2022-11-08 2 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 8 November 2022

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

BILLS 1 BILLS Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Workforce Incentive) Bill 2022 1

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

Second Reading 1 Consideration in Detail 1 12:03 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum and—by leave—move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated, together: (1)   Schedule 3, item 1, page 36 (line 13), omit "30 June 2023", substitute "31 December 2023". (2)   Schedule 3, item 2, page 37 (line 26), omit "30 June 2023", substitute "31 December 2023". These are sensible government amendments, and I would like to say that the government has listened. There has been some discussion. I thank Senator Rice in particular, with whom we've had some very productive discussions, along with a number of crossbenchers here in the House—the member for Mayo, the member for Goldstein, the member for Kooyong and the member for Fowler. What this seeks to do is extend the legislation for this boost in the income bank for pensioners, which was due to end on 30 June 2023, to 31 December 2023. This is a government that listens. We've heard from the community that a good 12 months to see if this income boost is to work—and we believe it will—is a good period of time to support this trial. This was announced as a workforce incentive policy at the Jobs and Skills Summit, and after discussion and consultation we believe this is a sensible amendment. The time frame for the work incentive bill ceasing at 30 June 2023 allows the Department of Social Services to assess the uptick in workforce participation by older Australians and those receiving eligible payments, and to analyse trends across labour markets. As a government now responsible for addressing what is a difficult budget position, we believe that our measures do need to be responsible and meet their clear objectives. We must be responsible, and that's why we have a time limit on this measure to assess its impact and its success. The six-month extension is a sensible one, and the government will make this amendment today. This will allow new age pensioners, and other eligible pension recipients of age-pension age who are coming onto their pension from 1 July 2023, to also benefit, allowing what will be a relatively smooth transition if those pensioners do want to continue to do more work. It means that from the commencement until 31 December 2023—not 30 June—age pensioners, disability support pensioners and carer payment recipients over age-pension age, as well as certain veterans' entitlement recipients over qualifying age, will have $4,000 credited to their work bonus income bank for use during that year. Once passed through the House and the Senate, all existing eligible payment recipients of the age pension will receive the automatic top-up of their work bonus income bank. I think this is a sensible amendment, and I ask for the support of the House. 12:08 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin We will support this amendment to the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Workforce Incentive) Bill 2022. It's quite unusual for a government, just six weeks after introducing a bill, to amend it in this fashion. We congratulate the government to some extent for listening to what the opposition has put forward for a number of months. Sadly, the government has dragged its heels on this—workforce shortages have been present and getting worse for month and months. We saw the government dragged their heels on introducing the bill to start with—they've now had to swallow their pride and move this amendment today, which we will support. It still doesn't go as far as the coalition's announcement in June, when we put in place the superior work bonus incentive to allow pensioners to earn up to $600, doubling the $300 that's currently in place. As I said yesterday in moving our amendment to this bill, pensioners need the certainty in many instances to be able to enter into arrangements with employers and others, so we do congratulate the government for backflipping on their hard date of 30 June—which was always inappropriate. We outlined from the beginning that it was inappropriate. We still think that the government should give itself more flexibility and give more certainty to pensioners by having a measure such as this—indeed, the coalition's superior measure is an ongoing measure—that is assessed every 12 months, as opposed to having a hard cut-off date of 31 December. But a hard cut-off date of 31 December is better than 30 June. We appreciate the government swallowing its pride and moving an amendment to its own bill just six weeks after they introduced it. They could've just taken our policy that we announced for June. They could have listened to employers, they could have listened to pensioner advocacy groups, who for the entire duration of this government have been asking for movement on this. Indeed, the first two schedules to the bill as first introduced—again, we congratulate the government for taking both of those schedules from a bill that the former coalition government introduced in February. They added schedule 3 to the bill, which was the only new part of the bill. I suspect that this amendment goes part of the way to try to deal with the errors that that initial bill created. The opposition will support this. It still doesn't go as far as the coalition's superior policy that we announced months ago, but we will always support improvements on bad policy. This is an improvement to what was originally put in place by the government, and we will, therefore, be supporting it today—unlike the government who, in the last sitting period, voted against amendments to a bill that was agreed to in the Senate that would have entitled pensioners to the benefits, largely, of schedules 1 and 2 to this bill. They voted against that in the last sitting fortnight, and yet bring forward this bill in this sitting fortnight. It makes no sense. It has made pensioners wait longer than they needed to. This is already late. The government has already dragged its feet on this. The workforce shortages and the disincentives for pensioners to work additional hours have been getting worse and worse by the month. We will expedite that process now by not moving any further amendments or dividing on this bill. We will support it. But the minister and the government have to get better at moving quickly on the sorts of issues when they arise in our economy, because businesses cannot wait months and months and months for bills to be brought forward. Then they can't wait for the government hashing out their own bill that requires amendments like we see today. They can't wait for a government voting against amendments that were substantially passed by the Senate, making pensioners in Australia wait even longer. We will support the bill. I want to thank all of the groups who have helped inform coalition policy which has led this debate, which has really pushed the government to moving. Yes, they've been slow, I would say to all those groups, but imagine how much slower they would've been had we not got on the front foot and collectively pushed the government into the right direction here. We will support these amendments. Again, I want to thank everybody who has contributed with the development and the leadership of coalition policy in this area. 12:13 Mr BATES 300246 Brisbane I just wanted to rise to thank the minister for circulating this amendment, which I'm happy to indicate that Greens will be supporting. It reflects close conversations and negotiations between the minister and Senator Rice's office, and we feel this is an improvement to the bill. I want to thank the National Seniors for their consultation and advocacy on this issue. This change to the bill reflects their willingness to fight for a better deal for all older Australians. We're going to keep fighting for a fair income support system that provides supports to everyone who needs it. There are other changes we will keep fighting for, but this amendment is an improvement to the current bill and we support it. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading 3 12:14 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Special Operations and Special Investigations) Bill 2022 3

Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Special Operations and Special Investigations) Bill 2022

Second Reading 3 Reference to Federation Chamber 4 12:22 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I declare that the Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Special Operations and Special Investigations) Bill 2022 is referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration. BILLS 4 BILLS Education Legislation Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022 4

Education Legislation Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022

Second Reading 4 12:23 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston The coalition will be supporting the Education Legislation Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022. The purpose of the bill is to give effect to five measures introduced by the former coalition government, and then a further new measure by the new government to cease the 10 per cent discount for the upfront payment of student contributions. Five of the measures, which I'll go through, were introduced by our government. These are measures which I put in place when I was education minister. We introduce those into the parliament in February, but they lapsed by the time the election came around. I'm pleased that the government is picking up those five particular measures, which I'll go through in a moment, and adding a further measure, which I'd like to discuss as well in terms of our particular position on it. To go through each of those five measures to start with, they were a group of miscellaneous, disconnected measures. The first was to extend the FEE-HELP loan fee exemption to apply until 31 December 2022, with retrospective effect from 1 January 2022. For those who don't know, the FEE-HELP loan fee is the fee which the private higher education providers ordinarily pay and have been paying for quite some time. It's about 20 per cent, which is added to the FEE HELP debt, which a student has to pay. During the pandemic, we waived that additional 20 per cent loan fee, which was applied, and we made the decision at the end of last year to extend that exemption again, in effect waiving that 20 per cent for a further 12 months—until the end of this year. So those higher education providers took that measure on good faith and didn't apply that fee. I'm pleased that the government is now reintroducing this particular measure to make it lawful through this bill. This will help approximately 30,000 students in the process. The second measure is to support the development of microcredential courses by extending FEE-HELP eligibility for students accessing these. This is a substantial measure in this bill, because, as you know, Mr Speaker, the government provides effectively interest-free loans to students to study at a higher education institution, be that a public university or a private higher education institution, typically for full degrees, for a diploma or for a course of six months or more. It hasn't tended to follow that the government would subsidise smaller units of study through an interest-free loan. This measure will introduce an interest-free loan for students who undertake smaller units of study known as microcredentials. It still needs to be a credential which a higher education institution can qualify them for, but it could be a credential for a course of as little as one week. It might be for a month-long course. But it means that a student doesn't have to find the upfront money to pay for that study. Instead, they can get an interest-free loan from the government to undertake that unit of study in order to be able to complete that course. I think that is particularly important right now, when we have labour skills shortages, because we want people to upskill in particular areas to be able to take the jobs which are available. They may only be courses that are of a month or two months duration, or even shorter. So this is a really important measure, which I was pleased to introduce, and I'm pleased that the government is following through on this and putting it in place in this bill. The bill provides $32.5 million in order to achieve that—to deliver those courses to both domestic and indeed international students. I should say that scaling up these industry focused microcredentials was actually one of the key recommendations of the University-Industry Collaboration in Teaching and Learning Review, which I set in place when I was education minister. So I'm very pleased to see that this has been put in place—the most substantial measure, I think, in this bill. I'd certainly say that microcredentials are going to be the way of the future in higher education, and this is a step in the right direction. Complementary to this change is a third measure. The bill clarifies the status of enabling courses in the context of the lifetime student learning entitlement. The student learning entitlement is a lifetime limit on the amount of Commonwealth support a student can receive through a Commonwealth supported place. That's currently seven years. This clarifies that, if you're doing an enabling course, which might be a course such as essay writing or even English language courses and the like, that won't count towards your seven years of Commonwealth-supported-place entitlement. So there are important technical amendments to clarify that measure. The next measure also makes further technical changes, requiring students to provide their unique student identifier to their higher education provider, on or at the time of a place offer, to be eligible for Commonwealth assistance. Again, these are highly technical and non-controversial amendments, but they certainly make it easier from an administration perspective. We proposed this, and again I'm pleased that the government is following through on it. Finally, in terms of the measures that the Morrison government introduced and that are being re-introduced here, a further change is to clarify requirements for New Zealand citizens who want to access HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP. The measure basically says that if you are a New Zealand citizen who wants to access HECS-HELP or FEE-HELP, then you have to be a resident in Australia for the duration of the unit of study. That brings consistency across the ditch between New Zealand and Australia: you have to be a resident here, just as an Australian citizen, if they want the equivalent assistance while studying in New Zealand, has to be a resident in New Zealand. Again, I don't think this is particularly controversial. It has support from both sides of the chamber and has a start date of 1 January 2023. A further measure that was in the bill that we introduced earlier this year, which lapsed, isn't in this bill. That was legislative changes for the initiatives that help rural doctor and nurse practitioners by providing a debt reduction for rural doctor and nurse practitioners who reside and practise in regional, rural or remote Australia. I have been assured, though, that that particular measure, which is an important one, will be dealt with in a separate bill later this year. I look forward to seeing that particular measure in a separate bill, and we will support that measure if, indeed, it replicates what we supported at the beginning of the year. Last but not least—this is the new measure—the bill gives effect to the government's election commitments to end the 10 per cent higher education loan program HECS help discount from 1 January 2023. In plain English, what that means is for some time there has been a mechanism whereby if pay your HECS fees upfront you get a 10 per cent discount on those HECS fees. Over the years, that's been put on; it's been taken off; it's been put on; its been taken off. As it stands presently, you only have to pay $500 of your HECS contribution upfront to get a 10 per cent discount on your total HECS amount for that year. We introduced that particular measure through the Job-ready Graduates Package back in 2019. The government has decided to remove this measure through this bill, so students will no longer have that choice. They will no longer have the choice to pay $500 upfront and in the process have a full 10 per cent discount on their HECS contribution for that year. Ideally, that measure would stay in place, but we are not going to stand in the way of this going ahead. It does have a very significant savings attached to it—close to $144 million—and, given the context of the budget, where the government is increasing the deficits year-on-year over the next four years, in an extraordinary manner, this is a savings measure which we will support in this particular context. They are the six measures outlined in the bill. As I said, five of them are identical to the measures we introduced. That bill lapsed, so we are pleased those measures are being reintroduced. There is a measure in relation to rural doctors and nurses that is going to be introduced in a separate bill in a few weeks, which we will support, should it replicate what we introduced at the start of year. And then there is this new additional measure getting rid of the 10 per cent HECS discount, which was an election commitment, and we are not going to stand in the way of that proceeding, given the significant savings which that provides to the budget. We won't stand in the way of this bill. In fact, we will be supporting this bill, given the arguments I have just outlined. Debate adjourned. Reference to Federation Chamber 6 12:34 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I declare that the Education Legislation Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022 is referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration. Privacy Legislation Amendment (Enforcement and Other Measures) Bill 2022 6

Privacy Legislation Amendment (Enforcement and Other Measures) Bill 2022

Second Reading 6 12:35 Mr 109556 Berowra LEESER () (): There is no contention on this side of the House that we need to do more to ensure that the privacy of Australians is protected. As the digital revolution becomes embedded through all the ways we conduct business and engage in life in common together, data has become almost a currency of its own—a new type of asset that can be traded and given. And in recent weeks we have been reminded that it can be stolen. On this side of the House, we invested significant time, money and work while in government to advance online safety. We're strongly in support of action to address cybercrime and to ensure greater responsibility and healthy practices when it comes to the storing of people's private information. However, we're very disappointed with the way the government is handling this Privacy Legislation Amendment (Enforcement and Other Measures) Bill 2022 and with the pattern that's emerging with the Albanese government's decisions to clean up PR blunders and then hold inquiries or consultations which are nothing more than box-ticking exercises. To be discussing this bill when a Senate inquiry is currently underway and due to report in a fortnight, when a two-year substantial review of the Privacy Act is to be delivered very soon—and to completely ignore what has been learned from these processes—indicates the attitude of the government to lawmaking. While we don't oppose this bill—because the data breach incidents of recent weeks cannot go unattended—I want to indicate that we will be considering the findings of the Senate inquiry and the concerns that have been raised by submitters carefully in the coming days. We hope that the Senate scrutiny will be given properly. It may result in amendments made in the other place. The reason we must take action to guard people's privacy more carefully in the online space has been made very evident through the recent headline breaches that have affected Optus and Medibank customers. Thirty years ago, someone could have their wallet stolen from their pocket and their losses would be substantial: cash would disappear, cards would need replacing and a child's photo would be gone forever. It was a fear we all guarded against. Today, the theft we're more likely to experience is online and our capacity to prevent it is minimal. It can happen without our knowledge and without any fault of our own, and its consequence can be extraordinarily far-reaching. Again, there's the risk of financial loss and the nuisance of passwords and identification being replaced. But, as we've seen recently, it can have far more damaging long-term consequences as privacy is thoroughly and, in some cases, permanently invaded. Businesses no longer simply possess our phone number and address, significant as that information is. They may also have our fingerprints, our face ID, our preferences, our email history, our shopping habits and our relationship information. This is extraordinary information which can be used very effectively to improve the standards of care or service we receive, but it also makes us very vulnerable if that data is mismanaged or taken without consent. The Australian Cyber Security Centre's Annual cyber threat report from 1 July 2020 to 31 June 2021 highlighted that self-reported losses due to cybercrime totalled more than $33 billion during the 2020-21 financial year. In 2013, the estimated cost of cybercrime in Australia was $2 billion according to the 2013 National Plan to Combat Cyber Crime. The growth in the impact of this area of criminal activity is extraordinary. Based on those statistics, we're looking at a more than 15-fold increase in less than a decade. And outside of the dollar value of the crimes is the incalculable cost to people whose personal information is taken without their consent. I want to turn to some of the recent breaches we've seen. On 22 September, Optus reported a cyberattack which resulted in a data breach in which the personal information of as many as 9.7 million of its customers was affected. Just a few weeks after the Optus hacking incident Medibank reported another cyberattack, resulting in another major data breach. Initially, Medibank suggested the breach was restricted to its budget option, ahm and its international students insurance. On 25 October, however, Medibank revealed that the hacker had access to the personal data and medical information of as many as two million Australians. Even that starting figure has risen, with Medibank confessing that in fact almost 10 million Australians' data has been exposed. Although these two data breaches have triggered the most media attention, we should not overlook the millions of other Australians who have had their personal data compromised. On 19 October, mydeal.com.au, a subsidiary of the Woolworths Group, reported a cyberattack after 2.2 million of its customers had their names, email addresses and phone numbers exposed in a data breach. Before that, on 17 October, Vinomofo, an online wine dealer reported a cyberattack resulting in a data breach of more than half a million of its customers. At risk of exposure are the names, dates of birth, addresses, email addresses, phone numbers and gender of its customers. On 30 September, EnergyAustralia, too, reported a cyberattack. That fallout was a data breach of 323 residential and small business customers, with customer names, addresses, electricity and gas bills, phone numbers and the first six and last three digits of their credit cards included on the accounts breached. Jim Marinis, the husband of Mary Jane and the father of two young children, is a small business owner of the Elsternwick Cafe and is one of the 2.1 million Australians whose data was exposed when Optus was hacked in September. A few days after the Optus breach, Jim had $10,000 stolen from his account. It was a significant sum of money for the young family. Nor did the hardship stop there, because it was soon followed by fraudulent applications for credit cards, online shopping vouchers and personal loans. The combined worth totalled more than $60,000. Even more withdrawals followed from Jim's account. He and his family have lost more than $40,000 from teller withdrawals. 'It's just destroying us,' Jim said. In the Australian Cyber Security Centre's most recent annual report, to June 2022, the warnings were clear: cyberspace is a battleground and Australia's prosperity is both attractive and vulnerable to cyberattacks. Indeed, Australian organisations have been indiscriminately targeted by malicious cyberactors. Organisations and businesses must take the appropriate steps to protect the privacy and vulnerability of those Australians who vest their trust with them. I want to look at the coalition's record in government of proactively addressing issues of privacy. We were proactive in addressing the issues that come with the rapid technological change we're seeing. This was particularly so under the leadership of my colleague Karen Andrews as home affairs minister, and I commend her for the substantial work done in this space. In 2020 the Morrison government announced a $1.6 billion cybersecurity strategy. That funding was directed in large part to agencies to enable them to recruit and enhance capacity in the cybersecurity field. Among the measures included in that strategy, the Australian Signals Directorate was funded to hire 500 more cybersecurity specialists, and funding was also allocated to enable small and medium businesses to prepare themselves for cyber threats. The coalition also undertook legislative reforms that enabled agencies to better investigate and prosecute online offences. Among those reforms was the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Act, which gave powers to key agencies to engage online with criminal networks, allowing our AFP and Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission to collect intelligence on criminal networks and take control of the online accounts of alleged offenders. As organised crime moved online, we gave the police the ability to follow them there and track them down in places where they were operating. Without this power, it's like telling the police they can only enter a house where a crime is being committed if they're welcomed in when they knock at the door. If we want to see online criminal activity dealt with, we have to give our agencies the ability to do their work, and I am pleased to say that, in government, the coalition did that. In June last year we saw what was possible when police are given the tools they need to do their job. Operation Ironside was an extraordinary accomplishment of the AFP and state and territory police. With the assistance of international law enforcement agencies such as the FBI, more than 200 offenders and 100 organised crime members were charged after encrypted messages being used by criminals were decrypted. The operation ran over three years and in that time, through Operation Ironside, 3.7 tonnes of drugs, 104 weapons and nearly $45 million in cash were seized. The AFP also acted on 20 threats to kill through the operation. As the AFP made clear at the time, many criminal networks use other encrypted platforms to fuel serious organised crime in Australia. That's why, in government, we made sure the agencies had the tools they need to intervene and to apprehend these criminals. We also signed an agreement with the United States to allow Australian and US law enforcement agencies to obtain certain electronic data more efficiently from communication service providers operating in the other's jurisdiction, thereby significantly reducing the time taken to obtain information relevant to ongoing investigations. The agreement under the CLOUD Act and access to the electronic data enables agencies to prevent, detect, investigate and prosecute serious crime, including child sexual abuse, ransomware attacks, terrorism and the sabotage of critical infrastructure over the internet. Not only did we empower agencies to deal with traditional criminal activity that is augmented by online tools and systems; we also dealt with crime that's unique to the cyberspace. Throughout our National Plan to Combat Cybercrime and our Ransomware Action Plan, we tightened legislation to ensure that those cybercriminals would feel the force of the law and, again, ensured that agencies would have the funding they need to do the essential work of tracking down and prosecuting cybercriminals. When the Ransomware Action Plan was announced, then Home Affairs Minister Karen Andrews said that the plan would: Introduce a new stand-alone aggravated offence for all forms of cyber extortion to ensure that cyber criminals who use ransomware face increased maximum penalties, giving law enforcement a stronger basis for investigations and prosecution of ransomware criminals; Introduce a new stand-alone aggravated offence for cybercriminals seeking to target critical infrastructure. This will ensure cybercriminals targeting critical infrastructure face increased penalties, recognising the significant impact on assets that deliver essential services to Australians; Criminalise the act of dealing with stolen data knowingly obtained in the course of committing a separate criminal offence, so that cybercriminals who deprive a victim of their data, or publicly release a victim's sensitive data, face increased penalties; Criminalise the buying or selling of malware for the purposes of undertaking computer crimes; and Modernise legislation to ensure that cybercriminals won't be able to realise and benefit from their ill-gotten gains, and law enforcement can better track and seize or freeze cybercriminals' financial transactions in cryptocurrency. This was coupled with the 2022 National Plan to Combat Cybercrime, endorsed by state and territory police ministers. A key measure of that plan was the opening of the new Australian Federal Police led centre dedicated to combating cybercrime online. The new centre, the Joint Policing Cybercrime Coordination Centre, is based in the AFP's New South Wales headquarters. All these measures have placed Australia on the front foot in dealing with cybercrime. I now want to look at the bill and how it fits into the broader picture and, in turn, at some provisions in the bill. This bill essentially seeks to make companies that hold data more afraid of data breaches. It seeks to scare them into better practices by increasing the penalties for data breaches and giving the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner more enforcement powers. This may be warranted. But given that submissions to the Senate inquiry closed only yesterday, that the committee is yet to report and that we're yet to see what the two-year-long review of the Privacy Act has found, it's very difficult to determine whether this is or is not the case. We need to ask ourselves some key questions. Would this bill have prevented the Optus and Medibank data breaches? Would it prevent a data breach from a business that is completely confused about the data it needs to maintain and is ill equipped with the systems to properly manage that data? And will it encourage better practice, or the avoidance of transparency? Turning to some of the particular provisions, item 14 of the bill inserts proposed section 13G(3) into the Privacy Act to set out the penalty for serious or repeated interference with privacy by a body corporate. This increases the maximum civil penalty to an amount that is the greater of $50 million or three times the value of the benefit that the body corporate and any related body corporate obtained from the conduct constituting the serious or repeated interference with privacy, if the court can determine this value, or 30 per cent of the adjusted turnover of the body corporate during the breach turnover period for the contravention—again, if the court can determine this value. In October 2021 the Privacy Act review discussion paper released by the Morrison government acknowledged that there could be a benefit in more clearly identifying the type of conduct captured by serious or repeated interference with privacy, which is the conduct that applies to those increased penalties. This would increase the clarity for the OAIC APP entities regulated by the Privacy Act and the courts. Although that idea is not taken up by the bill, the proposed maximum penalties in the bill are identical to those proposed under the Australian Consumer Law and the Treasury Laws Amendment (More Competition, Better Prices) Bill, which passed both houses in October. In this way, the government has adopted recommendation 16(f) of the ACCC's July 2019 Digital Platforms Inquiry final report that the maximum penalties for serious or repeated interferences of privacy under the Privacy Act should be increased to mirror the penalties for breaches of the ACL to achieve effective deterrence. Tougher penalties may have an important deterrent effect. It's important that thinking shifts across the Australian economy when it comes to the storage of personal information. The imposition of significant obligations on companies holding personal information should see that information treated as a liability rather than an asset. Stronger penalties may make businesses more likely to take the necessary steps to protect the personal information they hold, instead of considering data breaches to be a cost of doing business. However, it's unfortunate that these thresholds have not had appropriate scrutiny and that considerations like the significance of the breach are not also being considered, including possible unintended consequences when applied to smaller businesses. Alongside the introduction of tougher penalties, the bill also increases the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner's enforcement powers to ensure greater compliance from foreign organisations. Currently the Privacy Act has extraterritorial reach to any foreign organisation that has an Australian link, which is enlivened by satisfying two criteria: first, that the organisation carries on a business in Australia or an external territory and, second, that the organisation collected or held personal information in Australia or an external territory either before or at the time of the act or practice. Item 10 of the bill repeals the existing paragraph 5B(3)(c), which would leave carrying on a business effectively the only requirement for a foreign organisation to have an Australian link. I want to look at the Notifiable Data Breaches scheme. Under the Notifiable Data Breaches scheme at part IIIC of the Privacy Act, any organisation or agency covered by that act must notify the OAIC and take reasonable steps to notify affected individuals when a data breach is likely to result in serious harm to the affected individuals. Entities covered by this scheme are also required to prepare a statement for the commissioner under section 26WK of the Privacy Act. That statement must include information on the kind or kinds of information considered. Item 17 provides that a reporting entity must include information about the particular kinds of personal information involved in the eligible data breach as opposed to just the kinds of personal information. In practice what this means, for example, is instead of notifying that contact information has been involved in an eligible data breach, which is one of the categories of personal information in the OAIC's online notifiable data breach form, the reporting entity must state the specific kinds of contact information—for example, home addresses, phone numbers or email address. The bill contains enhanced information-sharing powers. As in the online privacy bill exposure draft, new powers are created for the commissioner to share information with law enforcement entities. The bill requires that information is only shared when the receiving entity has appropriate mechanisms in place to store the information and that that information is only used for the purpose for which it was shared. There are powers to disclose certain information that's in the public interest. Again, as in the online privacy exposure draft, the bill gives the commissioner power to disclose information acquired in the course of exercise of their functions and is satisfied the disclosure is in the public interest. As noted in submissions received on the online privacy bill, there may be benefit in the commissioner consulting impacted entities prior to making a disclosure. As I've outlined, there's no doubt that more needs to be done to protect the privacy of Australians. As I've also said, the contention we have with this bill is that the government is, yet again, failing to give due consideration to the implication of this legislation by properly consulting all impacted stakeholders. There is no doubt that we need to do more to protect Australians from the kinds of data breaches we've seen through Optus and Medibank, but there's also no doubt that making laws without proper consideration is a bad principle. This government seems more intent on turning consultation into a PR exercise and nothing more. The Privacy Act review that's due to be presented to the Attorney-General before the end of the year includes, among other things, consideration of whether the Privacy Act effectively protects personal information and provides a practical and proportionate framework for promoting good privacy practices, the impact of the notifiable data breach scheme and its effectiveness in meeting its objectives, and the effectiveness of enforcement powers and mechanisms under the Privacy Act and how they interact with other Commonwealth regulatory frameworks. This review should surely be feeding into the legislation we are debating. There have been substantial concerns raised about the bill by some of the people making submissions to the Senate inquiry. I want to touch on a couple of those. The Australian Institute of Company Directors raise concerns that the increased penalties may be crippling for businesses who are themselves victims of an attack and suffering substantial financial impact from the crime itself. The bill risks taking an attitude that business is in collusion with cybercriminals, businesses being asked to shoulder the burden of crimes that they are victims of. This approach needs to be more carefully thought through and we need to see evidence that it's genuine negligence that is the cause of these privacy breaches. In government the coalition took a strong approach that focused on stamping out the crime rather than making victims pay. This should continue to be the first priority of the Albanese government's approach on these matters. The Institute of Company Directors also raises the concern that this would disincentivise open, transparent reporting of breaches. Their submission states: The Bill focuses on strengthening the 'stick' or deterrent elements of the Privacy Act. What is absent from these reforms are measures to support Australian businesses in building cyber security resilience and data management practices. This echoes concerns raised by the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia. In their submission they state: Small business owners are time-poor and they often have fewer financial resources readily available. …   …   … COSBOA recommends the Government focuses on educating and upskilling small businesses so that they feel empowered to take ownership, voluntarily upskill their staff, and ensure safe data collection, data storage, removal of unnecessary data, and ongoing risk mitigation occurs. Greater resources need to be invested in making practices more effective, for example making it easier for small businesses to remove unnecessary data. When small businesses send out an email newsletter, there is a voluntary 'unsubscribe' button. It should be an 'unsubscribe and remove me from your database' button so that if the database is compromised, the individual will not be compromised. Small businesses should not feel that they have to retain data for any longer than is necessary, or that they are obligated to collect unnecessary information. Small businesses owners and staff simply require greater clarity about what information they should be collecting and retaining. …   …   … The introduction of a Small Business Privacy Code, including a best practice guide and checklist for compliance, would be a helpful solution. The Business Council also raised a number of salient points in their critique of the bill, which points to the need for wholesale reform, not bandaids. Among the numerous recommendations of the Business Council are a few that I think are worth noting. They are: a request for the government to undertake an urgent review of the various laws and regulations that require, either directly or indirectly, businesses to collect and hold information about Australians; streamlining of the reporting requirements for privacy and cybersecurity breaches to ensure the focus remains on protecting Australian citizens, not navigating bureaucracy and mitigating the potential liability issues for government; and a request that the government continue to prioritise cybersecurity and privacy, including addressing cybersecurity skills challenges and progressing the option of digital identity to allow for data minimisation across the public and private sectors. The opposition is supporting this bill at this stage because we believe more needs to be done to deal with data breaches. However, we note that the government has rushed this through to give the appearance of taking these matters seriously after having failed to act quickly when the Optus data breach occurred. This does not mean that the job is done. As the Information and Privacy Commissioner, Angelene Falk, stated in her submission to the Senate inquiry: The Government's ongoing review of the Privacy Act is intended to ensure that our privacy framework empowers consumers, protects their data and best serves the Australian economy. The OAIC has engaged closely with the review since its commencement in 2020 and we have made two substantial submissions to the Attorney-General's Department with over 180 recommendations for reform designed to strengthen the privacy framework to prevent harms to individuals and that benefit the community and economy overall. Wider reform through the Privacy Act review is necessary to ensure that this framework is proportionate, sustainable and responsive to emerging privacy risks into the future. The few measures contained in this bill are not a complete answer to Australia's privacy challenges. We want to see the government tackle the issue head on in the coming months, such that I move an amendment that's been circulated in my name: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House expresses concern at the Government's approach to this bill and calls on the Government to: (1) give due regard to ongoing consideration of the bill by the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs; (2) give due regard to concerns raised in relation to the application of the bill to small businesses; and (3) agree to a review of the bill following implementation to consider the effectiveness and appropriateness of the measures". The DEPU 74046 Is the amendment seconded? Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 It is seconded, and I reserve my right to speak. Debate adjourned. Reference to Federation Chamber 10 12:58 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I declare that the Privacy Legislation Amendment (Enforcement and Other Measures) 2022 is referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration. Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Amendment Bill 2022 10

Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Amendment Bill 2022

Second Reading 10 12:58 Mr THOMPSON 281826 Herbert I'd like to start by acknowledging all those veterans and Defence Force personnel who keep us safe, who've served our nation so proudly and honourably, and say thank you: thank you for what you've done for this nation, thank you for what you've done in service to this nation, whether it's been through natural disasters, floods, fires, COVID assist, or in wartime operations. On behalf of a grateful parliament, we say thank you, and I hope that the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Amendment Bill 2022 goes that little bit further in supporting you. The coalition strongly supports the government's commitment to expand the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme. The amendments to this bill are an additional incentive for recruitment and expanding the ADF and meeting existing recruitment targets. Initiatives like this can directly contribute to retaining skills and talent within the ADF, which is critical in the current geopolitical climate. We support measures that will reduce the cost of living for current, serving and former ADF members. Measures like this can improve the health and wellbeing of ADF members past and present. We support these amendments, both me and my good mate the member for Braddon—the shadow minister for defence—as well as other Defence Force members that we have in this place, because we know that supporting our bravest is something that this nation needs to continue to do. The DHOAS is a great scheme. It's a scheme that means that, when you're serving, you have that support to help you get into homeownership. When I joined the Defence Force as a young 17-year-old, I didn't think I would ever own a home. I came from social housing. I was raised by an awesome single mother raising three kids. I was a ratbag. I couldn't save. I didn't think I'd ever have this opportunity. When I got into Defence, it was explained to me that this scheme was there as a supportive mechanism to help our soldiers, aviators and sailors get into the homeownership market. I didn't understand it for many years, and it took until I was leaving for me to fully grasp how DHOAS would actually work—and I'm glad I did, because it helped me get into the homeownership market. It helped me get that stable footing to buy my first property. I know the member for Braddon has also been a beneficiary of this scheme. It is a good scheme, and it has helped so many Australian Defence Force members since its inception in 2008. One of the good things about this bill is that it will be retrospective to 2008, which will mean people who may have missed out can apply. Some of my friends missed out because they were wounded during their service without the qualifying period and therefore had missed out on being able to apply for DHOAS. This is a good thing, and it will see an excessive amount of people that may have missed out or slipped through the cracks being able to obtain this. I'd like to thank the Assistant Minister for Defence and defence personnel and for Veterans' Affairs for his collaborative approach in working with me and going through these amendments, not just in the first brief but also by making his office available to me and my team so we were able to ask questions, go through it and really nut down into the details. I want to thank him for his approach there. We do have some questions that will need answers, but we'll get to them soon. DHOAS was introduced by the Department of Defence on 1 July 2008 to assist Australian Defence Force members to achieve homeownership. It is a retention initiative aimed at encouraging members to continue serving in the ADF, and, as we will go through later, it is a scalable system—the longer you serve the more support you receive. The scheme provides an incentive to members to stay in the ADF. The longer you serve, the more your entitlement and the longer you receive the assistance. To be eligible to access DHOAS, you need to have served in the ADF within the last five years, completed a qualifying period of service and accrued a service credit. For permanent members, the qualifying period is four consecutive years of service. For reservists, it is eight consecutive years of effective reserve service of at least 20 paid days per financial year. That doesn't include CFTS, current full-time service. You get assessed under the permanency side, not the reserve side. For all members, if you have a break in your service, you start again. Like I said, CFTS can fast-track reservists for the qualifying period. There are many reservists who are on CFTS throughout the whole ADF, so this is a good thing as well. The assistance provided by the scheme is not tied to a home loan with a specific value. Eligible banks are the Australian Military Bank, Defence Bank and NAB. We believe this can be expanded, and I will touch on that in a minute. The minimum service for permanent members of the Australian Defence Force as it currently stands is four years, and eight years for reservists. That's a tier 1 subsidy, a subsidised loan limit of $402,159 up to a $422 maximum monthly subsidy. Then it goes to the next tier—tier 2 is eight years minimum full-time service, 12 years for reservists, and that has a subsidised loan limit of $603,238, up to a subsidy of $633. The last tier, tier 3, is 12 years for minimum permanent service and 16 years for minimum service as a reservist, with a subsidised loan limit of $804,318. That's a maximum monthly subsidy of up to $845. Changes to the DHOAS act came into effect from 22 June 2020. The amendments extended the time frame for members leaving the ADF to access their final DHOAS subsidy certificates from two to five years. The changes also ensure that members who leave the ADF and re-join within five years will retain all service credit accrued prior to the break in their service. This is a good thing. I'll add a bit of background on the bill. The key change this bill achieves is to effectively halve the amount time that a member has to serve before becoming eligible. It used to be four years for a permanent member of the ADF—that's halving to two years. For a reserve member it will halve from eight years to four years. In tier 2, it's four years for minimum service and eight years for reserves. In tier 3 it's eight years for permanent service and 12 years for reserves. This is something that will be beneficial to people who have served. It is a quicker time. There are questions that we have around the halving and what it will mean for people and retention and the like, but I'm sure that we can all work collaboratively with members in this place to ensure that we can bolster the numbers of our ADF members while also supporting them. This means members can take advantage of the DHOAS to achieve homeownership sooner, which I think is really good. I know it's definitely on both sides of the House, but we heard the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, mention DHOAS in his budget reply speech. It's something we are supportive of on this side and in the government—we want people to be able to get into homes earlier and quicker. We know from the cost of living, which is getting harder and harder for people every day, that helping people that serve our nation be able to get into homes at a quicker rate if they would like to is a good thing. The bill also removes the existing five-year separation time frame so that anyone who was in the ADF since the scheme was introduced in 2008 and has left the military will be eligible to access it. If people have who have been out have somehow slipped through the cracks and somehow haven't been able to apply—or, like some friends of mine, were wounded in combat and went through quite a challenging time during service or post service—they will be able to jump back in, apply and be successful in this. The opposition does support these amendments. We do have some questions that I think we can get answered. As we've been able to work with the government, and the Assistant Minister for Defence and Assistant Minister for Veterans' Affairs, in a collaborative nature, we think we can work with them if this bill does need to be reviewed or looked at for any problems in it. We know that the Australian Defence Force has a retention problem. We are in a period of increased geopolitical uncertainty. We need to do everything we can to attract, retain and train our people in the ADF. The statistics show that the ADF has a retention problem. In 2019-20 the Navy had a 6.6 per cent turnover rate. That increased to 9.7 per cent in the 2021-22 financial year. In the Army it has gone from 11 per cent in 2019-20 to 13.2 per cent in 2021-22. In the Air Force it has gone from 7.3 per cent to 8.8 per cent. Combined it has gone from nine per cent to 11.2 per cent. We are losing 11 per cent of our people each year. We should be adding to our numbers and adding about that every year, not losing it. We need to have as many initiatives in place as possible to ensure that there are reasons for people to join and reasons for people to stay. We know that homeownership and cost of living are a part of why people can either stay or leave the Australian Defence Force. We also note that operational tempo is a way that people keep retained in the ADF. When I served it was high tempo. Get into East Timor—I got injured so I was transitioning out, but they had a little break and they went back on into Afghanistan on another training team. Part of it is operational tempo, which is a good thing for retention, whether it's a training team or the like; and part of it is homeownership. Getting your roots bedded down in your community is something that will benefit the retention rate. We have some questions. While the coalition supports this bill, we do have some concerns that we will raise here and in further speeches. Firstly, there does not appear to have been any modelling done on the outcomes of the changes. There have been no statistics provided as to how many extra people will be retained as a result of these changes. That's not saying that people won't be, but we haven't seen any data on the modelling. The government must also ensure that they have plans in place to ensure that there are incentives for members to stay on when they reach the minimum service period—noting that two years is the minimum service in the ADF. In most cases it's four years. I do think that the government needs to have a plan for that. We do not want to see people leaving the ADF just because they've clicked over the bare minimum number of days; we want to see people retained, which comes back to a whole gamut of reasons why we keep people but also why people want to stay in the ADF. It will be important for the government to monitor the cost of the scheme. The costings over forward estimates are expected to total $46.2 million. In the context of increased rate rises this cost may also increase. The subsidy a member receives is a percentage linked to the interest expense of the member's pay. As interest rates keep rising, under the government these subsidies will have to increase as well. Also, I don't think we have, or we haven't been provided in the opposition, the numbers of people that potentially could have missed out on the scheme. I think that is a hard thing to really gauge. There could be a risk of a cost blowout here, but I'm sure the government has plans to address that as we continue. At present, there are only three home loan providers that've signed up to the scheme: Defence Bank, Australian Military Bank and National Australia Bank. Each of these banks charge interest rates that are traditionally higher than the variable rates. We believe this should be opened up to more players to enable more competition in the market and in turn help to minimise the cost of the scheme. I think only having three banks involved puts limitations on access. Not everywhere you go, especially, say, in remote areas, will have all three banks there. I know we do in Townsville. However, if you're banking with a different bank and you would like to take part in the scheme, it could be somewhat problematic for you to try and transfer your whole life over or to have a separate bank account, so I think expanding this would be a good idea. I've spoken to the assistant minister about this, and I do believe that he'll take a look at it maybe next year to see if we can expand it. In 2008, when it went out to market, these three banks were picked. I do think we're now at a time when the scheme could be broadened quite substantially. There is the question of staffing. That is an issue that the government must keep their eye on. The Department of Defence owns it; the Department of Veterans' Affairs administers it. As we've seen, DVA has had, and continues to have, significant issues with staff retention and staff availability. This bill could potentially be adding an extra burden. If the scheme expands quickly or grows a lot, there will need to be more staff members put on to manage the scheme. I know that there's a very long backlog of claims and I would hate to see staff pulled out of the claims unit to jump onto this. I would also hate to see people seeking to get onto the scheme waiting because there is no-one available. So I do think the government will need to explain to the House as well as to the people of Australia how the government and the department are going to absorb this extra work. While this is a very well-intentioned amendment to the bill, there are little touch points. We're not opposing the bill or seeking to amend the bill, but we want to work constructively on addressing those touch points. We don't want DVA to be overburdened. We know they've got significant staff shortages and backlogs of claims. We want veterans' claims to be sorted, of course, because it's not fair that Australian veterans are waiting a year plus to get claims approved. It's not good enough. We've seen what happens when claims are pushed down the list for far too long: the member for Braddon and I end up attending funerals of our mates. So we want that squared away as a priority. If there needs to be extra staff put into the department to make sure that this extra workload will be absorbed by them and not by anyone else, that is something that we would support, and it is the suggestion we would make. The coalition strongly supports the government's commitment to expand the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme. The coalition believes that, if younger Australians are prepared to defend Australia, we should help them buy and establish a home. The amendments to this bill are an additional incentive for recruitment and expanding the ADF and meeting existing recruitment targets. However monitoring how it's tracking with the minimum service, we would suggest, is a good thing to be across. Initiatives like this can directly contribute to retaining the skills and the talent that we have. The Defence annual report mentions the conduct of surveys that identify DHOAS as a key factor in ADF service and retention. Hearing our brave men and women do surveys and saying that this is a key factor in their being in defence or in whether they will stay in the locality after their service is, I think, a really good thing. If they put down their roots in a place like Townsville while they're serving there, when it's their time to transition at a time they choose or if, unfortunately they have to transition out medically, they have that foundation already in place to stay and grow their family. The coalition supports measures that will reduce the cost of living for current serving and former ADF members. Measures like this can improve the health and wellbeing of ADF members, past and present, in terms of having that supportive wraparound network whether it's where they retire or wherever they go when they get out of defence. Having a stable home and having somewhere you can call your own home does promote positive mental health. We do see people who potentially haven't gone through this scheme, and I heard only last night about veterans living in cars and things like that. That's simply not good enough. That's a national disgrace. I do believe that homeownership or having your roots grounded is a good thing to promote positive mental health. The ADF is currently facing significant challenges to recruit, retain and grow its workforce. It is thought the bill will improve the ADF's ability to recruit and retain new and existing ADF members, but I do think that this would be a very positive step towards recruiting future ADF members—whether there's an educational piece that can be conducted throughout school leavers or people who are looking to get into apprenticeships and the like—because there is a good subsidy for homeownership once you've done your minimum time. I think that people do look to want to buy a home in the future, and I think getting a subsidy and support is beneficial. I think it is a good move that we need to educate and explain. This is one thing that Defence has never really done well. Governments and the like don't send out the messaging or the education as to how this would benefit school leavers or young people who want to get into the military. Also, when you watch the recruitment ads, there's rappelling out of helicopters, rock climbing and all of that kind of stuff. You don't really get to do a lot of that, but I do think a positive measure and a positive push could be that you can get support into homeownership more quickly and get the support that's needed to be able to own your own home. I know banks are pretty good when it comes to looking after ADF men and women who want to get loans, because it is a stable, secure job. It's secure employment, but if young people know that they can also get that support to buy their first home and can bed down their roots where they are, I do think that would be a positive. Housing and homeownership in places around the country can be quite challenging. I know that in Townsville we have a housing shortage, but I know that building a new home or getting involved will definitely boost recruitment. In closing, the coalition supports these amendments. The coalition has raised questions today, and I've also raised this with the minister's office. I do think that working collaboratively together in a bipartisan way for veterans, Veterans' Affairs and Defence is the best way forward to support our brave men and women who support us. I had conversations just last night with some veterans here, locally, in Canberra. I was talking to them about it and I kind of means tested it with them. They were very supportive; they liked it. They had questions, but that's okay; we'll get the answers. I'm sure the minister will supply them. The coalition will work collaboratively. We'll work together. We want to make sure that our brave men and women are supported. Debate adjourned. Reference to Federation Chamber 14 13:23 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I declare that the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Amendment Bill 2022 be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration. Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2022 14

Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2022

Second Reading 14 13:24 Mr JOYCE e5d New England I appreciate there being five minutes left. I know that the member for Herbert has got to run away to finish off the haircut he has had half of. This, I think, is non-controversial. We noted back in 2001 that we would look at a modest increase in the TPI pension for returned service men and women. This is a nominal amount, a $1,000 increase for the year, which is about $38.46 a fortnight, taking it up to $1,595 a fortnight. We note that there are many groups that wanted more than this, and we will stay in close contact with them. It's incredibly important that those who have served our nation are well represented and well respected, especially if they suffer from their service time an incapacity which is an affliction that impedes their greater participation in civvy street. We need to get this thing through basically before the end of the year for it to start at the start of next year. Its cost for the remainder of the financial year is about $14 million, and it's just shy of $100 million over the forward estimates. It's a small payment to those who have served our nation. I'll have more to say later on in the week as we head to Armistice Day on the 11th day of the 11th month. I commend this bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Reference to Federation Chamber 14 13:26 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I declare that the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2022 be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration. BUSINESS 14 BUSINESS Rearrangement 14 13:26 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I move: That business intervening before order of the day No. 8, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH 14 GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH Address-in-Reply 14 13:27 Mr McCORMA 219646 Riverina CK () (): I am extremely disappointed that three initiatives funded by the previous coalition government and promised for the Riverina electorate are not going to be honoured by this incoming Labor government. I refer specifically to more than $20 million for the Wagga Wagga Airport, and I know the member for New England in his previous role as Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development helped me fund that prior to the election. That commitment was going to enable a new airport terminal—a much-needed airport terminal—for Wagga Wagga. If you've flown into the city, you know it is the gateway to the Riverina. But you also know that it desperately needs a new terminal. It was also going to provide some funding for a potential business park and other things relating to the tarmac, which were desperately needed. Of course, Wagga Wagga Airport is owned by Defence. It is the home of the Royal Australian Air Force at Forest Hill, and long may that continue because Defence contributes billions of dollars to the regional economy. There was also a $20 million initiative that was announced by Senator McKenzie for Charles Sturt University. I fought hard for this initiative at the home of agricultural excellence, the home of much farming research done not just throughout southern New South Wales. It certainly has one of those fantastic drought hubs that the Nationals leader, the member for Maranoa, established. Indeed, it has been a centre of excellence since it was first known as the experimental farm way back in 1892. It has a long history, and that $20 million was going to provide for an expansion of the AgriPark, an expansion of all of the work that the Eddie Graham centre does. Eddie Graham was a former Labor state minister, who was known as the 'Minister for Wagga Wagga', such was his contribution to our city and agriculture in general. I acknowledge the work done by the late Eddie Graham and the work done by Charles Sturt University. I am very disappointed that that work isn't going to be completed because this government has shunned the funding. Then we come to the veterans' centre. Indeed, I worked with the minister opposite, and I thank him for his cooperation in this regard. I'll give Labor another chance in the May budget next year. I know the new minister understands the importance of wellness centres and wellbeing among our veterans. We just heard from the member for Herbert, a fine veteran. He talked about his Afghanistan experience in the speech he just gave. We need to make sure our veterans are looked after, and this $5 million— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I apologise, but the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43 and may be resumed at a later hour. Given you were interrupted, Mr McCormack, you will be given leave to continue when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 15 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Human Rights: Iran 15 13:30 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra Mahsa Amini was arrested on 13 September 2022 in Tehran by Iran's 'morality police' for allegedly wearing her headscarf too loosely. Three days later, she died in custody. She was only 22. Mahsa's untimely death sparked widespread resistance on the streets after some 40 years of hardline oppression. The images out of Iran show young people—mainly women—taking to the streets to protest. They're dancing, singing, removing their hijabs and cutting their hair, chanting: 'Women. Life. Freedom.' These protesters evoke the power of humanity in the face of great adversity. Such images of bravery are absolutely inspiring. Last Saturday, Nasrin Ghaderi, a Kurdish university student studying philosophy in Tehran, died while she was protesting. She was 35. Mahsa and Nasrin are not the only victims of this brutal regime—indeed, more than 300 people have been killed for expressing their need for freedom, including 41 children. I'm deeply concerned about the human rights situation in Iran. Iranians continue to be denied fundamental human freedoms, including the right to protest. The Iranian regime's brutal denial of women's rights must surely bring into question their seat on the UN Commission on the Status of Women. Berowra is the home to the fourth-largest Persian community in Australia, and I don't doubt that those members of our community are hurting for family and loved ones in Iran. Even though we're far away, we continue to witness the bravery of the protesters and applaud the strength of their spirit. We stand in solidarity, and we say: 'Women. Life. Freedom.' Werriwa Electorate: Mandaean Community 15 13:31 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa The continuing conflict all around the world means there are millions of people who are displaced and whose children are in precarious situations with little or no education. Many of these people have friends and relatives living in the electorate of Werriwa. They constantly hear stories of their families being discriminated against because of their religion, or worse. They are Assyrians, Kurds, Yazidis, Uighurs—the list of communities facing discrimination is sadly too long to mention here today. Recently I met with Mandaean leaders who live and worship in the electorate of Werriwa. I thank Jamal Al-Mindwy, Tarik Shigar, Basheer Ifen, Lutfi Al-Obaidi and Amad Mtashar for their kindness and for talking with me. Mandaeans follow the teachings of John the Baptist. They are pacifists who speak Aramaic and Arabic. There are estimates that of up to 90 per cent of the Iraqi Mandaeans were killed or fled Iraq after the US invasion in 2003. There are 10,000 Mandaeans in Australia, many living in Werriwa. They are successful doctors, scientists, other professionals and business owners. I have the privilege of calling so many in these communities my friends, as I have known and worked with them so much over the years. I thank them again for their raising concerns with me, and I have spoken to the minister on their behalf. Durack Electorate: Two Rivers Memorial Park 16 13:33 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack Western Australians know that when the bush is doing well then we're all doing well in our state. The coalition government's Building Better Regions Fund has been a highly successful program that has delivered better facilities and economic opportunities across my electorate of Durack, delivering the services and infrastructure our communities need and deserve. It is a huge shame that Labor has decided to axe the BBRF, as it has made a positive difference to the lives of so many families and communities living in rural, regional and remote Australia. As the member for Durack, I could not be prouder of the close to 60 planned, under way and completed projects delivered through the BBRF funding—projects such as the Two Rivers Memorial Park in the beautiful town of Gascoyne Junction. They officially opened their new visitor rest stop recently, accompanied by a community celebration. The park has been developed on what was the caravan park site prior to the terrible floods back in 2010, which flattened the area. Now it features an amphitheatre, a shaded playground and—Deputy Speaker Claydon, I know you will love this—the first aerial mustering plane in Australia. I could not think of a better use of this space. Thankfully, the park received nearly $2.5 million through the BBRF, making this remote oasis a possibility. I'd like to pass on my huge congratulations to the Shire of Upper Gascoyne for their vision and for their follow-through. Thanks to everyone who was involved in the wonderful grand opening. Jerusalem Peace Prize 16 13:34 M 00AMT Calwell s VAMVAKINOU () (): Last Friday I attended the annual Jerusalem Peace Prize, Al Quds, awards, held in Melbourne. The Jerusalem Peace Prize is an initiative of Australians for Palestine and the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network, and it recognises the inspirational and extraordinary contributions and devoted efforts of Australians seeking to work alongside Palestinians in their quest for justice. This year's recipient was my friend and former colleague in this place the Hon. Melissa Parke. In the time Melissa served as the member for Fremantle, including as Minister for International Development, we worked closely together on our shared advocacy of many human rights issues. Melissa came to this parliament after working for many years with the United Nations as a human rights lawyer. In this capacity, she served in Kosovo, Lebanon, Gaza and New York. Since retiring from parliament, Melissa has been appointed an ambassador to the Nobel Peace Prize winning ICAN, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, and was also appointed by the UN high commissioner to the group of eminent experts on Yemen. I want to congratulate Melissa on receiving this very important award. Melissa is a highly principled person who believes that in the world's most difficult areas of conflict we need witnesses and advocates to defend truth and the values which protect and uphold international and human rights law. Southern Brown Bandicoots 16 13:36 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo In the last parliament I secured $250,000 in federal funding for the Sturt Upper Reaches Landcare Group to create a bandicoot superhighway to boost the recovery of our endangered southern brown bandicoot. Last week I was able to visit them on the ground to see their good work. The initiative connects, protects and improves ecological function and bandicoot habitat from Williamstown all the way down to Deep Creek. Southern brown bandicoots are critical to our ecosystem because they act as engineers. They move approximately four tonnes of soil each and every year in search of food, improving soil condition, distributing fungi and supporting numerous plant species. Their small diggings and soil piles also help to provide the environment for the germination of precious native plants. These bandicoots were once right across Mount Lofty, but, sadly, they're on the brink of extinction. The superhighway project connects habitats of dense vegetation and cover throughout the Mount Lofty ranges so that bandicoots are able to stay safe from predators. I applaud the many volunteers and landowners who are working on this exciting project. I'd like to do a quick shout-out to Stella, a year 10 student who is doing work experience in my office, who wrote this speech. Thanks, Stella, and thanks to all those involved in this highway. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Thank you, Stella. I give the call to the member for Chisholm. Orchard Grove Primary School 17 13:37 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm We have excellent schools in our community in Chisholm, and it is my absolute pleasure to welcome to parliament today the wonderful students from Orchard Grove Primary School in Blackburn South. One of the best things about being a member of parliament is getting the opportunity to meet with members of the community from all walks of life, and meeting with young, bright minds who are the future of this country, just like the kids from Orchard Grove Primary School, is something I really treasure. I hope that you all enjoy your visit and that you've been able to understand more about how our democracy in Australia functions. This is a remarkable place, and every time I sit in this chamber I do think of everyone in my community, including the terrific students at Orchard Grove Primary School, because they and the rest of my community are who I'm here for. Orchard Grove Primary School has the goal of inspiring curious minds and learning together, and, through visiting Canberra and the many important sites here in the capital, I'm sure that your curious minds are learning a lot. To the students and teachers of Orchard Grove primary: have a great time in Canberra, and I look forward to seeing all of you back at home. Gas Industry 17 13:39 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne In May, Australians voted overwhelmingly for climate action, and this month voters in Victoria have the chance to do the same again. The climate crisis is caused by the mining and burning of coal and gas, yet the Victorian Andrews Labor government has given the green light to a billionaire media owner to drill for gas next to the iconic Twelve Apostles. The decision is bad news. It's bad news for the climate, as more coal and gas means more extreme weather; it's bad news for the sensitive marine environment, as heavy industry, drilling and mining under the Southern Ocean will undoubtedly have adverse effects; and it's bad news for the tourism industry around the Great Ocean Road, which is already struggling to cope with rising sea levels, erosion and overuse. However, the new undersea gas project is set to get underway as early as next year. The gas industry has too much power over politics in this country. Gas corporations pay millions in donations to Liberal and Labor and, as a result, they get special treatment. And that's not the only special treatment. The gas industry, according to the ATO, is a systemic nonpayer of tax. They're making billions in profit, exporting most of it, pushing up the domestic price. The Greens policy is simple: no new coal and gas. When Victorians go to the polls this month they have a choice. They can vote for the Greens to keep the Liberals out and push Labor to do what they say: reduce emissions and keep people safe. Robertson Electorate: Champley, Mr Mark 17 13:40 Dr REID 300126 Robertson I wish to congratulate Robertson constituent Mark Champley, who this year received a prestigious Churchill Fellowship from the Winston Churchill Trust to continue his work in reconciliation for First Nations Australians. The Churchill Fellowship provides everyday Australians with the opportunity for fully funded international travel to explore issues of importance to our communities. The Winston Churchill Trust awards up to 100 fellowships per year, and Australians from all walks of life are encouraged to apply. The Churchill Fellowship has a rich history of supporting Australians to enhance their skills in a range of fields, including agriculture, health, education, arts, trades and more. I recently had the pleasure of meeting with Mr Mark Champley to congratulate him face to face and wish him well in his endeavours to ascertain greater understanding of reverse mentoring to support reconciliation at Mingaletta in Umina Beach. It was also an opportunity to discuss the very important work involved with the Uluru Statement from the Heart and how First Nations Australians from the Central Coast can support and ensure that the 'yes' campaign is successful at the upcoming referendum. To Mr Mark Champley: again, congratulations, and thank you for all your work supporting First Nations people around Australia and on the Central Coast. Riverina Electorate: Gordon, Mr Ian 17 13:42 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina This Friday at Temora one of the Riverina's best will be buried. Ian Gordon died in his sleep from motor neurone disease last Friday. He packed a lot into his 60 years—a family man first and foremost but also a farmer, footballer and friend to all who knew him. In spite of his illness, Ian had raised awareness of and funds for MND, just like Neale Daniher AO, whose famous Riverina sporting family are no strangers to the old Ariah Park-Mirrool football club, for which Ian excelled over many years. Neale has battled MND for nine years, using his considerable footballing fame to ensure that everyone in Australia knows about MND and the need to find a cure. Neale's brothers Chris and Terry are former APM players and highly regarded in the region. Ian played for his beloved Brown Bombers as a teenager and right through to his mid-30s. He featured in losing grand finals in 1981, 1984, 1991 and 1996. If ever a player deserved a first grade premiership medal it was Ian Gordon. But it was not to be. Only last week he celebrated 39 years of marriage to Sharon. They have five children, who are grieving, with the close-knit small rural community which has lost one of its finest. Ariah Park is quintessential regional Australia; it indeed is. Ian Gordon was an everyday, knockabout, ordinary good guy who left us too soon. Vale a good mate to so many. May your efforts and those of Neale Daniher fund and find an MND cure soon. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Condolences to his family. Aged-Care Workforce 18 13:43 Ms T 181810 Macquarie EMPLEMAN () (): My support of aged-care workers and my advocacy for a pay rise for them is no secret in this place. So I was really pleased to see the Fair Work Commission's interim decision for an increase to minimum wages of at least 15 per cent for of aged-care workers in direct care roles on a number of different awards. But that isn't all. The commission has also announced a process to work out the timing of the increase and to look at possible further increases for these workers and, importantly, whether to also grant a pay rise for aged-care administrative and support staff. Aged-care workers, their unions and the sector have argued long and hard for an increase. I've been supporting them for a decade to achieve decent pay that reflects the value of caring for our older Australians. Our government promised to fight for a pay rise for Australia's aged-care workers—and we did. We made a submission to the Fair Work Commission in August that supported a significant wage increase. The government's submission also made it clear that we would fund an increase to award wages—and we will. If we don't start paying aged-care workers properly we won't attract and retain enough staff to provide the quality care that older Australians and their families rightly expect. We said we'd get wages moving and we are. Cost of Living 18 13:45 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay When it comes to cost-of-living relief Australians feel that they have been abandoned by the Albanese government. People in small businesses in Western Sydney are raising the alarm that without greater support lives will begin to unravel. With interest rates reaching their seventh straight rise more and more households will be under significant financial strain. But it's not just about interest rates; it's the cumulative impact of each and every cost-of-living pressure. Whether it is electricity prices, inflation or interest rates the pain is felt in Western Sydney. I met with Martin. His organisation Christ Mission Possible helps people experiencing homelessness. He told me that food insecurity is on the rise and that most of the people coming through the doors to collect food hampers aren't rough sleepers. They are retirees, they are pensioners and they are families. Small business is standing on the edge of a cliff. Manufacturers are facing energy price increases of 300 per cent. Where they used to pay $60,000 a month in energy they are now paying over $200,000. Western Sydney has raised the alarm. They have raised it so loudly the Albanese government surely can't do anything but hear them. Spence Electorate: Salisbury Business Association 18 13:46 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence I am delighted to report to the House about an important organisation within my electorate of Spence. The Salisbury Business Association is one of a number of business groups within my electorate of Spence. It represents over 400 small- and medium-sized businesses in the local area. As my electorate office is located in Salisbury one can understand why I might have a bit of a soft spot for them. In fact, they have shown nothing but a willingness to engage and have made me feel extremely welcome since I moved in upon my election to this place earlier this year. On 12 October I had the pleasure of attending the association's AGM. I look forward to working alongside them over the coming year, and the years to come. I would like to give particular mention to the association's Executive Officer, David Waylen, who has been in the role since 2016. I would also like to give mention to its current board which includes Marty Edwards, Chair; Kamal Dahal, Deputy Chair; Lee Hannon, Secretary; Cathy Perry, Treasurer; Sergeant Jackie McDonald, SA Police representative; Toni Anne Smallman, Community Representative; and board members Patsy Kellett, Joe Balawejdger, Melinda Fremlin, Dr Rajnish Garg and Julie Pope. Congratulations to you all. I look forward to seeing you and catching up soon. Budget 18 13:47 Ms McKENZIE 124514 Flinders With acute disappointment for the Mornington Peninsula the Albanese government used its first budget to cut future funding for the national centre for coasts, environment and climate. That centre was to bring Monash University and the University of Melbourne together for the first higher education research institute on the Mornington Peninsula with a key focus on climate science. It would also give new life to a number of buildings within the Point Nepean National Park which are rapidly deteriorating. This project has been long fought for not only by academics but also by our local community. Following the signing of a Commonwealth grant agreement in 2020 the universities undertook extensive consultation with Parks Victoria, the environment protection agency, the Mornington Peninsula Shire council as well as the Bunurong land council. Community consultation was indeed well underway. The last one was held only one month ago, with two renowned academics present, Professor Tim Dempster of the University of Melbourne and Professor Peter Currie of Monash University. Locals met with these two world-leading scientists at the Point Nepean markets on 25 September. The budget papers state that the funding for the national centre for coasts, environment and climate was cut because the project does not align with environmental spending priorities. This is a project that brought together two of the world's top 50 universities for the purposes of climate science. It is a shame it will be no longer. Pensions and Benefits 19 13:49 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce Of all the disgraceful scandals and rorts of the previous government, robodebt was right at the top—fake debt notices to Australians for money they did not owe. The Federal Court found it was illegal. It destroyed lives. I sat helping numerous people in my office who were pursued by debt collectors for money they did not owe. The shocking revelations of the robodebt royal commission make clear the depths of the previous government's guilt. The Public Service told the Liberals that robodebt was unlawful, but that didn't stop them. Lawyers warned them repeatedly that robodebt was against the law, but on they charged. Right from the start, in 2014, the Liberals were told that robodebt was likely illegal, clear advice that income averaging to raise welfare debts was unethical, and black-and-white legal advice said that robodebt should now be scrapped. In 2018 top law firm Clayton Utz gave catastrophic advice that robodebt couldn't be justified. But nothing would stop the Liberals. Vulnerable Australians paid the price for their crooked scheme: a $1.8 billion court settlement, in the end. It's only the first week of the royal commission but those responsible still sit in this parliament—leftovers, the dregs of the former government. They should front the royal commission then quit in disgrace. Scott Morrison, Stuart Robert, Alan Tudge, Paul Fletcher, Dan Tehan—the whole rotten lot of you. Wide Bay Electorate: Cloyna State School 19 13:50 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay Cloyna State School, about 20 kilometres north-west of Murgon, is one of 193 small schools in Queensland that have less than 35 students. What you first notice about the 11 kids when you meet them is how confident and engaging they are. Recently, when I met up with them I promised I'd make a speech in parliament about the school and give their words the opportunity to be in Hansard. These are their words. 'Small schools are better because we can learn everyone's name in one day, and it is easier to remember them.' Their classmate said: 'It's easier to play all together in games, and it's a bit cheaper to buy school shirts and ink for the printer.' Another said: 'Cloyna can feel like a team because we can work together, but we can be competitive, and we are kind and polite. It's easy to work out our problems.' All enjoy having lots of room to play, fun excursions, less fighting, better negotiating, different subjects—from dance to digital design—fresh air, and friendly teachers and classrooms. The response that captures the school's geography the most appropriately has to be: 'Because there are fewer buildings at Cloyna, so we don't have to walk very far.' That last one sounds like me when I was at school. To the kids at Cloyna: thank you very much for the visit, and I'll see you next time. McEwen Electorate: Gisborne Gazette 19 13:52 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen The community of Gisborne has had plenty of recognition of late, with it being the backdrop for the most recent series of The Block. But as someone who knows this beautiful town and community well, being in our electorate of McEwen, I would like to make sure that people know it for the great place it is. Gisborne is a vibrant and thriving community with deep connections throughout the very different elements of the area. Only last month, the highly regarded local news team at the Gisborne Gazette, who are listening today, were recognised twice at the Community News Association of Victoria awards with nods in the Best Editorial Comment and Best History Story categories. The Gisborne Gazette is a much loved part of Gisborne, and the value of community newspapers is shown in publications such as this one and the connection they provide to the communities they service. It was through this publication that I found out about the Gisborne Men's Shed young shedders program, where Gisborne Secondary College students spend time at the shed working on projects they can sell or donate. This program is a great example of developing strong connections within the community that may not be forged so easily in other situations. Gisborne has several great community assets but the people and their commitment to the community has to be the most valuable one that they have, and the importance of community newspapers can never be underestimated for the stories they tell for locals, about locals, that keep you informed. It's important we have diversity in our media, such as having independent, thriving community newspapers that actually do the job of reporting. Bowman Electorate: Redland Community Centre 20 13:54 Mr PIKE 300120 Bowman I want to pay tribute to the Redland Community Centre's Homeless United program and those who are working tirelessly to ensure the success of this initiative despite significant obstacles. The design of the program supports our homeless, from both a psychological and a physical perspective. Since the HU program commenced, 323 people have been through their care, with 206 successfully housed by the HU team and another 43 assisted and supported in paid employment. Collaboration with the Queensland department of housing has seen a further 117 housed. This program was fortunate enough to receive 22 months of state government funding. However, this funding was taken away at the end of 2021. But where the state government has walked away, the Redlands community has rallied to the cause. My city's real estate fraternity, led by the incomparable Louise Denisenko, has held two remarkably successful fundraising dinners to keep the program serving our community. Last year's 'There's no place like home' dinner raised $26,000 for the program. This year, the dinner raised almost $33,000. My wife and I were privileged to be there to witness this outpouring of generous support. The highlight of this year's dinner was seeing HU program leader, Horowai Rameka, serenade the organising committee at the end of the evening. I want to thank Louise and her committee, and all involved in—and all those who sponsored—this amazing event. Thank you for all you're doing for our community. Member for Latrobe 20 13:55 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I was as shocked as we all were at the allegations levelled against the former government in the 60 Minutes migration story on Sunday. I was disgusted at the implication that our visa system was being used by those opposite to assist criminal syndicates to protect convicted criminals to remain in Australia and traffic young women. The member for Latrobe's relationship with migration agent Jack Ta resulted in $26,700 being paid between 2017 and 2019 to his campaign fund, the Pinnacle Club. At the same time these donations were being paid, the member for Latrobe was Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, investigating migration agents! So one might ask, what did he do? The answer, it seems, is nothing. In fact, the member for Latrobe was promoted to assistant minister to then Minister for Home Affairs, Peter Dutton, in May 2019. Rather than cracking down on this problem, those opposite took donations from its perpetrators and promoted those who were cultivated by them. Of course, all of this happened on the watch of the now Leader of the Opposition when he was minister. How can the Leader of the Opposition justify keeping the member for Latrobe as a member of his shadow ministry? Energy 20 13:57 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax I rise today to express my sympathy for the decent members of the Australian Labor Party who are here in this chamber today. They know that they were elected to office on the back of a promise to cut power bills for households by $275. It wouldn't be easy for them, as it is not easy for any federal MP, to see their own constituents and businesses struggle in the face of rising power prices and despite that promise. But something has happened, and we have now seen a budget from the government that has revealed that the $275 promise is flawed. What's more, we have now seen the relevant department actually disassociate itself from that very modelling by removing reference to it from its website. And so, despite my sympathy for those opposite, they now have an opportunity. Every Labor Party MP in this chamber, as of now—since the budget and since the department's revelation—has a choice to make. They can either peddle the falsehood of their leadership team about power prices or they can tell the truth to the very people and businesses who they're meant to serve in this place. The choice is theirs! (Time expired) South Australia: Winston Churchill Memorial Trust Fellowships 20 13:58 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby Last week I was honoured to be invited to Government House in South Australia, where Her Excellency Frances Adamson awarded the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust fellowships for the South Australian applicants this year. As a former selection chair and national board member, I have found the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust to be an absolutely fascinating and very worthy organisation which recognises passion projects that will make a difference to our country across a whole range of different topics. We had six fellowships awarded last week for South Australians with a whole range of interests: to empower young people to engage with parliament; best outcomes in teaching mathematics; the role of the circular economy in minimising waste to landfill; to increase access to mental health services for young people; a study on biomechanical models used in world-leading spinal injury clinics; and an agriculture project that was looking at pulse proteins. I really congratulate all six of these South Australians for getting through a very competitive process, and I look forward to seeing their travels overseas next year and their reports back. The SPEAKER 53517 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 21 CONDOLENCES Ellicott, Hon. Robert James (Bob), AC, KC 21 Reference to Federation Chamber 22 14:08 Mr BURKE DYW Watson by leave—I move: That the resumption of debate on the Prime Minister's motion of condolence in connection with the death of the Hon. Robert James Ellicott be referred to the Federation Chamber. Question agreed to. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 22 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Climate Change 22 14:09 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, the coalition has ruled out paying compensation to other nations for the effects of climate change. Will the Albanese government also rule out signing Australia up to compensating other countries as part of the deal being negotiated at COP 27 in Egypt? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left. The question was asked in silence. Order! The Minister for Cyber Security! The member for Moreton! The Prime Minister will be heard in silence. 14:10 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler One of the things I won't do, in front of a boom mic, is make a joke about our island neighbours drowning. That's one of the things that I won't do! I won't do that. And I won't do that because I want to build good relations with our Pacific neighbours. One of the things that we provided for in the budget is there for all to see—and if the Leader of the Opposition wants to have a look at the budget papers, we've made it very clear that one of the things we will do is provide support for our Pacific island neighbours for infrastructure that they need to be dealing with because of the threat that countries like Tuvalu and Kiribati are experiencing. One of the things that we saw during the election campaign was Solomon Islands front and centre of the campaign. The fact is that Australia, unfortunately, has stepped back and that other nations, with the strategic competition that's occurring in our region, have stepped in. One of the things we need to be very conscious of is that climate change is indeed a national security issue. That is something that is recognised by the United States and it's something that is recognised by our other partners and, indeed, by our allies. It's something that was recognised in the Quad leaders meeting. The first thing I did as Prime Minister was get on a plane and visit Tokyo to meet with Prime Minister Modi, Prime Minister Kishida and President Biden. There, we spoke about the responsibility that we have— Mr Sukkar 242515 Answer the question! The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Deakin will cease interjecting. Mr ALBANESE R36 as leaders of developed nations to engage in our region—in South-East Asia and in the Indo-Pacific. So what we won't be doing is trying to score a cheap domestic political point and, at the same time— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left. Mr ALBANESE R36 and at the same time actually set back our international relations. You can't say that you care about strategic competition in the region whilst you continue with this sort of position. No wonder that Senator Wong has had to work so hard to restore Australia's standing in our region. Climate Change 23 14:12 Dr ANANDA-RAJAH 290544 Higgins My question is to the Prime Minister. As the COP 27 climate change conference gathers, what action is the Albanese government taking on climate change? Honourable members interjecting— The 53517 The House will come to order. The member was heard in silence and the Prime Minister will be heard in silence. 14:13 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the best-ever member for Higgins for her question! I'll say this: the COP 27, the UN Climate Change Conference, has begun at Sharm El Sheikh in Egypt, and it will sit for the coming fortnight. It sits in a context where it comes after the hottest decade on record. Indeed, the past eight years are on track to be the eight warmest on record. Think about that. Every one of the eight hottest years on record were in the last eight years—the last eight years! What we've seen of course is not just the impact of this with the devastating floods in places like Pakistan; we don't actually have to look offshore—we can look here at the increased number of extreme weather events and the increase in the severity of them. Just before question time I was speaking to the member for Riverina about Forbes in his electorate, which we visited just a couple of weeks ago. We visited as the floodwaters were going down. They went up again, and fortunately for the people of Forbes, who've done it so tough, they've gone down again. Just a week ago, with the New South Wales Premier, I visited Lismore, where we're actually having to buy homes to move people out of the floodplain because they do not feel safe in those communities. We've had the devastating bushfires, including in areas of rainforest that had never burnt before, ever. The Secretary-General of the UN said last night that the science is clear that any hope of limiting temperature rise to 1.5 degrees means achieving global net zero emissions by 2050. But that 1.5-degree goal is on life support, and the machines are rattling. This parliament—the major parties—apparently are all agreed on net zero by 2050, except for the rhetoric, and you wouldn't know it if you followed the statements that are aimed. So, our government is acting. One of our first acts was to sign up to our changed nationally determined contribution of 43 per cent by 2030. We've enshrined in law net zero by 2050, and we're investing in renewable energy. Climate change is a challenge for our generation, but it's also a challenge that we need to work with the rest of the world on. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! There is far too much noise on my right, and my left. I give the call to the member for Moncrieff. Energy 23 14:16 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff My question is to the Prime Minister. How much will wholesale electricity prices need to fall to deliver the promised $275 reduction in bills for Australian families? The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hunter will cease interjecting. 14:16 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for her question and I refer of course to the government's position on renewables and on taking action, because we do need to act to ensure that we can reduce power prices, which are under pressure from the now 23—if you count the latest thought bubble on nukes—energy policies of those opposite over a wasted decade as well as the invasion by Russia of Ukraine. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hunter is warned. Mr ALBANESE R36 The budget made a significant start on that—a nearly $24 billion investment in clean energy, including Marinus Link, the interconnector between Tasmania and Victoria, Battery of the Nation, pumped hydro in Tasmania, six renewable energy zones created, legislating to create Australia's offshore wind industry, 400 community batteries. We've given the ACCC, the AER— The SPEAKER 53517 The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order? Mr Fletcher L6B On relevance, Mr Speaker: you have previously directed a minister to deal with the terms of the question, and I ask you to uphold that ruling. It was a very tight question. The question was: what has to happen to wholesale prices, how much will wholesale electricity prices need to fall? And the Prime Minister should be directed to that question. The SPEAKER 53517 I will hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW To the point of order, the Manager of Opposition Business didn't complete the question that was asked, which, as I recall, went specifically to the impact on family electricity bills. And the Prime Minister is answering quite directly on ways of impacting on that. The SPEAKER 53517 Yes, the question was also about wholesale prices. I was ruling on the point of order, but I'll hear from the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Dutton 00AKI To the point of order, the Leader of Government Business has suggested that there was some other part to this question, which is not the case. The question was very tight: how much will wholesale electricity prices need to fall to deliver the promised $275 reduction in bills for Australian families? It couldn't have been any tighter than that, ant the Prime Minister should be asked to answer the question: how much will wholesale electricity prices need to fall? The SPEAKER 53517 The Prime Minister is not halfway through his answer. The question was specific. I'm going to ask him to return to the question. He's setting some context, but I'll be listening carefully to his answer to make sure he addresses the issue of wholesale prices. Mr ALBANESE R36 Of course, wholesale prices will increase by up to 20 per cent as a result of information that the former government kept quiet. Indeed, they legislated to make sure that people didn't know what would happen with wholesale prices. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker is warned. Mr ALBANESE R36 What we won't do is legislate so that people won't find out anything until after the next election, which is what the government did. Administrative Appeals Tribunal 24 14:20 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor My question is to the Attorney-General. What was the former coalition government's approach to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and what impact has this had on Australians? 14:20 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I thank the member for Lalor for her question, which reflects her longstanding interest in the very important work of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. If you want to know about the approach of the former government and the damage that they did to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, you can now ask the former government, because they might actually tell you. Over recent weeks, those opposite, including the opposition leader, have complained that the AAT is stacked with political appointees— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The Attorney-General will resume his seat. Members on my right, I would like to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business in silence. Mr Fletcher L6B This question makes no attempt to even be related to the Attorney-General's portfolio. It's specifically worded in terms of the previous government. The Attorney-General is not responsible for the actions of the previous government. He has his own responsibilities, and those are what he ought to be asked about. The SPEAKER 53517 On the point of order, I'll hear from the leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW The point of order was not raised at the time of the question being asked. We're now well into the answer. The only point of order would be on whether or not he was being relevant at this point, and he is clearly being exactly relevant to what was asked. The SPEAKER 53517 The Attorney-General is being relevant. He does have responsibility for the AAT. I will listen to his answer carefully to make sure it relates to the question. Mr DREYFUS HWG Over recent weeks, those opposite—including the opposition leader—have complained that the AAT is, in Mr Dutton's words, 'stacked with political appointees' who can't be trusted to approve warrants for the new proposed National Anti-Corruption Commission. Those opposite appear to have no sense of irony at all. According to the opposition leader, the members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal lack the independence and requisite level of oversight and intellect to perform the important role of approving warrants, even though, as Minister for Home Affairs, this same Leader of the Opposition dramatically expanded the role of AAT members in issuing warrants. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Moreton is warned. Mr DREYFUS HWG For the benefit of the opposition leader: yes, the AAT is stacked with political appointees, and that's because he and his colleagues spent almost a decade stacking the AAT with political appointees. They are attacking their own miserable record. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hunter will leave the chamber under 94(a) Mr DREYFUS HWG The opposition leader and his colleagues are now openly admitting what many of us have been saying for years. The modern Liberal Party care so little for vulnerable people who rely on the AAT that they are happy to stack it with Liberal cronies—almost 90 Liberal Party cronies—at taxpayers' expense, many of whom they knew were not up to the job. Each year, tens of thousands of Australians rely on the AAT to independently review decisions made by Commonwealth departments and ministers that have major and sometimes life-altering impacts on their lives. Those opposite do not care about those Australians. Those opposite have never cared about those Australians and they never will. Just yesterday we heard some more troubling revelations about the internal culture of the AAT, after almost 10 years of Liberal Party stacking. Seventeen current members of the tribunal have faced bullying, discrimination or harassment complaints since 1 July 2016, and one of those members has had at least five such complaints made against them. That is completely unacceptable and is yet another problem our government will have to address. The Liberal Party of Australia deserves to be tarnished forever for the legacy of this uniquely disgraceful exhibition of political cronyism, which has come at enormous cost to taxpayers, to the AAT and to Australia's system of administrative law more generally. Hono urable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The House will come to order so I can hear the member for Curtin in silence. Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 25

Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022

14:24 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin My question is for the Prime Minister. Australia has a history of complex industrial relations regulation and the multi-employer bargaining part of the 'secure jobs, better pay' bill is making many employers very nervous. Wages will not increase if businesses and their employees have to navigate an even more complex wage-setting system full of unintended consequences. What does the government think is more important: getting this bill passed urgently or getting it right? 14:25 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Curtin for her question and for her constructive engagement with the government. We had a meeting earlier today in which these issues were raised and canvassed. I'm always happy to meet with members of the crossbench, as I am with anyone in this parliament who has serious policy issues to raise. The fact is that the government that I lead was elected with a mandate to increase people's wages. We went to an election and can't have been clearer. We also can't have been clearer either in a speech I gave to the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Sydney during the election campaign. I spoke about the need to get bargaining operating effectively. I spoke about the fact that productivity was flatlining over a considerable period of time, and that, as the Reserve Bank governor had indicated, we had a circumstance whereby wages just simply weren't keeping up and that was holding back the economy. That's a constraint on the economy. What we've been doing with the industrial relations legislation is making sure that we consulted not just during that period and not just after we came to office but at the Jobs and Skills Summit, in the lead-up to the legislation being introduced by the Minister for Workplace Relations, and then during the inquiry that is taking place into the legislation, and also prior to the legislation being debated in this chamber. As a result of that extensive consultation, there are a range of amendments that will be moved by the government. We do want to make sure that we get this right, but we also want to make sure that wages get moving because we understand the pressure that family budgets are under, and we understand that you can't have a circumstance whereby it is particularly in feminised industries—our cleaners, our childcare workers, our aged-care workers, our disability care workers. They are the heroes of the pandemic who deserve something more than our thanks; they deserve an increase in their wages. That's why our industrial relations legislation is aimed at working effectively and constructively with the business community, consulting with COSBOA, ACCI, the BCA, the Australian Industry Group and anyone else who wants to engage with us on that legislation. So I'd encourage the member and other members to contribute constructively to it. We're certain that we'll get it right and we're certain that we'll get it done. Defence Industry 26 14:28 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. What failures over the last decade have led to defence capability gaps, and what is the Albanese Labor government's plan to address them? 14:28 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I thank the member for his question. Australia faces capability gaps in our defence because of the complete incompetence of the former coalition government, and it was all based on the way in which they govern themselves. They had six—almost seven—defence ministers in the course of nine years. It started with David Johnston who had served just over a year when, as the champion of Australian defence industry, he announced to the world that he wouldn't trust the defence industry of our country to build a canoe. Then we had Kevin Andrews who went off and pursued a submarine deal with Japan which, in turn, became a subject of the 'empty chair' challenge on Tony Abbott. Kevin Andrews lost his job as defence minister when Tony Abbott lost his job as the Prime Minister. And then we had Senator Payne, and everything stopped. Literally, nothing happened. After the 2016 election, Christopher Pyne was brought in to be the human defibrillator machine to shock coalition defence policy back into life. But then we had two defence ministers at the same time, and no-one had any idea who was responsible for what. That was never going to last, so Christopher took over the entire show until he got sick of it in 2019. Then we had Senator Payne. Then we had the current leader of the opposition. Over the course of nine years, there were 24 different ministers across the breadth of the Defence portfolio. Is it any wonder that the result of that was absolute chaos? There were 28 different projects running a combined total of 97 years over time. The only things that moved in the last decade were defence ministers, because everything else came to a grinding halt. But you don't need to take my word for it, because last week we had an outbreak of honesty from the shadow minister, the member for Canning, when he said: … we also squandered a lot of opportunity through the leadership changes. It created ministerial churn— that's one description of it— which led to inertia … Well, he got that right, because that inertia described the single worst national security government in our country's history. Now, over the last few months the Albanese Labor government has established the Defence Strategic Review— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 The Minister for Resources will cease interjecting. Mr MARLES HWQ the single most expansive overview of defence in more than 35 years, so that, in the context of a growing defence budget, we can have the capabilities that we need to meet a very different world, and we're going to actively manage programs to meet that need— Government members interjecting— The SPEA 53517 The Minister for Resources will cease interjecting. Mr MARLES HWQ because the Albanese Labor government is absolutely committed to getting defence back on track and keeping Australians safe. The SPEAKER 53517 Order! There is far too much noise on my right when ministers are addressing the House. Ms Burney 8GH Here we go! The SPEAKER 53517 Including from the Minister for Indigenous Australians. Interest Rates 27 14:32 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume My question is to the Prime Minister. Before the election, the Prime Minister promised Australians cheaper mortgages. Can the Prime Minister inform Australians how much the cash rate has increased since May 2021? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. The member for Hume was heard in silence for his question. I call the Prime Minister. 14:32 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I'll ask the Treasurer to answer the question, but we're not going to take lectures from the lightweight on the hill over there. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! The Treasurer may resume his seat. Until the House comes to order, I won't hear the Manager of Opposition Business. I call the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher L6B Mr Speaker, that is clearly unparliamentary language, and he should be asked to withdraw. The SPEAKER 53517 I honestly could not hear what the Prime Minister was saying, because of the yelling in the chamber. Honourable m embers interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I'm going to call the Treasurer and I'm going to ask the House to come to order. There is far too much noise. I'm issuing a general warning for the entire House. I call the Treasurer. 14:33 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin With questions that bad, is it any wonder he hardly ever gets one in this place? Now, it might not have dawned on the shadow Treasurer, nor on the dregs of the former government which are arrayed before us, that— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! I ask the Treasurer to resume his seat and I ask the Manager of Opposition Business to resume his seat. I will just ask the Treasurer not to use that language when referring to the former government, either as the former government or as former members of the government. I call the Treasurer. Dr CHALMERS 37998 Would 'leftovers' be parliamentary, Mr Speaker? The SPEAKER 53517 I ask the Treasurer to get on with his answer. Dr CHALMERS 37998 I thank the shadow Treasurer for a very rare and particularly bad question because, as everybody else in this House knows, interest rates started going up on their watch. For a range of reasons, interest rates started going up from the extraordinary lows that they were at—0.1 per cent—and they're currently at 2.85 per cent— The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Barker will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a). The member for Barker then left the chamber. Dr CHALMERS 37998 as every member of this House knows, except perhaps the shadow Treasurer. If the shadow Treasurer had any credibility whatsoever, he would acknowledge, first of all, that rates started going up on the former government's watch. Secondly, he would say what members over there said when they started going up during the election, which was interest rates were not going to be at 0.1 per cent forever. So what we've done—and one of the reasons we're proud of the budget we handed down two weeks ago and the shadow Treasurer won't ask me any questions about the budget that was handed down two weeks ago—is we've made sure that we weren't making the inflation problem worse. In fact, we showed remarkable spending restraint, real spending growth was flat, we banked the upward revenue revisions and we invested in the supply chain issues which were pushing inflation up in our economy. Dr CHALMERS 37998 I was asked about interest rates. The SPEAKER 53517 The member for Hume will cease interjecting, or I won't call the Manager of Opposition Business. I ask him to state the point of order. Mr Fletcher L6B On relevance, a very direct question: Australians were promised cheaper mortgages. That was your promise. What are you doing about it? The SPEAKER 53517 The Treasurer is referring to interest rates, which in my understanding are linked to mortgages, so I call the Treasurer. Dr CHALMERS 37998 You're already far ahead of the shadow Treasurer, Mr Speaker, if you make that link and far ahead of the Manager of Opposition Business. The point that I'm making is that the budget we handed down two weeks ago was aimed fairly and squarely at this inflation challenge in our economy, which is pushing up interest rates. Inflation was a problem before the election. Interest rates were going up before the election. They have absolutely no credibility if they won't acknowledge that. Aged Care 28 14:36 Ms LAWRENCE 299150 Hasluck My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. Aged-care workers have long been underpaid for work that they do in support of our most vulnerable people. How important is the Fair Work Commission's decision to award these dedicated workers a pay rise? 14:37 Ms WELLS 264121 Lilley I thank the member for Hasluck for her question. This pay rise is vitally important because it will help us recruit and retain the staff we need to reform a sector left in ruins by those opposite. A wage rise for aged-care workers isn't just the right thing to do; it is the smart thing to do because the National Skills Commission's own analysis tells us that with a pay rise of 10 per cent going to aged-care workers, we will halve the staff shortages we have in aged care by 2052. It's not just the right thing to do but the smart thing to do. It was a crippling problem, there's a deserving solution, and still the Morrison government did nothing. They did nothing for years and years and years. Aged-care workers were left to languish, earning less than they would have earned stacking shelves at the supermarket. They were left to languish without hope of a pay rise. They were left to languish without any kind of respect. They were left on the front line of COVID without adequate protection. Like the PM says, they don't just deserve our thanks; they deserve a pay rise. Now, for some aged-care workers after literally decades in the job they love, they are about to crack the $30 an hour barrier for the very first time. It's not just those on this side of the House who are applauding the Fair Work Commission's decision. Aged and Community Care Providers Association CEO Tom Symondson said this substantial move was a step forward towards long-lasting reform that provides a higher quality of care for older Australians, enabling them to live their best lives. StewartBrown partner Grant Corderoy said the pay rise would encourage people to join the aged-care sector, while Bupa Villages and Aged Care Managing Director Andrew Kinkade said the decision was an important first step towards recognition of the critical role our aged-care workforce plays in caring for our elderly Those opposite, despite their newfound concern for the state of the aged-care sector, are so concerned that they looked inside and discovered it within themselves on or around 22 May, by my observation. But they do not think that workers deserve a pay rise. They do not want workers to earn more. Mathias Cormann belled the cat on that years ago, and the shadow Treasurer was good enough to reconfirm this recently when he said the quiet part out loud. Those opposite, when they were in government, refused to make a submission to the Fair Work Commission to support a pay rise for aged-care workers and they rushed through changes that scrapped the aged-care workforce compact that would have seen a pay rise for aged-care workers. It was one of the very first things that they did. They suspended standing orders, such was their giddy rush to cut pay rises for aged-care workers. It was foolhardy, it was cruel and it was short-sighted. Aged-care workers judged them for their actions then, not what they mumble now. I want to thank those staff, the union members in the sector, who fought against them for this interim pay rise that they so thoroughly deserve. Gas Industry 28 14:40 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How many gigajoules of gas supply will be lost to families and small businesses because the government cut $50 million from gas investment projects? 14:40 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon None. But I welcome a question from the opposition about gas, because these are they guys who promised the gas led recovery, remember that? What they left was a gas led bin fire. On the day that our old friend—the member for Hume—announced a gas led recovery the price of gas was $4.20 a gigajoule. The gas led recovery went so well that by the time of the election the price of gas was $34.75 a gigajoule. Well done, Angus! Workplace Relations 28 14:41 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to get wages moving in feminised workforces like the early childhood education and care sector and why is this needed? 14:41 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I thank the member for Blair for his question and for his continued commitment to see the wages in feminised industries lift. You won't hear anyone on this side of the House say that deliberately keeping wages low is a centrepiece of our economic agenda. This government went to the election with a commitment to lift wages, and, in just five months of being in office, we've already made progress to get wages moving. We've supported the Fair Work Commission to lift the minimum wage, including the Children's Services Award, by 4.8 per cent. We've committed to decreasing the gender pay gap across a number of industries, including early childhood education and care, where over 90 per cent of workers in that sector are women. We're strengthening the ability of the Fair Work Commission to order pay increases for low-paid, female dominated industries. We're establishing two expert panels: a pay equity panel and a care and community sector panel. We're expanding access to multi-employer bargaining. All of these will help to lift the wages of early childhood education and care workers. But I'm asked why is this needed? For one thing, we know that for too long in this country those industries which are female dominated have been undervalued and overworked. I commend the Minister for Aged Care and the work that she has done on increasing the wages for aged-care workers. It is a demonstration of this government's commitment to pay equity for the feminised sectors like early childhood education and care. Again, why is this needed? I would like to take a moment to give the example of why multi-employer bargaining works and why it's necessary— Opposition members interjecting— Dr ALY 13050 I hear them over there all groaning and moaning, but you might want to listen to this example about why it works for early childhood educators and workers in your electorate. In Melbourne we have the example of a group of 70 not-for-profit early childhood education and care centres who bargained together for a multi-employer agreement covering all of them. Through that process that agreement set a minimum of 16 per cent above the award. They have the best conditions for long day care in Victoria. That's what multi-employer bargaining helped to achieve for these early childhood education and care workers. Under current laws it is too cumbersome. We need to change the laws. Only one government will deliver higher employment and better employment for early childcare workers and that's this side of the House. Energy 29 14:44 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Businesses in my electorate of Lindsay in Western Sydney, like Screaming Beans cafe, are struggling with the pressure of rising inflation and power prices. Given the budget indicates that power prices will increase by 56 per cent, why are businesses like Screaming Beans having to pay for the Prime Minister's broken promise to cut power prices? 14:45 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the honourable member for her question. This government is extremely concerned about power prices for businesses, small, medium and large, and about power prices for industry—and for residences as well. This government has taken the approach of being straight with the Australian people about the pressures on energy prices—the pressures caused by very high coal and gas input costs. That's why we took the approach in the budget, and why the Treasurer took the approach in the budget, of being straight with the Australian people. There was an alternative approach: the alternative approach is not to be straight with the Australian people. We took option A, to be straightforward with the Australian people. The previous government took option B, of hiding those price rises. They are in every sense the B team—option B was the one embraced by the member for Hume— The SPEAKER 53517 The minister will resume his seat. I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Fletcher L6B Mr Speaker, it's on relevance. Previously, on 1 August, you directed a minister to be relevant to the question where the minister had strayed and began talking about the record of the former government. They can't help themselves; he's done it again and he should be directed back to the question. T 53517 Yes. The minister has set some context, one minute in. I'm going to ask him to return to the specific broken promises alleged in the question and also to the rising power prices, which were also in the question which he is referring to. Mr B DZS In relation to rising power prices: that's the option they took. And there has been a bit of a development in recent days on this important topic which will be of interest to the House, because, previously, the member for Hume denied hiding the power price rises. He said it didn't happen. Then he said he didn't know about the power price rises when he changed the law. And then last week at the National Press Club, he said, 'I was acting on departmental advice.' How pathetic, to blame your public servants for your decision. That's how pathetic these guys are! Blaming the department! That's what they've lowered to. On this side of the House we take the alternative approach. That's why the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the industry ministry, the resources minister and myself have made it very clear: we will not be standing by and watching the prices of coal and gas just flow through to Australian industries and households. That's what you did, and you didn't have the guts to tell the Australian people that you couldn't help them with power prices. You hid it from the Australian people. That's how pathetic you got and that's how pathetic you still are! The SPEAKER 53517 Before I call the next member, I just remind all ministers to direct their comments through the chair. Budget 30 14:47 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke My question is to the Treasurer. What is the Albanese Labor government's approach to wages in the budget, and why is it so important to get wages moving? 14:47 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thank you to the member for Hawke for his question and for all the work that he does on behalf of his community here in this place. Getting wages growing again is a deliberate design feature of our economic policy. That's why we do need to fix what is a broken bargaining system, which is only delivering stagnant wages—particularly for the low-paid and for industries dominated by women. It's why the budget is all about investing in skills so that we can train people for higher wage opportunities. It's about early childhood education—making it cheaper so that more parents can work more and earn more if they want to. It's about investing in the industries where we'll get the secure well-paid jobs, whether those are in areas of traditional strength or in new industries as well. It's why we have started to make provision for the important interim wage outcome that has been announced by the Fair Work Commission for aged-care workers. And it's why one of the first decisions, if not the very first decision, of the cabinet of this new government was to support a decent minimum wage rise. In the budget, the Treasury has now upgraded its forecast for wages growth to be 3.75 per cent this year and next. If that happens, it will be the fastest since 2012—and that would be a good thing. What we do know is that when inflation is high and rising it makes it even harder for Australians to keep up. Part of the reason for that is that for too long in this country wages have been too stagnant, and that has made it harder for people to keep up and harder for people to get ahead. Under the life of the previous government, wages growth was just 2.1 per cent on average, compared with 3.6 per cent under the Labor government that preceded it. So, you can see that for the best part of a decade we've had wage stagnation. Nothing would make those opposite happier than another decade of wage stagnation and wage suppression. That's what they're here for. We know this because the shadow Treasurer was asked on TV why he opposed our industrial relations changes, and he said, 'Because it will push wages up'—which is kind of the point. It says it all, about the differences between the side of the House and that side of the House. We have policies and plans to get wages moving again. We want Australian workers to get a bigger slice of the action when the economy is growing. They failed on wages, and ordinary people copped it in the neck as a consequence. So, there's a very important reason the minister for skills has been investing in skills and the ministers for education and early childhood education have been investing in cheaper child care. It's why the minister for industry has been investing in our supply chains and the industries that will secure, well-paid work. It's why the minister for aged care, working with the minister for health, has been so supportive of a decent pay rise for our aged-care workers. It's why the Prime Minister, during the campaign, and the industrial relations minister afterwards—all the cabinet—have been so supportive of a decent minimum wage rise. It's because we want to see wages growing again. You would happily see another decade of wage stagnation. (Time expired) Budget 30 14:51 Ms LE 295676 Fowler My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer tell the House how the government can offer additional childcare relief for those earning up to $530,000 while removing the low and middle income tax offset for individuals and families earning less than $130,000, who need tax relief the most during a cost-of-living crisis? How will the government provide immediate relief for struggling families like those in Fowler? 14:51 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Once again, I appreciate the question from the member for Fowler and thank her for the conversations we've had about cost of living in the past. We do recognise and we do understand that when inflation is high and rising for longer than we would like then Australian families and Australians more broadly are under more pressure than we would like. When it comes to the low and middle income tax offset, it was a decision taken by our predecessors to end the LMITO, and that has ended. That's a decision that my predecessor, former Treasurer Frydenberg, made very clear. What we have tried to do in the budget and what we have done in the budget is to provide cost-of-living relief to your constituents and to all our constituents in a way that doesn't add to inflation in our economy. We recognise that the reason real wages are going backwards is that inflation has been too high for too long. We recognise that interest rates are going up because inflation is higher than we want it to be, and that is largely a consequence of pressures coming from around the world, but it's felt around the kitchen tables of our communities. So, the cost-of-living relief that we are providing in the budget—whether it be cheaper early childhood education, whether it be the expansion of paid parental leave, whether it be the housing accord to get more, cheaper rental properties into the market, whether it be cheaper medicines or whether it be our policies to get wages moving again—are all about providing the cost-of-living relief that people need and deserve in a way that isn't counterproductive by making the inflation problem even worse. That's the government's strategy here. The alternative would be to risk making the inflation problem worse. But there is something like $7½ billion of cost-of-living relief flowing in the budget. As we go through these challenging times, if there's more that we can responsibly do then obviously we will consider it, and we'll always try to do the right thing by the member's constituents and by all the people we represent in this place. Workplace Relations 31 14:53 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore My question is to Minister for Workplace Relations. How will the Albanese Labor government's secure jobs, better pay bill help close the gender pay gap? And how has this policy been received? 14:53 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I thank the member for Gilmore and also acknowledge and thank her for her commitment in taking action to close the gender pay gap. The gender pay gap in Australia sits at an unacceptable 4.1 per cent. It won't fix itself. We need to take action in legislation and action in the parliament to be able to close the gender pay gap, and you will find throughout the secure jobs, better pay bill specific measures designed to close the gender pay gap—every one of which those opposite are opposing. The first thing we're doing is inserting gender equity as an objective of the act so that it's there in the consideration of every decision of the commission. We are then also fully implementing recommendation 28 of the Respect@Work report, something which was put to the parliament in the previous term and which those opposite voted against implementing. This will allow disputes over sexual harassment to be dealt with at the Fair Work Commission, a cheaper jurisdiction, a more practical jurisdiction. And often where you have workplace disputes they involve a number of issues—sexual harassment is one of them—and we've had a situation where people have had to deal with different aspects of the same problem in different jurisdictions. You will now be able to have that simplicity because of the measures within the bill. Importantly, as well, a prohibition on pay secrecy clauses—how many times has it been the case that these clauses have been used, quite deliberately, so at the same workplace women are paid less than men but no-one can find out? People have a right. If they have a clause where they want to keep their pay secret, they have a right. They don't have an obligation to disclose their own pay, but an employer should never say to a worker, 'You have no right to tell someone how much you're paid.' It's been part of the elaborate story of making sure, at various workplaces—particularly, I have to say, in the finance industry—where women have been paid less than men. Also, to get wages moving, we need to increase access to bargaining. You look at the moment—we're down to 14 per cent of the workforce that are on agreements that are in date, agreements that get you above the award. The majority of those agreements are in occupations that are viewed as traditionally male dominated. A minority are in jobs that are traditionally female dominated. The current bargaining system won't deliver pay equity, and the rules there need to be changed. In terms of complexity, we are using three streams which already exist for multi-employer bargaining but getting rid of the complexity so that they can be available and we can move to close the gender pay gap. National Anti-Corruption Commission 31 14:56 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister please explain why NDIS workers and soldiers will be subject to the National Anti-Corruption Commission but union officials exercising a power under the law of the Commonwealth will have a specific exclusion? Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order! Members on my left will cease interjecting. The member for O'Connor was heard in silence. 14:57 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for his question. He seems unaware that, of course, people in the industrial relations system are covered by the Fair Work Ombudsman as well as the Fair Work Commission, and they're subject to that. One of the things that we've done with the National Anti-Corruption Commission in part—he might want to talk to the Leader of the Opposition about this, because he's made it very clear that what we shouldn't do with the National Anti-Corruption Commission is duplicate systems that are in place already. For example, parliamentarians with IPEA are excluded from the NACC provisions. They've done that as a result of the clear indication from those opposite, that I agree with as well, that what you need to do with the National Anti-Corruption Commission is fill the gaps which are there. You don't need to duplicate laws and provisions which are available already. Housing 32 14:58 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur My question is to the Minister for Housing and Homelessness. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to address housing affordability? How does the budget help Australians manage cost-of-living pressures? 14:59 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I want to thank the member for Macarthur because I know that he, like many on this side of the House and I'm sure those on the other side, is concerned about the cost of living and particularly about housing affordability, which is why, of course, in our budget we are focused on cost-of-living measures that will not put pressure on inflation—such as cheaper child care, cheaper medicines, getting wages moving, expanding paid parental leave and more affordable housing. Indeed, one of the central parts of the budget was the new national housing accord. Importantly, it's been agreed by each tier of government, by investors and by industry. It is a commitment to work together to address the systemic problems that we have in the housing market. And it will be guided—as will, of course, our overall architecture in terms of housing—by a national supply and affordability council. It will be providing advice to governments to make sure that we are dealing with supply to get more affordable homes on the ground more quickly. Indeed, we want to remove the barriers to get more affordable homes on the ground more quickly, and we are delivering right across the housing spectrum with the budget, the Housing Australia Future Fund, 30,000 social and affordable homes across the country, our help-to-buy scheme and, importantly, our Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee, which was due to start on 1 January next year and which we brought forward to 1 October. I'm pleased to tell the House that, since 1 October, 574 people have actually taken up the scheme in regional Australia to get into their first home. That is good news for those first-home buyers in regional Australia. That is just since 1 October. Indeed, we have said through the Jobs and Skills Summit that we would work quickly to get money on the ground in terms of widening the remit of the National Housing Infrastructure Facility. I'm pleased to advise the House that this week we have indeed set out to amend the National Housing Infrastructure Facility with up to $575 million to deliver more social and affordable homes, with the money available before Christmas. In just a few weeks time, that money will be available to get more social and affordable homes on the ground. Indeed, it is part of our overall architecture and our election commitments, but the accord is also part of the budget and, long-term, the National Housing and Homelessness Plan. As the CEO of HESTA Super Fund said: There is no single solution to this housing crisis, but all levels of Government have a role to play. That's why it's fantastic to see this framework for all stakeholders to come together to overcome challenges because now is the time to get the policy settings right. Our investments are right for the times, they're right for the future and they'll deliver more social and affordable homes for Australians to get more Australians into a home. Energy 32 15:02 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne My question is for the Prime Minister. Greedy energy corporations are driving up electricity bills by 56 per cent while making massive record profits. Prime Minister, will you back to the Greens' costed plan to freeze electricity bills at precrisis levels, funded by a windfall tax on coal and gas corporations, to deliver people immediate cost-of-living relief? 15:02 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Melbourne for his question and I thank him for the constructive engagement as well. I understand that we have different solutions that we will present in dealing with the challenge of climate change, but I don't doubt his sincerity in wanting to deal with it, and the starting point is acknowledging the science which is there. But we went to the election with a very clear plan—our Powering Australia plan—that acknowledges the changes that are required in our economy to provide for an 82 per cent share of our energy mix being renewables by 2030. We understand that that is the cheapest and cleanest form of new energy. I know that, on a number of areas—housing, energy and these areas—we have had propositions stating we could just take the action of freezing payments, as is put forward by the member for Melbourne, but it's completely unclear to me, upon any legal advice, how you would do that in terms of intervening in the way in which the member for Melbourne has suggested. What the government has to do is come up with practical plans that make a practical difference. We did that in June by making sure that the lights stayed on. We did that in the negotiations that took place with gas suppliers to make sure that we secured the greater-than-56 petajoules that was anticipated would be the shortfall by the ACCC. And we'll do that, as we're working through the current solutions—working through with industry, working through with our department, working through with manufacturers. That's because we understand that the increase in global energy prices that is occurring as a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which is feeding into global inflation as well, is a challenge for the economy. We will deal with it with real solutions rather than slogans. That's the Labor way, and that's the responsibility that we have as a government. Child Care 33 15:05 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell My question is to the Minister for Education. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering responsible cost-of-living relief that is good for families and good for the economy? 15:05 Mr C HWL Blaxland LARE (—) (): I thank my friend the member for Calwell for her question. The first five years of a child's life are everything. What they see, what they hear, what they eat, every smile, every laugh, every friend, every book, every lesson, shapes the people that we become. Mr Joyce e5d I feel like lighting a fire and reading a book. Mr CLARE HWL That's why early childhood education is so important. I would hope that the member for New England in particular might know that. He might also know—as I do, as a father of young children—that early childhood education is expensive, and that the cost has gone up by 41 per cent in the last the eight years. That's why the legislation that we have introduced into the parliament is so important: it will cut the cost of child care for more than a million Australian families. That is, on average, 6,000 families in each and every electorate represented in this parliament. For a family on a combined income of about $120,000, it means they will save about $1,700 a year. Mr CLARE HWL It's good for children, as the member for new England knows. The SPEAKER 53517 The Leader of the Nationals will cease interjecting. Mr CLARE HWL It's good for mums and dads, as the member for New England knows. It's good for our economy as well, because, in a skill starved economy, this will help a lot of skilled workers to get back into the workforce: according to Treasury, the equivalent of up to 37,000 extra full-time workers. Its why our cheaper childcare legislation has won such widespread support. Goodstart called it groundbreaking. Georgie Dent from The ParentHood said it would help improve financial independence and security for Australian women. The BCA said affordable child care is fundamental to increasing the workforce participation of Australian women. I also want to thank members of the crossbench. The member for Warringah described it as 'an investment in our future as a nation'. The member for Mackellar said, 'Not only is it sensible economic policy; it will provide our children with the best possible start in life.' The SPEAKE 53517 The Leader of the Nationals! Mr CLARE HWL The member for Wentworth said, 'No other bill gives me greater joy to see in front of the parliament today.' The only people who have criticised it are from the Liberal Party and the National Party. They've opposed it relentlessly for two years. Not one person from the Liberal Party or the National Party has said anything in the debate in support of it. They didn't say one positive thing, except for the member for New England, who we can always rely on for support when it comes to early childhood education and care. The SPEAKER 53517 The Manager of Opposition Business? Mr Fletcher L6B Thank you, Mr Speaker. My point of order is again on relevance. The question had nothing to do with the record of this side of the House. He's strayed again into the former government's record. I suggest he should be directed back to the question. The SPEAKER 53517 I call the minister to remain relevant for the last 18 seconds of his answer. Mr CLARE HWL You might ask: why are those opposite voting for it? Maybe it's because only 30 per cent of Australian women voted for them, and they are afraid that if they vote against this the same thing will happen to them again. National Anti-Corruption Commission 34 15:09 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning My question is to the Minister for Defence. The Prime Minister said he doesn't want duplication in the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Why is the ADF included in the National Anti-Corruption Commission, but senior union leaders are not? Aren't the ADF Military Code of Conduct and Inspector-General good enough? Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order, members on my left! The member for Canning was heard in silence, and I'd ask that the same respect be shown to the Minister for Defence. 15:09 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I thank the member for his question. The military tribunals have their important role to play. The government has committed to producing an anticorruption commission which is going to be robust, in accordance with the commitments that we took to the last election. Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program 34 15:10 Ms ROBERTS 157125 Pearce My question is to the Attorney-General. What were the findings of the Gaetjens report into the Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program, and why did it take so long for the report to be released? The SPEAKER 53517 I will listen to the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Fletcher L6B Again, it goes to questions being asked about actions of the previous government, which is not an appropriate subject of a question to a current minister. The SPEAKER 53517 I will hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke DYW In terms of relevance, consideration can only go to the words of the question itself. The question refers to a report which has now been released, today. That's happened in the life of this government, and therefore it is completely relevant and within the standing orders to ask the relevant minister. The SPEAKER 53517 On the point of order, page 553 of Practice does say that the relevant minister may answer questions they are responsible for concerning 'public affairs, administration, and proceedings pending in the House'. In light of the information that a report was released today which the Attorney-General has responsibility for, the question is in order. 15:12 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I thank the member for Pearce for her question. It reflects her longstanding interest in integrity matters. You've got to say that, at the last election, it was very clear that the Australian people voted for integrity, voted for transparency and voted for the return of good government. The Australian people roundly rejected the former government's record of rorts and cover-ups, and one of the most egregious examples of those rorts and cover-ups was the so-called sports rorts scandal, the report on which, by the former secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, has just been released. What we've now learned is that this sports rorts scandal involved the former government ignoring recommendations from the relevant department and using colour coded spreadsheets which carved up funds by electorate for party advantage rather than on any kind of merits assessment. It was shameful. That's what we've learned. We found out yesterday, after years of cover-up, that even the member for Cook's most senior public servant thought that it was wrong. He found that there were significant shortcomings in the scheme and that there was an actual conflict of interest. Of course, sports rorts weren't the only example of behaviour like this under the former government. We also had the car park rorts, we had the Leppington Triangle and we had the member for Hume's grassgate scandal. The Australian people said, 'Enough.' They elected a government that is dedicated to integrity and transparency, and we've wasted no time honouring our commitment to the Australian people. We've already introduced legislation for a national anticorruption commission with teeth, which is currently before a joint select committee. I'm looking forward to the report of the committee, which is being provided to this parliament this week—on Thursday. We hope to pass the bill by the end of this year and have the commission up and running by mid-2023. There could not be a starker contrast to the former government, who promised in December 2018 that they were going to establish a national anticorruption commission, and they never even introduced a bill. Unlike them, we promised a national anticorruption commission and we will deliver. Mr Albanese R36 I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENTS 35 STATEMENTS Personal Explanation 35 15:14 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 53517 Do you claim to have been misrepresented? Mr DUTTON 00AKI Yes, I do. The SPEAKER 53517 You may proceed. Mr DUTTON 00AKI During question time today the Attorney-General attributed quotes to me that are not accurate and the aspersions within them are not accurate. The suggestion that I have somehow denigrated the people within the AAT is not accurate, and the Attorney-General should know better. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 35 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Workplace Relations 35 15:15 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Mr Speaker, I would just add to an answer I gave earlier. Katherine Murphy picked up that when I was referring to the gender pay gap in my answer I used a lower number. I had the right number in front of me. Of course the correct number of 14.1 per cent only makes the argument stronger that we need to act. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 53517 Order. The House will come to order. DOCUMENTS 35 DOCUMENTS Presentation 35 15:15 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. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 35 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Carnegie Mellon University 35 15:15 The SPEAKER 53517 Before we move to the matter of public importance, I would like to acknowledge that in the gallery we have Carnegie Mellon international university students visiting parliament today. They are from the USA, China, Argentina, Pakistan, India, the Philippines and Taiwan. A very warm welcome. Honourable mem bers: Hear, hear. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 35 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Energy 35 15:15 The SPEAKER 53517 I've received a letter from the honourable member for Fairfax proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The lack of a government plan to manage sky rocketing energy prices in Australia. 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 h aving risen in their places— 15:16 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax Context counts, and at the moment, throughout Australia, we are hearing three key concerns about the government's energy plan. No. 1 is prices. We know that households as well as businesses and industries as a whole are struggling due to skyrocketing prices. No. 2 is reliability in the grid, both in the short term due to the lack of gas and in the medium to long term because of the premature closure of baseload power stations. And the No. 3 concern is that the Labor government lack a social licence to roll out renewables at the speed and scale they plan to. Their plan includes 28,000 kilometres of new transmission lines; 22,000 solar panels every single day up to 2030; and 40 new wind turbines a month also through to 2030. The social licence is not there. But as much as context counts, so too does history. History says that this story at the moment is a story between a decade of delivery and six months of motherhood statements. In that decade of delivery, if you look at the last term of government alone under the coalition, we saw prices come down by eight per cent for Australian households. We saw prices come down for businesses by 10 per cent, and for industry by 12 per cent. Yet, since Labor has come to office, we all know what has happened to power prices. They have only increased. This is despite every single member opposite on the government benches telling the Australian people—promising them—that they would deliver a reduction in power prices to households. Mr Wallace 265967 By how much? Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 By $275—a dollar figure that the government now refuse to come to the dispatch box and even talk about, because they know the truth: since coming to office not only have they failed to make any march towards that promise, but their budget revealed the fact that prices will continue to go up—over 50 per cent for electricity, over 40 per cent for gas. You could argue, and I wouldn't blame people if they did argue it, that this is a new government and maybe they're just on their L-plates—L for Labor, L for learner—and they're struggling. However, if you go back further in history and look at the former Labor government it's the exact same story. Under the former Labor government, prices went up by over 100 per cent. Labor is back, and so are the high prices, and it should come as no surprise. So yes, context counts; yes, history counts. But so do today and tomorrow count, and they count the most. And as of today, we know that regardless of what colour political stripe the MPs in this place have, each of us has constituents that right now are in an enormous amount of pain. It doesn't matter if their MP is a Labor MP, a Green, a crossbencher or from the coalition: we have senior citizens who are struggling to pay their bills right now. Today, how many families are opening up that power bill and asking: 'How are we going to handle Christmas coming up? How can we pay for the kids' education next year?' Power bills are going up. We also know that businesses are threatening to close. The Australian Workers Union say that up to 800,000 workers might lose their jobs—800,000. That's the AWU saying that; it's not the coalition saying that. Everybody in this place should be very concerned about where power prices are going. Yet this government has no plan—no plan at all—to address this. Now, they did have a plan, and that plan was called Powering Australia. What's happened to Powering Australia? Why is it that Labor are no longer talking about Powering Australia? I'll tell you why: because Powering Australia was based on economic modelling that has now been disproven. Who has disproven the economic modelling behind Labor's plan? Has it been the coalition? Industry? Has it been right-wing think tanks? No; it was the government's own budget. The government's own budget has proven that their policy is wrong, that the economic modelling is wrong. The economic modelling of those opposite on the government benches said power prices would come down. Their own budget: Treasury says power prices are going up, not down. If that's not enough, how about the responsible department? Two weeks ago, with the budget—just last weekend—the very department responsible for climate change and energy removed the Powering Australia policy document from its website. So, not only is Treasury disassociating itself from this government's modelling and Powering Australia plan but the very department responsible for implementing it is now disassociating itself. It, too, does not believe anything that's come from this Labor government. When you have your own department leaving you, when you have Treasury leaving you, you know you have a problem, and the problem is that you just don't have a plan. If you look at the reason the Prime Minister gave to the Australian Financial Review for not attending COP in Egypt, it was that he wasn't going to attend COP because it was merely about implementation—as if that pesky, annoying thing about having an implementation plan doesn't actually count. This is the Achilles heel of the Labor Party, of this government. They're big on the grant stuff. Give them a vision statement; they love it. Give them a mission statement; they love it. Give them motherhood statements; they love it. But they cannot deliver an implementation plans. And if you lack an implementation plan you have nothing to guide you other than that big visionary statement, and this is the problem. It is only human nature: when you lack a plan, what do you fall back on? Your natural instinct. And we've seen that Labor's natural instinct is to demonise gas. We've seen it from the very beginning, with the now minister using crude expressions like 'BS', calling the coalition's plan to have more gas infrastructure a 'fraud'. This government ripped over $50 million from infrastructure for gas in their budget. At a time when the rest of Australia is saying, 'We need more supply in the market,' this government rips out infrastructure funding to ensure we can have that supply facilitated and transported across the country. This is the same government that went to the Australian people and said that renewables are the enemy of gas. Whenever we talk about gas, what do they talk about? It's renewables. In the game we heard in Senate estimates, the officials of the department talk about the fact that gas is a partner for the intermittency of renewables, yet government will argue that gas is the enemy, which is why they're ripping money out of gas. It's why they are not backing Cooper and they're not backing the Beetaloo basin. It's an absolute disgrace. This is the same government, by the way, which is now saying, 'Well, maybe we do need more supply of gas in the market. 'They took gas out of the capacity mechanism. The minister stood at a press conference and made it very clear that the capacity mechanism, which was basically an insurance plan to ensure we had backup, should not include technologies such as gas. They are doing everything to demonise gas. The Kurri Kurri plant was meant to be gas. This government promised it would be 30 per cent hydrogen by day one. How is that going? Guess how much hydrogen will be there on day one of Kurri Kurri. Zero—not one percentage point. Of course, Paul Broad, who was CEO of Snowy Hydro, told the ministers this. He lost his job because he was straight with his advice. The budget vindicated this, because the government had no money to transfer it to hydrogen. Again, it is flawed, they have no plan and each and every member of the government is culpable in this distruth. Government members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Time has expired. Member for Macnamara and Member for Hawke, I remind you you are not in your seats. 15:27 Mr BURNS 278522 Macnamara We can all take a deep breath after Radioactive Man turned it right up, didn't he? He turned the reactor right up! I do admire those opposite because they're not burdened by self-doubt! They are not burdened by self-doubt—or history or a sense of policy or governance. None of those details bother them, and I think that must bring some sort of freedom when you come into this place and don't really have a sense of history; you're willing to say whatever you want. So why don't we go down a trip down memory lane? Why don't we go for a journey? It's a beautiful day outside. I'm sure there are many Australians enjoying this MPI on their screens. I'm sure they are all thinking, 'Goodness, thank God that last speaker's over.' But why don't we go down energy lane? The previous government had a number of different energy policies. The first one was the NEG. We remember the NEG, the National Energy Guarantee. It was not the worst idea from those opposite; in fact, the former minister for energy, the former member for Kooyong, Josh Frydenberg, brought the National Energy Guarantee to the parliament. He did a few press conferences with the then leader. In fact, the then Labor opposition—proudly now the Labor government—was even willing to negotiate and come to the table, saying: 'You know what? An idea that brings industry together to guarantee supply while also looking at ways in which we can increase renewable energy into the national energy grid—you know, for a bunch of people over there that we don't usually expect good ideas from, that wasn't a bad one.' There was one problem with the National Energy Guarantee. It wasn't the Labor Party; it was the Liberal Party's own party room that killed the National Energy Guarantee. In fact, the only thing the National Energy Guarantee guaranteed—it didn't guarantee any energy—was that Malcolm Turnbull was no longer was the Prime Minister. It took the National Energy Guarantee to topple a Liberal Prime Minister. There were a few other brilliant ideas that came out of it. Of course there was our friend, the member for Hume, who was busy last term as the minister for energy. He was not much on energy policy, to be frank. That wasn't his focus. To be fair, he was pretty busy downloading documents from the City of Sydney website. He was very busy with his $14 million worth of travel that, apparently Clover Moore—remember that? I think he did a press conference as well, saying that they used $14 million. Where did they go—to the moon? Where do you think they went? Honourable members interjecting— Mr BURNS 278522 That must have been it. That's a lot of trips to Canberra from Sydney, isn't it—$14 million! But that didn't trouble him. He was determined to put up that story. Then there were his efforts in the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. The hint with the Clean Energy Finance Corporation is in its name—it's about clean energy. Honourable members interjecting— Mr BURNS 278522 I know, it's shocking! Who would have thunk it? That was something that the member for Hume wanted to take out. He wanted the Clean Energy Finance Corporation not to invest in clean energy. The other thing I thought was amazing about the failed attempts of the member for Hume regarding the Clean Energy Finance Corporation was that the return on investment required for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation was all about good investments. It's one of the most successful government agencies to invest in programs to get a good return on investment. Except what the member for Hume wanted to do was take out the financially responsible aspects of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. He wanted to turn the Clean Energy Finance Corporation into a government agency that didn't invest in clean energy and didn't have any financial responsibility. It was just going to be 'the agency', because it had no other link. An honourable member: I feel a colour-coded spreadsheet coming on! Mr BURNS 278522 A colour-coded spreadsheet, yes! There were a few seats over that they should have done more colour-coded spreadsheets for. Then there was the Collinsville coal-fired power station. The former member for Dawson was pretty keen on that, but— Honourable members interjecting— Mr BURNS 278522 Yes, with Senator Canavan and a few others from his band of merry men. Canavan was getting some chalk and updating his Twitter bio—that's what Senator Canavan was up to! Anyway, it brings me to the member for Fairfax, who is our new friend leading those opposite and who led the MPI. I have a soft spot for the member for Fairfax—he's a good-natured character. We on this side of the House recognise the fact that there are energy price struggles that Australian people are facing. We absolutely recognise that. We recognise the fact that for too long this country has been crippled by having no energy policy. We need to get energy prices down and we need to ensure that gas prices are as low as possible. The work going on behind the scenes by the ministers and the Prime Minister is extremely important. But you would think that, while energy prices are so high, you wouldn't go for the highest and most expensive form of energy as the main policy to rectify those high-energy prices. Surely! I know that they aren't burdened by logic and they're not burdened by sense, but surely that makes no sense. The member for Fairfax has in his electorate the Coolum Beach Surf Club—unfortunately, today we're going to have to announce that if the member for Fairfax has his way the Coolum Beach Surf Club is going to be transformed into the 'Coolum Beach Nuclear Reactor'. That's what it's going to be. They won't be doing the surf club in Coolum; they're just going to be 'Coolum down' the nuclear reactor! That's all they're going to be able to do in Coolum. The member for Maranoa is the leader of this new push for nuclear energy. One of the great things in the member for Maranoa's electorate is the Stockmans Hall of Fame—it's a great part of regional Australia. But it's going to have to be shut down, unfortunately for the member for Maranoa because you're going to have the 'Stockmans Nuclear Power Plant' instead. It's not going to be the hall of fame; it's going to be the 'hall of uranium' in the in the member or Maranoa's electorate! There are so many others who are going to have to build nuclear reactors in their electorates— Mr Rae 300122 Another colour-coded spreadsheet! Mr BURNS 278522 Another colour-coded spreadsheet—you all get a nuclear reactor! In all seriousness, nuclear energy is too expensive. We've had a lot of looks at it. In fact, I was on the committee with the member for Fairfax when we had a good look at this. Along with the member for Fremantle we had a good look at what nuclear reactors would mean for Australia— An honourable member: For the 17th time. Mr BURNS 278522 For the 17th time! It was a clear example that the economics don't stack up. Of course, we have a nuclear reactor in Lucas Heights, which does incredible work creating medicines. We have nothing against the technology, but the economics of this simply doesn't make sense. We're not going to be lectured by those people who want to make energy prices go even higher. We on this side of the House are going to work on a simple energy price policy: 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030. It's going to be the most important thing so that we can bring down long-term power prices. It's going to be the most important thing so that we can have sovereignty in Australia on our electricity grid. We're not going to have an electricity grid that's so responsive to international pressures. We'll have an electricity grid where we won't have people like the member for Hume coming into this place and destroying the energy grid. The member for Hume and the member for Fairfax like to come into this place and talk about energy prices. Just before question time today Mr Luke Yeaman, deputy secretary, in estimates gave an alarming piece of evidence when he said that the current increase in energy prices this financial year reflects increases in the default market offers published in May by the Australian Energy Regulator and associated market dynamics. In other words, electricity prices are so high because of the things that happened under their watch. Instead of Angus Taylor, the member for Hume, being free and open and honest with the Australian people, he tried to hide the regulations that keep the default market offer from the Australian people. We are not going to be lectured by the characters who tried to destroy the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, who brought in the NEG and who ended up destroying the Malcolm Turnbull prime ministership. We're not going to be lectured by the people who, with high energy prices, want to bring in nuclear reactors, the most expensive and slowest form of energy. What we on this side of the House are going to invest in is renewable energy because it is going to be the thing that brings down power prices, the thing that powers Australian homes and the thing that creates thousands of jobs, creates five out of six jobs in Australian regions. That is exactly what we are going to do. 15:37 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler The member for Macnamara has spent 10 minutes mocking those Australians who are struggling to pay their bills. They are literally losing their homes, going to live in their cars and losing their jobs. I had a local businessman in the week just past—and I won't name his business because I don't know if he's informed his employees; he had a satellite business in Hervey Bay, that's what he does—who has an estimate that his power bill will go up by $40,000. As a result he will be closing that facility in Hervey Bay and those jobs will be lost. For those interjecting, I inform them that in Queensland that price is set by the Queensland Labor government. You should inform yourself: it is set by the Queensland Labor government because they own the retailer. They own all of the transmission, they own 70 per cent of the generators, so for those opposite injecting, you might want to ring your Labor mates in Queensland and ask them to fix it. We heard from the member for Macnamara. I was hopeful, with two minutes to go, that they'd move to Labor policy, but it lasted about 20 seconds. We had multiple mentions of the member for Hume, the former member for Kooyong, the former member for Dawson, Senator Canavan, the member for Fairfax, the member for Maranoa. This is an opportunity to put your policy forward, and I'd say to those other speakers: you should come to it immediately in the five minutes that you have. There is a plan from those opposite—it was demonstrated in the budget—and that is an increase in electricity costs of up to 56 per cent. The people that I represent have a per capita income of less than $34,000 a year. They just can't pay—they cannot pay. And what have we seen from those opposite? This is the plan—they do have a plan—and the plan is to cut funding to support getting gas into the market, particularly the domestic market, as quickly as possible. They have cut $23 million from the plan for the Beetaloo. The Beetaloo would have delivered some 6,000 jobs into the Northern Territory, many of those in Aboriginal communities. It would have given them export opportunities and the potential to link into the rest of the network once it was upgraded. We have seen those opposite take away the things that would have helped to drive down prices for domestic gas, in particular. They've cut $31 million from the Cooper Adavale strategic basin plan. The reason the strategic basin plans were put in place was to ensure we could get more gas online, particularly for domestic supply. If you want to know what's happening in Victoria, it's pretty straightforward. There has been a moratorium on exploration for gas for a decade. So, if you have depletion in your reserves—and that is what's happening in the Bass Strait—then you run out of gas. It is really straightforward. Yet those opposite want to blame Ukraine. They want to blame coal prices. Well, most coal-fired power stations have long-term contracts. They have fixed contracts for delivery, and in Queensland the generator and the mine are generally owned by the Queensland Labor government, who are hooking more than a billion dollars in profits out of those GOCs—a billion dollars. So it's pretty straightforward. Just to put the cherry on top, what else did they do? They provided $2.6 million a year ongoing to the Environmental Defenders Office. Now, what are they famous for? They are famous for stopping resource projects. In fact, they've just stopped one. Guess what? The Barossa project off the Northern Territory, a $5 billion investment by Santos, is currently suspended. They have already expended more than $2 billion on this project. They are now parked up, stacked up and stood down. Do you want to know why? It is because the Labor Party have now provided more money for environmental activists to take on more lawfare to shut more projects for gas. It's easy for the member for Macnamara to wax lyrical about everybody else, but we didn't hear anything about Labor's policies. We didn't hear anything about how they were going to drive down prices, because their own budget said prices were increasing by up to 56 per cent. Now, what else does the Environmental Defenders Office want to do? They want to take on the Scarborough project, one of the biggest offshore projects in WA in many, many years. If I recall the numbers correctly, I think it was around US$14 billion. It gives an extension on the Pluto LNG plant at Karratha. That brings more jobs into Western Australia, particularly up in the north, and it also provides more opportunities. But I come back to what I said earlier. I have a local business owner who I just happened to run into who is being told that the cost for electricity alone for their business in Hervey Bay will go up by $40,000, and they will close. What does that mean? They're going to try to cover those customers by truck with delivery from Bundaberg. That will mean more trucks on the road, more cost to consumers and more cost across the road. The Labor Party should be ashamed of themselves. 15:42 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo I have a little bit of a 101 lesson for those opposite: energy prices going up has not happened just since the federal election. The role that federal government plays in setting leadership is a core responsibility of the federal government. Making sure that you've got the policy settings right, making sure that you're working with state governments and that you have a plan for how you're going to secure Australia's energy future long term are core roles of business. Yet what we saw from the previous government was utter chaos. There was almost a decade of utter chaos that created the situation that we're in today. We inherited the absolute mess that the Australian energy market and the Australian energy industry are in. Not only did they not deliver one kilowatt of the one billion kilowatts of new generation that they said they would implement over the period—not only did we not see one new kilowatt—we also saw delays on a lot of projects. How proud the former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was to say that he would build his signature policy, Snowy Hydro 2.0! It is running 18 months late. Still it is failing to deliver. The previous government also, right before the election, went to the extent of hiding from the Australian people, particularly in the states of New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia. They delayed the release date of the increase to the default market. How more dishonest can you get than that? A decade ago they were ranting about energy prices. They got elected to government and then destroyed confidence. They destroyed confidence to invest in the transition that was required. The rest of the world is decarbonising. The rest of the world is transitioning. But what the previous government did was destroy the infrastructure that the former Labor government had put in place, and that is what has caused people to lose their jobs. That is what has put a shake in the confidence of people investing in the energy industry. That is what has caused the chaos and the high prices that we have seen. So what has our government been doing since it was elected? We have started to clean up the mess of those opposite. We know, like the rest of the world knows, that renewable energy is the cleanest, cheapest energy that we have going. That is why we are re-engineering. We are powering Australia through our plan to make sure that we have a grid that is modern and works. We will help get the renewable energy that is generated around Australia into our cities. My electorate will benefit. Just north of me we have been waiting for the KerangLink to be built. It is north of us, around Central and Northern Victoria. It is a great source of possible renewable energy. This link will help power Melbourne. What's happening in Tasmania? The state which has smashed 100 per cent renewable energy will actually help to power the mainland. I'm sure that's something that they are quite proud of. Our government is partnering with the Victorian government and the Tasmanian government to help generate the cleaner, greener renewable energy that will help power our major cities. What we are also doing, at a local level, is helping communities power themselves by investing in community batteries that will allow 400 community-scale batteries for up to a thousand Australian households to share clean energy. It's a smart plan. It complements our plan to rewire, reengineer the grid to get ourselves to be a power sharing grid. It's smart. People in my electorate—in one of my towns, in Maldon—are really looking forward to the opportunity. For those with solar power who have excess they can share it with their neighbours. It's a smart policy. Rewiring the Nation, as I have talked about, will deliver the two major projects of $6 billion in Victoria and Tasmania alone. This is the smart, forward thinking that our government has introduced. It's the partnerships with the states that have been lacking. To make sure we get energy prices down we need a comprehensive strategic plan that has leadership, that's willing to work with states—not fight against them for political reasons—that's hoping to achieve what Australians need. If you want to help businesses and households get their energy bills down we need leadership, not what we have from those opposite, which is more and more rhetoric. 15:47 Mrs McINTOSH 281513 Lindsay I rise to raise the alarm, the alarm that is ringing loud and clear in Western Sydney. My community of Lindsay in Western Sydney is a microcosm of Australia because it has families, young people, retired people, small businesses and it has lots and lots of community spirit. It is for these reasons—and the aspiration that is driving people in my community—that we are at the epicentre of the cost-of-living crisis, driven largely by high energy prices. We should all be worried that if the 'Howard battler' of yesterday becomes the new 'Albanese abandoned' of tomorrow our whole country is in deep trouble. The member for Macnamara talked about a long-term plan, but people in my community right across Western Sydney need a plan right now—not something that the government can cost in the future. Families are already under immense financial strain. The 2021 census revealed that mortgage stress was already impacting nearly 20 per cent of households in Lindsay. Many people were spending more than 30 per cent of their income on their mortgage repayments. With interest rates reaching the seventh rise and it continuing to go up more households are going to be under financial stress. It's from the cumulative impact of each and every cost-of-living pressure—including inflation, interest rates and energy prices—that the pain is felt in Western Sydney, and people can't take much more. A local homeless and housing organisation I spoke to just last week told me that food insecurity is on the rise. The people who are coming to their doors to collect hampers of groceries aren't people that are sleeping rough. They are pensioners, they are retirees and they are families. The decision to pay the rent or the mortgage or use electricity against putting food on the table is very real. Also standing on the edge of the cliff is small businesses. Manufacturers are facing energy price rises of 300 per cent. They told me that they may not last beyond Christmas. Where they used to pay $60,000 on their energy they're paying over $200,000 a month. These are small businesses, small manufacturers who are the backbone of our country, who those opposite are meant to be having a plan for and supporting. These outrageous costs are about to push them beyond the point of no return. They will be no more Australian manufacturing. There will be no more 'Aussie made' because they can't pay their energy bills. In an era when we're fighting for the resurgence of Australian manufacturing, businesses are not only at threat of closing but of going offshore and never coming back to our country, with thousands and thousands of jobs lost. Local cafe owners have been struggling to find new staff. They are now struggling to make ends meet. They tell me they can't absorb the increased costs of electricity on top of supply chain shortages and on top of workforce shortages. They're now left wondering how much people will pay for a coffee when their cafe needs to pass on those costs just to keep their doors open. The $275 cheaper electricity that Labor promised Australians during the election is now not only a broken promise to households and small business owners but just a drop in the ocean when electricity prices are looking at rising by over 50 per cent. The underlying impact of all of these pressures, combined with the pandemic and floods, also means that we are facing a tsunami of mental health issues. As shadow assistant minister for mental health and suicide prevention, I know that mental health organisations are preparing for this. It is now understood that mental health impacts are not fully realised until two to three years after a significant event, and, at the time that Australians need support the most, the Albanese government isn't supporting Australians at all. Western Sydney has raised the alarm; I hardly feel that those opposite are listening at all. 15:51 Dr CHARLTON I8M Parramatta It's true that rising energy prices are affecting families right across Australia, and affecting businesses as well. And Australians know the reasons why energy prices are rising. They know that Russia is the largest energy producer in the world and they know that the Russian invasion of Ukraine has affected energy markets across the globe. They know that OPEC's reluctance to increase oil production has exacerbated this problem. They know that climate change right here in Australia is also affecting domestic electricity supply. Unplanned outages at power stations caused by extreme weather over the last 12 months have meant that less electricity is being produced. And in May 2022, up to 30 per cent of national coal generation capacity was offline at different times. Australians know that these factors are causing a perfect storm in energy markets, leading to higher prices. But the question is: why are Australians so vulnerable to these shocks? What are the factors that have caused these global shocks to have such a terrible impact on Australia's domestic energy market? Why are Australian families and businesses left so exposed? To answer those questions we need to look back at how Australia has approached its energy market over the last decade. How did we manage not to shield ourselves against global energy markets? How did we manage not to prepare? How did we manage not to make our country more resilient to these shocks? And what should we have been doing over the last 10 years? What are the lessons that we can learn from a decade of inaction, a decade of denial and a decade of delay? The first thing we could have done would be to go back and put significant investment into new generation—new generation that increases supply and reduces prices. But we didn't do that. In the last 10 years, four gigawatts of energy generation came off and only one gigawatt of energy generation came on. Australia missed the boat on the opportunity to enhance our energy supply and to put us in a stronger position to face the type of global shock that Australian families are suffering from right now. The second thing we could have done, if we had a time machine and went back in time, would be to lift the share of renewable energy in our energy mix. That would have made Australia more resilient to the current global circumstances. It would have kept prices down, because renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy into the grid. It would have helped make Australia more resilient to global shocks, because renewable energy sources aren't as vulnerable to the vicissitudes of geopolitics. The third thing we could have been doing, if we went back in time, would have been to modernise our grid, creating new transmission pathways so that we could move energy from where it's generated to where it's consumed—actions like building linkages between the enormous potential of Tassie's hydro and the east coast grid. But, again, we didn't do that. The fourth thing we could have been doing over the last decade would have been to prepare for a transition away from fossil fuels. That's because fossil fuels are expensive and it's because fossil fuels are vulnerable to the global shocks that we're experiencing right now. But, again, that didn't happen. Instead the previous government doubled down on fossil fuels in our energy mix. They had the bright idea of a gas-led recovery. Well, aren't we all paying the price for that gas-led recovery right now? That gas-led recovery has become a gas cul-de-sac as the cost has increased from $4 to $34 per gigajoule. This failure to act, this failure to lift supply, this failure to shift the dial towards renewables, this failure to modernise our grid, this failure to move away from fossil fuels—these are the things that have left Australian families vulnerable. These are the things that have put Australia's energy market in this position that is so precarious and so vulnerable to global shocks. When Australian families get their higher energy bills over the next few months, they know exactly who they have to blame for a decade of inaction, a decade of denial, a decade of dithering. By contrast, this government does have a plan: more renewables into the system; building transmission, including 10,000 kilometres of transmission lines so that we can move renewable energy around Australia's grid; and building the storage to support renewable energy's efficacy in the grid. This is the government's plan, and the government is working with a range of stakeholders on this plan. We're working with the states through the National Energy Transformation Partnership. We're working with businesses. Businesses in many cases have stepped into the leadership position created by the vacuum of the previous government, setting up their own pathways towards net zero. More than 30 of the ASX 200 already have a plan to arrive— (Time expired) 15:56 Mr WILLCOX 286535 Dawson The government is taking Australian for fools. Labor is spinning this utopian dream to Aussies about how renewables will solve their energy problems. The government has failed to instil public confidence that it understands the issue or has a plan to address it. The longer they carry on like this, the more this will turn into a crisis. The government must relent on their renewable pipedream before it is too late for Australia and we end up in a situation where only rich people can afford to cook their food, heat their homes, and turn on their air conditioner. The Labor spin doctors will also tell you: 'Get used to it. Get used to the rising cost of living. Energy prices are going up, and it's just what it is.' But this is on the back of those opposite getting elected on a promise to the Australian people of a cut of $275 to their power bills. Now, this wasn't just a slip of the tongue. This was mentioned to the Australian people 97 times, but what's happened? In the last two weeks, they brought down a budget that shows that power prices will increase by 56 per cent. Those are not our words; they are their words in the budget. This prompted a call from one of my constituents, who manages and owns a cool-store facility. His business model is that he picks up fruit and veggies from the farm, takes it to the cool store, cools it down and then distributes it to the shops. His biggest input costs are electricity and fuel. Both of these have skyrocketed under Labor's watch. A 56 per cent increase in electricity will send him to the wall. He said to me: 'Andrew, what can I do? I can't afford it. I can't afford to absorb those costs, and my customers can't afford to pay any more. What do I do?' I said: 'Well, we need a plan. I'm not in government, so all I can do is raise these issues with the current government.' You have to have a plan. Energy options need to be all of that: hydro, wind, solar, coal, gas—and we need to be having the conversation about nuclear. It is way, way too early and too premature to shut down all the coal and gas. We also need some certainty for the coal- and gas-fired power stations so they can keep doing their maintenance. We need power that is reliable and affordable 24/7. I have solar at my house. I've got a 15-kilowatt system. The most puts out is 14 kilowatts, and that's in the middle of the day. But I know what happens at night-time: it produces zero. And, in the middle of the day, when it is producing 14 kilowatts and the cloud comes over or it rains, it produces very little as well. Wind is similar; it's the same model. It is unreliable and intermittent. When the wind doesn't blow, it doesn't generate electricity. This is the model that the Labor Party is pushing. They are doubling down on unreliable and intermittent electricity. That is like me going out for dinner, going to a restaurant and having the worst feed I have had in my life, turning up the next night, taking my missus there as well, ordering twice as much, and expecting a different result. I can't believe it. Talk about doubling down. I listened to a flood victim this morning. She was devastated because she hasn't got electricity and gas delivered to her place. Get ready, Australia, because under these guys' watch that's going to be a daily occurrence. I am genuinely concerned that this government does not have a plan to manage the skyrocketing energy prices. It is a bleak future, and they have no regard for the real impacts on all our lives. We are entering uncharted territory here. It's not fun and games; it's unrealistic and it is plain foolish. If this government doesn't change track soon, we are all going to end up in a very dark place. 16:01 Mr RAE 300122 Hawke I think we can all appreciate the hypocrisy of the Liberals attacking the government on energy prices after the decade in which they did nothing, particularly the member for Fairfax getting all yeasty over there. It's no secret that, when in government, those opposite had no effective plan to deliver cheaper energy to Australian families and businesses. After nine years, several energy ministers, and over 20 different energy policies, the former Liberal government did nothing to secure the long-term affordability and security of our country's energy supply. Instead, they spent years squabbling amongst themselves, neglecting our national energy infrastructure while they were busy arguing about how long they could delay the inevitable transition to more efficient, cheaper and cleaner energy technology. Prime ministers were rolled. Deputy prime ministers were removed and energy ministers changed. While there was plenty of action in the Liberal Party party room, the National Party party room and the coalition joint party room, there was absolutely no action where it mattered. Just before the music stopped and time ran out on the former government, the now shadow Treasurer sought to cover up a decade of inaction. Four days before the election was called, he amended the industry code for electricity retailers to delay the release of a 19.7 per cent increase to the default market offer until after the election—a shameless and desperate attempt to hide his failure to deliver any new energy infrastructure for the Australian people. As the House has heard, after promising a billion dollars for 3,800 megawatts of new generation, the member for Hume was utterly unable to deliver. As we have said time and time again on this side, renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy. In fact, the CSIRO and AEMO have confirmed that wind and solar are by far the cheapest source of electricity generation and storage in Australia.. Delivering more renewables will put downward pressure on energy bills, which is why, under Labor's Powering Australia plan, the share of low-cost renewables in the National Electricity Market will increase to 82 per cent by 2030. We also understand that delivering more renewable energy generation is only part of the solution to provide more short-term relief. The government is delivering significant reform of the Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism, which allows government to ensure that there is a sufficient supply of natural gas to meet the needs of Australian energy users. Most notably, we are moving to quarterly based consideration of the forecast demand to ensure that the mechanism is sufficiently responsive to market changes. The Minister for Resources also announced in September that the Albanese Labor government had signed a new heads of agreement with east coast LNG exporters to shore up our domestic gas supply by delivering an additional 157 petajoules to the east coast market next year. These are practical approaches; they're smart ideas that actually deliver outcomes for Australian households, that drive household energy prices down and that support Australian manufacturing with practical outcomes. As part of last month's budget the Albanese Labor government also asked the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to examine the code of conduct that governs the agreements between gas suppliers and gas customers, to improve price transparency. The national energy network cannot be overhauled overnight. A decade of inaction and a decade of failure by those opposite has left Australian households and businesses in dire circumstances. But this government is getting on with the hard work that's required to address that. We're ensuring that Australians have access to affordable energy in the long term, but that requires regular and ongoing investment—something that only an Albanese Labor government will deliver. The opposition is clearly obsessed with standing in the way of market forces which are driving the transition to renewable energy. Coal-fired power plants are being shut down ahead of schedule, not by the government but by business. 16:06 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne On the energy costs that Australians are facing: whether you're an individual family; a pensioner, like many of the people in my electorate; or a small or very large business—a supermarket, a bakery or a coffee shop—every industry and every job in this country relies on electricity. The reason they're all screaming is because the electricity dilemma is policy driven. The other side is trying to make out that it's just because of Ukraine's war with Russia and the lack of oil and gas as a result of Russia and Nord Stream being taken out. It goes far deeper than that. The reality is that the policies which the other side announced well and truly before this election, and are now starting to execute, will send this country to the wall. We have seen 56 per cent increases in the cost of electricity, sure, but some of my factories and businesses have seen 320 per cent increases put to them recently. Why is the electricity market so expensive? It's because of the national electricity market rules and regulations; all the hidden costs and subsidies; and the regulatory restrictions on trade. These things mean that a lot of the electricity produced isn't paid for because of the kilowatts that are delivered, it's because of all the other restrictions put on the baseload generators. For years, these worked efficiently when they were operating at 100 per cent capacity. But regulations generated by the Renewable Energy Target and the national electricity market rules mean that they've been told to turn off when it happens to be a sunny day or a windy day. These plants aren't designed to do that; to be able to ramp up and to ramp down is only a facility in very modern power plants. The member for Hunter would understand all this: that's why your cheap electricity has gone out. The renewable energy industry has convinced government after government to subsidise it through restrictive regulations and renewable energy certificates. No wonder they want net zero—it means permanent renewable energy certificates. It ends up that consumers pay that price; that doesn't appear in the market. But it means they get a second pay day whenever they manage to generate. They get paid for their kilowatts when it happens to be a nice day—not cloudy, not raining and not like La Nina weather patterns, where it's cloudy, rainy and wet for weeks on end. So no wonder the bankers are falling over themselves. It's a real scam. It's the biggest bloody Ponzi scheme—excuse me, Madam Speaker— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 You don't need to excuse yourself to me. You might want to withdraw it though. Dr GILLESPIE 72184 No, sorry. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Do you wish to withdraw the remark? Dr GILLESPIE 72184 There was a word I used talking about the Ponzi scheme, but it wasn't addressed at you. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Would you assist the House in withdrawing it? Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Yes, sure. I withdraw it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Thank you very much, that's great. Dr GILLESPIE 72184 It is a bit of a Ponzi scheme. We are seeing policies that are going to double down and triple down on these policies that we have resisted. Everyone thinks that the federal energy minister controls everything. He gets to chair the meetings but the state energy ministers also have a say, and they appoint most of the people on AEMO. The concept that your electricity is based on just the generation cost—add a windmill in the middle of a paddock or on a mountain or add a solar panel. Sure, it's cheap. But what you get with variable renewable energy is poor frequency control, low voltage and random availability, and that costs a lot to integrate into the grid. So the grid ancillary services and all the synchronous condensers, all the inverters, all the massive transmission losses because it's low-voltage energy—that's why your energy costs are going up. Rewiring the nation and repowering the nation will triple and quadruple the costs and really send us to the wall. 16:11 Ms BYRNES 299145 Cunningham I welcome the opportunity today to talk about the government's plan when it comes to energy. This Albanese Labor government has done more in 171 days than the previous government did in almost a decade. We are acting to fix the mess left behind by those opposite and deliver overdue policy certainty and invest in the cheapest form of energy: renewables. Unlike those opposite, we are powering towards renewable energy investment and implementation, not running from it. Renewable energy is cheaper energy, and by moving the energy grid to 82 per cent renewables we will be reducing energy prices. While the opposition refuses to accept the science, the experts are clear: renewables are the cheapest form of energy and getting cheaper. CSIRO and AEMO's GenCost 2021-22 report confirm that wind and solar are the cheapest source of electricity generation and storage in Australia. This budget, we announced $224.3 million for community batteries for the household solar grants program—to deploy 400 community-scale batteries for up to 100,000 Australian households, including one in Warrawong, one of the lowest socioeconomic areas in my electorate. These community batteries will ensure that households across all demographics will have equal access to the benefits of renewable energy, no matter what your postcode or socioeconomic status. We have also dedicated a $20 billion fund for Rewiring the Nation, including the Marinus Link, a project that was talked about for more than six years by those opposite. But Minister Bowen and the Albanese Labor government got it over the line in less than six months. This includes $1.9 billion to the Powering the Regions Fund, to make sure traditional and emerging industries in regional Australia, like my electorate, are not left behind, regions like the Illawarra. It is my priority to make sure my community is well equipped to adapt and benefit in the transition to renewables. I am pleased to have secured $10 million for an energy futures skills centre at the University of Wollongong. Opposition members interjecting— Ms BYRNES 299145 Why would you want to deny the workers an education to upgrade their skills? I just don't understand that. And there's $2.5 million for a renewable energy training facility at Wollongong TAFE. Do you know how to spell TAFE? We must invest in our local workers to make sure we have the skills we need, moving forward, and the Albanese Labor government is doing just that. I know it's getting you angry. In addition, the Illawarra has been announced as one of six potential offshore wind energy zones, unlocking the path to cheaper and cleaner energy for hundreds of thousands of local residents. The Illawarra is quickly transforming itself into a renewable energy powerhouse. Companies like Green Gravity, Hysata, EcoJoule, Sicona and OceanX are all recognising our local industry capacity, our talent and our enthusiasm for renewable energy. While those opposite spent nine long years on these government benches wasting time and announcing over 20 different energy policies, we have already gotten to work on our plan to deliver real action in preparing Australia for our clean energy future. Under the previous government, the former energy minister not only knew that electricity prices were skyrocketing; he ordered that the information be hidden from the Australian people before the election. Denial, delay, dishonesty—that's all we got from the previous government when it came to renewables, and now we're stuck cleaning up your mess. But, as the budget showed, energy prices are a very real challenge for our economy, and there's no doubt that Australian households, businesses and industry are grappling with the impact. We are currently dealing with the most significant shock to energy markets in 50 years due to Russia's prolonged attack on Ukraine and an overreliance in Europe on one type of energy—namely, gas from Russia. Energy prices are forecast to stay higher for longer because global energy market disruptions have become more pronounced and are persisting longer than anticipated—and so are our domestic energy market challenges, which have been exacerbated by ageing electricity assets and inadequate policy certainty by those opposite to support— (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I thank members for their contributions. The discussion has now concluded. BILLS 45 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023 45

