026. These are positive changes that will make families' lives better. The Albanese government's new Paid Parental Leave scheme will be good for parents, good for kids, good for women, good for employers and good for the economy. This is just one of the many measures that the Albanese government is taking through our budget to make it better, fairer and stronger for Australian families. Housing 32 15:09 Mr WILKIE C2T Clark My question is to the Minister for Housing. The housing crisis is getting worse, particularly in Tasmania, with increasing homelessness; too little crisis, social and supported accommodation; unaffordable rents; and unattainable homeownership. Clearly this is not good enough and we need to act now. So will the government commit to working with all levels of government to remedy things and, for starters, to extend the National Rental Affordability Scheme, increase Commonwealth rent assistance and revisit investment property tax reform? 15:10 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I want to thank the member for Clark for his question. I know that he, like many people in this place, is concerned about those Australians who are struggling to find safe and secure housing, particularly affordable housing at the moment. We certainly understand that safe and affordable housing is central to the security and dignity of all Australians. We want every Australian to have the security of having a roof over their head but, of course, we're dealing with increasing housing affordability costs. Far too many Australians are being hit by increasing rents, and far too many Australians are still struggling to purchase a home. Sadly, far too many Australians are facing, or at risk of, homelessness today. The situation is completely unacceptable, which is why, of course, we've hit the ground running to deliver on our ambitious housing reform agenda that we took to the election. It was a very significant reform right across the housing system. Indeed, we want to make it easier for Australians to buy a home. We want to increase the supply of housing to reduce overcrowding and to reduce rents. We want to improve access to social and affordable housing, and we want to address the needs of those who find themselves at risk of homelessness or who are indeed homeless. Importantly, we want to ensure that investments and reforms are both long term and sustainable. To this end, we've brought forward the start of the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee to 1 October, and that will allow up to 10,000 eligible Australians to enter into homeownership sooner and help ease the pressure in the rental market in our regions. We've acted quickly to unlock up to $575 million through the National Housing Infrastructure Facility to invest in more social and affordable housing sooner. Of course, we're doing that while we wait for the Housing Australia Future Fund, which is our significant $10 billion investment that will build 30,000 new social and affordable homes in the first five years. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will just take a break. I'm going to give the call to the member for Clark on a point of order. Mr Wilkie C2T Thank you, Speaker—on relevance. The community's very keen to hear the answer—in particular regarding the National Rental Affordability Scheme, or NRAS; Commonwealth rent assistance; and whether there's any possibility of investment property tax reform. The SPEAKER 53517 I thank the member. The question was broad, and the minister is being relevant. I'm listening to her carefully. I give the call to the minister. Ms COLLINS HWM I thank the member for Clark. We also, of course, want to develop a National Housing and Homelessness Plan, and we do want to work with the other tiers of government. There's no one tier of government that's going to be able to solve this alone. We've had two meetings already of state and territory housing ministers. The first, which we had in July, was the first meeting in almost five years because, of course, we inherited a system where those on the other side did very little when it came to housing affordability across this country. We're also going to introduce a National Housing Supply and Affordability Council to ensure that the Commonwealth does play a leadership role in ensuring housing supply and improving housing affordability. There'll be details on these reforms in the budget tonight. Importantly, the initiatives and reforms need to be sustainable and lead to long-term, permanent housing for those that need it most. We learnt the lesson the hard way from those opposite when we saw important housing programs abolished, like one of the ones the member refers to. NRAS was abolished, of course, by Tony Abbott back in 2014. The reforms that we're proposing will permanently boost the supply of affordable housing and take pressure off the rental market as well as addressing social housing problems. When too many Australians don't have a safe place to call home, we can't afford to waste a day, and we absolutely won't. Wages 33 15:13 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Why have Australian wages been stagnant for nearly a decade? What is the Albanese Labor government doing to get wages moving? 15:14 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I thank the member for Chisholm for the question—somebody who, before she came here, was fighting for people's wages to get moving and continues that fight now she's here as a member in parliament. We're delivering this week on exactly what we said we'd do, which was that we would get wages moving after a decade where they had been kept deliberately low. When those opposite, and anyone, want to talk about cost of living, cost of living deals with both prices and wages. When wages are stagnant, people don't have a chance of being able to keep up. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker will cease interjecting and is warned. Mr BURKE DYW The first action when this government was elected was to put in a submission to the Annual Wage Review. Those opposite were outraged during the election campaign when then Leader of the Opposition Albanese answered with that one word 'absolutely', as to whether he would support pay rises for the lowest paid. Those opposite couldn't even bring themselves to support a $1-an-hour increase for the lowest paid. They said it would be economy wrecking. They said it would be a disaster. They said, 'Leave it to the experts.' What did the experts say after the government had put in a submission? They agreed and said, 'Absolutely,' as well. This week we will introduce the Secure Jobs, Better Pay bill. We will ensure that we get wages moving for people who rely on the bargaining system as well. Enterprise bargaining has always been the best way to both get wages moving and get productivity outcomes. Those opposite don't want bargaining. Those opposite don't want to see wages get moving. Why? For them, it's always been a deliberate design feature to keep wages low. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker is on a warning. Mr BURKE DYW They haven't read the legislation yet. The only words of the legislation they're sure of are the name—'Secure jobs, better pay'—and that was enough for the Leader of the Opposition to say: 'Vote against it. You can't have that.' 'Secure jobs, better pay' was enough for it to be vetoed. At least they're being consistent: in opposition, they are intending to do exactly what they did in government, which is to suppress wages, try to prevent wages from going forward and try to prevent improvements in people's pay. The Leader of the Opposition had a moment of clarity when he said, with reference to the government, 'They've been elected to make a bad situation better.' He's right: they left us with a bad situation. He's right: wage stagnation for a decade has been a terrible outcome for households. This government is determined to make that better and, if those opposite don't support secure jobs or better pay, they should continue on their current course. Energy 34 15:17 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Twenty-two thousand small businesses in South-East Queensland, including many businesses in my community, are currently on electricity standing offers. Instead of their electricity bills falling, as those opposite promised, they are set to increase by up to $1,700. Why is the government making the cost-of-living crisis worse for small-business owners? 15:17 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon Again, I welcome the honourable member's interest in the energy costs of small business in Queensland. I imagine she was outraged by my predecessor hiding the 12.8 per cent increase in energy prices for Queensland businesses prior to the election. I imagine she is outraged that the minister actually changed the law by signing a regulation to hide this increase, which he was told was inevitable by the Australian Energy Regulator. I am sure she shares my anger. I am sure she shares my disrespect. I am sure she shares my disdain for such an action—to be so fundamentally dishonest to Queensland small businesses. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will pause. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order? Mr Fletcher L6B The point of order is that it's very clear that all imputations of improper motives to a member are highly disorderly. We keep hearing the minister attributing improper motives to the former minister for energy. He ought not to do that. What he ought to do is answer— The SPEAKER 53517 You may resume your seat. It is not a point of order. The minister is being directly relevant regarding the energy costs and energy bills. The question was broad about businesses In South-East Queensland and their rising energy costs. The minister is being directly relevant. Mr BOWEN DZS Well, thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The honourable member well knows that the plan that we took to the election was to take energy to renewables 82 per cent by 2030, to put downward pressure on energy prices and to build the transmission network right across the country. She well knows that's what we took to the election. She also knows that that's exactly what we're doing and will continue to do. Broadband 34 15:19 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore My question is to the Minister for Communications. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering on its promise to deliver faster and more reliable broadband, particularly for regional and rural Australia? 15:19 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I thank the member for Gilmore for her question and for her ongoing advocacy for her constituents right across the communications portfolio. The Albanese government was elected on a platform of a better future for all, irrespective of whether you live in our cities, our suburbs or our regions. We are delivering on our commitments to connect Australian families, businesses and communities better than ever before. We are investing $2.4 billion to give an additional 1.5 million premises fibre access to the National Broadband Network. What this means is that 90 per cent of homes and businesses in the NBN fixed-line footprint will have access to gigabit speeds by late 2025. What this includes is full fibre access for more than 660,000 additional homes and businesses in the regions currently relying on copper wire. This will boost the reliability of services and the productivity of our regional businesses, and support the changes in the ways we work, study and transact since the pandemic. What this means is that these additional fibre-to-the-premises connections will deliver an estimated $20 billion uplift in GDP by 2030. That enables communities and businesses to access faster broadband speeds and support thousands of jobs during the construction phase. But expanding access to optical fibre isn't just about downloads; it's about reliability and it's about resilience. It is about our global competitiveness. It builds on our delivery of $480 million earlier this year to upgrade the NBN fixed wireless network. What this means is a more consistent and reliable service for more users in the household. Not too long ago I had the pleasure of visiting the farm of Peter and Megan near Weethalle with the member for Riverina. It was instructive to note how vital digital connectivity is to the operation of their farming enterprise, which, again, became all too relevant during the pandemic. But the approach taken by this government stands in stark contrast to the masterclass in economic and technological incompetence by those opposite. Those opposite rolled out a second-rate copper network beset by delays. They promised to build it for $29 billion. It went up to $41 billion, then $49 billion and, finally, came in at a staggering $58 billion—double what they promised! They ordered 60,000 kilometres of new copper—enough to wrap around planet Earth 1½ times—with taxpayers' money. In contrast, we're delivering better connectivity right across Australia. (Time expired) Brisbane Olympic Games 35 15:22 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith My question is to the Minister for Education. As per the letter I sent you in July this year, is the minister aware that East Brisbane State School stands to be demolished as part of plans to demolish and rebuild the Gabba stadium to provide an extra 8,000 seats for the 2032 Olympics? With the federal government still considering whether to provide 50 per cent of the funding for the project, do you believe that spending up to $2½ billion to demolish a growing and thriving public school for a two-week sporting event is a good use of public funds? 15:23 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I haven't seen the letter, but I am happy to meet with the member and talk about that in detail. Cybersecurity 35 15:23 Ms MASCARENHAS 298800 Swan My question is for the Minister for Home Affairs and Cyber Security. What is the government's response to the Medibank cyberincident? 15:24 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I really appreciate this question from the member for Swan. It's an issue of great concern to her constituents, to my constituents and to the Australian government. The member might be aware that today Medibank provided an update on the consequences of the breach on their networks and confirmed that cybercriminals have taken more data than was previously reported. The data that has been taken has been taken not just from the ahm and international student customer database, as they had previously thought, but from the broader Medibank systems. This is really not good news and it's of great concern to the Australian government. One of the reasons the government is so worried about this is because of the nature of the data that has been held here. In a lot of cyberattacks, our big fears are around identity theft and financial crime—those are very difficult, complex and important cases, but, ultimately, something can usually be done to protect consumers. We can put in place credit monitoring, we can replace ID documents and we can replace bank cards. When it comes to the personal health information of Australians, the damage here is potentially irreparable. Australians who are struggling with mental health conditions, drug and alcohol addiction or diseases that carry some shame or embarrassment are entitled to keep that information private and confidential, and for a cybercriminal to hang this over the heads of Australians is a dog act. It is scum-of-the-earth, lowest-of-the-low territory. We are taking this incredibly seriously, and the work that is being done is being undertaken by the smartest and toughest people who work for the Australian government. I thank the Australian Signals Directorate and the Australian Federal Police for the intensive work that is underway to hunt down the attacker. They are undertaking a very significant operation. The AFP are leading a criminal investigation into this matter. Services Australia and the Department of Health and Aged Care are working to protect the government information that may be exposed here. Services Australia have done an immense amount of work to protect their own network, which has an interaction with Medibank as a health insurer. We are putting in place substantial supports for Australians should the worst come to the worst and some of this information be made public. Because of the way that the situation developed over the weekend through Friday and Saturday, on Saturday I asked my department to activate the National Coordination Mechanism to coordinate the work that's being done on Medibank. As the parliament will know, the NCM was set up by the former government as a crisis response mechanism to deal with the most difficult and complex aspects of managing the pandemic. We are picking up that model. What we can see is that Medibank is just as complex and just as urgent as some of what we dealt with there. I believe the NCM has already met three times now, and it will work across state and federal agencies to coordinate the response. Combined with Optus, this is an enormous wake-up call for the country. Cybercriminals are the thugs of the 21st century—the bag snatchers and the armed robbers. We need to do more as a country to step up, but in the meantime this government is doing everything it can to protect Australians against this breach. Energy 36 15:27 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. I refer to the recent statement from Alinta energy chief Jeff Dimery that retail energy prices will rise a minimum of 35 per cent. Given the fact of rising power prices facing Australian families, when will the government apologise for telling families that this government would cut power bills by $275 for every family? 15:27 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable member for the question. The opposition knows, but doesn't like to acknowledge, that the Powering Australia Plan that we took to the Australian people and received a mandate for, outlines very clearly in the documents—and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows it because she has attempted to table it—a plan to roll out our renewable energy investments, our transmission, over the coming years to 2030. It models the impact of those prices for 2025 and beyond—not 2022, not 2023, but 2025 and beyond. That is the fact. Never did the then opposition and now government say, 'We will come into office and we will be able to fix 10 years of delay and denial overnight.' These guys are like the rock band that trashes the hotel room and then complains that the cleaners don't have it spick and span before breakfast. These guys trashed the energy market for 10 years and are now complaining that we're not cleaning up the mess quick enough. We're the cleaners who have come in when you've trashed the hotel room—we're cleaning up the mess and you're complaining that we're not doing it fast enough. The Australian people have a view about your record and they'll have a view about ours as well. Vocational Education and Training 36 15:29 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta My question is to the Minister for Skills and Training. How will the Albanese Labor government's investments in the VET sector help to relieve cost-of-living pressure, tackle the skills shortage crisis the government inherited, and provide Australians with the skills and training they need to harness the jobs and opportunities of the future? 15:29 Mr O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton Can I firstly thank the member for Parramatta for his question and his long interest in this area of public policy. He understands how important it is to invest in skills, which of course delivers to our economy, businesses and workers. It was clear to this government upon election that we needed to address this matter urgently. We were very conscious of the fact that the acute skills shortage was as bad as it possibly could be. In fact, the National Skills Commission report, the final report that was only released recently, showed that the occupations on the shortage list had almost doubled in 12 months, from 153 occupations to 286. That is really an indictment of the failure of those opposite to properly plan in the labour market. Of course the pandemic had some role to play in relation to shortages, but the reality is that so too did some of the policy prescriptions of those opposite, namely that the failure to provide any support, JobKeeper or JobSeeker, to hundreds of thousands of visa workers meant that they left the country in droves. That compounded the problem. So too did the failure to plan for the economy—to identify more clearly the existing shortages in the labour force and also, of course, anticipate areas of emerging demand. We understood that. That was why the government convened the Jobs and Skills Summit quite quickly, convening a meeting of businesses and unions, of state and territory governments, of civil society to work through these issues, to discuss and then move on to respond immediately. And respond we will. For that reason we have announced the delivery of 180,000 TAFE and VET fee-free places for 2023. That is absolutely critical to supply the skills to the labour market, to those businesses crying out for workers with relevant skills, to those workers who want secure employment but need skills in demand. For that reason it's absolutely vital that people work together. That's the difference between those on this side, the government now, and the government that we saw before the election—a failure to engage properly with the business community, with unions and with others. That's the reality. The fact is we need to do this and we will do it as a matter of urgency. Of course, we have seen the transformation, for example, in the energy sector. That's why we're investing in energy apprenticeships—to make sure that we have the skills and that we are ready for that transformation, working together across government with employers and industry to deliver the skills that our economy, our labour market and this country need. Energy 37 15:32 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt My question is to the Minister for Energy and Climate Change. Sixty-two thousand residential customers and 14,000 small businesses in my state of South Australia are on electricity standing offers. You promised their electricity bills would go down by $275 if Labor were elected. Instead, they have gone up and will continue to go up. When will the government apologise to the people in my state for breaking their promise? 15:33 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I welcome the honourable member's question about apologies. We're still waiting for the apology from those opposite for changing the law in this regulation to hide power price increases from the people of Sturt and from everybody in the National Energy Market. This regulation was signed 'Angus Taylor, Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction' four days before the election was called. That's what the Australian people deserve an apology for. The Australian people deserve an apology for— The SPEAKER 53517 The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order? Mr Fletcher L6B A question on relevance. The SPEAKER 53517 The minister has completed his answer. Mr Fletcher L6B He has nothing to say— The SPEAKER 53517 You don't have the call. Floods 37 15:34 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories. Minister, many communities across Australia are being impacted by flood, in some areas for the second time this year. What is the government doing to support flood affected local government in these areas? 15:34 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro I want to thank the member for Bendigo, who is experiencing floods in her own region, for the work she's done with her community. I also want to take this opportunity to thank Minister Murray Watt for the work that he has done since entering government. We've had multiple natural disasters and we've had agricultural issues, and his swift response in mobilising the ADF and getting payments out so quickly should be congratulated. As a former mayor who experienced nine declared natural disasters in four years, I'm very aware of the important role that local governments play in supporting their communities through disaster but also into recovery. We're thinking of all those communities, particularly those in and around Lismore, who have felt multiple floods on numerous occasions already this year. We know you're fatigued, and we know it takes a toll on your communities. The former government stood on the hose of disaster relief payments. They slowed financial assistance to local government down to a trickle, especially when local governments were struggling to help their communities through very difficult times. The Albanese government is providing financial help— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The minister will resume her seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order? Mr Fletcher L6B That was a simply appalling statement, Mr Speaker, and she should be asked to withdraw. The SPEAKER 53517 Resume your seat. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my right! The minister was asked a question regarding communities impacted by floods and what the minister is doing for flood affected local areas. I ask her to return to that question. Ms McBAIN 281988 The Albanese government is providing financial support to people in Victoria, Tasmania and New South Wales affected by extensive and ongoing flooding, and we are doing so quickly. More than 100 local government areas have been activated for the disaster recovery allowance since 14 September, and a further 30 local government areas have been activated for the Australian government disaster recovery payment. I have called numerous mayors in flood affected areas to let them know the Albanese government stands ready to help. As heavy rainfall eases across north-east New South Wales, additional rainfall is now moving down towards the South Coast of New South Wales and eastern Victoria. The rain is impacting already saturated landscapes, including many that already have floods in their area. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Wannon will cease interjecting. Ms McBAIN 281988 There are evacuation orders in place for lower North Lismore, with multiple emergency warnings across New South Wales. My message is simply: please listen to the authorities. Heed their warnings and advice. We are working closely with state and territory governments to support those impacted local government areas and their communities to provide practical and timely on-ground assistance. People in local government areas affected by these floods can access disaster assistance payments through Services Australia. We currently have a bill before parliament that will transform the former government's failed Emergency Response Fund into a dedicated, ongoing source of funding for natural disaster resilience and risk reduction initiatives. Not only is it important to be there for communities at the time of disasters; it's important to be there to assist them to prepare for what's coming in the future, and that is what the Albanese Labor government is doing. Energy 38 15:38 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Australian Energy Regulator Chair Clare Savage has said the number of households facing bill stress will rise over the next few years as customers are slugged with rapidly increasing electricity costs. What is the government's plan to deal with rising electricity costs? 15:38 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon Our plan to help people with energy costs is to implement our energy policies. That's what we're going to do. The previous government promised energy prices of $70 a megawatt hour. If you want to talk about energy prices, we'll talk about it all day. I'm free till 7.30. I think the Prime Minister's up for it as well by all indications, and we're very happy to keep debating this. We're very happy to keep explaining our plans. We're very happy to keep pointing out the decade of denial and delay on the other side and the dishonesty of the previous Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr BOWEN DZS We're very happy about this, because the Energy Regulator is pointing out the pressures and strains in the system. She's pointed out that our traditional energy sources are becoming more unreliable. She's made that very clear. She made that very clear today in the Australian Financial Review, and she said this: Leaning into the transition and getting the investment in place is the best thing we can do for consumers. Guess what? That's what we're doing—leaning into the transition, getting the investment in place. That's what we were doing last week in a place called Tasmania, which is a state which exists under Liberal Party management. That's where we were, making those announcements with the Tasmanian government, working with governments across Australia. And we have another meeting of energy ministers on Friday where we will also be working to implement our policies in close cooperation with the states and territories, because we're getting on with the job of fixing a decade of denial and delay, which you should apologise for. Small Business 38 15:40 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser My question is to the Minister for Small Business. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to support small business owners facing serious challenges across the country, including those who've been impacted by the ongoing flood disaster? 15:40 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I thank the member for Fraser. I also want to thank him for the work he's been doing in his community in light of the recent floods and also for his longstanding commitment to supporting small businesses in his community. We all know that small businesses are, indeed, the engine of our nation's economy. They're at the heart of our local communities right across the country, and they employ millions of Australians. Not only do small businesses help put pay cheques in people's pockets; they contribute more than $430 billion to the nation's economy every single year. Of course, the Albanese Labor government knows that the COVID-19 pandemic and ongoing natural disasters have hit our small businesses hard. Right across Australia, including in the member for Fraser's home state, in my home state of Tasmania, and in New South Wales and Queensland, the recent floods have been devastating. As we sit here, some people are still bracing themselves to see what can be salvaged. Our thoughts are with them, and, of course, our support is with them. We've already announced individual relief for states, but we've also announced just recently relief for small businesses in my home state of Tasmania, and we are working with the New South Wales and Victorian governments to provide additional support that may be required for small businesses in those states as they come into the recovery phase. But, even for small businesses that have escaped the wild weather, we know that rising inflation and ongoing staff shortages have added to their daily pressures. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Longman! Ms COLLINS HWM We're focused on helping them get through these challenges. We've already announced that we'll provide more than $15 million in the budget for small business owners to access free mental health and financial counselling support. That's more than $10.9 million that will go to the NewAccess for Small Business Owners program and $4 million to continue the Small Business Debt Helpline. We know that this new funding will build on measures that we've already put in place, including $18.6 million to help support small businesses adapt and build resilience through digital technology. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Longman will leave the chamber under 94(a). Ms COLLINS HWM We've updated the Commonwealth Procurement Rules, which mean that small businesses will get a bigger slice of the $70 billion in contracts that the Australian government spends every year, with a 20 per cent target for small business procurement. We've introduced legislation to make unfair contract terms illegal so that small businesses can negotiate fairer agreements with large partners. And, of course, these measures sit alongside the Albanese government's wider agenda that will benefit small businesses, including our increase to the skilled migration program to address skill shortages and our cheaper child care that will mean more parents will be able to do more hours and work in small businesses. We'll provide a one-off income credit to older Australians to give them the option to work and keep more of their money, immediately helping to boost the labour market supply, and we're accelerating the delivery of 465,000 additional fee-free TAFE places, with 180,000 to be delivered in 2023. We know that small businesses are vital to Australia, and we'll continue to support them. (Time expired) Suburban Rail Loop 39 15:43 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Can the minister explain why the government is committing $2.2 billion to the Suburban Rail Loop, a project which has not been endorsed by Infrastructure Australia and which has been criticised by such bodies as the Grattan Institute and the Victorian Auditor-General as not being a worthwhile investment? 15:44 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat The investment in the Suburban Rail Loop is a once-in-a-generation infrastructure project. We are honouring our election commitment to provide $2.2 billion towards the early works of the Suburban Rail Loop East. Not only will that project actually benefit the suburbs of our great city of Melbourne; it will benefit Victorian regional communities as well. Let me tell you about that. Because the Victorian government are making Clayton a superhub, people who live in Gippsland will be able to get to Monash hospital, to the children's hospital and to Monash University, saving one hour in a round trip. So it is not just a project for the Victorian suburbs; it is a project for Victoria's regions as well. Of course, what we also know is that the detailed business and investment case for Suburban Rail Loop East, released by Victoria last year, demonstrated a cost-benefit ratio of 1.7, meaning that $1.70 would be returned for every single dollar invested. We know also that suburban rail will be assessed by Infrastructure Australia and that under the National Land Transport Act—which you guys seem to ignore but which actually exists—the project will also be subject to rigorous assessment processes between the Commonwealth and Victoria. We will respect those processes because that is what a responsible government does. This is a transformational project for Victoria. We've seen over in Western Australia what METRONET has done, creating new suburbs, creating new community hubs and creating more affordable housing across the entirety of Perth. The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition! Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Suburban rail will transform the rail network in Victoria in the same way, not just for suburban Victorians but for people—including in your own electorate— Mr Wood E0F Don't talk about my electorate. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR in being able to move around much better and actually be able to— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for La Trobe! Mr Wood E0F What about the bushfires? Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Well, you should have asked me a question about that! Why didn't you ask me a question about that? This will be a project that will transform the way in which regional communities access Melbourne. It is a very important project, and I am proud of the $2.2 billion we're investing in partnership with the Premier of Victoria, Dan Andrews, who we hope to see returned as Premier soon. Energy 40 15:47 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Why is it important to invest in Australia's future energy needs, and how do recent announcements and policy changes deliver on this priority? 15:47 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable member for his question and for his strong support of better renewable energy in Tasmania and efforts to make it happen. As I said before, I'm pleased to report and confirm to the House that last week the Prime Minister made an announcement— The SPEAKER 53517 The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned! Mr BOWEN DZS of the biggest federal investment in energy since his predecessor Ben Chifley announced the Snowy Mountains Scheme. I'm also pleased to report to the House that every single dollar of that investment goes to renewable energy and renewable energy transmission. We're investing in renewable energy zones in Victoria. We're investing in offshore wind in Victoria, which we will make a reality. We're investing in a better connection between Victoria and New South Wales, working in conjunction with both governments. And we're investing in Tasmania as well: a billion dollars of concessional finance to make Battery of the Nation a reality, and support for the north-west transmission link and, most important of all, the Marinus Link. Honourable members would know about the Marinus Link, because they've heard about it for six years. Like clockwork, every couple of months the previous government—the previous Prime Minister and the previous minister—would go to Tasmania and make an announcement of a couple of million dollars here and a couple of million dollars there. Last week, this Prime Minister announced $2½ billion of support to make this project a reality. What this project means is that Tasmania, which is already at 100 per cent renewable energy, will get to 200 per cent renewable energy and export that energy to the mainland, which is good for Tasmanians—creating jobs, unleashing investment, unleashing jobs—and will unleash cheaper renewable energy for all Australians on the national energy market. That's why this project is so important. It's so important because there's no transition without transmission. We on this side of the House understand that. We understand that we are lucky, in Australia, to have a document called the Integrated System Plan, which outlines a road map for better transmission. The only problem with the Integrated System Plan is that there haven't been dollars attached to it; there hasn't been investment in it. We dealt with that in the then Leader of the Opposition's first budget reply as Leader of the Opposition, when he announced Rewiring the Nation to actually make that transmission a reality. But now we can only make it a reality because we are implementing that policy in government, and we continue to be in discussions with other state governments, right around the country, in relation to Rewiring the Nation, and that fund will be confirmed this evening in the budget. I look forward to further announcements with the Prime Minister, because we know that the world's climate emergency is Australia's jobs opportunity, with the right policies to seize those opportunities, and that's what we're going to continue to deliver. Mr Albanese R36 Given that I've failed to get a single question from those opposite about the budget or the economy, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 40 STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER Budget 40 15:50 The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Before members leave the House I have a statement to make, and it might be particularly of interest to newer members. I ask all members to note the usual arrangements are in place for budget week, and importantly the courtesies that will apply to the Treasurer's budget speech this evening and equally to the Leader of the Opposition's speech in reply on Thursday evening. As with all proceedings of the House, the member with the call is entitled to speak without interruption. In accordance with the precedent, should I determine that a member be required to leave the House under standing order 94(a), the member will be advised by handwritten note. I ask all members to ensure that their guests arrive at the galleries in good time to undertake the secondary security clearance and be seated by 7.10 pm. I trust there will be cooperation from members and their invited guests in the galleries, for whom they are responsible. It should be the aim of all members that both nights proceed smoothly for the benefit of the House and for those watching and listening to proceedings. To finish off, for the information of members, the speech clock will be on but only as a guide. Standing order 1 provides that there is no time limit for the Treasurer or the Leader of the Opposition for this debate. I thank the House. DOCUMENTS 41 DOCUMENTS Department of The House of Representatives 41 Presentation 41 15:51 The SPEAKER 53517 Pursuant to section 65 of the Parliamentary Service Act 1999, I present the annual report of the Department of the House of Representatives for 2021-22. Document made a parliamentary paper. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 41 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report No. 6 of 2022-23 41 15:51 The SPEAKER 53517 I present the Auditor-General's performance audit report No. 6 of 2022-23 entitled Implementation of the export control legislative framework: Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Document made a parliamentary paper. DOCUMENTS 41 DOCUMENTS Presentation 41 15:52 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. STATEMENTS 41 STATEMENTS Personal Explanation 41 15:52 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 53517 Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Most grievously so. The SPEAKER 53517 You may proceed. Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 On Friday 14 October I was contacted by Josh Zimmerman, a journalist from the West Australian newspaper, in relation to a screenshot of a text message exchange purported to be attributed to me. The message contained the threat that I would quit the Liberal Party and sit on the crossbench. I can categorically deny it; the screenshot was a forgery and a fabrication. Impersonating a member of parliament with intent to cause false belief and detriment is a serious criminal offence. I wish to advise the House that I have reported the matter to the Australian Federal Police for investigation. The Australian Federal Police have provided me with a reference number for this matter: 7246165. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 41 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Israel 41 15:53 The SPEAKER 53517 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Bradfield proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's decision to reverse the recognition of West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. 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— 15:53 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield In December 2018, the then Prime Minister announced that the Australian government would recognise West Jerusalem, the seat of the Knesset and many of the institutions of government, as the capital of Israel. The decision respected both a commitment to a two-state solution and longstanding respect for relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The government committed to moving the Australian embassy to West Jerusalem when practical, and in support of, and after the final status determination of, a two-state solution. In making this decision, Australia acknowledged the aspirations of the Palestinian people for a future state with its capital in East Jerusalem. The announcement followed a review by the secretaries of the departments of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Foreign Affairs and Trade, Defence, and Home Affairs which included consultation with community representatives, former heads of relevant agencies and Australia's international allies and partners. The United States recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in December 2017, and its embassy was located in that city from May 2018. I confirm that the coalition maintains the principle of our position of recognising West Jerusalem and if elected would follow proper processes, including consultation with stakeholders, allies and partners. Our position has not changed. We remain a strong supporter of a two-state solution in which Israel and a future Palestinian state coexist in peace and security within internationally recognised borders. Our recognition of West Jerusalem did not in any way pre-empt peace negotiations or undermine prospects of a peaceful settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Since 2020, five Arab nations have normalised relations with Israel, disproving arguments made in 2018 that the government's decision would make the conflict worse. Our relationship with Israel is enormously important. Australia is a great friend of Israel. Israel is our closest and most reliable partner in the Middle East, a region home to many threats, including threats to Australia. Other than the United States, Israel has no greater friend than Australia anywhere in the world, and the coalition will always be consistent about maintaining that friendship. Our friendship is as old as the State of Israel. We were the first country to vote in favour of the 1947 United Nations partition resolution adopted by the General Assembly, which led to Israel's establishment in 1948. Our contribution was noted by Israeli representative Abba Eban, who said: The manner in which you steered to a vote the second historic Resolution … the warmth and eloquence with which you welcomed Israel into the family of nations, have earned for you the undying gratitude of our people. There are proud people-to-people links between Australia and Israel. Israel is a vigorous multiparty democracy, a beacon of freedom around the world. Our two nations have close economic, business and people-to-people connections. Our nations are united by shared values—a commitment to democracy, freedom and the rule of law. I particularly want to acknowledge the Jewish Australian community, over 100,000 strong, and the very significant contribution which has been made by that community to the prosperity and success of Australia. Of course, that community, along with others, has been heavily involved in the work of progressing technology partnerships with Israel and companies based in Israel, including on matters such as energy, water and finance technologies. It is a multidimensional relationship and a relationship that we on this side of the House are deeply committed to. I turn from the position taken—and taken consistently—by this side of the House to the disastrous process followed by the Albanese Labor government. The process was executed with shocking timing. On 17 October, media reported that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade website had removed references to the recognition of West Jerusalem as Israel's capital and had removed references to the commitment to move the Australian embassy. A spokesperson for foreign minister Senator Wong was asked for clarification. That spokesperson said: The former Government made the decision to recognise West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. No decision to change that has been made by the current government. The very next day, the foreign minister announced at a press conference that Australia would reverse the recognition of West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Amazingly, this announcement occurred on the Jewish holiday of Simhath Torah and just two weeks before the Israeli election. Senator Wong was unable to point to how this abrupt reversal was in the national interest. Indeed, it clearly was not. It was contemptuous of many important stakeholders. The Israeli ambassador and the Israeli government were not informed of the decision before it was announced by the Albanese Labor government. This is what Israel's Prime Minister Lapid had to say: In light of the way this decision was made … as a hasty response to an incorrect report in the media, we can only hope that the Australian government manages other matters more seriously and professionally The Israeli government took the extraordinary step of summoning our ambassador to Israel to explain the Australian government's change in policy. The Albanese Labor government largely ignored speaking with Australians who care about a two-state solution that provides peace and security for Israel and a future Palestinian state, and instead informed them of the government's decision only after it was made. The Executive Council of Australian Jewry said the decision was made in 'a shoddy manner', it was 'poor policy' and it was 'no way to treat an ally'. One member of this place said he was: … disappointed by the decision … Capital cities are sovereign matters for sovereign states. Who was that? That was the Labor member for Macnamara. He was disappointed by the decision. The former Labor member from this place Michael Danby described the government's decision as 'chaotic' and 'unprofessional'. And this House should not avoid noting that this decision was welcomed by two listed terrorist organisations in Australia: Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. This would be bad enough if this government had taken this policy to the last election. But the truth is that this decision was never mentioned during the recent election campaign. Indeed, on the contrary, senior Labor members of parliament prior to the election assured concerned stakeholders, including readers of the Australian Jewish News, that on the question of Israel it didn't matter which way they voted. How wrong that proved to be. The Attorney-General wrote in the Australian Jewish News on 4 March this year attacking the member for Cook, the former Prime Minister, for suggesting that there was any difference in the policies of the two parties. What an appalling suggestion, apparently, except we had to wait only a few short months before this government confirmed there was, in fact, a stark difference in the policies of, on the one hand, the Liberal and National parties and, on the other hand, the Labor Party. The Attorney-General claimed that across domestic politics Australia 'spoke with one voice'. The member for Macnamara did likewise in the Australian Jewish News on 18 March, saying that Australia's Jewish community should feel proud that its interests would be safeguarded 'irrespective of whoever forms government'. I suggest that the Attorney-General and the member for Macnamara have a lot of explaining to do. I note the wise words of Australia's former Ambassador to Israel and former member for Wentworth, who observed: … Labor's policy provides a tailwind to extremists, and states such as Iran, who would like to see Israel wiped off the map and who insist that Israel has no rightful place in the region. Hezbollah will be cheering this Labor announcement. This was a disgraceful decision, disgracefully executed. Australia's Jewish community and many other right-thinking Australians have every reason to feel deeply disappointed and indeed abandoned by what this government has done. 16:03 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand I rise to speak on this MPI more in sadness than in anger. Tonight, the Treasurer will begin the task of cleaning up the mess that the previous government left to us on the fiscal front. We'll be helping with cost-of-living pressures facing the Australian public and building a better future for our nation. I understand why those opposite don't want to talk about the budget in this MPI tonight and why they don't want to talk about the trillion dollars of Liberal debt that they leave this nation as a legacy, with very little economic dividend to show for it. I understand why they didn't ask any questions, extraordinarily, about the budget in question time today. It's disappointing that, instead of talking about the budget on budget day, those opposite have chosen to continue the Morrison government's legacy of putting short-term domestic politics ahead of the long-term national interest on foreign policy. Let me be very clear: the Albanese government does not and will not use sensitive foreign policy to play political games. It's not in the national interest, and the last election result shows that the Australian public are over it. They are sick of the politics of division. On 18 October, Foreign Minister Wong reaffirmed Australia's previous longstanding and bipartisan position that Jerusalem is a final status issue and should be resolved as part of any peace negotiations between the Israeli and Palestinian people. This is not an extreme position. Far from it. Mr Thompson 281826 Hamas agrees with you; a terrorist organisation agrees with you! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Member for Herbert, you might not interject—you're not even sitting in your seat. If you do it again, you will be leaving. Mr WATTS 193430 We're not talking about a fringe view from the Labor Party here; we are talking about a considered position of like-minded nations and of all major Australian parties since 1948. Let's be very clear and reiterate that: it's the position of 70 years of successive Australian governments that there can be no lasting peace that does not address the status of Jerusalem, and the Albanese government will not undermine that approach. It was the position of the Gorton government, the Fraser government, the Hawke government, the Keating government, the Howard government, the Rudd government, the Gillard government, the Abbott government and the Turnbull government. Previous foreign minister Bishop said plainly, 'Matters relating to Jerusalem are subject to final status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian authorities.' Former prime minister Turnbull said about this decision: The conclusion that I took, and my government took, after very careful and considered advice was that a policy that is well over 40 years old, 50 years old, should remain exactly the same as it is. Australia's position remained consistent for decades. It wasn't changed by the Gorton government following the Six-Day War in 1967, and all through the subsequent events it wasn't changed by Fraser, Hawke, Howard, Gillard, Turnbull or Rudd. The Liberal Party broke 70 years of bipartisan consensus and broke with international views to play short-term domestic political games in a by-election. The only exception to the consensus has been former Prime Minister Morrison, who exploited the sensitivity of this issue for his own political purposes. On 15 October 2018, then prime minister Morrison dropped to the media that he was overturning decades of bipartisan policy on the Middle East by going ahead with his intention to move Australia's embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. He dropped this to the media on the same day he gave a heads-up to DFAT, and only one day after telling his then foreign minister, who he kept in the dark on this extraordinary foreign policy shift. This was a mere five days before the by-election in the seat of Wentworth took place. Then prime minister Morrison said he was persuaded by views put forward by his political candidate in Wentworth, Dave Sharma—leaving no doubt that this was a cynical attempt to get Mr Sharma elected. At the time of the vote, Penny Wong said, presciently: 'Floating a change in Liberal foreign policy just to try and hold onto the seat of Wentworth—does anyone believe he'll actually carry it through? This is posturing ahead of the by-election.' John Roskam, the director of the IPA, a familiar figure in this chamber for those opposite, said at the time: If this week's announcement from the government truly was based on principle the test will come, not if the Liberals hold Wentworth tomorrow, but if they lose it. If the Liberals lose Wentworth and we never hear again about the embassy being moved, the PM will have succeeded in revealing that the Liberals' commitment to furthering democracy and freedom around the world is as skin deep as a byelection campaign promise. That was remarkably prescient, because we all know what happened next—or, rather, what did not happen next. We know that then Prime Minister Morrison was only posturing with an announcement on this issue, because he didn't move the embassy, did he? After the by-election, just two months later, he announced that he was backing down and not moving the embassy. How cynical can you get? He didn't make the announcement out of conviction; it was just a political tactic, playing with the sensitive topic—the hopes and aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians. It was doubly cynical, because, before the speaker who just appeared in front of us today, the opposition would not confirm its position on this issue. This week, the opposition leader said that the coalition would make its announcement of their policy 'in the run-up to the next election'. Senator Birmingham, the spokesman on foreign affairs, said: Well, that proposition is at least a couple of years away until the next election. So, we think this is an unnecessary decision, the wrong decision to have made at this time. We would not have made this decision. Whether we will reconsider that position in the future is something, of course, that we would look closer to the next election cognisant of events as they unfold. That's not the position that the first speaker in this debate just articulated. Their cynicism is only matched by their incompetence. As Minister Wong has reiterated, what occurred here was that the DFAT website was updated ahead of government processes. She took responsibility for resolving the situation and moved to clear up confusion as quickly as possible. She has expressed regret that the shift away from Australia's longstanding position and the shift back have been distressing for communities that have deep-rooted and keenly felt stakes in the cessation of conflict, particularly the Australian Jewish community. She has also said that the timing of the announcement, falling as it did on the high holidays, was also deeply regrettable. The Prime Minister has acknowledged that we can always do better on process. We're a grown-up government. We have acknowledged it. That is what adults do. The Albanese Labor government is committed to a two-state solution in which Israel and the future Palestinian state co-exist in peace and security within internationally recognised borders. We share this position, that Jerusalem is a final status issue, with like-minded countries, such as France, Spain, South Korea, New Zealand, Germany, Japan, the European Union, Singapore, Canada, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland and Norway. Those opposite make like the position held by these countries is equated to a position held by a terrorist group. It's absurd. These are serious times for Australia's international circumstances, and they call for serious political leadership. It's no secret that diplomacy was deprioritised and disregarded by the previous government. That has harmed our national interest. In contrast, the Albanese Labor government has hit the ground running, renewing Australia's closest relationships and advancing our interests and values overseas. We are in a race for influence and we're running that race internationally. We're reversing nine wasted years of the Liberals and Nationals slashing Australia's development assistance, reducing our influence and leaving a vacuum for others to fill. We are working to make Australia a partner of choice for countries in our region to ensure our security and economic strength and to shape the world for the better. Tonight's budget will be a major step towards that goal of making Australia stronger and more influential in the world. We are building a stronger Pacific family, with a massive increase in support for development, infrastructure and security, including more than $147 million over four years for advancing Pacific security and engagement priorities; and expanding and improving Pacific labour mobility, to reinforce that we are part of the same Pacific family. Our assistance will help our regional partners to become more economically resilient, develop critical infrastructure and provide their own security so they have less need to call on others. Under the Albanese Labor government, Australia is now supporting our Pacific family more than ever before. The foreign minister has already visited 11 Pacific countries. The minister for the Pacific will visit every Pacific island country in this year. We're also deepening our engagement with South-East Asia, with more support for economic development, an office for South-East Asia and developing a South-East Asia economic strategy. The foreign minister has shown this renewed commitment by visiting six South-East Asian countries already. We're strengthening key relationships, including the US alliance and the Quad. Just this weekend we strengthened our joint declaration on security cooperation with Japan. We're supporting the people of Ukraine, with the Prime Minister showing his personal support by visiting Ukraine, as well as being one of the biggest non-NATO contributors to the Ukrainians' defence of their homeland and advocacy for Ukraine around the world. We're restoring Australia's global climate leadership. As well as restoring Australia's reputation and rebuilding our relationships, we're cleaning up the failures of the Liberals' and Nationals' failures on our defence capability, which has left 28 projects running more than 97 years late. We understand that there are few issues more central to many Jewish people than the status of Jerusalem. As Senator Wong has said, it's more than a political issue. It's definitional: it's about history, faith and identity. It's the heart of Israel's origins and its future, and there can be no lasting peace that does not address its status. Its sensitivity is so deep for the overwhelming majority of the international community that it has always remained a final status issue that should be resolved as a part of any peace negotiations between the Israeli and Palestinian people. It should not be the subject of political games. When Australia first recognised the State of Israel, Labor's then foreign minister, Doc Evatt, defined our objective as being to reach a just and fair solution. As Gideon Haigh noted in his biography of Doc Evatt: No task so consumed Evatt's energies as the division of Palestine—which is remarkable for there being almost no incentive for him to do so … Populated by fewer than 40,000 Jews, Australia had no 'Jewish vote' to be courted, and the idea of a homeland enjoyed far from uniform support anyway. He did it for national interest reasons. 16:14 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra In the history of Australia it is hard to think of a more shambolic piece of foreign policy-making than Labor's position on Israel's capital. In the space of 24 hours they had three separate positions on it. Labor took a major foreign policy decision with no consultation, a decision that caused deep offence to a longstanding and significant friend and ally in the State of Israel. It was a decision that sends a bad message to all other countries with whom we have longstanding friendships and alliances. And, while it was rightly condemned by the only democracy in the Middle East, it was welcomed by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, two organisations that we in Australia have listed as proscribed terrorist organisations. You know you're making bad public policy when the endorsement comes from listed criminal terrorist organisations. Reversing the decision of the coalition government in 2018 to recognise West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel was no small decision. It was a decision to ignore and disrespect the decision of a sovereign nation to choose its own capital. Labor's decision would be like another nation saying that they didn't recognise Canberra as our capital—that it should be Dubbo. Let's be clear: West Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Its parliament is there, its Supreme Court is there, the President lives there—it looks like the capital city of any other country. Yet Labor is lending credence to the fiction that it's not. This decision undermines Israel's status in a volatile region and it signals to those who oppose Israel that Australia's friendship actually depends on who's in government here, not on any deep-seated support for the shared values of democracy and the rule of law. Israel is a country whose intelligence helped us to foil major terrorist attacks on our own soil, and yet this bad decision gets the support of terrorists. When we have the Prime Minister of Israel condemning the decision and the Israeli foreign minister registering deep disappointment after not even having been consulted on this matter, we should all be concerned. Labor, in making this decision, has chosen to pander to the Left of its party and in the process has done lasting damage to a significant international relationship for Australia. What's perhaps most distressing in all of this is the way Labor has done all of this while speaking with a forked tongue. They've tried to convince Australians that there's no difference in foreign policy between Labor and the coalition when it comes to Israel, but that just isn't true. In March this year, in the lead-up to the election, the Attorney-General and the member for Macnamara were busy trying to reassure the Jewish community that Labor stands with Israel and there's no difference between its position and the coalition's position. Let me quote the Attorney-General. He said: Australia has for generations spoken with one voice in support of Israel. Labor's own history of steadfast support for Israel extends back to well before the founding of the modern state in 1948. …   …   …    The truth is that you do not have to look far to see the reality, and value, of bipartisanship when it comes to Israel. It took less than a year for Labor to demonstrate that this was untrue. I note that the Attorney-General has been remarkably silent on this matter over the past week, as compared to the member for Macnamara in his brave comments. Labor's only expression of regret has been about how the politics of this issue have gone down. There's no serious willingness to listen to stakeholders and consider their views. There's no appetite for meaningful consultation, only a pseudoapology that this decision coincided with the Jewish festival of Simhath Torah, the 'joy of the law'. The timing was atrocious, but there's no good time to declare to an ally that you do not support their decision as a sovereign state. Labor haven't recognised the serious damage they've done to Australia's international reputation. And the way that the Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs suggested that on budget day we should somehow ignore this particular issue, I think, underscores the fact that Labor are not taking this issue seriously. I want to make a few matters plain regarding West Jerusalem, as the claims made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs are misleading and deserve a response. West Jerusalem is not the subject to final status negotiations. West Jerusalem is territory that has not been disputed and is not disputed. It has been part of Israel's sovereign territory since the state was established in 1948 and is not part of the territory which Israel captured during the 1967 war. It's outside the scope of UN resolutions since 1967, which are expressly limited to territory occupied by Israel since that time. While there's debate about Jerusalem, the status of West Jerusalem—which the coalition government made clear was the territory being recognised as the capital of Israel—is not under the same dispute. Israel is a sovereign nation with a right to determine where its capital lies. If this government is going to mishandle major foreign policy matters and key international relationships, then Australians have good reason to be deeply concerned. We cannot afford to let the Labor Party play reckless games on foreign policy matters as significant as our relationship with one of our key allies. 16:19 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan May I start by reiterating the disappointment that the Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs expressed in having to speak to this MPI today. But I also stand to speak on this out of a sense of duty, if I may say so. The House has noted before, and I mentioned in my first speech, that I was born in Egypt—in 1967, on the cusp of the Six-Day War. It was just a few weeks before it, as a matter of fact. Throughout the Arab world, that war is known colloquially as an-Naksa, or the setback. After that war and through all the events since that war—and there have been many events in the Middle East—our position on this issue, which is at the heart of Middle East politics, has not changed. It wasn't changed by Malcolm Fraser. It wasn't changed by Bob Hawke. It wasn't changed by John Howard. It wasn't changed by Julia Gillard or Malcolm Turnbull. The assistant minister quoted the response of some of those former prime ministers as to why our position has not changed. I particularly want to point to former Prime Minister John Howard and a joint press conference with the PLO chairman Yasser Arafat, who many will know was much loved for his dedication to the Palestinian cause. In that joint press conference with Yasser Arafat, he very clearly said, 'The status of Jerusalem is something that will be resolved by the parties in the discussion.' That sentiment has been echoed by various prime ministers since and in the words of former foreign minister Julie Bishop: 'Matters relating to Jerusalem are subject to final status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian authority.' I understand very well, perhaps more than most in this place, the sensitivities around this issue, the sensitivities among the Jewish Australian community, the Palestinian Australian community and Arab Australians more broadly. It hurts and is very disheartening to see that sensitive issues such as this are used to play political games. On this side, we have very clearly said that we do not and will not use sensitive issues to play political games. As a responsible international actor, we will not impose our views. We will, instead, encourage all parties to engage in negotiations towards a just and enduring two-state solution, as prime ministers and foreign ministers before us—since 1967, since I was born—have done. Let me go through how it is that we have come to this situation. Through all the years that we have had a position on this that very clearly states that matters relating to Jerusalem are subject to final status negotiations there has been one exception, and that exception was from former Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who exploited the sensitivity on this issue for political purposes. On 15 October 2018, Scott Morrison dropped to the media that he was overturning decades of bipartisan policy on the Middle East, including with his intention to move Australia's embassy from Tel Aviv, where it now is, to Jerusalem. He dropped this to the media on the same day he gave a heads-up to DFAT and only a day after telling his foreign minister. And all of this was five days before a by-election in the seat of Wentworth. Australians are rightly cynical about our politics at times, and we are trying very hard to turn that around. But there is something particularly cynical, particularly distasteful, for the Australian people when their elected representatives seek to exploit such sensitive issues for their own gain. I think that's all that needs to be said about this issue. I will stop there but just to reiterate: this is decades-long bipartisan policy. 16:24 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden The reason this matter is of such importance to the House today is not because the government has changed its mind. Governments are able to do that. The government of the day are elected and duly able to make decisions they believe are in the national interest, and that is not in discussion nor in debate. What is in debate is the manner and approach by which this government took this decision. That is what the debate is about today—the shambolic, dishonest and broken-promise approach that has been taken. Personally and passionately, I believe the State of Israel has the right to exist in peace within secure borders, with Jerusalem as its indivisible, eternal capital. That is my view. The previous government took the view, as given by then Prime Minister Morrison on 18 December in a speech to the Sydney Institute, that Australia would recognise West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. West Jerusalem is not in contention, having been part of the State of Israel since its foundation. Mr Morrison, the member for Cook, said the announcement followed a review by the secretaries of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Foreign Affairs and Trade, Defence and Home Affairs, which included consultation with community representatives, former heads of relevant agencies, and Australia's international allies and partners. That is who was consulted in the government making a lawful decision. The starting points for the review were our commitment to a two-state solution and meeting all of our obligations under international law. The review team's recommendations were considered by the National Security Committee of cabinet, and the NSC's decision was confirmed by cabinet. On 18 December, Australia briefed allies and nations on the decision. Subsequently, in March 2019, Australia opened a new Australian Trade and Defence Office in West Jerusalem. That is the process the former government took to making a major foreign policy decision—as all governments are entitled to do—which begs the question: what process did this government embark on to make a decision? I am not, and this parliament is not, criticising the capacity to make a decision. We're not questioning whether the government have the right to make it. They are the elected government of the day. But the process and the shambolic approach to how it was made is extraordinary, notwithstanding that I think the decision is poor on so many levels. If we step through how the decision was made, the shambolic nature of it and the contrived sop to the Left become self-evident. Prior to the election, senior Labor members of parliament assured concerned stakeholders that there was no difference in position between the government and the opposition. Indeed, the member for Isaacs, the Attorney-General, on 6 March said that across domestic politics Australia 'spoke with one voice'. The member for Macnamara on 18 March said Australia's Jewish community should feel proud that its interest would be safeguarded, 'irrespective of who forms government'. Then, on 17 October, there were media reports that the Department of Foreign Affairs website had removed references to the recognition of West Jerusalem, and we had the Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs coming in and saying it was an administrative error. It'd be one of the first I've seen DFAT to make publicly, but let's run with 'administrative error', shall we? On 17 October a spokesperson for the foreign minister told media: The former Government made a decision to recognise West Jerusalem … No decision to change that has been made by the government. Really? So the Department of Foreign Affairs, of its own volition, decided, on one of the more contentious issues, that it would change the website prior to the foreign minister saying no decision had been made? And those opposite expect the Australian people to believe that rubbish? It's absolute and utter nonsense! Stakeholders, including the Australian Jewish community and Israel's Ambassador to Australia, were also assured on the same day—apparently when DFAT was on a frolic—that there would be no change. Then, in less than 24 hours, on 18 October, the foreign minister announced at a press conference that Australia would reverse the decision. The announcement occurred just prior to the budget, on a Jewish holiday, just two weeks out from a heavily contested Israeli election. There was no consultation with communities and no consultation with allies and partners. The Israeli Ambassador to Australia and Israel's government found out about the announcement from the media. That is what this discussion is about—the shambolic, appalling and pathetic nature of the way in which this decision was made. 16:29 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I thank the member for Fadden for confirming for us that a shambolic, contentious decision was made by the former government. It certainly was, and it was made cynically for domestic political purposes. That's the only way the Australian public can possibly read the decision that was taken by the former government. It's the only way they can read it, because—unlike many of the members here today who will be speaking on this, and the very raucous members during question time when, on budget day, this was the first question asked—many Australians are students of history. When it comes to the two-state solution and to the creation of the State of Israel, many Australians understand the history because they have lived it. Australians understand that, when it came to that vote at the United Nations, Australia was the first country to vote yes for the creation of the State of Israel. Australians understand that the question of Jerusalem has been respected as something that will be determined as a status issue, because it is the most contentious thing and could have gotten in the way of peace talks and finding a workable two-state solution. So everybody has respected that over decades. People on that side and people on this side, whether in government or in opposition, have respected that that was what common sense asked for, not just in this country but around the world. But then along came Prime Minister Morrison, who decided to throw that out the window and make a shambolic, contentious decision five days out from a by-election, on the advice of the candidate running in that by-election for the Liberal Party—absolute cynicism. I welcome the fact that today we are here so that we can put back on the record Australia's support for a two-state solution and for the fact that the question of Jerusalem is a status issue that will be dealt with by the parties involved. This will put us back in line with most other countries. We shouldn't be surprised that former Prime Minister Morrison made this shambolic, contentious decision. After all, he's also the first Australian Prime Minister to give himself five portfolios. There were things that that Prime Minister did that appeared to the Australian public to be on a whim, to not be thought through and to not be considered in terms of the ramifications—only short-termism. There was no thought given to what would happen with the change of government, even though Labor's stated position was clear. There was no thought given to what that would mean—just short-term politics, trying to get a short-term edge in a by-election. This is our foreign policy. Decades of Australian foreign ministers and prime ministers have agreed on this position. But we shouldn't be surprised, because the previous government did several things in foreign affairs across nine years that were of concern to Australians, including Australians travelling overseas, who notice these things. I noticed them myself in visiting countries in Asia. There were no signs about Australian aid anywhere—all gone, whereas, 10 years previously, Australian aid had been front and centre in our region. We were respected. We were seen as helpful. This government is committed to ensuring that a sensible foreign minister, a sensible prime minister and a sensible government will put Australia back into the right places in foreign affairs and regain the respect that we held for decades internationally, not just on this issue but on many others. It was shambolic and contentious, and Labor will not make shambolic and contentious decisions like the former Prime Minister Scott Morrison. 