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023

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

Reference to Federation Chamber 45 16:17 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I declare that the following bills are referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration: Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023. BUSINESS 45 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 45 16:17 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring in relation to proceedings on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022: (1) on Tuesday, 8 November when the bill is called on, the Leader of the Opposition, or a Member representing, speaking for no longer than 30 minutes; (2) the time limit for other Members speaking on the second reading debate being 10 minutes; (3) on Wednesday, 9 November, the second reading debate continuing when the bill is called on; (4) notwithstanding standing order 31, at 8 pm on Wednesday, 9 November, the bill being called on for further consideration; (5) the second reading debate continuing until either: (a) no further Members rise to speak; or (b) a Minister requires that the debate be adjourned at no earlier than 10 pm, at which point, debate being adjourned and the House immediately adjourning until Thursday, 10 November at 9 am; (6) from 9 pm on Wednesday, 9 November, the time limit for Members speaking on the second reading debate being 5 minutes; (7) from 7.30 pm on Wednesday, 9 November until the adjournment of the House: (a) any division called for being deferred until the first opportunity on Thursday, 10 November; and (b) if any Member draws the attention of the Speaker to the state of the House, the Speaker announcing that he will count the House at the first opportunity on Thursday, 10 November, if the Member then so desires; (8) on Thursday, 10 November when the bill is called on, questions being immediately put on any amendments moved to the motion for the second reading and on the second reading of the bill; (9) if required, a consideration in detail stage of the bill, with all government amendments to be moved together, all opposition amendments to be moved together, and any crossbench Members' amendments to be moved as one set per Member, with: (a) one question to be put on all government amendments; (b) one question to be put on all opposition amendments; (c) separate questions to be put on any sets of amendments moved by crossbench Members; and (d) one question to be put that the bill [as amended] be agreed to. (10) should a Minister require, any question provided for under paragraph (9) being put after no less than 10 minutes of debate on each set of amendments; (11) when the bill has been agreed to, the question being put immediately on the third reading of the bill; and (12) any variation to this arrangement being made only on a motion moved by a Minister. I won't use all the time because, obviously, whatever time is not used on this has a chance of being used on the bill itself, although I suspect that, after I finish, some of the time will be used by others which also could have been used to speak on the bill itself. For the information of members, I'll just explain the process that's involved in the motion. I'll say a few things quickly as to why, and then let the House get on with the debate. The motion that is now before the House has the following impacts. First of all, speaking times go immediately from 15 minutes down to 10, with the exception of the first speech given either by the Leader of the Opposition or on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition. That's a half-hour speech. I think it's inappropriate for that to be given anywhere but in the House, and I also think it should always be for the full time, so that's been left as it is. For everyone else, it goes from 15 minutes to 10 minutes. Once the bill is brought on, we'll continue debating it in that way today. Once it's brought on tomorrow, the debating will continue with 10-minute speeches. When we get to 7.30—and we've tried this once, and it seemed to work. When people have prepared speeches for the adjournment, and they're often important—people have diarised them; sometimes people have even brought people down for them—I'm reluctant to stop those speeches from taking place. So what the resolution would do is that between 7.30 and 8 pm we would have the adjournment debate. At the conclusion of having the adjournment debate we would not adjourn and we would go back to debating the bill between 8 pm and 9 pm. That would happen with 10 minute speeches, and from 9 pm through till 10, speaking times would go down to five minutes. So far, each time we've done this we've never actually made it to 10 pm. I've always made sure that, whoever the minister responsible for the legislation is, they end up being the person in the chair. This means that tomorrow night it'll be me. The way the resolution is drafted, there's no automatic adjournment at 10 pm, so, if there are still a few more people speaking, then, subject to making sure that, for the people who work in the building, we don't go for an inordinate amount of time, we'll be sensible, in terms of not using 10 pm as an absolute, hard cut-off time. The intention is to try to make sure that we can get the bill through this week and have as many people as possible able to speak. On Thursday morning, the second reading vote would occur, so that obviously means that tomorrow night, even though we're sitting late, if you're not speaking, from 6.30 on there are no further divisions you'll be required for. So, from 6.30 pm onwards tomorrow, if people are not speaking, they would be able to leave the building safely, subject to the permission of their whip; I'd never recommend against that. Then, on Thursday morning, we'll have the vote on the second reading, followed by an in-detail stage. There is a provision within the resolution that, after the debate has been going for 10 minutes on each amendment, it can be required that the question be put, but, once again, if we have a large number of amendments then we'll have to regulate the time on that. If we don't have a large number of amendments then I expect the discussion on each of them may well go for significantly more time than that. What this means is that, when the Senate returns for the final fortnight, this bill will be one of the many bills from the House of Representatives that await them. Those opposite, particularly those former ministers opposite, know, as do I, that once things get to the Senate we never quite understand what the process is from then on. I can see some people nodding. But I want to make sure that, at the beginning of their final fortnight, they have the opportunity to have this bill in front of them. The priority for this bill and the reason that we want to be able to deal with this quickly have been well ventilated both within the House and within the media. Australians are facing real pressures. Part of that is prices and part of that is wages. This gives us an opportunity to do something about wages, and I'm hoping that the parliament, both this house and the other, are able to act on that as quickly as possible. 16:22 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield As an amendment to the motion moved by the Leader of the House, I move: That all words after paragraph (1) be omitted and the following be inserted: (2) the question on the second reading of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 not be put until such time as every other Member willing to speak on the question has spoken for up to 15 minutes as provided for under standing order 1. The amendment that I am moving on behalf of the opposition is designed to allow all members of the House to participate in a full and proper debate on the government's industrial relations bill. The motion that the Leader of the House has moved is a cynical exercise in seeking to ram through a detailed and complex piece of legislation and very largely avoid all of the normal procedures and processes in this place. Now, I say to the House: be very wary when the Leader of the House comes in here and uses his most reasonable tone. That should put you on notice. That should put you on inquiry that he's up to something. He is up to something. Let me be clear here: the opposition is implacably opposed to the trashing of normal parliamentary processes, which the Leader of the House is proposing, and we are doubly opposed to the use of this motion to ram through the House of Representatives this radical industrial relations bill. Let's be clear: this bill represents the most radical shake-up of Australia's industrial relations system in decades. It has also been handled very badly. We've seen the minister proposing amendments on a near daily basis. Just last night he put out a statement flagging even more amendments. The process has been shambolic. Just yesterday we saw the government refuse to support a sensible proposal from the opposition, supported by a large number of the crossbench, to establish a joint select committee to investigate this bill. I do express the opposition's thanks to those crossbench members who supported that motion. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the government's cynical attempts to ram this bill through the House of Representatives is that it simply does not want to allow for the proper processes of scrutiny and debate, or for those who will be affected by this bill—employers and employees, and of course expert stakeholders—to have the opportunity to express their concerns. Equally troubling is the limiting of the opportunity for members of the House to make their views known, to inform the debate and to help all Australians understand the full implications of what the government is proposing. Many Australians will rightly be suspicious of the government's proposals, and the more they learn, the more suspicious they will be. And their suspicion should only be increased by the fact that the government is transparently seeking to avoid proper scrutiny by using its numbers to force this bill through the House of Representatives. Why is this amendment required? It's required because there ought to be proper scrutiny and examination of a bill which is exceptionally complex—249 pages—and let's not forget it was only introduced in the last sitting week. What we've seen from the government to date is precisely the opposite approach to that which is required in relation to a lengthy and detailed bill of this nature. It's clear already that concerns are being raised very widely across the Australian community about what this bill will mean, the risk that it presents, the very real risk of increased strikes, increased industrial action and the impact on small businesses being exposed to thuggish union behaviour, and greatly expanded opportunities for the union movement to come and make small businesses an offer they can't refuse. It's clear that there are very real concerns, and well-informed concerns, amongst the business community. Small, medium and large businesses alike are aligned in their opposition, their very grave and expressed concern about what is contained in this bill. The Business Council of Australia, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Australian Industry Group have cautioned against rushing this bill through. They have specifically cautioned against what the Leader of the House is seeking to do in the motion that he has moved this afternoon. What they had to say was this: … it is clear that the government should slow down and consult more widely and more meaningfully. They must be open to the amendments necessary to prevent harmful unintended consequences. Innes Willox from the Australian Industry Group added 'the process cannot be rushed' and he urged government to 'take a breath and avoid rushing to introduce such extreme changes'. The Minerals Council chief executive, Tania Constable, said the government was seeking to 'ram this far-reaching reform through with no real opportunity for scrutiny'. These are the bodies representing a very substantial proportion of the elements of Australia's economy which generate the prosperity on which we all rely, the prosperity that funds schools and roads and hospitals and all the incidences of a civilised society. This government is seeking to ram through a piece of radical industrial relations reform completely in the face of the consistent and clear advice of a whole range of peak bodies and representative bodies across the economy. But it's not just business groups. We've seen similar sentiments expressed in the other place. Senator David Pocock has said that the government's bill is too rushed to be scrutinised. These are sentiments echoed by Senator Lambie, who said the government was trying to 'hide or rush stuff through'. Australians deserve to have their concerns fully heard and fully ventilated, particularly in the face of a piece of legislation put forward by the government that will mean more strikes, more unions coming into small businesses where they have not been before. It is a recipe for chaos in our economy. This bill abolishes the Australian Building and Construction Commission, meaning that the militant CFMMEU will once again be able to ride roughshod over building sites across the country. It means a return to the pattern bargaining that bedevilled Australia's economy in the strike-ridden 1970s. It is completely unacceptable that a bill of this nature would be rammed through the House in the way that the motion moved by the Leader of the House proposes. The government are clearly dancing to the tune of the union movement, whose donations helped them get elected, and are seeking to get this through as quickly as possible. The effect of the amendment that the opposition has moved is that if it were passed it would mean that the normal speaking times of 15 minutes and, crucially, the normal consideration in detail process in the House of Representatives, would be maintained. Let's be clear: consideration in detail is the opportunity to move amendments to the bill and to change the legislation. It is the natural, ordinary, important, basic work of this chamber of the parliament. The executive government are seeking to turn this House into a rubber stamp rather than allowing it to operate the way it was designed to operate in the Constitution. They're doing that in cynical furtherance of the agenda of their political paymasters. All this is in sharp contrast to what was promised to the Australian people before the election. We heard repeatedly from the now Prime Minister that apparently he had changed his spots. He was suggesting a new, kinder, gentler politics with more integrity. He said he wanted to 'change the way we do politics in Australia'. In a former life, the now Leader of the House railed against what he described as 'trashing of parliamentary norms'. He's now a very enthusiastic trasher. The very same minister who when in opposition railed repeatedly against the supposed trashing of parliamentary norms has repeatedly used the government's numbers to force changes to the standing orders to ram legislation through this House. That is what is being proposed here on a matter of extraordinary importance to the Australian economy, a matter of great significance to all Australians, and a matter which deserves proper scrutiny not least because of the complexity, length and detail of the legislation. It's 249 pages introduced only in the last week of sitting. What we need is a proper process in which all of those elected to this place can have the opportunity to speak up on behalf of their constituents. That is what the amendment that the opposition is moving will do. It seeks to undo the damage of the motion that the Leader of the House has moved. I commend the opposition's amendment to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Is the amendment moved by the Manager of Opposition Business seconded? Ms Landry 249764 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 16:33 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney Today, just eight business days after the introduction into the House of perhaps the most significant industrial relations reform proposed since the Work Choices legislation in 2006, we're now being asked to truncate due process around the review of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. Coming from a background of small business and having managed, built and grown multi-employee businesses across a number of sectors, I confess that, while I welcome discussion around this reform, I am immediately concerned that the due process that should support a robust review of this magnitude of legislation is being severely truncated. With my most recent experience having been in the area of building communities and campaigns to bring people, businesses and organisations along when advocating for significant reform, there is much in this current process that leaves me feeling that, despite assurances that this rushed process is in everyone's best interest, there are many—and there will be many in my community—who will be left with significant concerns as to what this legislation means for them, their businesses and indeed their jobs. Unfortunately, I suggest that, even after a flurry of briefings, for which I am incredibly grateful, and a commitment to personally review every drafted proposed amendment, this bill is still very much a work in progress. Surely, if we are to learn anything from the failed Work Choices legislation, it is that, if it is worth doing the work, it's worth getting it right right from the beginning rather than rushing headlong into significant form that is not tested for its unintended consequences. This is the broadest reform to the Industrial Relations framework we have seen in more than a decade, and I as North Sydney's federal voice in the chamber, have had less than a fortnight to consult with my community to ensure its implications are truly considered. I do not support truncating this debate. 16:35 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I would like to voice my disappointment with the government after having sat place for three years where debate was curtailed and after on a number of occasions we jumped straight through the consideration in detailed stage. This motion effectively is curtailing that consideration in detail stage. I accept and respect that there is an attempt to move beyond the use of suspension of standing orders and gagging debate altogether, and I appreciate that effort, but it is nevertheless a mechanism by which we are curtailing the very important role this place should have in scrutinising legislation in the third reading stage, around consideration in detail, around having the opportunity to question the minister responsible in relation to this legislation, and also in relation to debating amendments. Now we have under this motion a proposal where they will all be bundled together under one person and there will be very limited time for debate on each amendment. Some may be cynical and say that, ultimately, government has the numbers, so what does it matter? It does matter when courts are later considering the implication or inference from this legislation. When they are trying to convey meaning, they will look at second reading speeches, they will look at the explanatory memorandum and they will look at questions raised during the consideration in detail stage. They will take direction from what the minister may have said as to what was the intention behind the wording of legislation. This is a very important stage. As the member for North Sydney has said, this is really important legislation to get right. We are absolutely in support of raising wages, but the reality is that the urgency with which this is being pushed through from a debate point of view is not going to translate to wages. We know enterprise bargaining takes time. If anything, by adding the complexity of some of the changes in this legislation, it is likely to take even longer. The reality for the people on the ground—and I have heard the minister and others talk about this being about raising wages for women and feminised industries. With respect, by bundling it all in, we are losing the advantage of some of the good changes that are in this legislation around the BOOT test. They are being completely superseded by the divisive debate around the more contentious elements. I strongly support and urge the government to consider the separation of this bill and to pass without delay the elements that have consensus, that have social support and that have social licence. Business, unions and everyone has come together to make those good changes to the BOOT test and other elements. They are not contested. But around the multiemployer aspect these streams are contentious. They haven't had consideration. They were first exposed only some eight days ago. As the member for North Sydney has said, we have all scrambled to get as many briefings as possible and to try to consult with our communities, but there is no way I have had the opportunity to consult properly, so through this motion there will not only not be proper scrutiny in the consideration in detail stage; we also will not have been able to bring the community on board to understand or even be supportive of all the changes that are proposed in this legislation. The unfortunate outcome is legislation that may well imbalance what had been really good and had introduced really good changes. That message is completely lost to many communities because of the desire to rush the final part of this bill. I think that's a really unfortunate situation to have put the parliament and the government in, so I don't support the motion because I do believe that consideration in detail is incredibly important. Scrutiny is important, and I would urge the government to think about their approach. The Leader of the House was very vocal at the start of this parliament and during the last parliament about wanting the processes of this place and the parliament to be respected. He said that we need to restore integrity to this institution. I strongly say that this is not how we go about it. 16:40 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo There was a time in this place when speeches were not timed. Then, when the timing came in, there were many members present at the time who were deeply concerned. We're in a position today where we have this piece of legislation that's more than 260 pages long. A draft bill was not circulated to the crossbench and, I assume, also not to the opposition, and yet many of us we will get just get five minutes in this place to discuss this piece of legislation, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. Over and over again this year we've heard that it's so urgent. We're being told that the urgency of the legislation is more important than the scrutiny of the legislation. Well, when you rush things through, you make mistakes. The point of this place is it's supposed to be the contest of ideas. It's supposed to be the place where you rigorously debate, and, if the government believe in their legislation, they should be open for that debate and they should allow that debate to be free-flowing. But that's not what we are seeing with this motion. This is a gag motion by any other name, and we're seeing it over and over again with every piece of legislation. I think that that thwarts the good work that we should be doing in this place, and ultimately it thwarts democracy. I would urge the government: please reconsider your position with this. Again, I think this motion shows contempt for all of us and the work we're supposed to be doing in here. I think we can be much better. In the last parliament all of us were upset when the then government would gag debate, especially the now Leader of the House. Yet, to me, this motion is really very little different. 16:42 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy I may be wrong, but I think I might be the longest-serving cabinet minister, or senior cabinet minister, anyway, in this parliament—in another place, mind you. But whenever we were in trouble and we had legislation which was, so to say, controversial, we rushed it through as fast as we could get it through. I have no doubt that that's what's happening here. Even though I am supportive of the tenet of this bill, I remain somewhat cynical about the intent of the current question before the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 The time for this debate has expired. The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the amendment moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be disagreed to.    

The House divided. [16:47]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

72 AYES Albanese, A. N. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 67 NOES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Dutton, P. C. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gee, A. R. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Joyce, B. T. G. Katter, R. C. Landry, M. L. Le, D. Leeser, J. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. Morrison, S. J. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Robert, S. R. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Thompson, P. Tink, K. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Watson-Brown, E. Webster, A. E. Wilkie, A. D. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 16:53 The SPEAKER 53517 The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the House be agreed to.    

The House divided. [16:53]
(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick)

 72 AYES Albanese, A. N. Ananda-Rajah, M. Bowen, C. E. Burke, A. S. Burnell, M. P. Burney, L. J. Burns, J. Butler, M. C. Byrnes, A. J. Chalmers, J. E. Charlton, A. H. G. Chesters, L. M. Clare J. D. Claydon, S. C. Coker, E. A. Collins, J. M. Dreyfus, M. A. Elliot, M. J. Fernando, C. Freelander, M. R. Garland, C. M. L. Georganas, S. Giles, A. J. Gorman, P. Gosling, L. J. Hill, J. C. Husic, E. N. Jones, S. P. Kearney, G. M. Keogh, M. J. Khalil, P. King, C. F. King, M. M. H. Lawrence, T. N. Laxale, J. A. A. Leigh, A. K. Lim, S. B. C. Marles, R. D. Mascarenhas, Z. F. A. McBain, K. L. McBride, E. M. Miller-Frost, L. J. Mitchell, B. K. Mitchell, R. G. Mulino, D. Neumann, S. K. O'Connor, B. P. J. O'Neil, C. E. Payne, A. E. Perrett, G. D. Phillips, F. E. Plibersek, T. J. Rae, S. T. Reid, G. J. Repacholi, D. P. Rishworth, A. L. Roberts, T. G. Rowland, M. A. Ryan, J. C. Scrymgour, M. R. Sitou, S. Smith, D. P. B. (Teller) Stanley, A. M. (Teller) Swanson, M. J. Templeman, S. R. Thistlethwaite, M. J. Thwaites, K. L. Vamvakinou, M. Watts, T. G. Wells, A. S. Wilson, J. H. Zappia, A. 67 NOES Andrews, K. L. Archer, B. K. Bandt, A. P. Bates, S. J. Bell, A. M. Birrell, S. J. Boyce, C. E. Broadbent, R. E. Buchholz, S. Chandler-Mather, M. Chaney, K. E. Coleman, D. B. Conaghan, P. J. Coulton, M. M. (Teller) Daniel, Z. Dutton, P. C. Entsch, W. G. Fletcher, P. W. Gee, A. R. Gillespie, D. A. Goodenough, I. R. Haines, H. M. Hamilton, G. R. Hastie, A. W. Hawke, A. G. Hogan, K. J. Joyce, B. T. G. Katter, R. C. Landry, M. L. Le, D. Leeser, J. Littleproud, D. Marino, N. B. McCormack, M. F. McIntosh, M. I. Morrison, S. J. O'Brien, E. L. O'Brien, L. S. Pasin, A. Pearce, G. B. Pike, H. J. Pitt, K. J. Price, M. L. Ramsey, R. E. (Teller) Robert, S. R. Ryan, M. M. Scamps, S. A. Sharkie, R. C. C. Spender, A. M. Steggall, Z. Stevens, J. Sukkar, M. S. Taylor, A. J. Thompson, P. Tink, K. J. Vasta, R. X. Violi, A. A. Wallace, A. B. Ware, J. L. Watson-Brown, E. Webster, A. E. Wilkie, A. D. Willcox, A. J. Wilson, R. J. Wolahan, K. Wood, J. P. Young, T. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 BILLS 51 BILLS Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 51

Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022

Second Reading 51 16:54 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson Since 2007 the unions in this country have donated $100 million to the Australian Labor Party. Today in this bill the government repays them in spades. Industrial relations affects every Australian worker, every business operator and every industry sector. All in this place have a genuine desire to improve our industrial relations system. But what has been put forward by the government in this bill, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022, will take our system backwards. The bill is as much a missed opportunity as Labor's first budget. It doesn't improve the lives of Australians. The inane rhetoric about the coalition being against wage increases or improved conditions is of course absurd. The government said it would support workers and that it would work to support all Australians and businesses. Instead, it will sacrifice them at the altar of unionism. Once again, Labor has sidelined the national interest in favour of its niche interests. Peter Strong, the former CEO of the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia, summed it up when he said: The government's approach to the modern workplace is nothing but ideology and cronyism becoming policy. . . The legislation is a trojan horse . . . for the empowerment of unions in every workplace in Australia. If this bill passes in its current form it will impose the most radical changes on Australia's industrial relations systems in decades—changes which will complicate the system, create conflict in workplaces and cause delays; changes which will undermine the autonomy of businesses in favour of agenda-driven collectivism at the behest of unions; changes which will usher in economy-wide strikes the like of which we have not seen in recent memory; and changes which will kill productivity at a time when increasing productivity is needed to contend with high inflation, rising interest rates and low unemployment. The overlay of this legislation on top of that high inflation and dramatically increasing cost-of-living pressures under this government makes for a potential economic powder keg. Make no mistake about it: it is Whitlam-esque in nature. For Australians struggling with cost-of-living pressures, the changes to multi-employer bargaining proposed in the bill will increase their costs of living forever. Strikes will cripple supply chains. Crippled supply chains will lead to shortages, including of essential goods. Shortages will drive up the price of groceries and other products. And this bill again shows Labor's inconsistency. On 21 November last year the ABC's David Speers asked the Treasurer whether industry-wide bargaining was a yes, a no or a maybe. The Treasurer responded in this way, very definitively: 'It's not part of our policy, David.' This legislation is bad for Australians, it's bad for the nation and it's bad for our future. Before I address the bill specifically, let me say something on the manner in which it has been brought into this parliament. With this bill proposing such drastic changes to our industrial relations system, one would expect the government to afford adequate time to consider its details, not just for this parliament but for Australian industry sectors and businesses large and small. Instead, we have been given just a few weeks to scrutinise a 250-page bill with an additional 260-page explanatory memorandum. Many of those opposite have little or no experience in running a business. If they did, they'd appreciate that most business owners, especially those with a headcount of one to 30 employees, are running operations themselves. Typically they're working 14-hour days. When they're not working they're managing the family household and caring for their children. I don't know when the government expects small business to examine over 500 pages of this legislation in order to truly gauge the impact on their businesses, on their families and on their employees. And, as the Independents have pointed out in their contributions earlier in this debate, neither have they had reasonable time to examine what it is that the government is proposing here. On top of this, the Labor government has done a deal with the Greens to force through a three-week Senate inquiry on one of the most significant pieces of legislation in our country's history. Time and again this government sanctimoniously lectures us on how it is the embodiment of integrity, transparency and accountability. But, time and again, its actions betray its words. Labor's recalcitrance surrounding this bill exposes its true dishonesty and its obsession with pleasing its union masters. In its desire to push the bill through the parliament at warp speed the government shows its utter disrespect for Australian workers and for Australian businesses and industries. It thinks Australian's lives and livelihoods can be toyed with. Just as we are right to consider Labor's methods, we are right to consider its motives. The bill is not about consensus, as Labor would have you believe from the charade that its Jobs and Skills Summit—which deceived Australians—now turns out to be. It's about control. It's about Labor handing over control of our industrial relations system to the unions. It's about Labor reimbursing their union paymasters for the millions of dollars unions have put into their campaigns. The coalition wants to see wages increase. We want to see workers' wages rise; of course we do, particularly to help Australians deal with cost-of-living pressures inflicted on them by this government's catastrophic energy policy decisions, among many other bad decisions they have already made just in the last five months. But there is no evidence that this bill will bring about rises in wages. In fact, it will lead to job losses. Let's get back to first principles. Employers in industry and business create the vast majority of jobs in Australia, not the government. If employers are forced to pay unsustainable wages, their employees will soon find themselves without a job when their employer's business goes bust. A balance has to be struck between what an employee wants and what an employer is able to afford, so the business can survive. That is best negotiated between employees and an employer at the enterprise or workplace level. But that fundamental tenet is in jeopardy under the bill. In fact, it's trashed. The negotiation of wages and conditions will be taken out of the hands of individual businesses and their workers under Labor's proposed changes to multi-employer bargaining. Under current legislation, multiple employers can apply to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and the Fair Work Commission to bargain together. They do this knowing that they expose themselves to industrial action, which could affect the parties alike. Importantly, this process is voluntary. As it stands, multi-employer bargaining is a choice for employers—it's an opt-in arrangement—but changes under the proposed legislation will compel employers to bargain together, specifically where common interest can be established. Here is the inane thing: the common interest criteria is so broad, the equivalent of vague generalisations, that it will be satisfied on almost every occasion. That is a deliberate measure within this bill. Let me illustrate this absurdity. Let's say you have five businesses: a restaurant, a cafe, a clothing retailer, a supermarket and a hairdresser. They are all located in the same area—for example, a local shopping centre. In this case, the common interest test under this legislation is met. Despite each business's vast differences, the geographic location is used as the justification for multi-employer bargaining. Here is another example. Let's say you have two pharmacies, one in Queensland and the other in New South Wales. In this case, the common interest test is also met. Despite operating in different jurisdictions and localities, the service offered is used as a justification for multi-employer bargaining, such is the elasticity of the common interest test. Yet we all know that businesses, even within industries, are unique. They have workers with different qualifications, different experiences and different skills. They work different hours in different locations with different conditions. But these niceties will count for absolutely nothing under Labor's revised legislation. In fact, the common interest test is designed to trivialise the identity of individual businesses in favour of group identity. As the bill is currently drafted, employers can also be compelled to bargain where it's in the desire of the majority of employees across affected workplaces but—critically—not within an individual business or workplace. So rushed is this bill that the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations has already agreed to amend this part of the legislation, even before it came into the chamber. Under those proposed changes, a majority vote would be required in each individual workplace before industrial action or multi-employer bargaining agreements can proceed. But even with this amendment a small business can still be compelled to bargain against the wishes of an employer, and the door will be flung open to non-unionised worksites being forced to bargain. So when Labor says its proposed legislation will preserve the ability for businesses to opt in to multi-employer bargaining, it's an absolute lie. At the multi-employer negotiation table, the autonomy of businesses and the aspirations of workers will be crushed as they are coerced to a one-size-fits-all agreement. What about an employee's flexible working arrangements? Under the Fair Work Act, currently, an employee can request them and an employer can refuse them on reasonable business grounds. Labor's legislative changes will, instead, see disputes managed by the Fair Work Commission, including arbitration. This is absolutely unprecedented in Australia's workplace relations history. It gives the Fair Work Commission the right to determine how an employer manages their workplace. Changes to multi-employer bargaining amount to Labor's intent to kill off enterprise bargaining and, in its place, install a new centralised wage fixing system and umpire. Don't take our word for it: consider what the Productivity Commission has said in its interim report, released last night, into Labor market productivity. The Productivity Commission highlighted concerns with multi-employer bargaining. It outlined the risk of diminished productivity when wages and conditions are set for a group of firms in a one-size-fits-all approach. It said businesses would have to compromise their requirements and flexibilities, and it even noted multi-employer bargaining could give rise to anticompetitive behaviours, which would impact consumers through increased prices and reduced quality. Let's be under no apprehension about the underlying agenda of this bill. Union membership in this country has been in decline for decades. Indeed, union membership across Australia's private sector workforce today is less than 10 per cent. We strongly support choice. If people decide to join a union, that is their right to do so and we respect and honour that decision. Since the federal election, the Labor government has been resurrecting and empowering union leaders, and multi-employer bargaining is the mechanism through which union leaders can assert their movement's relevance in the 21st century. Under the proposed changes in this bill, the bargaining process will be heavily influenced by union members. Many businesses will have to contend with the union machine and its mob-like intimidation and extortion for the first time. That's exactly what the union leaders want and it's exactly what this government is delivering on a platter to them. Multi-employer bargaining will allow union leaders to cannibalise businesses, and right now they're licking their lips at the prospect. Here's a hypothetical situation. Five businesses from a shopping centre are at the multi-employer negotiating table. There are three small businesses, each with 15 employees, half full time and half part time. There are two larger employers or businesses, each with over 50 full-time employees, including HR and legal specialists. Some employees within those two larger businesses have union representation. What hope do the three small businesses have in securing favourable terms? They have neither the time nor can they afford the legal expertise or resources to ensure that their interests are best represented in a joint bargaining position. Terms will effectively be dictated to these employers, such as adopting unaffordable wages. From there, these employers' operations will be constrained and the viability of their small businesses put at risk. If you ever wanted to see what the Monopoly board game looks like in real life, Australian businesses will experience it under multi-employer bargaining. Here's something even more perverse: multi-employer agreements cannot be voted on by employees without the approval, consent or permission of bargaining representatives. In other words, the unions will have a right of veto, believe it or not. The government and unions would have you believe that this bill is about increasing wages and making bargaining more accessible to more people. If that were the case, why did Labor and the unions fight tooth and nail against the coalition government's reforms to improve and streamline enterprise agreement making which sought to balance the needs of both employers and employees? If that were the case, why did Labor and the unions not support our changes to the better off overall test when we were in government? Today, all their rhetoric about wanting to drive higher wages and reduce bargaining complexity is nothing more than a smokescreen. Beneath their words is an insidious agenda. This bill flagrantly seeks to shift power from employers and employees to the unions. If you think this isn't about union empowerment and control, consider Labor's intent in abolishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission. The industry watchdog has an exemplary track record in cracking down on union intimidation, thuggery and criminal behaviour in the construction sector, especially the harassment and abuse of women on job sites. Labor's move will mean that the CFMEU will no longer have to pay millions of dollars in civil penalties. No wonder bullies like John Setka have been 'impressed', as he says, by Labor's decision to adopt this bill. The ABCC's abolition will see economic activity decline by an estimated $47½ billion across the economy by 2030. That's the cost to the economy that Labor is happy to bear to appease its own paymasters. There are two important features of this bill which propose changes that must be mentioned. First, it will expand the size and scope of employees who are compelled to bargain; and, second, it introduces new sector strike rights. Both elements vastly increase the risk of industrywide industrial action. The employees of any business with a headcount of 15 or more staff, be they full-timers, part-timers or casuals, will be able to stop work and strike. That's tens of thousands of businesses across the country. We know that empowered union leaders will make unreasonable pay demands which employers and the economy cannot afford. When those wage ultimatums are not met, it will be 'tools down and take it to the streets'. Multi-employer bargaining will engender stoppages, shutdowns, walkouts and protests on an unprecedented scale. Go back and have a look at some of the footage from the 1970s and 1980s, under the Whitlam government. That is a taste of what we are about to experience in our country. It will revive the crippling economywide strikes of the 1970s and 1980s, and it has the potential to make the disruption and economic damage of those decades look like we are on easy street. We should be sceptical about union commitments to conciliation. Indeed, union assurances that industrial action will be a last resort are of course vacuous. There's no shortage of strike action right now—for example, the rail union, protesting for months in Sydney, causing disruption after disruption for commuters. If this legislation is passed in its current form, we risk normalising that sort of strike action. Here's a pertinent question: why are union leaders demanding so much that there be worker strike powers under multi-employer bargaining, including the right to strike simultaneously and in sympathy? It's not because they intend to use those powers sparingly. Rather, it's because they want to exercise them readily and at every opportunity. The government may not heed our warnings or like what we're saying, but perhaps they should pay attention to the views of many others who have made comment in this debate. Across Australia, business groups, industry groups and employers—small, medium and large—are united in their opposition to Labor's industrial relations overhaul. Remember, these are the same groups that went to the jobs summit in good faith. They met with the incoming Prime Minister and the new government and said that they were willing to negotiate, to be part of the conversation, and they have been betrayed. Those at the coalface understand the inherent risks and damage which will come from Labor's proposed changes to multi-employer arrangements and bargaining. Let's consider what they've said. Andrew McKellar, CEO of the Australia Chamber of Commerce and Industry, described multi-employer bargaining as, 'seismic shifts to Australia's workplace relations system reversing decades of tripartite consensus'. Innes Willox, the Chief Executive of the Ai Group, labelled the bill as, 'fundamentally flawed and needed to be rethought and reworked'. He went on to say: The proposed changes … risk taking the country down a path of more strikes, fewer jobs, centralised decision making and less trust within our enterprises. We must avoid extreme changes that risk imposing damaging strikes and harm on the community and businesses. We urge the government to take a breath and avoid rushing to introduce such extreme changes to our workplace relations system. Jennifer Westacott, Chief Executive of the Business Council of Australia, who has literally bent over backwards to deal with the government to negotiate with them in good faith—again, a participant at the jobs summit—has spoken at length publicly and in private with the government about their desire to see a reasonable arrangement arrived at, and that they would support that arrangement. But here is what Ms Westacott has had to say: We want wages to go up but that won't be achieved by creating more complexity, more strikes and higher unemployment. She also said: We are deeply concerned that the new system could see small businesses swept up in a complex system dominated by unions and lawyers, currently one large workplace could vote to pull smaller workplaces into an agreement. And: …we are staring down the barrel of a more complex system that runs the risk of stifling innovation and fossilising the economy. They are not the words from a Liberal Party frontbench member or one of our impassioned local members really concerned about small businesses in their electorate; they are the words of somebody who is leading the Business Council of Australia on a bipartisan basis. This side of politics can often have some critical words about what we think is a fairly passive approach by some within the business community toward this particular issue, particularly around industrial relations, but this Labor government has managed to unify them in one voice, has managed to bring them together to condemn this bill. In subsequent years when we see the impact of this bill on workplaces, on small businesses, on employees, on an increase in the unemployment rate there should be no surprise. The Australian public has not, in our living lifetime, experienced what we believe will be delivered by this bill. Enterprise bargaining must remain the cornerstone of our workplace relations system. Our industrial relations system is far from perfect, but this bill and its proposed reforms to multi-employer bargaining will be a throwback to an industrial relations system of a bygone era, a system which clearly is not fit for purpose in modern-day Australia; a system which will add to, not alleviate, the cost-of-living pressures; a system which forsakes Australians, businesses and industry in favour of unions; and a system which will cause catastrophic economic damage at a time when we can least afford it. This bill must be defeated, and, failing that, it must be significantly amended. Many of the independents in this place and in the other place were elected on a platform of integrity and accountability, and the coalition seeks their support on that basis. This is their opportunity to stand for their values, values clearly absent from this Labor government, as the independents, to their credit, have pointed out in this chamber only today. It is government which has haphazardly put forward one of the most unprincipled and damaging pieces of legislation in the history of the Australian parliament. I will move an amendment in relation to this bill. It's an amendment which has been given great consideration. It provides balance. It attempts to do some good where the Labor Party, at the moment, seek only to do harm to businesses and to the relationship between businesses and employees across the country. The unprecedented preferment of the union movement through this bill is something that is not in our country's best interests. I said in my opening remarks that this bill delivers a very significant dividend to the union masters who have paid $100 million to the Labor Party since 2007. They would have considered that to be a large amount of money. In anyone's terms $100 million is a lot of money. But the dividend on that $100 million investment is going to be felt every day by way of benefit to the union movement at the cost of workplaces and the viability of businesses across the economy. Don't be expressing any surprise about this because that is the reality of what we're debating here today. In relation to this bill, I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:   ."The House declines to give the bill a second reading and calls on the Government to: (1)give the Australian Parliament three months to review these significant changes rather than trying to force through the legislation this year; (2)amend the legislation to exclude changes to multi-employer bargaining which will lead to more strikes and fewer jobs without increasing productivity or wages; (3)admit to the Australian people that these extreme industrial relations changes will result in significant red tape and higher costs for small, family and medium businesses; (4)work with the Opposition, crossbench and other stakeholders to make improvements to the Better Off Overall Test and changes to enterprise bargaining as outlined in the former Coalition Government's legislation introduced in 2020; (5)abandon the move to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the Registered Organisations Commission; (6)redraft this legislation to ensure matters are dealt with separately rather than as an "all or nothing" approach; and (7)in the event the bill is passed, an independent review be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by this Act as soon as practical 12 months after the bill receives Royal Assent and cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of Parliament". There is no more urgent matter that requires the attention of this chamber and the other place. There are businesses that will face viability questions within a short period of time of this bill being passed. The impact on employees and their families, if they lose their jobs because those businesses close, will be significant. It will be felt by them not just in small businesses but in medium and larger-size businesses across the economy. The government in terms of their process should be condemned. They stand condemned, and any reasonable commentator in this place or who has contributed to the public debate on this bill has been as one in condemning the government for their course of action and the intent within this bill. The House should vote down this bad bill. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Is the amendment seconded? Mr FLETCHER L6B I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 17:23 Dr GARLAND 295588 Chisholm The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill makes clear that we finally have a government that wants to see wages move. After 10 years of deliberate, harmful, shameful wage suppression from those opposite, this bill means more money for people in my community of Chisholm to spend in the community, to spend in small businesses that are such an important part of our local economy. In rising today to speak in support of this bill, I want to acknowledge those people who have worked so hard to push for pay and gender equity and a fairer bargaining system, who have been committed to advancing the ambitions of our nation. I acknowledge those who have fought for wage justice in our own time and who have been part of the struggle through history. I think of the low-paid women workers in the Tailoresses' Union in Victoria, my home state, who took action in the 19th century after being excluded from industrial laws due to their work in sweatshops undertaking piecework. I think of brave, bold Zelda D'Aprano who in 1969 famously chained herself to the Commonwealth Building, protesting the failure to deliver equal pay, and refused to pay full price for tram fares, reflecting the pay gap between women and men, paying a fare proportionate to her wage rather than that charged for men. I think of the early childhood educators, care workers, United Workers Union members who will see their wages improve as a result of this legislation. That we are putting forward legislation to change the way workers, including women workers, are able to win fair wages is significant. As history shows, this is part of a long struggle. Where are we today? The gender pay gap is at 14.1 per cent. The care and community sectors, including aged care, early childhood education, disability care, health and a wide range of social and community services are some of the fastest-growing sectors in Australia. It is predicted that in the next five years Australia will need to fill over 300,000 jobs in the health and social assistance sector—far more than in any other sector. A recent report by the Committee for Economic Development of Australia found that 65,000 workers are leaving the aged-care sector each year, which shows just how grave the crisis is that is facing aged-care residents and aged-care workers. And recent research shows that 30 to 48 per cent of educators leave the early childhood education and care sector each year. Those rates are double the national turnover average and triple the average rate of turnover for primary school educators. People are leaving or under extreme pressure in vital sectors because their work is not properly valued and remunerated. As it stands, there is currently no simple, effective and fast mechanism to properly value the work of care and community sector workers. Enterprise bargaining is difficult and largely ineffective in the care and community sector. These are highly fragmented workplaces where single-enterprise bargaining doesn't work. In early learning alone there are over 17,000 individual centres and over 7,200 providers, and 80 per cent of the sector is operated by single-centre providers. In aged care, unions currently can't bargain employer by employer, because the main funder doesn't sit at the bargaining table. Work value and equal remuneration order cases are expensive, take years to progress and have been largely unsuccessful in addressing the undervaluation of care work. The current system makes it almost impossible to bargain in other low-paid sectors, such as contract cleaning, where around two-thirds of the workforce is reliant on the award. Contract cleaning and contract security tenders by companies normally involve a range of cost inputs. The highest cost is usually the cost of labour and wages. To win a tender for a contract, contractors compete on price, generally locking in an estimate of wages over the life of the contract. The result is a race to the bottom. Those with the lowest estimated wages win the contract. Those companies that are willing to provide better pay and conditions to their workforce are unable to compete in this terrible race to the bottom. To enable low-paid workers to participate in multi-employer bargaining will be life-changing and will make it easier for companies that want to provide good wages and conditions to do so. This bill is about getting wages moving and building a better future for all Australians. I am so proud to be part of a government that is ambitious for my community of Chisholm, for their wages, and for all communities across Australia. There is so much to be said about what this bill means and what it does, but at the heart of it is this: respect, fairness and dignity. These are principles that mean something to this side of the House, and we will put them into action through delivering secure jobs and better pay for workers across Australia. Thank you. 17:29 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy We have a saying in the bush: when your neighbour starts preaching religion, reach for your branding iron, and when politicians start preaching religion, then God help us all! I've found that saying to be very true. This is not a socialist government, but it's in the socialist tradition, this government. Their aspirations are always laudable. We admire aspirations for people who are in very lowly paid jobs. But the government's implementation is deplorable, and I suspect that that's the way this bill is going to turn out. Small business will be backing, very strongly, amendments that will be coming, and every single one of the crossbenchers, as I understand it, will be voting to exclude small business. I can't see why the government doesn't want to go down that pathway of excluding small business. If they want some overall catch-all base wage, I think everyone here would agree with that. But to turn small business into a jungle in which they're the little guys—I think that's what's going to happen here. As for farmers, we're particularly worried. They employ a small number of people but in some industries, like the banana industry, they employ 100 and, in some cases, 200 people. Paul Keating said that we're going to be the freest economy on earth, all protection and support levels to be removed, and this country will no longer be an extended sheep run or some sort of extended coalmine. Well, if you take away the protection, your farmers are up against farmers throughout the world who get 48 per cent of their income from the government. Our farmers only get five per cent of their income from the government. So how can they possibly stay alive? When Keating made that announcement, it was on the ABC one morning. I threw a shoe at the wall and said, 'Is the bloke mad?' Either we close down all industry in Australia or we go to slave labour wage levels. The architect of slave labour wage levels in this country was no other than Paul Keating. I was sort of wrong because I said it was an either/or. It wasn't; it was both. We lost the industries and we lost the pay scales. We lost both in what happened. Let me be very, very specific: our cattle numbers are down 23 per cent, our sheep herd is down 72 per cent, our dairy production is down 15 per cent and our sugar production is down 16 per cent. That's your big four. Absolutely disastrous. Now, since we have to import everything from overseas—as I said, you either close down all the industry in Australia or you go to slave labour wage levels. So we closed down all the industry in Australia. Seventy-two per cent of the motorcars in the eighties were made in Australia. Now no cars are made in Australia. And the ALP can take the full blame for it. Government members interjecting— Mr KATTER HX4 No, it's a fair call, I take the interjections, because it must be shared by the Liberals; you're absolutely right. I withdraw the statement, because you must share the blame with this mob over here. You removed 25 per cent of support levels for the motorcars. The other mob removed 25 per cent as well, right? Mr Shorten 00ATG That was in 1990! Mr KATTER HX4 It doesn't matter when it was, you did it! You were the free marketeers that did it. You completely destroyed the wool industry. I wouldn't be laughing—the lady in the second row there thinks it's funny that the wool industry in Australia vanished under that new regulation. She thinks it's funny. I don't know her name but I hope it's recorded in Hansard that she's laughing at the idea that the wool industry in Australia was completely destroyed. Let her talk, because the more she talks the more people are going to understand who she is. Food prices in Australia—in fairness to the initiative by the federal government, Woolworth and Coles were allowed to grow from 50.1 per cent of the food market to well over 80 per cent of the food market. Now they have a duopoly position. I'm not blaming them. They're there to maximise profits. Food mark-ups went from 130 per cent back in the nineties to 240 per cent today under your free-market policies. Medical insurance has gone up almost exactly 400 per cent, electricity has gone up 412 per cent, housing has gone up 811 per cent and motorcars have gone up over 500 per cent. There has to be an increase in wages. In light of all that, there has to be an increase in wages. But if you don't increase the protection then vast industries in this country are going to go broke. You've already wrecked about half of agriculture—that has gone—and now you're going to wreck the rest of it. Dr Freelander 265979 That's a lot of rubbish; it's not true. Mr KATTER HX4 What is not true? Are you questioning that the cattle numbers are down 23 per cent? Are you questioning that? Go and have an argument with the ABS, because they're not my figures—they're the Australian Bureau of Statistics' figures. Dairying is down 15 per cent, sugarcane is down over 15 per cent and, biggest of all, the wool herd is down 72 per cent. You say it's not right—well, tell me what's not right about it! I'd like to know what's right. If it's not right, take it up with the Australian Bureau of Statistics, not me. Electricity, under the much-maligned Bjelke-Petersen government, was $674. That's what you paid. For two or three years after Labor took over, they left everything in place, and then they introduced free-market policies. The price had been $674—I speak with authority, because I was the minister—and there was no justification for increasing the electricity price by one dollar. All the power stations were paid off, we had plenty of reserve up our sleeve, we didn't need any new power stations. But when we went to the free market under the incoming Labor government— Mr KATTER HX4 The ex-leader of the opposition—this might be one of the reasons he's 'ex'—is laughing! He thinks it's funny! When they went to free-marketing in electricity, the price went from $674, where it had been for 11 years, straight through the roof up to over 2½ thousand dollars. And now, with the Greenie's implementation, it's gone up over $3,000 for a householder. Who's to blame? The ALP government in Queensland is to blame, undoubtedly. They've been there for most of the last 30 years. In all probability, I will support this legislation because I know the enormous cost-of-living rise that ordinary people have had to sustain. But I will most certainly be aggressively supporting the efforts by the crossbench to eliminate small business from the ambit of this legislation. I will most certainly be strongly supporting those moves. I would take them myself, but other people have taken them and I will support them. Honestly, the modern power station will be an algae power station with zero emissions, and I pay tribute to Minister Plibersek that she knows the name of the algae that you use. So CO2 will not be an emission and it will not be a pollutant; it will be a product. We want to produce as much CO2 as we can possibly reduce and put it into algae ponds. You can't do this everywhere, but you can do it in North Queensland; we've got a lot of flat country and a hell of a lot of water. That's the modern future, and we can produce electricity out of that for around about $27 a megawatt hour. Currently I don't think you're going to get electricity for much under $100 a megawatt hour anywhere in Australia. But because you're making more money out of the algae, which— (Time expired) 17:39 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. There's a problem for households and working people in Australia—it's that everything is going up except people's wages. This is what this legislation is designed to deal with. When we take away all the sound and the noise and the fury and the rhetoric of the opposition, they fail to address the question: how will they get wages moving in this country? The fact of the matter is that the bargaining system is broken—or, if not broken, then on its last legs. The number of enterprise agreements being signed each quarter is falling. Agreements are now too easily terminated, with workers in collective bargaining being presented with, 'You'll either go to the award or you'll cop a wage cut.' The pendulum has swung too much to wage reduction in this country. Wages have stalled. The previous coalition government presented budget after budget where they promised that wages would move at a certain percentage, and they never succeeded once; it always came in under that. There is a gender pay gap in the country. Productivity has stalled. The working person's share of national output is frozen. Irregular employment is at an all-time high. And we saw under the coalition government institutions like the trade union royal commission, the Registered Organisations Commission and the Australian Building and Construction Commission used as political weapons to diminish rights to freedom of association. Furthermore, if we don't pass this legislation, the share of real wages will fall further against inflation. So, this is not a consequence-free vote where the opposition can say that if we pass this then certain things will happen. I say to the people of Australia, if we fail to pass this legislation then certain things are guaranteed to happen. Real wages will fall further. This bill tackles all the issues that contribute to the fact that everything is going up except people's wages. It is well past time to deal with this issue. There has been a cry by those opposite, who failed to take a wages policy to the election and have failed for a number of elections to do so, that we are now rushing. How long do working people in this country have to wait to be able to get a wage rise? When is the right time, for this coalition, for a wage rise? Do we truly believe that if we wait another three months they will somehow change their mind? I think not. It is not a surprise that this government is putting these policies forward. At the 2015 ALP National Conference, at the 2018 National Conference and at the 2021 National Conference these policies and similar policies were debated. At the 2016 election, at the 2019 election and at the 2022 election wages policies were put forward. This area of wages policy has been discussed by Labor and the new government in a much more authentic, detailed and credible fashion than many policies have been debated in the national parliament in the past 10 years. And let's talk about timing. I couldn't interpret the speech by the member for Kennedy, but let's look at the rest of the crossbench speeches. They say we need more time. What I say to them is, when inflation is low, the previous government said, 'Now's not the time for wage rises; we need to help dismantle the bargaining system.' Now inflation is high, and that apparently is not the time when we can debate wages. To Australians listening to this parliamentary debate, the truth is that for the critics of this bill it is never the right time for us to debate wage rises in this country. This bill is not going to create the wages tsunami which is apparently going to increase the price of everything. This is not the early 1980s. In the early 1980s we had a clumsy industrial relations system, we had an economy that was very highly based around manufacturing, and there were different problems in the wages system and the productivity system than there are now. The fact also is that the unionisation rate in this country is far below what it was in the early 1980s. We are not going to return to the early 1980s, and it's spurious to offer that as some sort of prediction of the future. The reality is that employers today, business today and people today have different challenges. The truth is that what's holding back productivity in this country is a lack of skilled staff; it's not how much you're paying the skilled staff. What we see in this bill, when we strip away a lot of the angst, the pearl clutching and the finger pointing of the now opposition, is that it will essentially provide greater access to bargaining and arbitration for feminised and low-paid sections of the economy. This union bogeyman rubbish is just what I said: it is rubbish. History repeats. I say to the new members of the crossbench: if you read the parliamentary debates for the last 120 years you will see that whenever there was an effort to increase standards for working women and men in this country—unpaid maternity leave, the 40-hour week, the 38-hour week, four weeks leave, occupational health and safety standards, award increases, compulsory superannuation, three per cent superannuation, nine percent superannuation, 10 per cent superannuation—the coalition has always said, 'Now is not the right time' and that the sky will fall in. What is the actual trauma that the coalition is so worried about? The union that they love to hate, the CFMMEU, already has multi-employer bargaining. It doesn't change. The problem is that they seem to be worried that award increases will somehow change the economy. The truth of the matter is that in many sectors of the economy, even with the award increase, we're not going to catch the market rates that are currently being paid—but we will increase the safety net. People who have never argued for a wage rise in this country are now arguing that they want more time not to argue for a wage rise for Australian workers. At the end of the day, people clothe industrial relations in the great issues of communism, capitalism and blah, blah, blah. The fact of the matter is that workplace relations, which I have been proud to work in for all of my adult working life, is a lot more simple: employers need employees and employees need employers. Industrial relations is not the World War I battlefield or the black-and-white television images that this opposition wants to present. The biggest problem for employers is actually getting staff. The biggest problem for employees is being able to get enough wages to pay the bills. These laws, when you take away the sound and the fury, are actually sensible and moderate. I will tell you who doesn't need these laws: surgeons—they set a rate; lawyers already have rates and barristers already have rates; doctors already have rates across employers; plumbers already have rates; electricians already have rates; and the C-suite of directors will always tell you that we must pay directors and CEOs more to deal with international standards of competition. They have industry standards and multi-employer bargaining. The fact of the matter is that this is for the disability carers who tonight will be looking after people with dementia; it's for the students riding through the rain to deliver food so we can have some takeaway food; it's for the women overcoming the motherhood tax, where they've had to have broken income; and it will be for the people of our COVID experience—the drivers, the shop assistants, the regional workers who managed to help keep supplying food to the cities, the cleaners, the security and the aged-care attendants. The fact of the matter is that we have a two-speed wage economy in this country. If you're strong enough to bargain then you already get the good gear. But if you don't have access to the bargaining system then you fall further and further behind. I say to the people of Australia about this bill: the simple fact is that the sun will come up tomorrow, the chickens will still lay eggs, the dogs will still bark and business will still continue in this country. This law is a continuation of the great Australian experiment of a fair go for all. Australian workers—Australian people—are not commodities; they can't just be left to market forces. Australian workers are entitled to a system which respects their labour much more than a bare minimum. I look forward to this legislation being passed in the form it's in and I encourage the crossbench to pause and reconsider. After 10 years of argument, why should Australian workers who are doing everything to help the economy wait a bit longer while those who hate wage rises continue to hate wage rises? 17:47 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney Today, just eight business days after the introduction into the House of perhaps the most significant industrial relations reform proposed since the WorkChoices legislation in 2006, I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. Coming from a family of small business owners, and having managed, built and grown multi-employee businesses across several sectors, I confess that while I welcome discussion around this reform I am immediately concerned that the due process that should support a robust consideration of legislation of this magnitude is being severely truncated. With my most recent experience having been in the area of building communities and campaigns to bring people, businesses and organisations along when advocating for significant reform, there is much in this current process that leaves me feeling that, despite assurances, this rushed process isn't in everyone's best interest. There will be many in my community who will be left with significant concerns as to what this legislation means for them, their businesses and, indeed, their jobs. Ultimately, I suggest that even after a flurry of briefings, which I've been grateful for, and a commitment to personally review every proposed drafted amendment, this bill still has a long way to go. Surely, if we're to learn anything from the failed WorkChoices legislation it is that it's worth doing the work well right from the beginning rather than rushing headlong into significant reform which has not been tested for any of its unintended consequences. There are elements in this bill which I support, such as measures to improve job security and gender equity, and in enhancing the antidiscrimination framework. I'm also satisfied with the simplification of the better off overall test, which unions and employers worked together to improve. There are, however, elements in this bill which currently concern the people of North Sydney and me, including the potential for small businesses to be caught up in what may be complicated multi-employer bargaining agreements and how the construction industry will be regulated following the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Disappointingly, what is also clear is that this process of legislating is a far cry from the Prime Minister's pre-election promise to lead a government that includes more Australians in politics and restores trust in our parliament. Under the guise of a pre-election promise to 'get wages moving', Australians, including those in my electorate of North Sydney, have been blindsided by some of the measures in this bill. To be clear, the people of North Sydney did not grant the minister a mandate to ram through a piece of reform as substantial as multi-employer bargaining, and while there have been assurances of large organisations having been involved in negotiations around this legislation, it remains the case that, when it comes to true engagement, most ordinary people in my community have not had a voice on the shape and form of this bill. As a recently elected Independent MP, I have now had a glimpse of the so-called backroom deals which seem to be done in this place. We have seen here and in the media intense lobbying from the big end of town, those with the power and resources to access the parliament. In this I count large employer groups—businesses—and large union representatives. Individual employees, small and medium businesses and workers in the low-paid industries, who the government are wielding in advance to push their arguments forward, are largely absent. I have heard from them in North Sydney, and I am bringing their views to you here today, but the fact remains that this is a deal being done largely behind closed doors, and that's not good for our democracy. The overwhelming theme coming from my community is that reforms such as this should be duly prosecuted and duly reviewed. To do that, we need time to consider the implications of the bill. It is disappointing that in this case our government has chosen not to heed that call. One thing is clear: we have a wicked economic challenge ahead of us. In the government's issues paper for the Jobs and Skills Summit it outlined that 'to support full employment, stronger economic growth, sustainable increases in real wages and higher living standards, we need to prioritise productivity growth'. With unemployment now down to 3.4 per cent and wage growth still low at 2.6 per cent, we do need to look at mechanisms for driving wage growth, and improved productivity growth is a key driver of that. Ultimately though, to drive wage growth we need a gamut of changes, not the ideological pursuit of a single reform. We need improved workforce planning, we need to strengthen education and skills to meet the needs of employers in our ever-evolving economy and we need to support business innovation and investments in new technology. To address the cost-of-living concerns we must also tackle the root cause of inflation and consider where the government's mantra of getting wages moving sits in the broader economic circumstance. If wage increases driven by increased bargaining are not backed by productivity gains, the result may well be a weaker economy, and there will be no benefits for workers. Fundamental to our current industrial relations environment is the award system, which here in Australia has been progressively streamlined from 1,000 to 122 awards. While streamlining may have seemed desirable, the reality is that many of these awards are now far more complicated. As such, navigating them can be challenging, particularly for businesses who are do not have a human resource function, which, let's face it, is the majority of small businesses across our country. We must continue to work to ensure the awards we have in place are unambiguous and transparent so businesses and employees can get the true benefits of this foundational aspect of our industrial relations system. Ironically, the recent success of the government's position supporting a wage increase for aged-care workers shows that this pathway of reform—that is, lifting the level of underlying awards—is indeed one of the fastest ways to move the dial on wages in Australia. I warmly welcome the recent decision of the Fair Work Commission to lift the award wage in aged care by 15 per cent and, in particular, the acceptance during that hearing of expert evidence that care work 'has been historically undervalued, and the reason for that undervaluation is likely to be gender based'. We know that over a third of all Australian women are employed in the health care, social assistance, and education and training sectors, with their average weekly earnings below the national average. Improving their pay and conditions would help close the gender pay gap. Arguably, government led advocacy around increasing the award wages is going to bring about wage increases at a faster pace than this new proposed process of negotiated EBAs, which, by the minister's own admission, may take 12 months or more to get wages moving. I call on the government to back an increase to the minimum wage for all low-paid workers by committing to fund the increase in its submission to the Fair Work Commission. Moving now to part 3 of the bill, which abolishes the Building and Construction Commission, or the ABCC, the construction industry, which employs roughly 1.15 million people, is operating at close to full capacity, with increased residential housing investments and infrastructure spends right across the country, including in my electorate of North Sydney. It faces challenges, like many other industries, like disruptions in global supply chains and shortage of labour. I've spoken to residential builders in my electorate of North Sydney who are fearful that the abolition of the ABCC will drive negative cultural changes in the commercial sector, which, due to the high levels of overlap with subcontractors, will flow through to the residential building sector, and that there's an unseen consequence flowing down the line. Furthermore, the Master Builders Association estimates the abolition of the ABCC may result in an 8.8 per cent increase in labour costs and a decline of nearly 10 per cent in productivity. I can see some of the ABCC functions have been allocated to the Fair Work Ombudsman, which the government describes a 'full-service regulator'. But I am yet to be convinced that the Fair Work Ombudsman has adequate specialist construction competency or industry knowledge. We must also ensure there is not a vacuum left in the regulatory environment which will address safety and productivity on work sites. Finally, I'd like to reiterate the danger in the speed at which some of these measures have been pursued. I support the inclusion of the review period, but think that a five-year review period is far too long and this should be shortened to two years at the most. I would encourage the government to take a collaborative and constructive approach to the review, keeping a watching brief on the implementation of the bill. In the words of a constituent of North Sydney, 'Develop a plan that makes Australia more productive, equitable and happy.' I'd like to work with the government to develop that plan, which needs to go well beyond the scope of this current bill. 17:57 Mr BURNELL 300129 Spence I rise to speak in favour of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. This is an important reform of our industrial relations system, one that works to mend what is broken. These amendments to the Fair Work Act have been flagged and have been on everyone's radar since August this year. And many of those provisions had been flagged several months and years prior to then on the other side of the recent election. This is in amongst reforms that fall in line with election commitments, things that nobody should be surprised about by now. Of course, I'm referring to the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the Registered Organisations Commission. These are two entities whose staff were so cognisant of their own demise that they likely started updating their LinkedIn profiles as soon as the votes started being counted on election night back in May. I have said it once before and I'll say it again: the ROC and ABCC should be dead, buried and cremated. This is as explicit an action of a government legislating an election commitment as you can get. The Albanese Labor government has been upfront with the people about where it stands on industrial relations reform. It isn't about being pro business or pro union. It's about fixing a system that is broken. The Albanese Labor government has also widely consulted, whether it be with state governments of all political persuasions, business lobby groups of both the big and small varieties or unions, a very scary word for some in this chamber, not to mention outside of this chamber too. We can all parrot the same tired lines that wouldn't be out of place in a first-year commerce study group. The real effect of those opposite's animosity towards unions and the union movement is that wages of working people would simply continue to stagnate. If those opposite consider this an unfortunate by-product of a broken system then they can join with the government on a unity ticket and make these reforms happen. If not then at least we know exactly what's behind the mask. This is despite what you may have heard in the member for Dickson's address-in-reply speech and from others. I know I won't be standing in the way of a pay rise for those who need it the most. The government is coming into this place and introducing legislation to fix wage stagnation. These are the plans and solutions those opposite keep asking for. Well, here it is! There's nothing in it quite as scary as they would have you believe. Businesses and workers who successfully negotiate single-enterprise bargaining agreements can continue to do so. You have to bargain in good faith before you can think of going into arbitration. It's perfectly reasonable. Those opposite seemingly condone the practice of pay secrecy at a work place, something that is often used to suppress wage negotiations. They also seem to be for having workers on insecure, perpetual fixed-term contracts, which we want to limit the widespread use of. This is a system where low wages have been baked in for quite some time now. This is a design feature. I am, of course, cognisant of inflation, but I dare anyone opposing wage rises right now to give me a set of circumstances from the past decade where they felt comfortable with employee pay rises. I wouldn't hold my breath. For everyday working families that are just trying to get by, to feel as if they're improving their lot and their family circumstances after a long, hard year at work, that just simply isn't happening. This is why I'm proud to be part of an Albanese Labor government. We put our election commitments first. We put our big reforms first. And we put working people of Australia first! 