16:34 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright Many speakers have spoken about the sensitivity of this matter, and it is a sensitive issue. To those who are listening to the broadcast and those who have the privilege of sitting in the gallery: one should not make the assumption that this side of the chamber is pro-Egypt and the other side is pro-Palestine. That is not the case, and that is not what we are debating here today. There are good people that sit on either side of the chamber, and there is a healthy respect in this parliament for both cases. Not only is it a sensitive issue; it is a complicated issue. It is a complicated issue. To try to better my knowledge, some three or four weeks ago I travelled to Israel, sponsored by AIJAC—to better understand. Since returning, I have met and spoken at length with those on the other side of the chamber to better understand the Palestinian perspective, because the view that was put to us was through a particular prism. What we hear today in this MPI debate is the government's ill-judgement and mishandling of the decision to reverse the capital state. Out of interest, I googled what the capital of Israel was, and it came up with 'Jerusalem'. It didn't preface it with 'west'. It just came up as 'Jerusalem'. But the moral of that story is that you may not believe everything that's on Google. During the election campaign, when Labor suggested to the Australian public that they had a plan and it was a very good plan—none of us know what the plan is at the moment—I don't remember a broad outline of a plan in the foreign policy space about shifting the capital. I just don't recall that. So it is fair enough that, on behalf of my 1,000-strong Jewish community, I get to my feet and call out what I see. I think what's also salient is that while I was in Tel Aviv—some interesting, fun facts. Tel Aviv recently just passed New York, London and Rome as the most expensive city in the world, showing the advancement of Tel Aviv. We spent a considerable amount of time in Jerusalem. As a part-practising Catholic I found the historical content there overwhelming—from an archaeological perspective, from a religious perspective, through the prism of Christianity. Your guidebook around Jerusalem is a Bible. Your guide says to you: 'That's where Jesus was betrayed by Judas. That is the place where he was marched off. That's where he was incarcerated.' It was very moving, through the prism of Catholicism. So that it wasn't seen to be just a Jewish trip, we had the opportunity to meet with the Palestinian Prime Minister. Interestingly, while we were waiting at a cafe, we had the opportunity to catch up with some Palestinian youths. We were suited up, and they said—through our interpreter, clearly—'What are you doing here?' We said, 'We're meeting with your Prime Minister.' They were three well-dressed kids, 15-year-olds with their mobile phones. My first question was: 'Why aren't you in school?' They said: 'You're meeting with our Prime Minister. Could you deliver a message from us?' We said, 'What's the message you want us to deliver on your behalf?' They said: 'If you're meeting with our Prime Minister, I'll give you something, and you deliver it to him. But don't open it—only the Prime Minister.' I said, 'I don't think the level of security is going to allow that to happen.' There was a high level of disdain from the youths, and what they planned to do was something untoward—because in the daytime they like to get on a bus and go down to the border, and they go and work construction. I was in awe of the way that they kept themselves—well dressed, well groomed. Palestine is a country that's looking to advance itself. Israel is a country that needs to be supported. 16:39 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara I'll begin my remarks by talking about my grandfather, who was in Israel at its early inception in 1948 and then lived on a kibbutz with my grandmother in the 1950s. They were one of the first generations of people who were trying to turn a barren desert into a country. My grandfather was an extremely good man and he was a kind man, and he told me a story about his time in the 1950s in Israel. It was a story of an unfortunate conflict that happened between him and his Arab neighbours, and he was shattered by it. He didn't want to raise my father in an area where there was going to be this ongoing conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and he said he made the hardest decision of his life: to leave Israel and to find a new place to live. And, even though he lived his life in Australia—and he was a proud Labor man and he was really proud that I was, at the time, working for the Labor Party—he was always sad that he couldn't make his life in Israel. It was a huge part of who he was. He'd just watched the Holocaust happen in World War II, and he was shattered by the state of the Jewish world. It is just one example of one family that is deeply connected to its own identity. To understand the Middle East is to understand individuals; it's to understand their spirituality; it's to understand their connection to a land that literally formed the three Abrahamic faiths that have dominated our civilisation for the last 2,000 years. To understand the Middle East and to talk about the Middle East, you have to do it delicately and respectfully, and you have to do it, I believe, in a way that aims to seek peace and aims to seek a cooperation and a future where people come together. And it is my dream to see peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. There are very few things I want to see more in my lifetime—other than to see my daughter grow up to be happy and healthy—than peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. It is one of the great bits of unfinished business of our species, of humankind. I regularly meet with Palestinian advocates here in Australia, and I will continue to do so. We don't always agree on everything, but we have honest conversations, and I value them and the fact that they stand up, and we hope to see a better future. On the topic of Jerusalem: it is a deeply contentious issue. The former government started a process before a by-election, and didn't end up moving an embassy, and promised to recognise West Jerusalem. It doesn't actually encapsulate the old city of Jerusalem—the famous old city where you've got the Armenian, the Islamic, the Jewish, and the Christian quarters and the part of Israel that is so deeply rooted in the holiness of all of the different faiths; that's actually in East Jerusalem. And if you were to ask an Israeli whether that's part of Israel or not, it would be inconceivable for an Israeli to say that that's not a part of their capital. I recognise the fact that those opposite are coming at us for reversing their decision. But, actually, the policy that they proposed was not welcomed in Israel. It was a deeply contentious one that removed a deeply spiritual part of Israeli identity. And I don't say that to be holier than thou at this point in time—on the contrary: I think we need to be humble when talking about these issues. I say it to say that the Middle East is complex and, when coming to these debates, we must tread carefully and lightly, for our role, as Australians, in this region is to play a constructive role in order to achieve peace. That is our role. And to promise matters that you don't deliver on, four days before a by-election, is not the way—nor was it, to be honest, to deliver a policy on Simhath Torah. That was a mistake, I believe, that we needed to own, and we did own, and I apologise again to the people in my electorate. It's hard to explain how people in Macnamara would be feeling, but I'll try to, just very briefly. For those people, to understand Jerusalem as the capital is as simple as us understanding Canberra as the capital of our country, and it would be like someone telling us that Surfers Paradise was the capital instead of Canberra—something that doesn't really make sense. I know that this is a final status issue, and I don't say this to demean the positions of those on the other side of this contentious debate; I'm just trying to give a perspective on what people are experiencing in my electorate and how difficult this would be for them to digest. So I come to this debate and say that I hope we have better days ahead. I hope deeply that we find, in my lifetime, a resolution to this long and protracted conflict and we see peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. 16:44 Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Menzies Can I just begin by acknowledging the member for Macnamara. That was a very moving and heartfelt address. Before I came into this place, you and I met at an event for a Jewish school, and you said something to me that I've never forgotten: 'When you come into this place, never forget what that feeling is like. You never know how long it will last. And use every day to make a contribution'. You've just made an excellent contribution. I don't claim to know this issue as well as you do, or as well as many other people do, but I often think of a perspective that I can understand a bit better. I was born in Dublin, in Ireland. When we came to Australia in 1988, I would often hear, in the following years, people give ill-informed comments on the status of Northern Ireland, about whether a unified Ireland should happen or whether it should always be part of England. Like this issue, it's complex and it's difficult. But, as a kid, growing up, I had the same dream, that Catholic and Protestant kids could go to school together, could work together, could marry and live. It just didn't make any sense to me that people who looked like family were at war with each other. I never understood that. Maybe there are some parallels here. I've come in as a new member, straight into opposition. I'm happy to be here, but I know that most of my colleagues would like—and I would too—to be where you are one day, and we've got to earn that right. When I go to schools, or speak to people in the electorate, and they ask, 'What is it like?' one of the things I say is that it's been quite pleasant working with people from the other side in committees and in some of the training that we do. And, when it comes to defence and foreign affairs, I sing your praises. I'd like to think, almost all of the time, the new government has done a pretty good job on defence and foreign affairs—not perfect, and we will keep a close watch—but I think this was a mistake. It was a mistake in how it was handled. I'm not going to stand here and say, 'I have the answers on the status of Israel's capital,' but I think the point that a sovereign nation can decide its capital is a seductive one. It makes sense; it just does. Was the timing of the announcement, on a by-election, a good thing? Probably not. It probably wasn't. But that doesn't justify this timing. That doesn't justify another mistake, and it could have been handled better. I had a note here about the Jewish holiday, and I saw, when someone else read it out, that you corrected them, so tell me if this is correct: Simhath Torah. Mr Burns 278522 Close enough. Mr WOLAHAN 235654 Close enough! I tried some Persian today, and now I've tried that. Can I say this: Australia must remain a strong supporter of a two-state solution in which Israel and a future Palestinian state can coexist. We on this side support Australia continuing to call for all parties to the conflict between the Palestinians and Israel to maintain restraint and to renounce violence. Violence never achieves anything. Labor has made a mistake here. It does need to act more professionally on major foreign policy decisions. I watched when the criticism came thick and fast about our relationship with France, in relation to AUKUS. That was unfair. With a decision as tightly held as that, of course there was no other way to do it than the way that it occurred. But there was no allowance for that in most of the commentary that I saw from the other side. If you are sitting over here one day and we're there, if we are doing a good job on defence and foreign affairs, feel free to say so. You're welcome to do it. As long as I am in this place, I won't criticise you for putting the national interest first, because that's why I am here. But this decision has not come without a cost. It's not a domestic political cost that we're seeking to get an advantage from; it's a cost to the nation. Let's look at the response from the Israeli Prime Minister: In light of the way this decision was made … as a hasty response to an incorrect report in the media, we can only hope that the Australian government manages other matters more seriously and professionally Then Australia's Ambassador to Israel was summoned by the Israeli foreign minister, who registered his deep disappointment in the face of the Australian government's decision resulting from short-sighted political considerations. We could have handled the announcement better, but so could you. 16:49 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills Notwithstanding the last speaker, the previous speakers in the opposition have not been able to acknowledge, or won't admit to, three things about this MPI. No. 1: they won't acknowledge that the government's policy is actually a reaffirmation of the longstanding bipartisan policy of successive Australian governments that has been in existence for decades. No. 2: they won't acknowledge that it was actually they, the opposition, when they were in government under Scott Morrison, that, in 2018, decided to do foreign policy on the run, breaking and breaching decades of bipartisanship, and for what? For a pathetic attempt at short-term political gain. And No. 3—and this is a general point: as you've seen in the first couple of months of government, our foreign policy is based on a sensible approach to the national interest, not a personal political interest, not a short-term political gain in a by-election. In this case, our foreign policy is in alignment with the international community's broad agreement that Jerusalem is a final status issue that should be resolved as part of any peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian people. Let's be very clear: the position of successive Australian governments has been that there can be no lasting peace that does not address that final status of Jerusalem, and, as the Prime Minister said earlier today, he will not and his government will not undermine that approach. This goes back in history; I'll reach back to 1967, to when your own Liberal external affairs minister, Paul Hasluck, called for the commencement of 'an effort to build long-term peace' and outlined that in relation to the future status of Jerusalem. I'll talk about how, even more recently, your former Prime Minister John Howard said himself in a joint press conference that the status of Jerusalem is something that would be resolved by the parties in discussion. And, of course, former Liberal foreign minister Julie Bishop said something similar: Matters relating to Jerusalem are subject to Final Status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority This wasn't changed in the Gorton government. It wasn't changed by Malcolm Fraser. It wasn't changed by Bob Hawke. It wasn't changed by John Howard, Julia Gillard or Malcolm Turnbull—or Tony Abbott for that matter. But it was changed by Scott Morrison, the exception amongst all those prime ministers. He decided, 'Oh, I'll exploit the sensitivity of this issue for a short-term political purpose,' when he decided to drop in the media during the by-election for Wentworth that he was going to move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and he was trying to do this, of course, so that he could win the by-election in Wentworth for Dave Sharma. Scott Morrison said at the time he was persuaded by the arguments of Dave Sharma, leaving no doubt in all of our minds that this was simply a cynical attempt to get Dave Sharma re-elected in Wentworth. It didn't work. They lost the by-election. The voters of Wentworth saw right through that political stunt, and they lost the by-election. This confirms our suspicion about what we know about Scott Morrison in doing this— The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The member for Wills will refer to members by their seat. Mr KHALIL 101351 The former Prime Minister, after that by-election, announced that he was backing down and not moving the embassy at all. He scrubbed it. The fact that he backed out of it and didn't move the embassy once the by-election was over tells you everything you need to know about how cynical the political play was. He didn't just make this announcement out of conviction; it was done as a political stunt, it was done as a political tactic and it was a pathetic attempt to play into the hopes and expectations of both Israelis and Palestinians and their communities. Let me be very clear: the Albanese Labour government does not do that and will not use sensitive issues to play political games. You'd think those opposite would have learnt the lesson—that group over there, that mob over there. You'd think they'd run a hundred miles away from Scott Morrison— The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY I've asked the member to refer to members by their seat, not by their names. Mr KHALIL 101351 and the former Prime Minister's political tactics. The member for Cook—you'd think they'd run a hundred miles away from it. But no: they have come in with this MPI, playing the same old political games, trying to get some short-term domestic political runs on the board. Here's the craziness of it. When you ask their shadow foreign minister what their position is, he says: 'Well, we haven't decided that. The proposition is at least a couple of years away. It's not necessary until the next election.' When you ask the opposition leader, he says, 'Oh, we'll make that decision or announce that policy in the run-up to the next election.' It's all political games with this mob, but this is too important to play those games. Our national interest, the region's interest, the world's interest must focus on making a substantive effort to reach peace through negotiations between the parties, and Australia can play that role under an Albanese Labor government. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY There being no further speakers, the discussion has concluded. COMMITTEES 51 COMMITTEES Human Rights Joint Committee 51 Report 51 16:54 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Human rights scrutiny report: report 5 of 2022. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr BURNS 278522 by leave—I am pleased to present the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights fifth scrutiny report for 2022, which was tabled out of session last week. I note a substantial amount of work went into this report by the legal advisers and by the committee secretariat, and I want to acknowledge the expertise and hard work of the human rights committee staff. They are incredible public servants. I know I speak on behalf of all members of the committee when I say that we were extremely impressed by how much work they produced and how much effort they put in, which allowed us to have detailed and important considerations of parliamentary bills, especially the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill. The measures in the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill and the National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill engage a number of rights, particularly the right to privacy and reputation, a fair trial and freedom of expression. I am pleased to note these bills are accompanied by a lengthy and detailed statement of compatibility with human rights. The committee thanks the Attorney-General for his comprehensive and well-reasoned statement of compatibility, which has greatly assisted the committee in undertaking its scrutiny role. I am reliably told that this statement of compatibility was one of the best ever. Well done, Attorney-General. The committee considers that, in general, excepting those issues which were specifically discussed in the report, the limitations on human rights in the bills have been adequately explained in the statement of compatibility. The committee does, however, make seven recommendations to amend some specific provisions and to include more information in the statement of compatibility. These recommendations will not alter the objectives the bills seek to achieve; rather, they will strengthen safeguards which have already been included, thereby improving their capability and compatibility with human rights. They will also ensure that the least rights restrictive approach to achieving those objectives is taken. The final recommendation is that a foundational human rights assessment of several pieces of existing covert surveillance legislation be undertaken so that this committee can fully assess the human rights implications of conferring these complex powers on the proposed commission. As members know, these bills have been referred to the Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation for inquiry and report by 10 November. For this reason, it is not possible for the committee in the time frame available to seek a response from the Attorney-General in relation to the matters it has raised. Rather, the committee offered recommendations to improve the human rights compatibility of specific provisions in order that these recommendations be made available to the Attorney-General, the select committee and the parliament for consideration. I encourage all members to closely examine those recommendations. Finally, I can advise the House that last week the committee met with the delegation of the United Nations subcommittee on prevention of torture, who were visiting Australia. Their role was to assess how authorities have implemented their obligations under the optional protocol to the convention against torture. A little has been made out about the visit to Australia, including some of the restrictions faced in some of the states, but I want to assure the House that the human rights committee happily met with the subcommittee on their trip. We had a robust and respectful conversation, and I thank all committee members for their participation in that. With these comments, I commend committee scrutiny report 5 of 2022 to the House. BILLS 52 BILLS Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2022 52

Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2022

Consideration resumed of the motion:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Reference to Federation Chamber 56 17:30 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I declare that the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2022 is referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration. Emergency Response Fund Amendment (Disaster Ready Fund) Bill 2022 56

Emergency Response Fund Amendment (Disaster Ready Fund) Bill 2022

Second Reading 56 17:30 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page This bill, the Emergency Response Fund Amendment (Disaster Ready Fund) Bill 2022, builds on the important work of the former coalition government which created the Emergency Response Fund. The Emergency Response Fund's enabling legislation passed the parliament in October 2019. That $4 billion Emergency Response Fund allows the Commonwealth to draw on as much as $200 billion in any given year, in addition to what is already available to fund emergency response and natural disaster recovery and preparedness, when it determines that the existing recovery and resilience-building programs are insufficient to provide an appropriate response to natural disasters. The type of assistance that could be provided under the Emergency Response Fund included recovery project grants, service provision, adoption of technology helping recovery, and resilience or economic aid packages for affected communities or industry sectors to help build their resilience to future natural disasters. This month we have seen why having a perpetual source of funds to support preparedness and recovery from natural disasters is so important. Thousands have been impacted by the floods in New South Wales and Victoria. Homes have been flooded, belongings destroyed. These are terrible events, and we extend our sympathies to the communities affected. We also extend our admiration to the members and volunteers of the emergency response agencies that are assisting those affected. The former coalition government ensured that the Emergency Response Fund made contributions to disaster recovery and disaster preparedness. The former coalition government committed $50 million for the Coastal and Estuarine Risk Mitigation Program. The program will help drive long-term resilience and sustainability by delivering priority projects that mitigate the impact of disasters on communities and economies by targeting high-priority locally and nationally significant coastal and estuarine disaster risk mitigation projects. The former coalition government also committed $150 million to fund recovery and postdisaster resilience measures in the Northern Rivers region of New South Wales. The opposition notes that the bill confirms that these commitments and disbursements will be honoured. We acknowledge the government's support for those disbursements by grandfathering them into legislation. The bill before the House today makes two substantive policy changes to the Emergency Response Fund: (1) it removes the fund's ability to make payments for the purpose of disaster recovery, so the entire $200 million per annum disbursement amount must be spent on activities that prepare for or reduce the risk of future natural disasters; and (2) it allows the responsible ministers to adjust the maximum disbursement amount by a disallowable legislative instrument. While the opposition will be supporting this bill today, we are concerned about the responsible minister's power to increase the maximum disbursement amount by instrument, pushing aside the legislated cap. It is not clear what implications this might have for the fund's perpetuity if this power is not prudently exercised. We note that the bill is being considered by the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, which is due to report by 16 November. We will await the report and findings from that inquiry and consider any recommendations it makes. I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: (1) expresses concern that the Government is seeking to remove an additional source of funding for natural disaster recover at the very moment when many communities across South East Australia are facing many months of work to clean up after devastating floods; and (2) notes the Government has not yet identified what disaster mitigation actually encompasses". The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Is there a seconder? Mr Stevens 176304 I second the amendment and I reserve my right to speak. Debate adjourned. Reference to Federation Chamber 57 17:35 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I declare that the Emergency Response Fund Amendment (Disaster Ready Fund) Bill 2022 is referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration. COMMITTEES 57 COMMITTEES Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee 57 Report 57 17:36 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the following report: Report 493:annual report 2021-22. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr HILL 86256 by leave—I will make a very short tabling statement. We are required by legislation to table an annual report. It's a fascinating read, of course, which I won't regale the House with on this occasion. There are the normal suite of inquiries, you might say, in terms of Auditor-General's reports, examination of the Parliamentary Budget Office and so on. The only one that I'd draw the House's attention to in particular is the 10-year review of the Auditor-General Act 1997. Overall, that review found that the act is working well and made 27 recommendations of varying import for change. I'd like to acknowledge the collaboration and what is a very strong bipartisan tradition of the audit committee. I think all reports were unanimous, a few with additional comments of varying degrees of colour and movement. Finally, I just want to record a special and very personal thanks to the previous chair, the previous member for Robertson, Lucy Wicks. She was collegiate and dedicated in her approach to the committee, and I might declare that we did become very fond of each other—in an entirely appropriate fashion, of course. We come from very different sides of politics but greatly enjoyed working together. I look forward to another productive year of work, collaboratively, with the audit committee. I present executive minutes on reports Nos 486, 488, 489, 490, 491 and 492 of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee 57 17:39 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce Now I wish to make a statement on behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit concerning the draft budget estimates for the Australian National Audit Office and the Parliamentary Budget Office for 2022-23. On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present this statement on the draft budget estimates of the Australian National Audit Office, the ANAO, and the Parliamentary Budget Office, the PBO. The committee is required, under the Public Accounts and Audit Committee Act 1951 and the Parliamentary Service Act 1999, to consider the draft budget estimates of both the ANAO and the PBO and to make formal recommendations to both houses of parliament regarding these estimates. This requirement, to make a statement to the parliament in advance of the budget being handed down by a government, is an important transparency measure. It will assist the parliament and the public in making a judgement, tonight and thereafter, on the adequacy of the budget provided to the ANAO and the PBO through a comparison with the requested funding and the committee's recommendations. For this year's budget, both the ANAO and the PBO have sought additional funding. The committee has carefully scrutinised the ANAO's and the PBO's draft budget estimates and has resolved to endorse them, subject to further review of the costings and final estimates which may be agreed with the Department of Finance. The committee considers both offices vital in supporting the work of this parliament and in strengthening integrity and transparency in public administration. The ANAO is also seeking an additional appropriation. In presenting its draft budget estimates to the committee, the ANAO noted that machinery-of-government changes following the 2022 federal election—in particular, the creation of new departments—will mean that minor additional costs are incurred for mandatory financial statement and performance statement audits. There are additional cost pressures relating to cybersecurity and data storage, as well as financial statement auditing, where specialist expertise, for additional capacity, is required to be purchased from the private sector. Now, the total funding request—which is still, of course, subject to a bit of further refinement with the Department of Finance since we last interrogated it—was in the order of $8.3 million over the forward estimates. The JCPAA acknowledges the difficult fiscal outlook faced by, and inherited by, the government, and acknowledges that the ANAO received supplementation in the 2021-22 budget. However, the committee accepts that these cost pressures presented to us are unavoidable and that the additional funding is required to maintain required standards in financial statement auditing, without which the ANAO would be confronted with the need to reduce the level of auditing in other areas. In the committee's view, the government stands to save more than it spends by meeting the ANAO's modest request. A robust audit function is of critical value to the public sector, driving, as it does, efficiency and effectiveness throughout the public sector. In that context, the JCPAA endorses the ANAO's budget submission, which, as I said, would be subject to any normal parameter changes and minor changes that might be agreed with the Department of Finance and the government, if the government is indeed to fund it. Finally, the PBO's estimated expenses for 2022-23 amounted to $9.292 million and it expects to meet the majority of its fiscal requirements from this appropriation. However, since its creation, the PBO has had a special appropriation fund designed to help it meet unexpected cost pressures. This fund was initially $6 million but has run down to $1.8 million over the last decade. The PBO is seeking to have this fund replenished to its original level in this year's budget, and I note that that is its 10th anniversary. The committee regards the fund as an important element of the PBO's operational independence, including independence from executive government, and therefore endorses the proposed appropriation. I thank the Auditor-General and the Parliamentary Budget Officer for their work in support of the parliament and the JCPAA, and committee members for their thoughtful and detailed consideration of these budget requests. I present a copy of my statement. There you go—I'm done. Thank you. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Member for Bruce, you just need to seek leave to present a copy of the statement. Mr HILL 86256 Since you ask so nicely, Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to present a copy of my statement. Leave granted. Mr HILL 86256 It's an outbreak of collegiality! You see, I bring people together; I raise the tone! BILLS 58 BILLS Anti-Discrimination and Human Rights Legislation Amendment (Respect at Work) Bill 2022 58

Anti-Discrimination and Human Rights Legislation Amendment (Respect at Work) Bill 2022

Second Reading 58 17:44 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra In a matter of weeks, the Australian Human Rights Commission will release their latest national survey on sexual harassment in Australian workplaces. The last report, from 2018, was a very challenging read. It shows that when we discuss sexual harassment in the workplace we're not looking at a small or isolated problem that only affects the occasional person in Australia—that Australia has a deep and wide problem. The 2018 report found that in the previous five years almost two in five women and just over one in four men had experienced sexual harassment in the workplace. Let us be clear what this means. This means that in order to earn an income, to contribute to a workplace, to do their job, more than a quarter of Australian workers are having to put up with unwanted sexual misconduct. The Respect@Work report told thoroughly shocking stories about what people have had to endure at work. One woman spoke about three incidents in her career in three different places in which she worked: being touched by her manager in a storeroom as a 16-year-old supermarket worker; being locked in a toilet cubicle in her mid-20s with a colleague, who demanded to be kissed; and being publicly groped and insulted by the CEO at a work function some years later. One police officer told a deeply distressing story about having to lock herself in a car at night when on an away job because she'd been sold to a group of detectives who expected to be able to mistreat her. A hotel worker spoke about working as a butler. Her job entailed time spent in guests' rooms to serve them meals and unpack their luggage. She said: … a female co-worker was sexually assaulted by a guest while unpacking their luggage … she was not the only one of her co-workers that had been sexually harassed by a guest while conducting their required tasks in their rooms. A man named Barry spoke to the commission about his experience working in a rural town: … one evening while giving his male boss a lift home, his boss said he was lonely and placed his hand on Barry's upper thigh. Barry respectfully declined the advance. Barry told the Commission that the following day, he was told that his services were no longer required. Barry said he was unable to find another job as his former boss would not provide him with a reference. These are just four stories among hundreds of thousands that could be told. The 2018 Human Rights Commission report found that the majority of people who were sexually harassed at work did not formally report their experience or seek support or advice, with many victims believing that a formal complaint would be viewed as an overreaction or that it was easier to stay quiet. Fewer than one in five people, 17 per cent, made a formal report or complaint in relation to workplace sexual harassment. There's something very wrong with a situation in which this many people experience sexual harassment in the workplace and do not feel that they're able to do anything about it, either because they see no point or because they fear reprisal or the cost involved in taking action. As one woman said to Respect@Work: For a long time I thought that what happened to me was normal—it's just what happens to young women in the workplace. You learn to ignore it as best you can and move on … But nowadays I think that, even if that [is] the case, it shouldn't be. Let me be clear: there is no place for sexual harassment in Australian society or Australian workplaces. By and large, it's men who are the perpetrators of harassment in the workplace, and the message must be sent loudly and clearly: enough is enough. This has to stop. That's why the coalition took action to address these issues when we were in government. We set the agenda to change the culture of Australian workplaces so that we could begin to see workplaces being consistently free from sexual harassment and discrimination. Today's bill builds on the leadership of the coalition government. In 2018 we announced an Inquiry into Sexual Harassment in Australian Workplaces to ensure we more comprehensively understood what was taking place and to develop a pathway for change. That landmark inquiry was world leading, and I want to pay tribute to my former colleague the Hon. Kelly O'Dwyer, who commenced that inquiry along with Commissioner Kate Jenkins. A few years on, we're used to these topics being front of mind, but I want to pay tribute to those two women, who made sure we didn't turn a blind eye any longer. They took a stand and they are the reason we can debate these matters with clarity and conviction. I'm talking not about a small or isolated problem but about something that has to be given serious attention. One might think that because so often sexual harassment occurs quietly, in hidden moments in workplaces, in underhanded and malicious ways, we can easily miss it or allow ourselves to overlook it. What Kate Jenkins has shown us in recent years is that this is a problem that is pervasive and we all have a responsibility to change the culture of workplaces. The inquiry commissioned by Kelly O'Dwyer and undertaken by Kate Jenkins resulted in Respect@Work, a substantial report that made 55 recommendations to our government. In response, when we were in government we released the Roadmap for Respect, which responded to the report and also outlined a long-term plan for preventing and addressing sexual harassment. That road map included agreeing to—in full, in principle or in part—or noting all 55 recommendations of the Respect@Work report, and it focused particularly on prevention. Our government provided over $64 million over the four years in the 2021-22 federal budget to support the implementation of the Roadmap for Respect. In September last year we legislated many of the recommendations in Respect@Work. The Sex Discrimination and Fair Work (Respect at Work) Amendment Act 2021 expressly prohibited sex based harassment. It made it clearer than it has ever been in Australian law that sex based harassment is not acceptable. We corrected gaps in the legislation to make sure all workers were respected. We made clear in the sex discrimination act that MPs, judges and public servants would all be subject to the sex discrimination act. This means that people are protected from sexual harassment regardless of the field in which they work or for whom they work. We established the Respect@Work Council, which brings together leaders from key government regulators and policymakers responsible for sexual harassment policies and complaints to improve coordination, consistency and clarity across existing legal and regulatory frameworks. We also increased the length of time that people have to make a complaint from six months after the incident to 24 months. We made changes to the Fair Work Act to make it clear that being a perpetrator of sexual harassment is a valid reason for dismissal. This was an essential reform, as it made it possible for employers to dismiss a worker who sexually harassed another worker without the risk of them bringing an unfair dismissal claim in response. It was essential that employers respond swiftly when their employee's behaviour is unacceptable. The bill before us today is another piece of that puzzle. It follows on from the work that we did in government. It picks up on particular issues that were given initial time for consideration and consultation. I am pleased to say that with work having progressed we support the principle behind this bill. There is much in the bill that we can support. The most significant thing the bill does is to put responsibility on workplaces, not simply to react to complaints of harassment or discrimination. We know that many people won't ever make a complaint. It requires workplaces to act proactively to create an environment in which sexual harassment and discrimination is not tolerated. I would have much preferred that this legislation and this debate were not required, but the continual evidence of widespread sexual harassment in workplaces indicates that the bar has to be raised higher. Workplaces need to actively make sure they provide a safe environment for their employees. However, there are a few measures that we believe require some change in order to make it easier for businesses to comply and achieve the intention behind this bill. We're not seeking to see boxes ticked; we're not seeking to burden workplaces unnecessarily; but we are seeking to ensure workplaces are safe places for all Australians. If employers can't easily fulfil the obligation the legislation places on them and an undue additional regulatory burden is imposed, we will create more problems than we solve. We must take a path that is achievable and will lead to tangible change. I should note that this bill is the subject of a Senate committee inquiry. That committee is not due to report until 3 November, so we haven't had the benefit of the consideration of this bill by that committee. But we have had the benefit of reading a number of the submissions to that committee. From those submissions the coalition will provide some helpful amendments to ensure the good aims behind this legislation are better achieved. As such, I will move the amendment that has been circulated in my name. The bill proposes to insert section 28M into the Sex Discrimination Act, which would make it unlawful for a person to subject another person to a workplace environment that is hostile on the grounds of sex. This concept already exists under discrimination law, although the provision is drafted broadly. We propose an amendment to align the provision with existing case law. Section 28M defines too broadly what it means to subject the person to a workplace environment that's hostile on the grounds of sex. In particular, the proposed new section does not connect the inappropriate conduct clearly enough with the person who would be the complainant. The provision makes it unlawful for a person to subject another person to a workplace environment that is hostile on the ground of sex. The issue with the way the provision is drafted is that there isn't a requirement for the first person or the second person to actually be in the workplace at the same time or for there to be a temporal connection between the conduct and the harm. For instance, there are businesses which operate on many different sites in different units. It's important that the complaint be related to the activity that goes on at the site or unit in which a person works. In relation to the temporal connection, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has pointed out in their submission: … from a practical perspective, there are unique circumstances in which an extended lapsed period of time could unfairly punish employers, even where they have taken action to address workplace hostility. For example, consider a scenario in which there exists a cultural problem of sexism at a workplace. If an employer takes action to rectify the situation and ensures that the workplace is no longer "offensive, intimidating or humiliating" to prospective female employees, but a female employee is employed at the workplace at a later date, hears about the prior conduct and is subsequently intimidated, it is likely that proposed section 28M is enlivened. Intimidating conduct has been engaged in and an intimidated person has been in the workplace after the conduct occurred, although the two events were not contemporaneous and there is otherwise no connection between the events and the person. Our amendment would amend section 28M to insert 'in relation to' and to delete 'after the conduct occurs', to bring the provision into line with existing case law. Secondly, the bill proposes to insert section 47C into the Sex Discrimination Act to establish a positive duty on employers to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex, including sexual harassment within a workplace, and gives the Human Rights Commission enforcement powers, as well as powers to inquire into systemic discrimination. Employers are already subject to significant obligations to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace—for example, section 106 of the Sex Discrimination Act makes employers vicariously liable for the actions of their employee or agent. It's already true that an employer can only avoid liability where they can show they took all reasonable steps to prevent an employee or agent from doing those acts. Furthermore, as a Safe Work Australia have pointed out in their submission, there has been extensive work done since Respect@Work to address sexual harassment through relevant legal frameworks, including via workplace health and safety policy makers and regulators. I will quote from their submission: The model WHS laws establish a comprehensive and robust legal framework to protect workers from risks to their health and safety while at work, including from sexual harassment. The model WHS laws' main objective is to provide a balanced and nationally consistent framework to secure the health and safety of workers. This includes protecting workers and other persons against harm to their health and safety by eliminating or minimising risks arising from work. The model WHS laws aim to provide all workers in Australia with the same standard of health and safety protection regardless of the work they do or where they work. The laws apply broadly to all organisations regardless of size or industry. The model WHS laws include a positive duty to eliminate or minimise risks to both physical and psychological health from sexual harassment so far as it is reasonably practicable. There's an appropriate concern that with having two different ways in which a positive duty is imposed but with a slightly different framework and drafting in place there's the potential for confusion and duplication for employers. Again, to quote Safe Work Australia: The proposed amendment to the SD Act impose a positive duty on PBCUs in relation to the prevention of workplace sexual harrassment. However, it is drafted in different terms to the model WHS laws, which also imposes a positive duty on PCBUs to prevent workplace sexual harassment. Because of these drafting differences, the scope and application of each positive duty may be different. It is not yet clear whether this will be of significance in practice, but it seems to us that it at least has the potential to cause confusion and uncertainty for duty holders. In our view, there may be benefit in more closely aligning the two frameworks to reduce this possibility. The second issue in relation to section 47C is outlined by the submission of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, who said: … section 47C would require employers and PCBUs to take measures to eliminate "as far as possible" certain conduct. Under work health and safety law, the obligation imposed on PCBUs is to ensure the health and safety of their workers "as far as is reasonably practicable". The widespread use of "reasonably practicable" under work health and safety law has provided PCBUs with a substantial degree of understanding about the meaning of that threshold. There is also extensive case law about the meaning of these words which offers further clarity. They quote from the High Court in Slivak v Lurgi and the test applied by Justice Gaudron of what reasonably practicable means. They say: The new phrase "as far as possible" does not share such clarity— of as 'reasonably practicable'. We would adopt that view. And our amendment to section 47C, with the insertion of 'as far as reasonably practical', will more closely align the positive duty created in this bill with the existing obligations on employers under the work health and safety model law. This is essential, as we want to achieve the objectives of this bill without creating unnecessary additional burdens on business, particularly small business. Another area of concern regarding the bill is that it seeks to significantly expand the role of the Human Rights Commission. Let me be very clear: I have great respect for the Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins and the work that she's done in this space. My concern, again, is about duplication of processes and that workplaces could find themselves being subject to multiple inquiries through multiple bodies simultaneously. With the Human Rights Commission having enforcement functions in relation to the positive duty the same matters could be brought before the work health and safety regulator and the Human Rights Commission at the same time. I'm also concerned that the Human Rights Commission's conciliation role will be compromised if they're required to conduct enforcement action in relation to the positive duty as well as to provide conciliation for the employee bringing forth the complaint. Serving both functions in relation to the same complaint would not be good practice. In order to avoid duplication in enforcement powers in relation to the positive duty, in order to protect the conciliation role of the commission and in order to prevent the duplication of inquiry powers which could see businesses or sectors subject to inquiry by multiple government agencies at the same time our amendment says that the Fair Work Ombudsman should hold enforcement powers in relation to the positive duty and the powers of inquiry in relation to systemic unlawful discrimination. These are powers and functions that are aligned with the existing powers and functions of the Fair Work Ombudsman. The functions of the Fair Work Ombudsman are provided for in section 68(2) of the Fair Work Act and include monitoring compliance with the Fair Work Act and fair work instruments, investigating conduct contrary to the Fair Work Act and fair work instruments, and any other functions conferred on the ombudsman by any other legislation. The Fair Work Ombudsman can undertake workplace investigations. In relation to adverse action, it can conduct investigations. Where an investigation finds the employer has or had discriminatory practices that are linked to adverse actions for employees or prospective employees, it can take appropriate enforcement actions. Enforcement actions can include issuing compliance notices, enforceable undertakings or commencing proceedings in a court or before the Fair Work Commission. This extends to instituting proceedings for breach of civil remedy provisions, including those that prohibit adverse action, coercion or undue influence in relation to workplace rights, and to adverse action or coercion in relation to industrial activities and those that prohibit contraventions of the National Employment Standards, modern awards, enterprise agreements or national minimum wage orders. In relation to adverse action, this includes workplace discrimination on the basis of various protected attributes including sex, sexual orientation and marital status. The Fair Work Ombudsman notes that bullying and harassment, including sexual harassment, can in some circumstances amount to unlawful discrimination, and then falls within its powers. So you can see the link between the role that the Fair Work Ombudsman already provides and the sense in having these matters dealt with by the Fair Work Ombudsman. On the Fair Work Ombudsman's broader powers in relation to industries: it can conduct inquiries to monitor compliance within an industry, region or supply chain, even where there's no specific allegation of noncompliance with workplace laws; in response to trends in data that indicate systemic non-compliance in particular businesses or industries, as is posited in this legislation; and in response to issues raised in the media and concerns raised with the Fair Work Ombudsman that are directly in the public interest. That is why we support these matters being sent to the Fair Work Ombudsman. I want to move to schedule 4, which deals with representative actions. Schedule 4 of the bill seeks to amend the Human Rights Commission Act to make it easier for unions and other representative groups to bring representative claims to the Federal Court. We believe that this schedule should be deleted. The amendment would allow bodies to commence legal proceedings on behalf of other parties rather than the aggrieved person taking the matter forward themselves. I want to draw the attention of the House to the work of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry that argued: Representative groups are not prohibited from providing financial or legal support to parties pursuing a representative proceeding in the courts. Rather, they are simply prevented from commencing the proceeding on their behalf. It's not clear how allowing trade unions to commence legal proceedings on behalf of aggrieved persons will lead to better outcomes for these persons, especially in light of the support representative groups can already provide. Fundamentally, litigants in representative actions need to be aggrieved persons, not bodies that represent, or merely purport, to represent their interests. This is how the existing avenue for class actions rightly operates. The interests of representative bodies do not always align with those who they represent. Allowing these bodies to commence and run representative actions on their behalf can lead to the aggrieved persons' interests being neglected in favour of other motives, such as a desire for a more lucrative settlement or political objectives. Further, representative bodies are not those whose reputations, finances and relationships, are vulnerable during litigation. Allowing representative bodies to be the party instructing lawyers on the running of legal proceedings risks the pursuit of interests which are unrelated to those of the affected individuals. There are sufficient mechanisms to enable representative proceedings in the Federal Court under part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976. Further loosening of these rules in favour of unions who can pursue their own agendas, rather than those of the complainant, is not warranted. Our amendment proposes to delete schedule 4 and leave the law as it stands in relation to representative actions. In relation to costs in schedule 5, the bill inserts a cost-neutral arrangement into the Human Rights Commission Act. This means parties are expected to bear their own costs, with the courts having power to make an alternative determination considering the factors in the legislation, including: financial circumstances of each party to the proceedings; the conduct of the parties, including conduct dealing with the commission; whether any parties have been wholly unsuccessful; whether any parties made an offer in writing to settle; whether the subject matter of the proceedings involves an issue of public importance or any other matter that the court considers relevant. Again, let me draw the attention of the House to the words of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry: 59. There is no obvious reason why proceedings brought with… respect of discrimination claims ought to depart from the traditional rule in Australia that costs follow the event, with broad discretion already conferred upon the courts to vary the application of this rule depending on the particular circumstances. This existing procedure, developed across centuries of the evolution of the common law, offers several critically important benefits which should not be discarded. 60. First, costs awards disincentivise unmeritorious litigation that can be significantly costly for all parties involved. Allowing litigation to be commenced without the risk of indemnifying the other party for their legal costs risks an increase in unmeritorious, vexatious and speculative claims being made. Of course, the courts will retain discretion to restrict the making of such claims; however often the ulterior purpose of the litigation will not be plain on the facts. Where it is more discrete, the risk of paying the opposing party's costs deters such litigation from being brought. We think discretion as to costs best sits with the courts, and we endorse the views of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry in relation to the place of costs orders in the industrial relations system. Our amendments will remove schedule 5 of the bill and leave costs determinations to the discretion of the court. The other amendment that we seek to make is to retain equality of opportunity in the objects clause of the act. We believe equality of opportunity should be retained because equality of opportunity offers a state of fairness in which individuals are treated equally. People are given the same opportunities, and it is up to them to exercise their talents and their abilities in order to achieve the things that they wish to pursue. We think that this is a fundamental principle that should be retained in the objects of the act. The changes proposed in this bill with these amendments do important work in ensuring Australian workplaces are not hostile to either men or women on the grounds of sex. As a community, it's essential that we draw a line under the unacceptable behaviour in workplaces and beyond that has been too common for too long. In doing so, we must ensure that businesses are supported to meet the new obligations under the bill. I welcome the 12-month period between assent and commencement. This will be essential time for businesses to learn about the new obligations placed on them to develop new protocols and policies and to train their staff. In this point—and this is probably the most important thing I'm going to say in relation to this bill—the role of the Australian Human Rights Commission is essential. The Human Rights Commission is responsible for developing guidance materials and must ensure materials are clear and simple for all businesses to understand. It's important these obligations apply to all workplaces, but, as noted in the explanatory memorandum, a big bank or other corporation with a human resources department will have more resources at its disposal to ensure it's compliant, particularly compared to a small business such as a corner store which has only a few staff. The guidance materials must meet the needs of different types of businesses too. The risks businesses must manage under this act and under the work health and safety framework vary significantly across industries. As the Housing Industry Association noted in their submission, it's extremely difficult for a business to control the various actors on a worksite—the various trades, subcontractors, clients, state based regulators, union officials, the owner sometimes, and others. Similarly, in a business like a pub, a person creating an unsafe work environment for a second person may be an intoxicated patron rather than an employee of the business. The guidelines will need to address the full range of different businesses and the circumstances in which they find themselves. Guidance from the Human Rights Commission must meet the needs of business, based on the different types of workplaces that exist across Australia and the different types of businesses that will be subject to this bill. I call on the Human Rights Commission to ensure that they have given adequate support to businesses to comply with this. We must continue to work as a society to continually improve and to ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed and that our workplaces are set up in such a way that someone who works hard, regardless of their background, can reach the highest of heights, because we should not tolerate sexual harassment in the workplace or anywhere else. Debate adjourned. Reference to Federation Chamber 63 18:09 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I declare that the Anti-Discrimination and Human Rights Legislation Amendment (Respect at Work) Bill 2022 is referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration. Sitting suspended from 18:09 to 19:30 BILLS 63 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023 63