18:01 Ms SPENDER 286042 Wentworth If there's a lesson from this year's federal election it's that voters were sick of how politics operated in this country. They were hungry for change and wanted a new politics, one characterised by fairness, integrity, transparency, accountability and proper process. That's what voters were promised and that's what we wanted and that's what they deserved. And that's what we have seen from the new government on a number of issues. In general they have been consultative and have been guided by proper process. It has been a welcome change. But there is a jarring contrast between those processes of good government and how this government has proceeded with the industrial relations reform. Some aspects of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 are the cumulation of constructive negotiations between employer and employee organisations over a number of years, and I commend those. But others, including compulsory multi-employer bargaining, were not. It is those aspects which fail the government's own test of proper process. These aspects of the bill were not in Labor's election policy; they were not canvassed at the Jobs and Skills Summit; and they were not subject to consultation. Now the government are seeking to guillotine debate and force this bill through this House without time to understand the bill, talk to those who will be affected or identify unintended consequences. This isn't a way to make policy or to pass legislation. Particularly not for a policy area like industrial relations, which is notoriously complex. Even well-intentioned changes can end up backfiring, like the better off overall test which was introduced by Labor in 2008 and is being fixed by Labor 2022. This is why government legislation needs scrutiny and input from stakeholders from right across the spectrum. Without it we're going to repeat the mistakes of the past rather than learn from them. It's disappointing that government have gone down this path so far, but it's not too late for them to do the right thing and change course. Looking at the provisions of the bill there are some aspects that are really welcome and which I support. I particularly support changes which assist in securing wages for low-paid workers. I was really heartened by Fair Work's recent decision to raise aged-care wages by 15 per cent and would love to see it rolled out into other areas with underpaid workforces, particularly in the caring sector. There could be tweaks made to the supported bargaining stream to make it more effective. Defining low-wage workers would help overcome one of the obstacles that has stopped this stream being used in the recent past. But these are quibbles, and I have no wish to delay these parts of the bill. I also strongly support the changes which would make it faster and more certain for enterprise bargains to be approved by Fair Work after they have secured backing from employers and employees. This is crucial. This includes reforms to the better off overall test and removing some impediments to the approvals process. But there are other aspects to the bill which aren't as welcome. The most concerning is changing multi-employer bargaining from a stream where both parties need to opt into a stream to a stream where employees can compel the other side to join a negotiation or an existing agreement spanning other workplaces. Where this occurs an employer doesn't get to choose whether they want to bargain with other businesses, they don't get to choose which other businesses participate and they don't have the right to stop their workforce joining an existing agreement which may not be a good fit for the business. This sort of change should be subject to wider public debate. It is not something that was widely discussed or understood during the election campaign, during the Jobs and Skills Summit or in subsequent discussions which I and the business community have had with government. It is a basic principle of government that you should engage the community on major reform before embarking upon it: set out the problem the country faces, tell us the solution you think is best and why the alternative options are inferior. Make your case, engage in the debate and convince the community to back your ideas. That's what I want to see, and it's what most Australians want to see. Australians would rather see lasting policy reform than have an industrial relations ping-pong with each change of government, as the coalition undoes Labor's policies and Labor unpicks the coalition's policies. That is no way to run a country. One benefit of a national debate is that people know what to expect and can have their voices heard. It really troubles me that this bill is going to have a huge impact on thousands of smaller businesses around Australia, but most of them aren't even aware that it's coming. I've spoken to a number of business owners who simply don't understand the bill or what it means for them. When they learn that it could mean certain decisions affecting their business will be taken away from them and given to their workers or to the Fair Work Commission, they become truly alarmed. If I were still running a small business I would be alarmed too. This isn't a piecemeal change but a transformation about how businesses interact with their staff, particularly smaller businesses. Even experienced industrial relations specialists aren't sure how it's going to work in practice, which means that no businessperson can possibly know. I don't think anybody knows, not even the decision-makers in the government. Small business owners have made it through the incredibly difficult times of COVID and got past lockdowns and restrictions, only to be faced with labour shortages, rapidly-rising interest rates, rapidly-rising electricity prices and a potential recession. They've struggled to hold on through perhaps the most difficult commercial environment in this country's history—and it's about to get a whole lot harder for them. We can do much better than this. The best thing the government can do today is to split the bill into two parts. One part could encompass the support for higher wages in low-wage industries, along with measures that have been subject to broad consultation and which are generally agreed on all sides. This could easily pass the parliament, immediately supporting immediate wage rises for low-income workers, which I support 100 per cent. The other part of the bill could undergo further consultation and scrutiny, ensuring that legitimate concerns are heard and resolved, and exploring all the possible consequences of the bill. This would not hold up wage rises for low-income workers but it would be a sensible approach to contentious reform. That is why I have prepared a second reading amendment to hold back the most contentious parts of the bill until they can undergo appropriate scrutiny. Splitting the bill is the best thing this House could do to improve the IR bill, and so I move: That all words after "reading" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "until an inquiry into parts 11, 15, 18, 19, 21 and 22 of the bill is undertaken by a House or Senate committee, with the inquiry lasting not less than 90 days". I will also move substantive amendments to the bill reflecting other concerns. I believe that multi-employer bargaining should not be compulsory, or should be voluntary, or, if the government insists on its approach, that it changes the common interest and public interest tests so that workplaces cannot be roped into a bargain that has no merit. I also believe that the threshold for small businesses needs to be more than 15 people. A cafe or a retail outlet in Wentworth often has more than 15 employees, but these are not big businesses. They're not Coles or Woolworths, and they should not be treated as though they are. I also believe disputes over flexible work arrangements shouldn't go straight from a discussion between an employer and employee to Fair Work arbitration, an exercise that can cost tens of thousands of dollars and ruin the relationship between an employer and an employee. Let's put a step in between, where both parties can engage in conciliation with guidance and support from Fair Work before we bring in the lawyers. And I believe there should be an independent statutory review of the changes within 12 months to tell us if the changes are working as intended. These changes would mitigate some of the harm the bill might impose on our economy, but they're not my preferred approach. My preferred approach would be that the government went back to first principles with its industrial relations policy and remembered that productivity drives wages. There's a lot we can do to accelerate productivity growth, but award modernisation would have to be near the top of that list—make awards simpler. Simplicity benefits employees and employers. It means employees can genuinely understand the conditions of their employment and are able to call out right from wrong, and it means employers can genuinely understand what their employees expect and deserve from them. Under the current system, employees and employers inadvertently breach the same rules all the time. Awards should be so simple that that isn't possible. They should be so simple that a 15-year-old working their first job can understand an agreement, their rate of pay and whether their boss is following the rules. That's not currently possible with the general retail award, which runs to more than 100 pages. Minister, I promise you: if you modernise the award, you will support employment, wage and productivity growth in this country. It will not be an easy process, but it will certainly be worthwhile and make a lasting impact on our economy. As it currently stands, I cannot in good conscience support the bill. The policy process has been flawed and the legislation itself is flawed. It will harm our economy and the very workers the government wants to support. This is why I propose amendments and why, if they are not successful, I will vote to oppose the bill and will be encouraging others to do so. I move: That all words after "reading" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "until an inquiry into parts 11, 15, 18, 19, 21 and 22 of the bill is undertaken by a House or Senate committee, with the inquiry lasting not less than 90 days". Ms Daniel 008CH I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 18:12 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. This legislation will deliver more secure jobs, better pay and a fairer workplace relations system for Australian workers. How Labor is that? That is modern day light-on-the-hill stuff—so LED lights, obviously. I will talk briefly about two things this bill is designed to do. The first is to ban pay secrecy clauses, and the second thing is bargaining, something I've had some experience in through working for the Independent Education Union, particularly dealing in the Christian schools sector, where you sit down and look at awards and at enterprise bargaining agreements. I also did enterprise bargaining many years ago with some of the independent, standalone First Nations schools in Queensland. One of the key objectives of the bill is to help to close the gender pay gap, a great thing to do. All sensible Australians know that women should not be paid less than men, but we need to move from just agreeing and nodding to actually doing something about that. This bill aims to ban secrecy clauses so that companies cannot prohibit staff talking about pay if they want to. These clauses have long been used to conceal gender pay discrepancies. We would hate for any future female workers to be discriminated against, wouldn't we? I'm sure we can all agree on that. Banning pay secrecy clauses will improve transparency, reduce the risk of gender pay discrimination and empower more women to ask their employers for pay rises. Over the weekend I attended the Queensland state Labor conference on the Sunshine Coast. The conference was addressed by many people, including the Prime Minister and the Premier, particularly a woman with professional experience in both the public and private sector. Her first job was in the Queensland Public Service when she was 17 years old. As an AO1 in the state Public Service, her salary and conditions were known and aligned with people doing the same work. The pay of her co-workers and bosses was made public and transparent, and staff were free to discuss their salaries openly. Leaving the government some years later to work in the private sector, she soon learnt that transparency around pay and conditions did not exist. Over the years, she has had contracts that prohibited her from talking about her pay. She's had to negotiate her own employment contract, salary and conditions, unsure of what deals her colleagues and peers had secured, fearful of asking for too much, anxious and always unsure if she was underselling herself, and completely reliant on goodwill and the blind hope that her employer would do the right thing by her. In her own words, she made this very clear point: 'If we can't see something, if we can't talk about something, if there's no transparency, it inhibits our ability to organise, to advocate and to get a better deal.' Multibargaining is already possible under the Fair Work Act through three streams: single interest, multi-employer and low pay. The problem is, if you look at the data, we know that the system isn't working. Wages have flatlined for nearly a decade while profits have soared and productivity has increased—I wouldn't say soared but it's increased. So something is not working. Under this bill we're not creating new streams of bargaining, we're varying the existing streams to make them workable and get wages moving, something that we took to the election loudly and proudly. The largest aged-care provider in Queensland, Blue Care, has offered workers a two per cent wage increase and has made no attempt to lift the offer despite being forced by workers to the bargaining table. I want to touch on that bargaining table for a second, because when I did do enterprise bargaining I sat at a table, with employers, with the workers I represented. I'm sure the member for Blair would have done the same thing, sitting at a table. Nowadays, I'm told—I've been here a while—there's no table because people meet virtually, and there's no bargaining anymore. Because of that gap between EB and awards, bosses basically say, 'Your wages can fall off a cliff if you don't take what I'm giving you.' Basically, it's one step away from coercion, where your wages fall off a cliff, your conditions fall off a cliff, so there's no more bargaining, no more table. We need to bring back the bargaining table. Back to Blue Care. The aged-care provider, run by UnitingCare, employs thousands of aged-care workers who do incredible work, but they've steadfastly refused to improve the offer—despite inflation running at about seven per cent in Brisbane and other major aged-care providers giving workers pay rises well north of four per cent. Frustrated Blue Care workers stand testament to a broken bargaining system that has ended after months of protracted negotiations in stalemate. That's not the way to run an industrial relations system. Think of all that effort, all that goodwill, for nothing—all that goodwill and innovation curdling into rancour in a workplace. In early October, Blue Care workers voted down the company's continued two per cent offer and are now waiting for negotiations to resume in their quest for a fair pay offer. If you know these workers, if you've met these workers, how could you look them in the eye and say, 'This system is working'? It's ridiculous. The issues facing Blue Care workers demonstrate, across the nation, the difficulty in bargaining when the bargaining does not involve the ultimate decision-maker on aged-care workers' wages—in this case, the federal government being present at the bargaining table. It also illustrates the current ability of employers to play out a negotiation endlessly, with no actual obligation at any stage to come to a final acceptable position. Labor's secure jobs, better pay legislation will deliver on a range of commitments that we made at the 2022 election and at the Jobs and Skills Summit. Don't be misled by people saying that we did not take this to the election and that we did not take it to the Jobs and Skills Summit. We want our reforms to modernise Australia's workplace relations system, get wages moving and achieve gender equity for Australian workers, because we all know that Australian workers have been doing it tough. For the last 10 years Australians has had a government that has deliberately kept their wages low. Do you remember that? Do you remember the former finance minister belling the cat and saying, 'That's a deliberate design strategy.' It was something that just came out of his mouth as if it meant nothing, but think of the misery visited upon households because of that commitment by the Liberal and National parties—the reformed friend of the workers from 22 May. The Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments did nothing to close the loopholes that have made Australian jobs less secure. But the Albanese government is taking the opposite approach, because that Albanese government believes in giving workers a better deal and a better future. We believe in Australians, and I commend Labor's legislation to the House because I still believe in the light on the hill. 18:20 Ms DANIEL 008CH Goldstein I haven't been in this parliament for long, but already I feel like a broken record. Women want to work, but they want their work to be respected, and we do have to take care that we make the overdue changes in ways that produce the right result. This is a massive piece of legislation produced in a short period and there has been almost no time for community consultation. An amendment to the Fair Work Act it may be, but at 243 pages, with an explanatory memorandum to match and with further amendments to come, it's much more than that. The amendments have the potential to create vast and positive change, but the process is fraught. How do I balance what are the clear upsides of the bill against the concerns of business? This quandary has literally kept me awake at night this past week since the bill was tabled. I represent a community with upwards of 17,000 small businesses, including cafes, small manufacturers, residential builders and skilled individuals who work as sole traders, as well as others who work in high positions in some of Australia's biggest companies. Also, in Goldstein, I represent thousands of women who work in the care sector, aged care, early childhood education and disability care. Almost 2,000 nurses, midwives and carers live in the suburbs of Bentleigh, Ormond and McKinnon alone. I also represent people—many of them women—who work fragmented shifts in other sectors such as retail and cleaning. In being elected to this place, I vowed to speak up for those women, those who are not in the room and those who do not have the loudest voices as individuals, and I vowed to advocate for our prosperity as a nation. Wages, productivity and prosperity intersect, yet the share of GDP going to wages is at an all-time low. Productivity has grown at twice the pace of real wages over the last two decades. The fastest-growing sector of the economy is the care and service sector. As Chief Executive Women said in its prebudget submission: While the care sector, largely powered by women, has been the safety net of the economy, this sector has been widely undervalued. The care sectors are encumbered by critical workforce shortages, resulting from high levels of insecure work and low pay. The face of modern unionism is a 40-year-old woman in the care sector; that's the reality. And more than four million Australian workers are now in insecure work. Many are women, an untapped resource, in part due to their lack of power. Not only are they saddled with the bulk of society's unpaid work, held back by a lack of child care, paid parental leave and super; they're undervalued when they do work. Often they're sandwiched between children, elderly parents and employers, rostered sporadically, disempowered, underpaid and, frankly, run ragged. Award wages merely keep them down. In turn, their children can be affected by intergenerational transfer of disadvantage. A recent survey of almost 6½ thousand retail workers asked them what they wanted. The answer was simple: decent pay, job security, predictable shifts. Several of these concerns are addressed in this bill. I wholeheartedly support the provisions for supported bargaining for care industries. This would help give agency to these largely feminised industries where, in many cases, currently, hours are too short and shifts are irregular, precarious and changeable. Currently, women earn, on average, $472 per week less than men. The gender pay gap sits at 14.1 per cent and, disgracefully, it has only narrowed by a miserable 5.1 per cent since 1983. These supported bargaining provisions will allow women to negotiate for better pay and conditions. The women who work in our care sector deserve this. And it's not only low-paid working women who stand to gain. All working women can benefit from changes to transparency rules around salary, which will enable female employees who are being paid less than their male counterparts to say so. A new study by the ILO found that pay transparency measures can help to address the gender pay gap and reduce broader gender inequalities in the labour market. Pay transparency may provide workers with the information and evidence they require to negotiate pay rates and provide them with the means to challenge potential pay discrimination. Additionally, the capacity to not only ask for flexibility but also to ask the Fair Work Commission for a review should the employer say no is broadly a good change. I have suggested to the government that small businesses with fewer than 25 full-time staff should be exempt from this. This goes to one of my concerns about this bill. Apart from the obvious issue of the very short time frame provided by the government for the consideration of this complex set of amendments, there are some unintended consequences, and there is much to clarify before this bill passes both houses. As the bill stands, small businesses with a headcount of less than 15 could be subject to mandatory multi-employer bargaining. And, as I said earlier, there are thousands of those small businesses in Goldstein. How they fare matters not only for those who own these businesses and those who work for them but also for the community that depends on them. Already these businesses are grappling with the higher input costs resulting from spiking inflation, especially energy costs. This alone threatens the viability of these businesses, many of which have been built up over decades of hard work and sacrifice by their owners. A headcount of 15 would potentially drag every cafe and small independent store and some early childhood education businesses into the net and subject them to mandatory multi-employer bargaining. I've suggested that the government consider amending this provision to ensure that it does not have the consequences I have outlined. Based on what the small businesses in Goldstein that I represent are telling me, a figure of more than 25 full-time staff would be more realistic. This could simply be inserted into these amendments and left as existing in the rest of the act regarding issues like unfair dismissal. There is also deep concern among businesses in Goldstein about the flexible work provisions, two-year contracts and the zombie agreement transition provisions. Again, these issues could be resolved by explicitly setting a higher number of full-time staff in the flexible work provisions and providing a staged change to the other provisions. On the question of single-enterprise multi-employer bargaining, I support explicitly directing the Fair Work Commission to preserve the primacy of single-enterprise agreements and providing a six-month buffer period after expiry of an agreement before an employer can be forced into a multi-employer negotiation. Common and public interest definitions need to be clarified to avoid competition issues, and a reasonable review period—less than the five years proposed—is needed, in my view. Finally, I return to what I believe to be one of the most important elements of this bill. In its definitions, the legislation should make it clear that what we are seeking is gender equality in the workplace, not merely gender equity, as currently stated. Equity merely sets the stage for equality, putting women only at the starting line rather than requiring an outcome. If we are to get beyond our miserable long-term record on equality of pay for equality of work, if we are to get more women who want to work into the workforce, if we are to get the productivity benefits that that would create, if we are to get the growth we need for future prosperity and if we are to be able to look our daughters in the face and say, 'No more,' then this is what we must do. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the ILO gender equality conventions and the Workplace Gender Equality Act all say that gender equality means substantive equality between men and women. If, as the government says, this legislation is about elevating feminised workforces then this must be the result of this legislation, not merely the aspiration. The women of Australia have waited too long, and I stand here to say this on behalf of those in Goldstein and elsewhere who are not in the room. 18:29 Ms MILLER-FROST 296272 Boothby This government was elected with a mandate: to deliver a better future for all Australians. Core to that is to get wages moving for working Australians. We know that wages have been deliberately held back for almost a decade by those opposite. We know it because they told us. They said low wages were in fact a deliberate design feature of their economic plan. Let's think for a moment about what that means. It means less money in your pocket. It means that over this entire past decade, while prices went up—food, petrol, energy, child care, health care—there was no more money with your pay cheque. No matter how much those opposite claim to care about the cost of living now, that was a situation they did nothing to address for nine long years. Which brings me to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. This bill does a number of important things that will provide benefits for all Australians. Specifically, it will get wages moving by modernising what the evidence of the past 10 years shows us to be a broken bargaining system. It will empower workers in historically overlooked industries to work together to negotiate with employers and providers for better conditions and pay. Unlike those opposite, I attended the government's Jobs and Skills Summit, and there I heard business and unions agree on this point: while the current system certainly isn't delivering the real-wage increases that Australians deserve, it is also complex and cumbersome for businesses, particularly small businesses without extensive HR departments and resources. Isn't it time, therefore, that we did something about a system that isn't working for anyone? This bill also protects workers by banning job ads that advertise below the relevant minimum pay rate—a fairly commonsense course of action to me. It will help close what is a stubborn gender pay gap by banning pay secrecy clauses and expanding access to flexible work arrangements. My colleagues the member for Spence and the member for Moreton both mentioned this. My personal experience is that pay secrecy is absolutely used to underpay women—it happened to me. I don't say that because I'm special; I say that because it's really, really common. Minister Burke has consulted exceptionally widely on this bill, and I know he remains committed to reaching acceptable outcomes for all parties. The consensus-driven approach is a hallmark of this government, working together in the national interest. We will continue to consult with stakeholders and engage in the Senate's important inquiry process but, as the Prime Minister is fond of saying, we don't want to waste a day of the privilege of being in government. We don't want to waste any time before making these sensible improvements to our workplace relations system to make it work better for everyone. Australians have already sat through a wasted decade, watching their real wages go backwards—now is the time for action. Crucially, this bill continues this government's focus on addressing gender inequalities. Just yesterday I was proud to vote in favour of our legislation to deliver the recommendations of the Respect@Work report in full. Last month I voted to make child care cheaper for 96 per cent of families in the system, and to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks. The minister's approach to this bill has been underpinned by recognition that some forms of work in this country are not valued as they should be. These professions—health care, aged care, disability support and early childhood education—are, you'll be surprised to know—or maybe not—powered overwhelmingly by women. For too long they have been either explicitly or implicitly undervalued precisely because they are associated in our collective consciousness with the term 'women's work'. That was the finding of the Fair Work Commission just last week when it ruled in favour of giving aged-care workers a 15 per cent pay rise. This government values the work these Australians do, and is going about creating a workplace relations system that reflects that. We are taking action to deliver on our commitment to the Australian people to get wages moving and to deliver more secure jobs, better pay and a fairer workplace relations system. Ultimately, giving hardworking Australians—Australians who care for our kids, nurse us when we are sick and provide support to our most vulnerable—the respect, the recognition and, yes, the pay they deserve seems like something all of us in the place should support. I hear nice words in this place about how much we value frontline workers in the caring professions—and yes, largely women—but then there are always the buts, buts, buts. They want all these things for workers but—so put your money where your mouth is and enable these hardworking Australians to get the money they deserve. 18:35 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler We've heard a lot about mandates and we've heard a lot about the impact of this proposed bill, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill, even from the Independents who recognise the risk to the Australian economy, the risk to small business and the risk to our country. I did a little bit of research because there is an entire generation of Australians who are not aware of what it looks like when the unions run this country. They just have not seen it and so they don't understand it. I wanted to check my memory because I was only a young child and then in the late eighties—13 January 1987—I commenced as an apprentice, so I thought I should check some of the previous reports on just what it was like for industrial relations when pattern bargaining and union activity were at their height. On 25 August 1975 the Herald in Melbourne reported, 'From midnight tonight about 9,000 shipyard workers will strike for 24 hours.' 'Doom town' is the headline. My personal favourite was on 22 September 1979, 'The body snatchers turn the wharves into battlefields.' It quotes that the ports of Sydney and Melbourne have been free of disputes for only two weeks in the past 18 months, most stoppages caused by demarcation and poaching. It is just quite incredible that they lost more than 131,000 working days on the waterfront in disputes in 1978, and a source at the container terminal at White Bay said 1979 should have been a 'quiet year' because they weren't due to negotiate their awards until the next year, 1980. But that wasn't the way it turned out. We move forward to March 1987 and in the Australian, 'Unions on the march, a national 24-hour strike that yesterday paralysed the already limping Australian building industry and a warning of further militant activity to come.' This is what happens when the unions are running this country. Another personal favourite, 'The billion-dollar House on the Hill', this parliament. The original cost estimate in 1978 was $220 million, when the first shovel of dirt was turned it had risen to $275 million and by August 1987 it had blown out to $1,047.8 million. Here's the big part of that, the final figure being above $1.2 billion. Guess what? The building has been a nightmare with the BLF calling a 14-week strike in 1984 and smaller industrial action that has continued. This is what this type of activity does. It drives up the cost for every Australian, whether in construction, on the wharfs, in imports or just trying to be in business but getting held up by this type of activity. A couple of the types of things that were happening: 1989, Sydney Morning Herald: 'About 200 angry building workers halted the national wage case yesterday by invading the court and jeering at the wage bench. They commandeered the building lifts and poured into the court on the 39th floor.' 'Wild brawl over dockyard plan: a policewoman was bitten on the arm and six striking Cockatoo Island workers were arrested. When a demonstration outside the NSW Labor Council building yesterday erupted, more than 50 police, including tactical response group officers, had to swarm and respond.' This is the type of activity that the Labor Party wants to bring back into our nation. To give you a quick summary of what impact was, in 1972 two million working days were lost as a result of strikes. In 1973 it was 2.6 million, and in 1974 almost 6.3 million days, keeping in mind that in 1980 this country only had a population of 14 million. Whitlam's stacking, more industrial action, more industrial trouble. Those opposite continue to claim they have a mandate for this decision, a mandate for this activity. Well, we've done some research—and this has been provided to me. We went back to have a bit of a look. Let's have a look the comments that leader Albanese and others might have made. To ACCI on 5 May 2022 there was no mention—not one, not a single mention of this proposal. No wonder industry and business think this has been dropped on them from out of the big blue sky—not a single mention. There's another opportunity here, the Prime Minister's speech to the National Press Club on 18 May 2022—nope, wasn't in that either. What else have we got? Perhaps it's on their policy page. Perhaps that's where we can find it. It says, 'I want to talk about the first eight elements of Labor's Secure Australian Jobs Plan'. No, no mention of industrywide bargaining in Labor's policy on their website at that time—none. No-one expected this, certainly not business, certainly not small businesses, certainly not those who are out there and will be directly impacted. Even Minister Burke didn't rule it out in the questions that were put to him by the Australian. The Treasurer makes a lot of noise in question time, but from what we can gather he didn't quite get this one right. David Speers said, 'I'm asking you about industrywide bargaining. Is it a yes, a no or a maybe? Chalmers—the member for Rankin, the current Treasurer—said, 'It's not part of our policy, David, I've just explained to you what our policy is on industrial relations, and we've already announced that some time ago. It is not our policy.' I find this outrageous. It is no wonder that even the independents are up in arms about the time that this has taken. It is too short. These are very, very detailed considerations. They have a direct impact. Why does Labor want to do this? As the Leader of the Opposition outlined it is to pay off those unions that've supported them. We cop a lot of flak from that side about those of us on the side who don't come through the same sorts of places as the Labor Party. As I said, I started as an apprentice on 13 January 1987 at the Fairymead Sugar Mill. I can tell you that it was a heavily industrialised workforce. My first experience of a strike was when 200-plus workers from that mill walked out, wandered off and left the apprentices behind—because apprentices don't strike. You continue to go to work. My first experience was in my fourth year, out the front, with someone saying, 'Solidarity brothers, solidarity.' I said, 'Mate, what is going on?' He said, 'Well, they're going fishing and we've got to stay here and oil the drill machines and the pedestal drills in the workshop.' That went on for a number of days. My experience with this type of activity is personal. When I completed my time—working with a number of individuals I had worked with for four years—if I didn't get my union ticket the day after, the first thing that happened was I was black-banned. I was black-banned from the place I'd been at for four years, as an apprentice, because it was unacceptable. One of my greatest regrets is that I never learnt how to weld, because in those days demarcation prevented me from learning. It's a skill I would love to have. I am really pleased that the current crop of apprentices don't have to deal with this sort of nonsense. I do want to shout out to a few of people I used to work with: Stumpy, Joel, Rabbit, Ross, Les, Davey, Pick, Hiscock—whose nickname I won't use because it's highly inappropriate—the boss, Alan Teasdale. There are a number of others who have names that I just can't repeat in this place. They would be appalled at this because they were always willing to fight for their rights. They were always willing to do what was necessary to keep their business running, particularly a sugar mill—which, as you know, Deputy Speaker, has to run continuously when it's on. They would be appalled at anything that would change the risk to this country; that would decrease our level of security; that would impact business and mean less employment, not more employment, because it is business that has to pay the bills. This is always about balance. You have to get the balance right between the needs of the employer and the needs of the employee. I can see those opposite shaking their heads. They don't they think it is about balance. If the business is not making enough money they can't pay the wages and it is gone, so you have to get this right. This takes time. I say to those opposite: stop trying to charge this legislation through. You've got even more challenges in the Senate than you do in the House of Representatives. These are big changes. They're difficult changes. We've seen industry come out and absolutely attack you, which is really unusual. The fact that they are all lined up and oppose these changes should say something to the Labor Party—that this is not the right decision. I'll come back to the people I used to work with: they were good, hardworking Australians. They were union members, and proud of it—and that is great—but they were more proud of their country. There are a number who are gone now, and I miss every single one of them, but I know they would not support this, because it is the wrong decision. It is the wrong decision; Labor should reconsider what they're doing here. Listen to the crossbench if you don't want to listen to us. Listen to business. Listen to small business and listen to the people out to pay the bills. We have to get the balance right or, quite simply, the country will suffer and the outcome will be bad for all Australians. 18:45 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper Last week I had the very great honour of sitting in this House to hear a remarkable speech. It was delivered by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations on his tabling of this Fair Work at Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. I heard a minister of this House speak of gender equity and the importance of the care economy—a feminised workforce that is overworked, underpaid and undervalued. He spoke of the gender pay gap that is stubbornly high. He spoke about worker rights that have diminished drastically over the last couple of decades, due in no small part to the prevalence of insecure work. Insecure work is a scourge on our society that means workers sit by the phone, waiting for a call to a shift. They're unable to plan their lives: unable to commit to playing sport, to volunteering and to being at their kids' school events because missing an offer of work or turning down an offer of work means you don't get offered another shift. It means working two and three different jobs just to make ends meet. It means no ability to get bank loans for that desperately needed new car because of the nature of your work, and owning a home is only a dream. You have no power to ask for a pay rise or to raise occupational health and safety issues at work because it means you won't get another shift. The minister stood there in this House and spoke of flatlining wages, despite company profits continuing to rise. What the speakers on that side of the House who keep talking about businesses failing don't seem to acknowledge is that the workers' share of national income is at an all-time low. Profits are continuing to rise but wages are not. In the tabling of this bill, the minister spoke of a Labor government ready to change all of that, because that is what Labor governments do. They make big reforms that benefit all Australians. I have to say that I almost cried when listening to the minister give that speech in this House, in this chamber, because we have not heard words like that spoken by a minister for a decade. Finally, Australians heard a minister of their government speaking the truth about what it is like to struggle to get by, even when you have a job. The reforms outlined in this bill, which so many of my colleagues have and will speak on over the course of this debate, go to the heart of that Labor-style reform which makes working people's lives better. Again, it was music to my ears when the minister spoke of the power of organised labour coming together in a union and working with multiple employers to maximise the process of bargaining. This is because we need to get wages rising, and bargaining is the answer. Bargaining works; we know it does. The data is evident: wage outcomes are better when organised workers stand together and bargain with their employers. Listening to the previous speaker fearmongering—'chicken-littleing' about the sky falling in and about the world of strikes coming at us in droves because of this legislation—was absolute nonsense. It shows complete ignorance about the real world. I worked in the union movement for 20 years and striking is rare: it is a last resort. I can say that only once in my whole working life did I go on strike, and we, as nurses, cried our eyes out as we walked out those doors and laid down our tools—but so important were the issues that we had to do that. The vast majority of bargaining ends in agreements. That's what happens. Making it easier to bargain is not about industrial action; it's about being efficient and getting wages rising. Bargaining just one aspect of getting wages rising through this bill: removing rolling fixed-term contracts; making it easier to recover unpaid entitlements; allowing flexible arrangements that work for workers and not just employers; allowing the Fair Work Commission to tackle insecurity; for women, introducing a ban on sexual harassment that means women don't have to leave the place of employment; removing secrecy clauses; making it easier for the commission to order pay increases for workers in low-paid, feminised industries—and more. I was so proud to be here when the minister spoke his historic words, and I am proud to be in a Labor government ready to make real reform that will without doubt change people's lives. I ask the members of this House—those who are determined to amend this or even to vote it down—to listen to all voices. Listen to the workers who need this legislation as soon as possible. Don't be duped by scaremongers. This is not radical legislation. It is practical, it is workable and it will benefit businesses as well. We know that. Don't tell workers you just can't take it all in. Don't delay their wage rises. Don't delay this bill. The Chicken Littles are out there crying, 'The sky is falling!', and this legislation is far too important to be gazumped by Chicken Littles. 18:51 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I and every other member in this place was elected as part of a democratic process that is the envy of many countries around the world. Internationally respected democracy does not and should not stop on election day. However, the treatment of this bill is, in my view, undemocratic and seriously undermines the parliamentary process. The government is deliberately rushing this bill through the parliament. Members have had their opportunities to speak to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 curtailed, and it is so rushed that even the minister identified the need for amendments when introducing the bill. A bill of this significance, with broad-ranging impact across all industry sectors, requires proper scrutiny. This cannot be achieved when members are provided with a copy on the day of introduction and given less than two weeks to review, to explore the implications or to meet with industry and employee representatives—even just to talk to businesses in their electorates that will be affected by this—particularly when this bill is more than 250 pages long. If this bill is as urgent and as important as the government suggests, where was the exposure draft? I think we all know the answer, because exposure drafts provide scrutiny and discussion, and they become part of the public discourse. The minister, in his second reading speech, outlined the guiding principles of the bill, and these included the need to increase wages, close the gender pay gap, address gender equity and improve job security. I don't think there's anyone in this place that disagrees with these principles. However, we must seek to achieve these in a consultative and constructive manner, not one that will unleash known and unknown consequences that, I believe, will return Australia to the industrial mayhem of the 1970s. There is no better illustration than in part 3 of the bill, which abolishes the Australian Building and Construction Commission. We must have very short memories in this place if we are to think the removal of the ABCC is a good idea. The ABCC was established following several royal commissions into the building and construction industry. The 1990-1992 New South Wales royal commission was led by Roger Gyles, who found numerous illegal activities—from physical violence to theft. The Terence Cole royal commission, between 2001 and 2003, found a disregard for enterprise bargaining, unlawful strikes and the use of inappropriate payments. At the time, Cole said: These findings demonstrate an industry which departs from the standards of commercial and industrial conduct exhibited in the rest of the Australian economy. They mark the industry as singular. They indicate an urgent need for structural and cultural reform. At the heart of the findings is lawlessness. It is exhibited in many ways. In all seriousness, do we really want to return to the dark days of intimidation, violence and lawlessness on our building sites? I think not. As such, I do not support part 3 of this bill. There are many elements of this bill that I do support, and I know that I'm not alone in forming the view that the government should split this bill in two. The parts I do support comprise parts 4 through to 10, parts 12 to 14, parts 16 and 17, and parts 24 and 25. However, with respect to pay secrecy, I must say I am concerned that the intended outcome will not be achieved and that it may simply result in employers choosing not to pay more to staff that they find to be of greater value to the business—for fear of accusations of unfairness or an onslaught of requests from other employees who, quite simply, may not perform or be as valued. One of my main concerns in this bill is the disproportionate effect on small business. Such enterprises do not have the financial or human resource capacity to accommodate additional complexities to what is already a complicated and laborious system. In South Australia there are 3,502 businesses employing between 20 and 199 employees, and 50,584 businesses with one to 19 employees. Combined, they represent around 36 per cent of all businesses in the state. The potential impost on these businesses cannot be understated. In contrast, only 0.1 per cent of businesses employ more than 200 employees. Enterprise agreements favour these large employers with resources, with huge HR departments to negotiate with employee representatives. The cost-benefit is that the investment in time and resources versus the risk associated with bargaining is worth the outcome. In this context, it's not difficult to determine why enterprise bargaining has declined. Others have weighed into the debate, including former prime minister Paul Keating. Ironically, he recently described the former Labor government's changes to the Fair Work Act as overly prescriptive and legalistic resulting in enterprise agreements falling over if a hypothetical worker is worse off in the future or if a third party that is not even a part of the agreement complains. Keating cited this as the reason for the dramatic decline in enterprise agreements and employers' avoidance due to fears of protracted negotiations without real incomes. This bill does not address Keatings observations. In fact, it exacerbates the problem by laying the foundation of what is likely to result in industrial action, greater complexity and even more onerous responsibilities on employers, particularly small businesses. Instead of many of the proposed changes that are here, all we will be doing is making life harder for mum-and-dad businesses. For example, flexible work arrangements outlined in part 11 are broadened and, concerningly, give employees the right to request the Fair Work Commission to arbitrate when their employer has refused to grant their request for flexible working arrangements or in circumstances where the parties cannot agree on a compromised flexible working arrangement. It's absurd that the Fair Work Commission may be given powers to rule over an independent decision of a business owner. There are many circumstances where businesses are legitimately unable to accommodate requests for flexible working arrangements. For example, in a small fruit and vegetable store in my electorate workers are needed between 4 pm and 9 pm. That's the busy time. That's when they need staff—not times that may suit the employee outside of their rostered hours. I do acknowledge that employees who are experiencing family and domestic violence need all the assistance and flexibility that can be afforded them, but there are many businesses that simply do not have the capacity to accommodate this. We just haven't had time, with respect to this bill—COSBOA, just trying to meet with as many businesses as possible that are going to be affected by this. So I've put forward an amendment, and I move the motion circulated in my name that will take small businesses out of this equation and lift it up to 100 employees, because, quite frankly, 15 employees is so small. That's a local fruit and veg store and it's a local petrol station. Do we really think that they should have to deal with the unions? My goodness, they wouldn't have an HR department! They're lucky if they have a payroll assistant. More commonly than not it's the owners of the business who are spending their Saturday nights doing the payroll themselves. If this amendment is not passed we will be pitting small business against the might, power and money of the unions. I have to say that I think much of this whole bill is actually about building the union movement rather than seeking to assist employees. What we need to do is to improve the award system, and that's what we saw recently with regard to aged-care workers. We don't need to force most businesses in Australia to go down through an enterprise bargaining agreement when they don't have that capacity or ability to do so. I move: That the following words be added after the words 90 days:   ."; and (1) parts 1, 2 and 3 of the bill are added to the inquiry; and (2) calls on the Government to change the definition of a small business from 15 to 100 employees". I would ask all members in this place to consider this amendment very thoughtfully. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Is the amendment seconded? Ms Le 295676 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 19:01 Ms FERNANDO 299964 Holt I am proud to stand here today, speaking in support of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. This bill goes to the core of why I put my hand up to represent the people of Holt, and why I got involved in politics in the first place. I stand here today because I believe that the conditions for workers in this country need to be improved. For too long wages have not kept up with the cost of living, insecure work has been on the rise and gender equity has gone largely unaddressed. I saw this as a worker, as a health and safety representative and as a union organiser. The legislation before the parliament this week is the beginning of the Albanese Labor government's reform to modernise the workplace relations system, because it's clear that our current system is not working. This situation was not helped by those opposite when they were on the government benches. For nearly 10 years their government's policy of deliberately keeping wages low and suppressing workers' pay made it harder for Australian families to get ahead. Working people in this country have clearly had enough, which is why they rejected the coalition and their antiworker agenda earlier this year. This change of government had an instant effect on wages. We made a submission to the Fair Work Commission, calling for a substantial increase in the annual wage review, and this resulted in a 5.2 per cent increase to the minimum wage. And just last week we saw the fantastic news that there will be a 15 per cent interim pay rise for aged-care workers, which is celebrated on this side of the House. However, we know that individual wage cases are not enough. This side of the House knows that working Australians need big-picture reform that addresses deep rooted issues in our workplace relations system. The bill before the House today honours the government's commitment to get wages moving and to improve job security. A key part of this reform is boosting enterprise bargaining. For the past 10 years, under the watch of the coalition, Australia's enterprise-bargaining system has been in decline. We know that when the bargaining system is working as it should it lifts wages, reduces wage disparity and leads to lower unemployment, particularly for young people, women and low-skilled workers. Around half as many new agreements were made last year compared to the 2013-2014 financial year. This is the opposite of what we need to see in our economy, and the bill before the House today will address this problem. This will simplify the requirements that need to be met by an enterprise agreement for it to be approved by the Fair Work Commission. Unions and business both agree that the current requirements are overly complex. This bill replaces the current criteria with one broad requirement: for the Fair Work Commission to be satisfied that an enterprise agreement has been genuinely agreed to. This change will make it easier for agreements to be approved, while maintaining sufficient protection for employees. Importantly, this bill also introduces a number of measures to tackle gender inequity. Our wage system places a lot of emphasis on the independent industrial umpire, the Fair Work Commission, but currently the commission does not have to consider gender equity when it's making its decision. The secure jobs, better pay bill changes this. The bill will make gender equity a central objective of the Fair Work Act. This means addressing the gender pay gap will be at the heart of pay decisions made by the commission. This is a big change, and an important one. Over the past week we've read commentary from the extreme Left and the extreme Right. They seem to have found common ground in attacking some of the most pro-work legislation this chamber has seen in a decade. I know that those who genuinely have workers interests at heart will be supporting this bill. I commend this bill to the House. 19:06 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest Let's be clear: the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill is the Labor government's payday, and payback and power for the unions. The most militant of Australia's unions pour multimillions of dollars into Labor campaigns and control the Labor Party itself. This bill will be at the expense of small, medium and large businesses, courtesy of the Labor government. Measures in this bill are going to cost the economy as well as individual small, medium and large businesses. The abolition of the ABCC alone is going to cost the Australian economy $47.5 billion, as estimated by EY, between now and 2030. The EY report also said there will be a decline in the output of the construction sector and a fall in manufacturing output. And the expansion of multi-employer bargaining and increased strike rights will come on the back of rising inflation and rising interest rates, with absolutely no productivity gains at all for business, industry or the broader economy. There will be extensive and protracted strikes, as we've seen previously; increased costs for business and consumers; and no increase in productivity and fewer jobs. The abolition of the ABCC effectively gives control of Australia's fifth-largest industry to the CFMMEU, a construction industry that contributes nine per cent to GDP and employs 1.15 million people. As has been the CFMMEU's history, there will be even more union aggression, thuggery, bullying, intimidation and strikes on building sites, with flow-on additional cost to domestic housing construction. Businesses are desperately concerned about this bill, and we can especially see that through some of the sectors, including mining and the resource sector, that are all opposed to patent bargaining or multi-employer bargaining. They know that not only is this bad for their businesses, but it also runs counter to the monetary policy efforts of the Reserve Bank. The Reserve Bank governor has also said we need to preserve the flexibility in the labour market. Now we all know that patent bargaining totally ignores the differences and complexities faced by businesses in various locations and markets around Australia. And local workers in each area or community have a very sound understanding of the capacity of their business and the business they work in to pay and come to agreements around terms and conditions. The businesses themselves value their employees, knowing that they are critical to the success of that business. No longer will businesses be the decision-makers with their employees. Along with employees, the Labor government, via the unions and Fair Work Commission, will dictate terms and conditions, particularly in areas of common interest, for businesses whether they be in Augusta, in my part of the world, in Sydney, in Perth or even in Donnybrook—great diversity there! The Fair Work Commission will not have any idea how their unilateral multi-employer bargaining decisions will impact in practice, in real terms, on the great complexity of businesses located in rural, regional and remote parts of Australia. But the fair work decision will be the same for each of these businesses, irrespective of their specific circumstances, locations or markets. That's one-size-fits-all with civil penalties for companies, and the battlelines are already drawn. We've seen John Setka on the warpath already. Building and construction sites are in the firing line, and won't there be a free-for-all at the ports. There'll be impacts on logistics, supply chains, imports, exports and the impact on perishable products is also ahead in Labor's rush to go back to the pre-Hawke and Keating years. We've seen the NFF come out about being concerned about what this will do to the ag sector. A recent Productivity Commission report into lifting productivity at Australia's container ports stated that productivity growth has been one of the primary drivers of increasing living standards for Australians, and that restrictions on how workers are deployed by a business might mean that the costs of producing a service are higher than they need be. The report also said that, if unanticipated disruptions or shocks within input markets are not met, businesses will likely face higher costs and lower profitability and that ultimately the broader community bears these costs through price rises or temporary shortages of supply. For the first time we see small businesses with the unions in their businesses, and this really appals me. It concerns me greatly, as it does those small businesses. Labor has frequently quoted COSBOA as supporting multi-employer bargaining. Well, I've never had a small business asking for the unions to control their business. Small business is defined as those with 20 or fewer employees, but now small businesses with between 15 and 20 employees are in the firing line. Small businesses will either actively reduce their existing workforce to stay below the 15-employee threshold to limit exposure to the unions, or they will limit business growth to stay below the 15-employee threshold. I've already had businesses that are aware of the impacts of Labor's changes saying this is exactly what they will have to do. They cannot afford to be in the firing line, so there'll be fewer jobs and fewer flexible jobs. It's often small business that gives people their first job, and often their last job, in life. Small to medium businesses employ 97 per cent of people employed in Australia, and many of those will be caught by this legislation and will have unions knocking on their doors. These are the businesses that don't have a dedicated HR department. They're often small businesses with 20 or fewer employees who work their hearts out in their businesses in our communities in rural and regional areas. But what is equally concerning is the 60,000 businesses that are currently employing between 20 and 40 people and that will now be dictated to by Labor and the unions. How many of these will reduce their workforce and businesses to sit below that 15-employee limit? And how many of these same small businesses will not be able to compete for employees when other sectors have been forced to increase their terms and conditions by Labor, the unions and the Fair Work Commission? I've met a number of businesses that are particularly concerned about this, and I've got example after example of businesses doing everything they can to employ as many people as possible to give them that opportunity. We know that this is bad legislation for inflation, bad for productivity and bad for jobs. What the unions will have now is extraordinary and uncapped power to place demands on businesses for continuous pay rises and changes to terms and conditions, all determined by Labor, unions and the Fair Work Commission. I know of one particular business, one of the employers who has over 15 employees, that makes a special effort to make sure that as many women who have kids at school are employed between school hours. She employs people to be on the earlier shift and then employs these particular employees during those hours to give them a great opportunity. Then there's another group that comes in after that. This legislation is going to affect her. It's going to affect bakeries. It will affect restaurants as well because, if you're serving lunch and dinner, that will put you above that headcount of 15, and that will put you fairly in the firing line. There are a number of other sectors that will be affected. I'm loath to actually mention businesses by name in this parliament. I don't want to see them targeted at all, but I know that that is what will happen in various sectors as a result of this. And it will happen; we have seen this previously, and we will see it again. This is bad legislation. It is bad for inflation, it is bad for productivity and it is bad for jobs. With those comments, I will complete my remarks. 19:15 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle For far too long the circumstances of working Australians, especially low- and middle-income working Australians, have been getting harder. Wages have been flat and stagnant. Work has become more insecure. The gender pay gap has remained stubbornly wide. For a woman, earnings are 14 per cent less on average than they are for a man. Is it any surprise that women then retire with half the superannuation of men? Over the last decade, conditions for some of the lowest-paid workers—the people, mostly women, who undertake some of the most important work in our communities: educating and caring for the very young, providing dignity in care for the very old—have gotten harder and they've gotten meaner. Without question, for the last 10 years workers have been left to fall behind, which means that, for no good reason, Australia as a whole has fallen away from our core ethos, our core value, of fairness and egalitarianism. Now, at a time of relatively high inflation, the flatlining of wages has left Australian households suffering from sharp cost-of-living pressures. There was no reason for that to have occurred, but there was a cause. Wage stagnation in Australia didn't happen by accident. Low wages are not a naturally occurring phenomenon. When the economy is properly managed in this country and the market is shaped by responsible policies that flow from our values and from our commitment to fairness, social inclusion and shared wellbeing, then wages rise in fair proportion to profits, productivity and workforce demand. But all of those threads were cut by those opposite. All those sensible connections and mechanisms of fairness were severed by those opposite. Low wages and insecure work were inflicted on the Australian people by a coalition government that more or less bragged about how these were a cornerstone of their economic approach. Low wages and insecure work were inflicted by the regulatory and systemic antifairness engineering of those opposite. People in the Australian community, in my electorate of Fremantle and everywhere else should be crystal clear in understanding that there was no reason and no justification for stagnant and falling real wages in this country. In recent years we have seen rising and, indeed, record profits. We've seen growth in productivity. We have seen workforce shortages. Yet wages have gone nowhere and workers have seen their standard of living fall. Company profits as a proportion of the economy have been at a record high, yet wages as a share of the economy have been at a record low. That is wrong. It is a perversion. We know wage growth is possible. We know it's possible because last year, just to take an example, the wages of CEOs across 20 companies in Australia rose on average by 17 per cent. That's nine times the increase received by average, ordinary, full-time wage earners, whose real wages went backwards last year. The Albanese Labor government is not going to stand by and ignore a bargaining system laid waste by those opposite. This bill will restore fairness and balance to a system that was deliberately twisted into dysfunction by the coalition. The bill puts job security and gender equity at the heart of the Fair Work Commission's decision-making process and creates two new expert panels: one on pay equity and the other on care in the community sector. It enables the commission to help resolve flexible working arrangements. It provides greater access to bargaining for low-paid workers. It will ensure that multi-employer bargaining, which is already contemplated within the act, can actually work properly when it's the right approach to take. And, of course, it follows on from this government's successful advocacy for a five per cent rise in the minimum wage and a 15 per cent rise in the pay of aged-care workers. The bill will put a sensible framework around the use of fixed-term contracts, acknowledging that the number of workers who deal with that kind of rolling insecurity has increased by 50 per cent since 1998. The bill also gives immediate effect to the recommendations of the 2019 Migrant Workers' Taskforce, thereby reducing the scope for exploitation and the potential to undermine local working conditions. Despite the enthusiasm by those opposite for an exercise in collective amnesia, Australians will not forget; we will not forget. They're not going to forget that the hopeless Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government went out of their way to break the social compact in this country, that they went out of their way to break our bargaining system, to dud workers and to demonise workers' representatives. Australians are right to expect a fair deal when it comes to wages and working conditions. That is core to our way of life. Australians young and old should expect safe, secure and properly paid jobs. Women, men and non-binary Australians should absolutely expect gender equity and freedom from sexual harassment in their workplaces. And all working people should expect the ability to bargain for and achieve wages that are not perpetually falling behind the cost of living, that are not disconnected from profits and productivity but instead deliver to workers their share of effort and enterprise. That's what this Labor government is about. That's what this bill is about. It could be titled 'Cleaning up the mess and the damage of the coalition government, part 12', but let's accentuate the positive. This bill is what it says: secure jobs, better pay. 19:21 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt When we get elected to this chamber, yes, different people support us here and different interests get behind different candidates. But when we are sworn in as members of parliament it is our responsibility to put the people of this nation first, not to make decisions that are related to payback and rewarding those who helped you get elected. And I take my hat off to the union movement and congratulate them, because in exchange for the tens of millions of dollars they donated to the Labor Party at the recent election they have achieved a spectacular return on that investment. This bill before us, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022, is exactly what the union movement would want. It is not about workers, it is not about employers; it is about rewarding the union movement for their financial support of the Labor Party. In some ways we should not be surprised that one of the first things they would do upon being elected would be to repay the union movement for the financial support given to the Labor Party at the recent election and many elections before. I also express my deep regrets to Paul Keating. Paul Keating thought he'd changed the Labor Party and he thought the Labor Party had learned from him and his leadership on these issues. This shows, to Paul Keating and others who thought the Labor Party had learned how a modern industrial relations system needed to work, that that is not in fact the case. Poor Paul Keating, who did so much hard work to bring the Labor Party's attitudes on industrial relations into a modern era, through these reforms is seeing that hard work evaporate before his eyes. We're seeing this Labor government go back to the attitudes of the 1970s. We've heard members of the government attacking the industrial relations system in this country, and you would think it was a system created by the Liberal Party. The government are attacking the Fair Work Commission and the Fair Work Act legislated by the Rudd-Gillard government. But it's their system. It's the Labor Party's system that they legislated and created that they're now attacking and blaming for the apparent poor outcomes when it comes to wages and other things for workers. But this is a Labor Party regime, put in place by the Rudd-Gillard government, that they're now suggesting, through crocodile tears, is leading to all these terrible for workers. Well, they could therefore start by apologising for the framework that they themselves have legislated and that they're now attacking and tearing apart and stop trying to suggest that it's in any way the fault of the previous Liberal government. We basically left that regime untouched. We attempted during COVID to make sensible changes to the Fair Work Act, and the Labor Party absolutely refused to have any discussion about sensible industrial relations reform whatsoever. So, the system we have is absolutely one the Labor Party created, and for them to now suggest that it's a broken Liberal Party system is rank hypocrisy and is absolutely laughable. Of course, union membership in this country has collapsed in the past two decades. I think the most recent data from the ABS showed that membership was down around 14 per cent. You would think that if the logic of those opposite held true, that workers in this country were so poorly treated and hard done by, then union membership would go up. Employees who, according to the arguments of those opposite, thought they were being dealt such a poor hand, would naturally join unions, not leave unions. If they were unhappy with their conditions, their wages, their representation and their employers, they would be joining unions, not leaving unions. It's completely ludicrous—absolutely ludicrous—to suggest that the situation in our nation right now is one of workers believing that they are fundamentally hard done by, and that the system that operates now is one in which they can't achieve good outcomes between them and their employers. This is ultimately what this bill is about: turning Australians against each other. In an atmosphere of harmony that we have, compared to decades gone by, what this government wants to do is turn Australian against Australian. It wants to say to employees: 'Your enemy is your employer. They are out to screw you over. They hate you, they don't want to look after you. They don't value you. The only way for you to improve your circumstances is to go to war with your employer.' I have not ever dealt with an employer or met an employer that doesn't value their employees as the greatest asset in their business. To suggest that we need to create a regime in our industrial relations systems that turns harmony into warfare, that says, 'We want employees to be turned against their employers,' is absolutely disgraceful. We need to fight against this and stand up against it, particularly the suggestion that the last few decades of relative harmony that we have had in the workplaces and on the shop floors of the businesses of this country is something that we need to fight to cling onto. I acknowledge Paul Keating and his government, and the reforms with Bill Kelty, a great union leader who understood the value of productivity being central to industrial relations reform. He understood that enterprise bargaining at the business level was a way of letting employees and employers come together, talk about the specifics of the business and come up with changes and improvements to the award structure that were better for employees and employers. Compared to the 1970s in particular, we have had relative harmony in the way in which employees and employers negotiate their pay and conditions in this country. I'm not going to say that the Fair Work Act brought on by the Gillard-Rudd government is anything fantastic, because it took us pre-Keating 1991, 1992, and 1993—pre-Keating and Kelty. That, through Paul Keating's own words, is exactly why we have had such a reduction in enterprise bargaining agreements in our economy—it's because of the stringency that was put in place, the theoretical 'person worse off under the boot' test that meant so many agreements were not worth negotiating. So we could go back to that Keating-era enterprise bargaining regime, and the coalition would support that, but that's not what the government is proposing whatsoever. The government is repaying their union movement for millions of dollars of donations to their political campaign. They are trying to help the union movement rehabilitate their relevance. Employees of this nation have turned their backs on the union movement, evidenced through the collapse in membership, because they don't need them anymore—they're very happy with the harmonious workplace environment and negotiating environment that they have under the systems that we've had for the past few decades. This is not about workers. This is not about gender pay equity or anything like that. This is about giving back relevance to the union movement and helping the union movement rehabilitate their membership by triggering a new war in workplaces between employees and employers—which neither want. The only people that want that are the union movement, and we saw in the seventies what the economic outcomes are of that. And they are not good for employees. They are not good for employers. They are not good for our economy. But they are good for the union bosses. And we in this chamber need to do a lot better than pass laws that are not about the people of this country but are about a vested interest like them, and that is why I implore the House to defeat this bill. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 76 ADJOURNMENT Australian Defence Force 76 19:30 Ms WARE 300123 Hughes Last Friday I had the privilege and honour of attending Holsworthy military barracks in my electorate to witness officers and soldiers of the Special Operations Engineer Regiment and the 1st and 2nd commando regiments receiving their berets. I thank my colleague and friend the member for Menzies, who attended with me, and I acknowledge his service with Special Operations Command. The special operations and commando regiments form a crucial strategic component of the Australian Defence Force and of our national security and defence overall. The Special Operations Engineer Regiment provides counterchemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, explosive mobility and survivability capabilities to our special operations soldiers. Within my electorate, residents of the neighbouring suburbs of Holsworthy and Wattle Grove know that the barracks provide protection not only for them but for all Australians. These are our frontline troops if our nation is ever threatened in a terrorist event. They've also been our frontline troops serving overseas in East Timor, Iraq and Afghanistan. In conflict, it is the special ops engineer regiment that will be called upon to neutralise threats and provide support on live incident sites. It was humbling to witness the special ops engineer regiment beret parade, which served not only as recognition of their training and expertise but as a reminder of the unique responsibility that they now hold. As part of the Special Operations Command, the 1st and 2nd commando regiments conduct large-scale offensive, support and recovery operations beyond the scope and capability of other Australian Defence Force units. These regiments and their predecessors have been involved in support or conflict overseas. The receipt of their berets on Friday was the culmination of 18 gruelling months spent training for the honour to serve as a commando. These are the elite within our Defence Force. Many others did not make it through. I learnt on Friday that their training was physical but also explored their mental fitness for the role, as well as both their leadership and their 'followship' abilities. I am immensely proud that my electorate houses this facility at Holdsworth. At 20,000 hectares, it spans over half of my electorate geographically. It is also one of the most important Army and triservice training institutions in the country. Through the Holsworthy Barracks, the Australian Defence Force is a large employer within the Hughes electorate, both directly and indirectly. In that context, I pay particular thanks and acknowledge the cleaners, the logistics and transport workers, all those involved in our defence industry and other support workers whose tireless efforts at Holsworthy provide great support and enable our service men and women to conduct very important national defence. As Australians, it is easy to take for granted the quiet sacrifice made by our Defence Force. However, being able to attend these ceremonies with the member for Menzies gave me the unique perspective of viewing them through the eyes of a soldier. I would also like to acknowledge in particular the families and friends of our veterans, particularly those who supported our commandos and special ops. It was wonderful on Friday to see the support given to the newly qualified officers upon the presentation of their berets. Whilst it is the greatest honour to serve one's country militarily, the sacrifice of veterans' spouses, partners, children, parents and siblings is real. They've all given a lot to see their loved one join the Defence Force. Often, because of the confidential nature of the Defence Force, the officers and soldiers are unable to fully share their training and journey with their closest supporters. Many have had to move their family close to Holsworthy to allow them to undertake this service to their country. To these families I say thank you. To the newly qualified special ops engineers and commandos I say, in this place, congratulations and thank you. Energy 76 19:35 Dr SCAMPS 299623 Mackellar Businesses and families in Mackellar and across Australia are being pummelled by soaring petrol prices and energy cost. The prediction revealed in the recent budget that electricity prices are likely to rise by 56 per cent over two years is alarming to say the least. For the average family in New South Wales this price rise will increase their energy bill from $356 a quarter to $555. For many this is the difference between keeping food on the table and the lights on. These soaring energy prices are crippling for individuals, for families, for businesses and for industry. They are especially galling because, at the same time Australians are struggling to pay their bills, energy companies are making exorbitant profits by shipping our natural resources overseas. Across the sector in Australia oil and gas companies pay corporate tax of around just two per cent of total revenue. The Australian public receives even less from the petroleum resources rent tax, the PRRT, at just one per cent in 2020. And yet these companies have their hands up for subsidies. It's not ethical that Australian families and businesses are hitting the wall at the same time as oil and gas companies such as Chevron, Woodside and Santos are making exorbitant profits. Australians around the country know that this is far from fair, and overwhelmingly want the government to address this and urgently. So how can we ensure that oil and gas companies pay their fair share of tax in this country? It is not reasonable to simply say that more gas supply is the answer. Gas supply tripled in the last decade, and prices did the same. The PRRT is overly complex and riddled with loopholes, providing companies the opportunity to use accounting tricks to avoid paying tax in this country. For example, the PRRT isn't collected on LNG export profits. Instead tax is calculated at an upstream price, which is much lower, before the liquefaction process, where the majority of value is added. This is a mega loophole that is costing the Australian public billions. When the PRRT was first introduced in 1992 it collected 19 per cent of total oil and gas revenue. Now it collects just one per cent. In 2021-22 the windfall profits on Australian gas exports were between $26 billion and $40 billion, and yet the PRRT collected a comparatively paltry $1.6 billion. Rod Sims, the former Chair of the ACCC, bluntly said that the PRRT 'patently does not work'. The government could also introduce a temporary superprofits levy on the extra profits made by fossil fuel companies. The UK has done it, President Biden is considering it and that this has long been the process in Norway. In Norway oil and gas profits are taxed at 78 per cent, and since the 1990s this has raised a staggering $1.7 trillion for its sovereign wealth fund, which is equivalent to A$350,000 for every citizen. When compared to the tax arrangements of Norway, Australia barely taxes our resource profits at all. The argument that raising taxes will discourage investment is not the reality. Norway's investment has not declined even though the lion's share of natural resources profits, 78 per cent, goes to the public. While Australian taxpayers subsidise fossil fuel companies to the tune of $10 billion a year, in Norway it is estimated that government revenue from their oil and gas exports in 2023 will be a jaw-dropping A$209 billion. It's time the government acted to ensure the PRRT is fixed so that Australians benefit fairly from the sale of our resources. The wealth raised would go a long way to repaying our immense national debt and is needed to fund essential public services, such as education, health and the NDIS, as well as the transition to cleaner energy, and climate change adaptation and recovery measures. The government must do the right thing by the Australian people and act to fix the broken petroleum resource rent tax. Draft Nathan, Salisbury, Moorooka Neighbourhood Plan 77 10:40 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I rise to speak in support of the many residents of Nathan, Salisbury and Moorooka who attended the recent public meeting at the Clubhouse Moorooka organised by a local Brisbane City councillor, Steve Griffiths. I declare upfront that I've been a resident of Moorooka for nearly two decades. Over 350 people attended the meeting, most committed to wanting to stop LNP Lord Mayor Schrinner's plans to allow the destruction of character homes, as set out in his draft Nathan, Salisbury, Moorooka Neighbourhood Plan. The LNP lord mayor's proposal to build three- and five-storey apartments across large areas of Salisbury and Moorooka has caused significant concern in my local community. These leafy suburbs are right in the middle of Moreton and are within eight to 12 kilometres of the Brisbane CBD. The suburbs are filled with beautiful Queenslanders, large backyards and greenery. There are a number of issues to consider with the changes in the land management and land use around these three neighbourhoods, which developers have described as a goldmine. If the plan goes ahead then it will allow for up-zoning in areas where current character homes exist. When an area is rezoned, it loses its protection of those character homes built before World War II. This means that those homes can be removed and/or demolished to make way for new multistorey developments. Up-zoning will mean loss of backyards and greater density. Some of these houses have survived for over 100 years, but they may not survive Lord Mayor Schrinner's neighbourhood plan, because his plan could allow developers to demolish Queenslanders. Don't get me wrong; the residents who attended the meeting are not against sensible density. However, they believe that you don't have to destroy character homes to make way for density, and they've also nominated other sites closer to the railway station where higher density homes could be built. What they do believe is that you can have density without destroying the character of a suburb. Residents don't feel as if they are being heard by the LNP dominated council. This draft neighbourhood plan, Schrinner's plan, received one of the highest number of submissions compared to any other plan, and the overall message from my residents is that they want to preserve character homes. Residents also viewed the consultation process as flawed. Brisbane City Council do not hold public meetings where all residents receive an invitation. Rather, they consult a selective group of around 30 people who are selected by the LNP dominated council, with no apparent guidelines as to how these residents are selected. The local councillor, Steve Griffiths, a long-serving councillor, is not allowed to speak during these consultations. Mr Speaker, do you know who is allowed to speak? The members of the Better Suburbs Initiative Board. This is a group whose role, according to the Brisbane City Council website, is 'to investigate opportunities for renewal in suburbs that are outside the city's inner five kilometres'. That sounds like code for 'development'. The members of this board are selected and appointed by the Liberal lord mayor. Some members of this board are from the development community, and some are affiliated with the lord mayor's political party. They get paid around $200,000 a year, and these board members apparently meet directly with council planners to talk about what they want to see in Nathan, Salisbury and Moorooka. While the minutes of the meetings with the 30 residents are online, there are no minutes of the board's meetings online. Where is the accountability and transparency? A secret board who have a say about our suburbs—it's outrageous. The Brisbane City Council should not be an organisation for only developers. The Brisbane City Council should be an organisation for the residents of my suburbs. It's extremely unfair that residents have a limited say in what happens in their own neighbourhood. At the meeting I attended, the following resolutions were overwhelmingly agreed by residents. They want the Brisbane City Council to maintain and protect all existing character homes under the Nathan, Salisbury and Moorooka draft neighbourhood plan. They want sensible and sustainable development that is genuinely shaped by residents' feedback. They want the Brisbane City Council to commit to additional and upgraded services infrastructure such as more green space, a library, more community spaces, and connected and safe bikeways and footpaths. That's what the residents want. They also want transparency in the decisions made that affect where and how they live. This is not too much to ask, and I support the residents who attended that meeting, led by Councillor Steve Griffiths. I know that sensible development will need to take place in an Olympic city, but surely the Liberal lord mayor and his council, rather than relying on the advice given to him by the former member for Moreton appointed to that secret committee meeting, could go to the people of Brisbane—talk to them, hear their points of view—and have a development that reflects the views of the community rather than having something imposed on them by the Liberal lord mayor, Adrian Schrinner. Moore Electorate: Infrastructure 78 19:45 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore Population growth in Perth's northern coastal suburbs is occurring very rapidly, with more than 10,000 new residents projected to move into the outer metropolitan suburbs north of my electorate each and every year for the next 10 years. This places great strain on our community's sporting facilities, health care, aged care and road network. The Albanese government's first budget has failed to deliver the necessary funding that our community requires to provide the infrastructure required to service this unmet need. Local residents are facing the burden of higher interest rates, higher fuel and electricity costs, and higher grocery prices at the supermarket as a result of policies which have allowed inflation to get out of control and committed Australia to overambitious international treaties on emissions. Patient waiting times at our local Joondalup hospital have continued to escalate, with ambulances containing patients ramped outside the emergency department for 677 hours during the last month. I'm proud to be part of a government which, when in office, delivered $158 million in federal funding to go towards the $256 million hospital expansion currently under construction. However, no provision has been made in the current budget to help future health facilities meet anticipated population growth. This is short-sighted when we know that the population in the region is growing at the rate of 10,000 residents per year. It will only mean greater pressure on an already overstretched Joondalup hospital, with longer waiting times for patients. Labor needs to commit funding to a new health facility in our northern suburbs to alleviate the demand on Joondalup hospital from rapidly growing outer metropolitan communities. Prior to the May election, the Liberal Party committed $20 million in funding for the realignment of Gnangara Road with Whitfords Avenue. This key road upgrade will unlock the local economic development potential of the Wangara industrial area. With more than 60,000 vehicles using the intersection each day, it would make the commute for more than 8,000 more residents safer and more direct. However, the recent budget has failed to honour this commitment. Similarly, there is no construction funding allocated for the grade separation of the Reid Highway and Erindale Road with a traffic bridge, expected to cost $100 million. When in government, the Liberal Party initiated the project by delivering $2 million to progress the business case. Grade separation will facilitate free-flowing east-west traffic by eliminating yet another set of traffic signals, improving access to the Balcatta industrial area, NorthLink, Perth Airport and beyond for many residents commuting to work each day, including the many FIFO workers in my electorate who use the airport regularly. I call upon Labor to fund these important local road infrastructure projects, estimated to cost $120 million to better connect our suburbs to the economic development centres. Eight years ago, I successfully secured an $86,000 federal Anzac centenary grant to build an iconic memorial arch for our local community. It is a permanent reminder to help future generations of Australians remember the 100th anniversary of the Anzac landings at Gallipoli. Impending civil construction works associated with the redevelopment of the Ocean Reef Marina make it necessary to relocate our treasured Anzac memorial arch to a prominent, suitably landscaped and more permanent site overlooking the redeveloped Ocean Reef Marina. More than 1,000 local residents signed a petition in support of relocating the memorial. Prior to the election, the then Morrison government made a $1.5 million commitment to fund the relocation and provide meeting facilities for the Joondalup City RSL. The funding is now very urgent as earthworks are due to commence on site within weeks. Therefore, I call upon the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to reconsider his decision not to provide the funding in the budget, in a spirit of bipartisanship. Another community project which is an election commitment is the $180,000 commitment towards installation of a synthetic bowling green at the Sorrento Bowling Club. I call upon the government to match this commitment on behalf of the local seniors— (Time expired) Gilmore Electorate: Rural Fire Service 79 19:50 Mrs PHILLIPS 147140 Gilmore It is no exaggeration to say that we love our Rural Fire Service on the New South Wales South Coast. We have been through a lot together. Our firefighters are true heroes to local people. They helped us, protected us and put their lives on the line for us during the horrific bushfires of 2019-20. Not only that, but they, along with the SES and many other emergency service workers and volunteers, have been with us through too many floods to count. Every day when the call for help comes they answer without fail. We certainly don't take these selfless volunteers and firefighters for granted. We celebrate them at every opportunity. Recently, I attended three very special RFS presentations at Moruya, Vincentia and Jamberoo. I want to briefly take the time to acknowledge all of those members who received the national medals and long service medals at these presentations. In August the Far South Coast RFS held its presentation at Moruya, where 16 dedicated members received their long service or national medals and clasps, representing a total of 483 years of service. A further 63 people received the National Emergency Medal for their diligent service during the 2019-20 bushfires. I want to congratulate and thank each and every one. There are too many to name here, but all are very worthy of our thanks and recognition. I would like to briefly acknowledge a few key members of the brigade for their awards. I wish I could name them all but there just isn't enough time. David Decorte received a National Medal first clasp for 33 years of service. Frank Hopkins received the National Medal fourth clasp for 29 years of service. Barbara Smith and Bruce Smith received the Long Service Medal fifth clasp—this is incredible—Barbara for 50 years of service and Bruce for 61 years of service. Amazing. Congratulations to you all. Then on 16 October I was privileged to attend two of these ceremonies on the same day. The Shoalhaven rural fire district held its medal presentation at Vincentia RFS. Eight members received the National Medal and a further 16 received the Long Service Medal, with a combined total of 500 years of service between them—absolutely incredible. Again, I wish I could name you all, but I would like to acknowledge Andrew Catt, who received his National Medal first and second clasp for 42 years of service and Lindsay Parnell for receiving the Long Service Medal fourth clasp for 50 years of service. Well done to all of the Shoalhaven RFS members. Thank you for your incredible service to our community. Later that afternoon I also went to the Jamberoo RFS brigade's special presentation. Twelve brigade members received the National Emergency Medal for their service during the Black Summer bushfires and another three members received their long service medals, for a total of 70 years of service. Congratulations to you all. All of these ceremonies are special but this one had a touch of something extra. Jamberoo brigade was also celebrating life member and stalwart John Downes, who received the RFS Commissioner's Commendation for Service. I would like to briefly touch on John's accomplishments, as they are a real testament to the selfless spirit of our community and our Rural Fire Service. John joined the brigade at the age of 21 and has now given 55 years of service to the Jamberoo brigade. Like so many, John selflessly volunteers his time for the brigade. As a hard-working, local farmer he would often tend his farm during the day and then relieve other RFS members overnight, before returning to his milking the next morning. I often talk about the amazing farmers we have on the South Coast. John is a shining example of what they do, making ends meet on the farm during the day and helping his community at night. He is a role model and mentor to other brigade members, sharing his knowledge, experience and passion with others. He has even managed to recruit his kids and their partners. How great is that? What's John's attitude? That it is all part of being a member. It's the true-blue South Coast attitude. Thank you, John, for your dedication and service to our community. Once again, I would like to sincerely congratulate all of our RFS members on their medals this year. Thank you for allowing me to celebrate this achievement with you. I want to truly thank each and every member of our RFS and emergency services for everything that you do for us every day. We are so, so lucky to have you. Lingiari Electorate: Mparntwe Alice Springs 80 19:55 Ms SCRYMGOUR F2S Lingiari I pay my respects to Central Arrernte people, the traditional owners of Mparntwe Alice Springs, which I rise to speak about today. For thousands of years they have been the custodians of the Mparntwe Alice Springs. They deserve respect and the cultural authority that comes from this. Mparntwe Alice Springs is currently in the midst of a major community safety challenge. It has been building for many years, with the foundations of this challenge running back decades. It has reached critical levels, with the town feeling depleted, homes and businesses being broken into and people's sense of safety threatened. Many people and community leaders have reached for solutions, with progress being made. Every day and every night dedicated people, traditional owners, youth workers and Aboriginal organisations have worked tirelessly to address systemic challenges. Let us remember that whilst we are facing this challenge as a town it is our frontline workers who are personally sacrificing so much to keep us safe. Your work is appreciated and it is crucial to overcome the challenges we face. The roots of the challenge we face are deep and long held. Our young people are not engaged and, in many cases, do not feel safe themselves. They do not have access to good long-term jobs, our houses are overcrowded and our town camps are not properly resourced. Stretching beyond Mparntwe Alice Springs, our remote communities cannot support long-term aspirations of people. There are not enough homes, there is limited access to power and water and meaningful jobs are scarce. Over the past decade the federal coalition government did nothing as our remote communities suffered. Homelands had not been invested in since the intervention over 14 years ago. The Community Development Program, CDP, was broken by the coalition. Yet our communities and residents of Central Australia have persevered. We are a hardy people who are determined and love our home. Our home is beautiful and with some of the most stunning natural landscapes in the world. Our home is unique, and there is a reason so many are captured by it. What I say to the people of Mparntwe Alice Springs in Central Australia is the federal Labor government is at the table. We will work tirelessly to support frontline organisations to overcome this challenge. Already, important steps are being taken. Federal Labor is funding community patrols, youth programs and better housing out bush, and we are rebuilding the Community Development Program and creating meaningful jobs. We are investing over $120 million in the Central Australian plan, meaning a revised CBD, better lighting and better facilities. We are investing $23 million in the Gap Youth Centre so that it can offer the needed and necessary youth services. We are working with the Alice Springs Town Council and NT government to look at and implement immediate community safety responses. Recently, the NT government announced it's social order response plan. This plan will be implemented by committee. The group is chaired by Mayor Matt Paterson and includes a number of senior traditional owners, represented by Lhere Artepe. Our business community is represented by the chamber of commerce, the tourism industry and, more important, government. Already they have set to work addressing crime and community safety, coordinating frontline patrols, creating a better lighting plan, which will light up the CBD, and working with town camps on their alcohol management plans. As your local member I will be working hard to support the implementation committee and offer it all of the support that I can. House adjourned at 19:59 NOTICES 80 NOTICES