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023

First Reading 63 Second Reading 63 19:32 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Building a better future From the Ngunnawal and Ngambri lands of Canberra. To the Yagara and Yugambeh lands of Logan—and right around Australia. We acknowledge country. And we commit to a Voice for First Nations people. This is a responsible budget that is right for the times and readies us for the future. It delivers on the priorities of the Australian people, and it repays their faith in a new government. Through a devastating pandemic, through a succession of dangerous and damaging natural disasters, through global uncertainty and painful price rises— Australians have demonstrated the best of our national character. Resolute and resilient in hard times. Practical and pragmatic about the challenges we confront. Optimistic and confident in a better future. And ready to work together to build it. In this same spirit, our Labor government's first budget does three things: It provides cost of living relief which is responsible, not reckless—to make life easier for Australians, without adding to inflation. It targets investments in a stronger, more resilient, more modern economy. And it begins the hard yards of budget repair. It recognises that our best defence against uncertainty around the world is responsible economic management here at home. We now confront the prospect of a third global downturn in a decade and a half. This time not a financial crisis or a pandemic, but a war driving high prices and higher interest rates here and around the world, and the risk of another global recession. This time demands a different response. One that puts a premium on what's responsible, affordable, and sustainable. That's why this budget pays for what's important, strengthens our buffers against adversity, and begins to build a better future. It delivers on our commitments: Cheaper child care, and more paid parental leave. Better access to health care, cheaper medicines, and a better standard of aged care. Fee free TAFE and more university places. Cheaper and cleaner energy. More affordable housing, and a future made in Australia. Economic outlook This is a solid and sensible budget—suited to the conditions. Australians know that this is a time of great challenge and change. The global economy teeters again, on the edge—with a war that isn't ending, a global energy crisis that is escalating, inflationary pressures persisting, and economies slowing—some of them already in reverse. All of this is now reflected in the updated forecasts for global growth—downgraded since the March budget for this year, next year, and the following year. In this uncertain environment, we are pleased and proud that Australia has plenty going for us, including low unemployment and good prices for our exports. But while we intend to avoid the worst of the turbulence from overseas, we can't escape it completely. Global challenges, along with high inflation and higher interest rates, will have an impact. Our economy is expected to grow solidly this financial year, by 3¼ per cent—before slowing to 1½ per cent growth for 2023-24, a full percentage point lower than what was forecast in March. The hit to growth will have an effect on employment, but jobs will continue to be created, and unemployment is expected to stay low by historical standards—at 4½ per cent in 2023-24 and 2024-25. Inflation is expected to peak at 7¾ per cent later this year, before moderating over time, to 3½ per cent through 2023-24, and returning to the Reserve Bank's target range in 2024-25. Wages are growing faster now than they were before the election, but that welcome news is tempered by rising electricity prices and grocery bills eating into pay packets. When that inflation moderates, real wages are expected to start growing again in 2024. Natural d isasters As we were finalising this budget, floods were once again tragically taking lives, wrecking homes, shutting businesses, disrupting livelihoods, and pushing up the cost of living. Once again we are reminded of the solidarity that living on this harsh land demands of our people and our communities. It speaks to a unique Australian way of responding to adversity: looking out for each other and looking after each other—and lifting each other up. These are human tragedies first and foremost, that come with broader consequences—for the economy and for the budget. The government has acted quickly to make disaster assistance payments available. Three billion dollars has been provisioned as a response to recent floods. We will fund Disaster Relief Australia to help deploy more than 5,000 extra volunteers when future disasters strike. And this budget also invests up to $200 million a year in disaster prevention and resilience through the Disaster Ready Fund. In times like this, our government will always step up and do the right thing—standing with communities through the crisis, and through the recovery. Responsible c ost -o f -l iving r elief Australians know that a complex combination of challenges at home and abroad is pushing up the cost of living. They know that governments can't make inflation disappear overnight. And they don't need us taking steps that would just make the problem worse—by putting even more pressure on prices and making the independent Reserve Bank's job even harder. Instead, they need us to be responsible, reasonable and targeted—with policies that are affordable, fair and future focused, delivering a long-term economic dividend. That's what this budget does—with a five-point plan for cost of living relief: 1. Cheaper child care; 2. Expanding paid parental leave; 3. Cheaper medicines; 4. More affordable housing; 5. And getting wages moving again. This is a $7½ billion package that helps put some money back in people's pockets, boosts productivity, and grows the economy—but it's carefully targeted and carefully timed, so that it avoids placing additional pressure on inflation. Cheaper child care From July next year, early childhood education and care will be more affordable for more than 1.2 million eligible Australian families who will benefit from higher subsidies. Cheaper child care is a game changing investment in families, in our workforce, and in our economy. It will increase the paid hours worked by women with young children by up to 1.4 million hours a week in the first year alone. That's the equivalent of 37,000 extra full-time workers. And because our early childhood educators guide our young ones and help them grow in these critical early years, for the best possible start in life—it's much more than care. It's also cost-of-living relief with an economic dividend. Expanding p aid p arental l eave And that's what paid parental leave is as well. Tonight, our Labor government delivers the biggest expansion of paid parental leave since its creation. This budget invests more than $530 million to progressively scale up the scheme, reaching six months paid leave in 2026. For two-parent families, a portion of this leave will be reserved for each parent—to encourage families to share caring responsibilities. Again, this goes beyond taking a bit of pressure off household budgets. This is about greater equality and greater security for Australian women—and more dads doing their bit. It's about participation and productivity—and that's what makes it economic reform as well. Cheaper medicines This budget also makes medicines cheaper by slashing the PBS maximum general co-payment to $30 a script from 1 January next year—saving up to $12.50 per script for about 3.6 million Australians every year. Affordable housing And the budget does more to confront Australia's housing problem. Rents are through the roof, and many families are struggling to keep up. Supply hasn't kept up with demand, which means too many struggle to live close to where they work. Too many are stuck on waiting lists for social housing. And for too many, the great Australian dream of homeownership seems completely out of reach. Our country can do better than that—and our government will: With the Housing Australia Future Fund—building 30,000 new social and affordable homes in its first five years; and the National Housing Infrastructure Facility supporting an additional 5,500 new homes. With the Help to Buy Scheme—allowing up to 40,000 Australians to own their own home with a lower deposit and smaller mortgage. With the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee—supporting another 10,000 new homeowners each year. And by helping more older Australians downsize to a suitable home which will free up housing stock for younger families. New Housing Accord Tonight, we go further and we do more. I am proud to announce that we have just struck a new national housing accord between governments, investors and industry—to build the affordable homes that our country desperately needs, and to help tackle our housing crisis. The ambition of this accord is big and it's bold—it's an aspiration to build one million new, well-located homes over five years from 2024. Most of this supply needs to come from the market, not the government. But there's a role for government, and we intend to play a leading role—by coordinating and kickstarting the investment that we know needs to happen. To get the accord started, this budget commits an additional $350 million in funding for another 10,000 new affordable homes, on top of our existing commitments. This will be delivered through an ongoing funding stream to help cover the gap between market rents and subsidised rents—making more projects commercially viable. State and territory governments will build on our commitment with up to 10,000 new homes as well—that's up to 20,000 new affordable homes in total. Along with local governments, they will tackle supply problems caused by land release and zoning policies. Institutional investors, including super funds, have endorsed the accord and will work with us to leverage more investment that delivers for their investors' and members' interests, and for the national interest as well. And peak organisations for the construction sector support building these homes at a high energy efficiency rating—and training more apprentices under an extended Skills Guarantee. We don't pretend that this accord solves every issue, nor do we pretend we can solve this problem completely overnight. But this is a serious start—a serious agenda that will lead to more Australians knowing the security of a good job and decent housing. Getting wages moving again If there's one fact that sums up nearly a decade of wasted opportunities and warped priorities, it's that real wages are lower today than they were 10 years ago. It will take time to turn this around, but Australians now know this: deliberately keeping wages low is no longer federal government policy. Our new government has already acted to get wages moving again. First, for the lowest paid Australians—supporting a pay rise for about 2.7 million workers on the minimum and award wages. The majority of them are women. Next, by supporting a wage increase for aged-care workers—again mostly women. Next, by implementing our agenda for a stronger and more resilient economy by: Making it easier for parents to earn more with cheaper child care. Training more people for higher wage work. Investing in the industries that create secure, well-paid jobs And fixing the broken bargaining system. Building a s tronger a nd m ore r esilient e conomy Because the hard truth is our economy wasn't delivering like you needed it to, and it isn't as resilient as we need it to be, for the challenges that we face together. Too much of our potential has been wasted, and the costs of that are clear, with falling real wages and flatlining productivity and widespread skills shortages and too many Australians denied the opportunity of a better future. The Jobs and Skills Summit that we hosted with the Prime Minister was all about bringing people together to help reverse these trends—finding consensus on the challenges, and common ground on the solutions. And we agreed there that full employment, productivity growth and equal opportunities for women should be core objectives of government policy. And we know the key to this is quality investments in the capacity of the Australian economy and the capabilities of the Australian people. Fee-free TAFE and more university places So this budget builds a stronger economy—more resilient, more inclusive, more modern. And skills are absolutely central to this. In 2012, more than 57,000 Australians completed a trade apprenticeship. By 2021, that number had dropped by more than 20,000. So, tonight, we fund a better future for vocational education. Together with the states and territories, we are making a $1 billion investment in fee-free TAFE and vocational education places. Providing 180,000 places next year—the first stage in our plan for nearly half a million fee-free TAFE courses for Australians learning skills for jobs in priority areas, like the care sectors and the digital economy. This budget also invests more than $770 million for better schools, happy and healthier students, and more qualified teachers. And we'll invest $485 million to create 20,000 new university places over the next two years for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, because no Australian should be denied—by poverty, by postcode, or by lack of privilege—their chance at a better future. Powering Australia p lan Nothing speaks more to that future or to a more modern economy than cleaner, cheaper and more reliable energy. After nearly 10 frustrating years and more than 20 failed energy policies, Australia now has a government that understands the generational and economic imperative of acting on climate change—and a plan that provides stability to the energy grid and stability to investors. Our plan: Drives investment in renewable energy, which is cheaper energy. And delivers thousands of new jobs in the coming years—many of them in our regions—by leveraging our existing traditional strengths and creating new ones as well. To help get us there, our government will establish a $20 billion fund for energy transmission. And we've already started, by backing projects including investments connecting offshore wind farms in Victoria and Tasmania's Marinus Link project. And this budget begins to implement our Powering Australia plan, with more than $800 million invested in: Cutting taxes on electric cars; Building a national electric vehicle charging network and hydrogen refuelling stations on our highways; Providing solar battery storage for up to 100,000 homes; And ensuring renters and apartment owners can benefit from cheaper energy as well. A future made in Australia A better future for Australia must mean a future made in Australia. No more sleepwalking while other advanced economies seize new opportunities—no more surrendering industries and jobs overseas. No more selling out our future, by clinging to the past. Our $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund will help finance projects that expand our industrial base; diversify our economy; create sustainable, well-paid jobs; and grow our regional centres. In clean-energy manufacturing; in medical manufacturing; in new technologies; in agriculture; and in critical minerals—so that we can be a country that makes things again. So that we can add more value to the things that we sell to the world. And so that every part of the country can have a stake in our Australian made future. Building Australia's future This budget focuses on building what we need, protecting what's precious to us, and backing the people, sectors and communities strengthening our economy. It includes: An investment pipeline of more than $120 billion in transport infrastructure over the next decade—to get people and products moving faster. Extending full fibre access to 1.5 million more homes and businesses, and improving mobile coverage in regional, remote and natural disaster prone areas. Supporting small business with new energy efficiency grants and extending tailored mental health and financial counselling programs. More funding and more staff to slash the visa backlog, so employers can fill labour shortages. Protecting our farmers and primary producers by boosting our biosecurity defences. And safeguarding for future generations the unique and precious natural wonders of our continent—with $1.8 billion for environmental and heritage protection, including an extra $204 million to accelerate the defence and restoration of our Great Barrier Reef. Responsible b udget m anagement While our economic policies put a premium on resilience, our fiscal strategy puts a premium on restraint. This is important—to keep spending under control, to give ourselves a better buffer for any further downturns, and to make sure we are not adding to inflation. This budget makes hard decisions for hard times. New policies have been largely offset across this year and next—to avoid adding to inflation when price pressures are most acute. And nearly all of the tax upgrades over the forward estimates have been returned to the budget, not spent: 99 per cent returned to the budget over the next two years. And 92 per cent returned to the budget over the next four years. As a result of this discipline: Payments will fall in real terms over the next two years. And real spending growth over the forward estimates is flat—averaging just 0.3 per cent a year. Australians just don't have enough to show for a trillion dollars of debt, and gross debt as a share of GDP is at its highest level in more than 70 years. Our responsible decisions mean gross debt to GDP will be 37.3 per cent in 2022-23, and remain lower over the forward estimates compared to the pre-election forecasts. That's less debt than our predecessors—less debt, but with more to show for it. The deficit for 2022-23 is now forecast to be $36.9 billion—an improvement of $41.1 billion. But while the temporary revenue boosts we're getting from higher employment and higher commodity prices will fade and fall, the profound and permanent spending pressures on the budget are forecast to grow and grow. The budget that we inherited was stuck in structural deficit. So our job in the short term is to: Limit growth in spending, especially while inflation is high. Return as much of our revenue upgrades as we can to the bottom line. And focus new spending on investments that grow the capacity of the economy. This budget does that. In the longer term, there's a bigger job to do as well—to put the budget on a more sustainable path. Tonight, we take the first step—with a budget repair package that delivers $28.5 billion in improvements over the next four years. This unwinds wasteful or unnecessary spending, redirects it towards higher quality investments and priorities, and improves the integrity and fairness of our tax system. Our spending audit has helped identify $22 billion in savings over the next four years. This includes our election commitment to reduce spending on external contractors, consultancies, advertising, travel and legal services—expecting to save the budget $3.6 billion. And this budget makes our tax system more sustainable by making sure multinationals pay a fairer share of tax in Australia, by extending successful tax compliance programs, and by giving the ATO the resources they need to crack down on tax dodging. Together, these initiatives save a further $4.7 billion over four years. This is just the beginning of our budget repair work, and it's just the beginning of the conversation we need to have as a country— About our economic and fiscal challenges, and about the choices we need to make on what's affordable and what's fair. So we can pay to service the debt that was left to us—when borrowing costs are the fastest growing budget pressure, rising at more than 14 per cent a year over a decade. And so we can pay for the things that Australians value most. Paying for what's important and delivering our commitments These priorities speak to who we are as a country, how we care for each other, and how we protect each other. We choose to pay for better hospitals and health care. This budget invests $6.1 billion more in hospitals, in Medicare, in extending COVID 19 support, and in expanding access to health care in the suburbs and regions of our great country. We choose to pay for better aged care, and better wages for those giving care. This budget invests more than $2.5 billion to put nurses back into nursing homes, improve the quality of food, and respond to the recommendations of the royal commission. We choose dignity for Australians with disability. This budget begins the task of repairing the NDIS and securing its future. And we choose to defend our nation against current and future threats. Our government will ensure the Australian Defence Force is well positioned to meet our security challenges over the next decade and beyond, with defence funding rising beyond two per cent of GDP over the forward estimates. And after nearly a decade of neglect and disrespect, we are restoring our role as a diligent and dependable partner and friend to our Pacific neighbours—for a stable, peaceful and more prosperous region. In this budget we are also: Funding a record investment of $1.7 billion over six years to end violence against women and children. Investing $1.2 billion in practical measures to Close the Gap for First Nations people and communities, and to begin preparations for a referendum on a Voice to Parliament. Allowing older Australians to keep more of their pension when they work. Responding to the recommendations from the interim report of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, and investing in better support for the men and women who serve us. Establishing the long overdue National Anti Corruption Commission. And beginning a new discussion about measuring what matters—the strength of our economy and the wellbeing of our people. Conclusion Australians know there are hard days to come, and hard decisions to accompany them. Getting through this period stronger than we were before will rely on the very best aspects of our national character—our resilience, our pragmatism, our cooperation and our confidence, and above all else, our belief in each other. And it will rely on a government dedicated and determined—to confront challenges ignored for too long, and to seize the opportunities that won't wait for us any longer. This budget does more than end a wasted decade— A decade marked by energy chaos, a crisis in aged care, skills shortages and stagnant wages, and not enough to show for a trillion dollars in debt. It does more than draw a line under the drift, decline and decay that defined it. It begins to put things right. It begins to build a better future, that befits our people and the sacrifices they make for each other. A future we can all have a stake in, all sharing in its success. A stronger, more resilient Australia. With more opportunities for more people, in more parts of our amazing country. I commend the budget, and the bill, to the House. Debate adjourned. BUDGET 70 BUDGET Documents 70 20:01 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I present, for the information of honourable members, the following documents in connection with the budget for financial year 2022-23: Budget strategy and outlook—Budget paper No. 1—2022-23. Budget measures—Budget paper No. 2—2022-239. Federal Financial Relations—Budget paper No. 3—2022-23. Agency resourcing—Budget paper No. 4—2022-23. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 70 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Regional Ministerial Budget Statement, Women's Budget Statement 70 20:01 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I present the following ministerial statements: the Women's budget statement 2022-23 and the Regional ministerial budget statement2022-23—Investing in our regions with purpose and integrity. BILLS 70 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023 70

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023

First Reading 70 Second Reading 70 20:02 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023, together with the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023 and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023, are the budget bills for the 2022-23 financial year, incorporating the decisions outlined in the 2022-23 October budget. This is the first Labor budget in nearly a decade, a budget that builds a better future and a budget that I, and all of those who sit on this side of the House, are extremely proud of. It is a responsible budget that delivers on the Albanese Labor government's election commitments, delivering targeted cost-of-living relief and investing in Australia's future. Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023 seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of approximately $3.6 billion. This represents funding for the endorsed March 2022 budget measures, the 2022 election commitments and other decisions taken by the government in the October 2022 budget. The Supply Act (No. 2) 2022-2023 contains, broadly, five-twelfths of the estimated 2022-23 annual appropriations which are required to support services which are not the ordinary annual services of government such as capital works and services; payments to or for states, territories and local government authorities; equity injections; and funding for new administered outcomes not previously endorsed by the parliament. The balance of supply appropriations, representing broadly seven-twelfths of the 2022-23 annual appropriations, is included in Supply Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023, which is part of the additional 2022-23 supply bills that were introduced into the parliament concurrently with the budget bills on 25 October 2022. Together with the Supply Act (No. 2) 2022-2023 and the Supply Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023, currently before the parliament, this bill presents a complete view of the proposed annual appropriations for services that are not the ordinary annual services of government for the 2022-23 financial year. This bill provides appropriations that support the following significant items in the October 2022 budget: (1) The Department of Health and Aged Care will receive approximately $1.1 billion, of which $770 million is provided for additional COVID-19 purchases, such as vaccines, treatments and personal protective equipment. (2) The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts will receive $791.5 million. This includes $495 million in equity for Airservices Australia, as part of the COVID-19 response package, to continue to provide critical air navigation, air traffic control and aviation fire and rescue services across Australia, and $328 million in equity to upgrade the National Broadband Network to deliver fibre-ready access to a further 1.5 million premises by late 2025. (3) The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water will receive approximately $538 million, which includes funding of $500 million for the Rewiring the Nation measure, to expand and modernise the Australian electricity grid. The bill also contains an Advance to the Finance Minister provision of $3.6 billion to provide the government with the capacity to allocate additional appropriations for urgent and unforeseen expenditure. Three billion dollars of the AFM provision is set aside for COVID-19 and natural disaster or other national emergency response related expenditure, and $600 million for other urgent general and unforeseen expenditure. These AFM provisions are similar to those currently included in the Supply Act (No. 2) 2022-23, except to expand the current provisions that are statutorily limited to COVID-19 related expenditure to also support natural disaster and other natural emergency response related expenditure. This expansion has been proposed in light of the recent flood events and would enable the government to make funding available for responses to events such as flood and fire in a timely manner, should the circumstances require. We all hope that they do not. Once the bill commences, the AFM provisions in the Supply Act (No. 2) 2022-23 would no longer be available for allocation. Now, in light of the size of the AFM, the strong accountability and transparency arrangements that have been put in place since March 2020 will be continued, including a regular media release, in weeks when the AFMs are issued, which reports and reconciles the use of the AFM provision. Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedules to the bill, the explanatory memorandum and the updated 2022-23 portfolio budget statements, tabled in parliament in relation to the October 2022 budget. I commend this bill to the chamber. Debate adjourned. Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023 71

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023

First Reading 71 Second Reading 71 20:10 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023 provides appropriations for new decisions taken by government in the October 2022 budget for the operations of the parliamentary departments. This bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of approximately $19.2 million. The Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Act (No.1) 2022-2023 contains broadly five-twelfths of the estimated 2022-23 annual appropriations which are required to support the operations of the parliamentary departments. The balance of appropriations, representing broadly seven-twelfths of the 2022-23 annual appropriations, is included in the Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023, which is part of the additional 2022-23 supply bills that were introduced into parliament concurrently with the budget bills on 25 October 2022, together with the Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Act (No.1) 2022-2023 and the Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023, which is currently before the parliament. This bill presents a complete view of the proposed annual appropriations for the expenditure of the parliamentary departments for the financial year of 2022-23. Importantly—in a matter that I know will be of interest to the crossbench—the bill proposes appropriations of parliamentary services of approximately $19.2 million, including $4.2 million to support its operations—including to increase the capacity of the Parliamentary Library to support parliamentarians with advice and research and to increase Hansard and Broadcasting services staffing levels to support increased parliamentary committee activity. I'm sure all members of this House will agree with me when I comment in passing on the excellent work that these departments do on behalf of all members of parliament. The details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill, the explanatory memorandum and the updated 2022-23 Portfolio Budget Statements tabled in the parliament in relation to the October 2022 budget. I commend the bill to the chamber. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Supply Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023 72

Supply Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023

First Reading 72 Second Reading 72 20:14 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Supply Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023, together with the Supply Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023 and the Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023, seeks appropriations to facilitate the continuation of ongoing government business. The Supply Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023 provides annual appropriations for proposed expenditure on the ordinary annual services of the government for broadly the last seven months of the 2022-23 financial year. The annual appropriations for expenditure on the ordinary annual services of government for broadly the first five months of 2022-23 were provided by the Supply Act (No. 1) 2022-23. The Supply Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023 seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just under $49 billion. Importantly, this bill must be passed this sitting week to provide certainty of supply for the ongoing business of government for the remainder of 2022-23, thereby ensuring the continuity of program and service delivery. The appropriations proposed in this bill provide an estimated seven-twelfths of the 2022-23 annual appropriations, which are broadly based on the March 2022 budget estimates and adjusted for a small number of programs and entities that received more than five-twelfths of their annual appropriations in the 2022-23 supply acts. This was to provide flexibility for the selected entities to manage uneven expenditure early in the financial year. The bill reflects the structure of government in line with the Administrative Arrangements Orders which commenced on 1 July this calendar year. I wish to emphasise that this bill seeks only to provide funding for the ongoing business of government for the remainder of the 2022-23 financial year; therefore, no new decisions taken in the October 2022 budget are included in this bill. This arrangement enables conventional parliamentary processes, including the forthcoming Senate estimates hearings, to be followed prior to the enactment of the budget appropriation bills by parliament. The bill does not contain a provision for an Advance to the Finance Minister, the AFM, because the AFM provisions in the Supply Act (No. 1) 2022-2023, being $2 billion for COVID-19 related expenditure and $400 million for other urgent and unforeseen expenditure, will continue, pending the passage of budget Appropriation Bill (No. 1). Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill, the explanatory memorandum and the updated 2022-23 portfolio budget statements, tabled a short while ago in relation to the October 2022 budget. I commend the bill to this chamber. Debate adjourned. Leave granted for second reading debate to resume at a later hour this day. Supply Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023 73

Supply Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023

First Reading 73 Second Reading 73 20:18 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Supply Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023, along with the Supply Bill (No. 3) of the same year and the Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) of the same year, seeks appropriations to facilitate the continuation of ongoing government business. The Supply Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023 provides for annual appropriations that are not for the ordinary annual services of government, such as capital works and services, payments to the states and territories and local governments, and equity injections for broadly the last seven months of 2022-23. Annual appropriations that are not for the ordinary annual services of government for broadly the first five months of 2022-23 were provided by the Supply Act (No. 2) 2022-2023. This bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just under $10 billion. Again, the bill must be passed in this sitting week to provide certainty of supply for the ongoing business of government for the remainder of 2022-23, thereby ensuring the continuity of program and service delivery. The appropriations proposed in this bill provide an estimated seven-twelfths of the 2022-23 annual appropriations, which are broadly based on the March 2022 budget estimates and adjusted for a small number of programs and entities that received more than five-twelfths of their annual appropriations in the 2022-23 supply acts. This was to provide flexibility for the selected entities to manage uneven expenditure early in this financial year. The bill reflects the structure of government in line with the new Administrative Arrangements Order which commenced on 1 July this year. As with the Supply Bill (No. 3), this bill seeks only to provide funding for the ongoing business of government for the remainder of this financial year. Therefore, no new decisions taken in the October 2022 budget are included in this bill. This arrangement enables conventional parliamentary processes alluded to before, including Senate estimates hearings, to be followed prior to the enactment of the October 2022 budget appropriations bills by the parliament. The Supply Act (No. 2) 2022-2023 established debit limits for general purpose financial assistance and national partnership payments under the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009 for the full 2022-23 financial year. Therefore, no further debit limits have been included in this bill. The bill does not contain a provision for an advance to the finance minister—the AFM. The AFM provisions in the Supply Act (No. 2) 2022-2023—being $3 billion, as I mentioned earlier, for COVID-19 related expenditure and $600 million for other urgent and unforeseen expenditure—will continue, pending the passage of the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023. Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedules of the bill, the explanatory memorandum and the updated 2022-23 portfolio budget statements tabled in relation to the October 2022 budget. I commend the bill to the chamber. Debate adjourned. Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023 73

Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023

First Reading 73 Second Reading 73 20:23 Mr JONES A9B Whitlam I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023 provides appropriations for broadly the last seven months of the financial year for the operations of the Department of the Senate, the Department of the House of Representatives, the Department of Parliamentary Services and the Parliamentary Budget Office. The bill seeks approval for appropriations from consolidated revenue of approximately $155 million. The appropriations proposed in this bill provide an estimated seven-twelfths of the 2022-23 annual appropriations, which are broadly based on the March 2022 budget estimates. The bill must be passed in this sitting week to provide certainty of supply for the parliamentary departments for the remainder of the 2022-23 financial year, thereby ensuring the continuity of the parliament's operations. As with the other additional 2022-23 supply bills, I emphasise that this bill seeks only to provide funding for the ongoing business of government for the remainder of the financial year. Therefore, no new decisions taken in this October budget are included in this bill. This arrangement enables conventional parliamentary processes, which I have described in earlier debates, to occur prior to the enactment of the October 2022 budget appropriation bills by the parliament. The details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill, the explanatory memorandum and the updated 2022-23 portfolio budget statements tabled in relation to the October 2022 budget. I commend the bill to the chamber. Debate adjourned. Leave granted for second reading debate to resume at a later hour this day. Supply Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023, Supply Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023, Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023 74

Supply Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023

Supply Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023

Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023

Second Reading 74 20:27 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden I'll be very brief. Considering the lateness of the hour, I rise to speak on the cognate debate on Supply Bill (No. 3), Supply Bill (No. 4) and Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023. The opposition will support the passage of the bills, in accordance with convention. It's important that the appropriate functions of government continue and departments are resourced to effectively carry out their duties when the examination of the appropriation bills through parliamentary processes means there is the inevitable delay of their passage. Can I say, from my cursory look, there is a lot for us to examine. Labor have confirmed under their government that growth will be lower, unemployment will be higher, inflation will be higher for longer, electricity and gas prices will be higher, and the instant asset write-off for small businesses will end. There is, indeed, a lot to examine, especially on behalf of the 150,000 Australians who will find themselves unemployed because of this budget. What's missing is a coherent plan to bring down the cost of living. We've had lots of announcements, lots of bundling together of election promises, just not a coherent plan. It could be that, once the examination of the appropriation bills has progressed through the House and been considered by the other place, a plan may indeed miraculously appear, but I remain not very optimistic. In the meantime, of course, we will support the passage of the supply bills, in keeping with convention. I look forward to further debate on the issues at hand. 20:28 Mr CHANDLER-MATHER 300121 Griffith I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: (1) notes the Government's first budget gives a $9,000 per year tax cut to billionaires and locks in the $254 billion Stage 3 tax cuts for the wealthy; and (2) calls on the Government to repeal the Stage 3 tax cuts and provide cost of living relief that will make people's lives better, including by putting dental and mental healthcare into Medicare, building more affordable housing, and making childcare free". People in Australia voted for change in the election in May, but so much of this budget is more of the same. We've been told that energy prices are going to go up by over 50 per cent over the next two years, while at the same time gas corporations are counting record profits. We've been told that revenue into the government coffers from gas is going to decrease by hundreds of millions of dollars in the same year and in the same period as one of the biggest gas booms in our history. We're told that rents are going to skyrocket, but there is no action on capping or freezing rents. We're told that the shortage of public housing is going to increase over this period, and yet the only investment the government is making in public and community housing is for 20,000 homes over the next five years, which doesn't even match the annual increase. We're told that unemployment is going to be up, yet the perversity of it is that we all sat here, hearing the Treasurer talk about a sensible budget with tough choices, but everyone in this place is going to get an extra $9,000 a year once the stage 3 tax cuts come into effect. What are the tough choices that we're all making here? What are the tough choices that the billionaires and millionaires are making, who are going to get the $9,000 extra a year out of the stage 3 tax cuts? We've been told that life in Australia is going to get tougher over the next few years. The cost of living is going to go up and real wages are going to stagnate, but at the same time we're going to continue to see record corporate profits. Not only that; those same people making those record profits are going to get an extra $9,000 a year. I once again return to that question asked time and again: why on earth do people in here wonder why people don't like politicians? Time and again we are told that the parameters for what's possible in politics are narrow. We could, for instance, step up and build hundreds of thousands of good-quality public homes over the next few years. We could scrap the stage 3 tax cuts and bring dental and mental health into Medicare. We could bring forward the Paid Parental Leave scheme right now so hundreds of thousands of extra parents could benefit. We could make child care universal and free right now if we scrapped the stage 3 tax cuts. The amendment we're moving tonight is to highlight the hypocrisy of a government that claims to care about ordinary people but gives $9,000 extra a year to the politicians in this place who are already well overpaid and to the billionaires who already have enough and that takes money away from the people doing it tough. That's why we're moving this amendment, and those are the people—the people doing it tough right now—who the Greens will be fighting for over the next three years. The SPEAKER 53517 Is the amendment seconded? Ms Watson-Brown 300127 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 20:32 Mr BURKE DYW Watson There are different times in this place where either side of politics or the crossbench will do something that's ostensibly viewed as a bit of a stunt to highlight an issue, and I respect that, but I've never seen one like this. The impact, if this were to be carried, would be to negate the bill. That's what would happen. A second reading amendment, if it were to be carried, would negate the bill. That would mean, at best, that we would have to try this again tomorrow for a bill which is not on the Notice Paper for tomorrow. If leave were not granted, for example, or even if we were to have leave granted, we would then have a problem with transmission and whether or not it got to the Senate in time tomorrow for them to be able to deal with it. That puts in jeopardy the wages of everyone who works in this building, serving us. That puts in jeopardy the wages of every public servant—including, I might add, the public servants delivering the exact sorts of payments that the member might want to refer to. The public servants delivering Centrelink payments are dependent, right now, on the amendment that was just moved by the Greens failing. The stunt that has been moved is to say to the people who work for us in this building, who make this place operate, who we rely on—for the people who every individual on the payment system in Australia relies on—that for the sake of an extra bit of debating at 8.30 pm on budget night, after the press gallery have largely gone home, that you're willing to play a game of putting at risk the wages of every one of those people for the operation of government. What's in front of us right now, I've got to say, is extraordinary. In terms of stunts there are plenty of bills where you can move a second reading amendment, but to pick supply? To actually pick people's wages, people who work for the Commonwealth, is something that—I thought the sorts of arguments as to whether supply would be jeopardised in Australia were dispensed quite some decades ago. If it were to come back, it had not occurred to me that it might be members of the Greens political party who would raise it. Be in no doubt, it's not like I am providing something that isn't readily available. It's there in Practice. On the one occasion a second reading amendment had been agreed to it was because the people on this side of the table—neither of whom are in the parliament anymore—weren't paying attention. And for the bill it was on there was no consequence in the timing. There was no urgency. An honourable member interjecting— Mr BURKE DYW Yes, it's fun. It was a stunt. It was a bill where you could do it without jeopardising people's lives in any way. The Speaker ruled that the amendment had been validly passed and proceedings on the bill should have ceased at that point. But you really want to put that forward? Really? Of all the different things that we can put in jeopardy and be willing to play some game of chicken with each other don't choose the wages of the people who run the public service, don't choose the wages of the people who deliver the payment system, don't choose the wages of the people who run this building and who we all ask to help us every single day we're here. I will roll with the punches on different stunts when they are taken, but this one is just low. It's just low doing that on a supply bill, because, I can tell you what, your wages won't be affected by this one. They're covered elsewhere. You'll be fine. But each time someone opens a door or welcomes you through security or cleans your office, each time you talk to someone who relies on the payment system, each time someone wants a government service don't forget this night. Don't forget that a political point was worth threatening their jobs and their wages. This place is not a university SRC. What happens here is real. What happens here affects the whole of the nation. What is being tried on right now, for the sake of a debate, is a game of chicken on people's wages, people who deserve better. They deserve better from each and every one of us in here. I recommend people, when this comes to the vote, oppose the amendment. At that moment do not call for a division and risk that we don't get this done tomorrow, because, if we don't, the Senate doesn't sit again until 21 November. The impact is real— An honourable member interjecting— Mr Robert HWT No, I'll get paid. Mr BURKE DYW He will get paid. But this is one of the silliest, most childish things I've seen. In that last moment don't call for a division. Of all the stunts I've seen in my time here, I've never seen someone threaten people's wages in the way that has just been done. 20:38 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden On behalf of the coalition I committed to the government of the day that we would progress this expeditiously, in line with Westminster convention, in the time outlined by the government, and the opposition will hold to that, regardless of what the party of the Greens do or do not do. I say to the House, it is normally an extraordinary thing when the opposition will stand in solidarity with the government. It is a rare thing when it comes to stunts in this place. The Leader of the House and I have been doing this for a long time—a decade and a half—and we've had our fair share of wins and fights, but neither of us can remember a time when a rookie error like this was made. There is a time for every season under the sun, not just in life but in this House. There is a time for standing up for what we believe in quite passionately and moving and using forms of the House for that. I even applaud the member for Watson for the great stunt where his team snuck off to the airport but didn't quite sneak off, whilst our side did, and then they came back in for three or four raucous hours of stunts. Mr Burke DYW It was glorious! Mr ROBERT HWT It was something! 'Glorious' is not a word I would use, Manager of Government Business. Mr Burke DYW Leader of the House. Mr ROBERT HWT Sorry, Leader of the House. But the issue was one of consequence and one of form and what was being done. Heaven forbid, my first question time in this place was with one Prime Minister Rudd—I think you were Leader of the House, or was the current Prime Minister Leader of the House?—when a cardboard cut-out of the Prime Minister was brought in. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The member for Fadden will resume his seat. I just remind you that you've already spoken in the debate. I need you to address your remarks to the amendment. Mr ROBERT HWT The issue was one of consequence. The House can deal with these issues where it is of little consequence apart from making a point. The issue the party of the Greens has raised—and we'll take it, I think, as read that it's a rookie error and move on—is one of enormous consequence. I'd seek the maturity of the House, probably on behalf of the Leader of the House and myself, for us just to move on and get this important part of the bills done with tonight. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendment be disagreed to. Question agreed to. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 76 20:42 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. Supply Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023 77

Supply Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023

Second Reading 77 Third Reading 77 20:43 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. Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023 77

Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023

Second Reading 77 Third Reading 77 20:44 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. House adjourned at 20:45 NOTICES 77 NOTICES Presentation 77