Tuesday, 8 November 2022

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

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 83 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Special Broadcasting Service: Relocation 83 16:00 Ms TINK 300124 North Sydney Recent media reports saw our Prime Minister confirm that it made sense to him to relocate the SBS from its home of 30 years in Artarmon to an unidentified location in Western Sydney. These reports disappointed many people in my seat of North Sydney. While the Labor Party had announced, during the election campaign, that they would undertake a feasibility study into this move if elected, the coverage seemed to indicate that the relocation was a foregone conclusion. I took heart from the fact that, as our new PM assumed his role, one of his first commitments was to do politics differently. At the time, I took that to mean that decisions like this would be made fairly and transparently and would include an open process of consultation. If that opportunity was to be realised, then surely, following a transparent and open feasibility study, the ultimate decision to relocate would rightly rest with the SBS board and management. The SBS provides an invaluable and high-quality service for all Australians, and, in the absence of a compelling business case, it makes no sense to relocate this service just for the sake of it. Having recently toured the SBS studios, I was able to see firsthand the state-of-the-art facilities they have created for themselves in a building that they own and are happily occupying. Meanwhile, in the community that surrounds them, 50 per cent of people living in the North Sydney electorate were born overseas and 30 per cent of us speak a language other than English at home. We are a vibrant and diverse community. And the SBS is an important local employer. On the basis, then, that the existing facilities already meet their needs, and the community that surrounds them is representative of the multicultural nation, surely the millions of dollars that would be required to unnecessarily relocate them would be better invested in the production of local content—something that the SBS and many other companies and broadcasters and communities are calling for. I was lucky. I grew up in an era where Australian content quotas were mandated across all broadcasters. My favourite programs were made here in Australia. The characters looked like people I knew and the places felt like home. These days, with the absence of these quotas, it's not unusual to now see young children mimicking an American drawl when they role-play, and I find this heartbreaking. Ultimately, our North Sydney community will need to pull together to keep the SBS in Artarmon, and I look forward to working with our local mayors and state members to make a strong case for it to remain exactly where it is and for the federal funding to be used more appropriately for the benefit of all Australians and the broadcaster itself. Our priority should be local content production, not needless bricks-and-mortar projects. Greenway Electorate: Infrastructure 83 16:03 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway With the greatest representation of Western Sydney in our federal cabinet to date, Western Sydney voices are being heard, and the Albanese government is delivering for our region through the 2022 budget, including in my great electorate of Greenway. As Western Sydney continues to grow, with suburbs like Riverstone expected to grow by 318 per cent by 2040, we are working to ensure families have sufficient local infrastructure near where they live. This is where the Greenway Better Local Living plan comes in. It's a plan designed by Greenway families for Greenway families. Our commitments, as promised at the election, include: new and upgraded play spaces across Schofields, Tallawong, Riverstone and Grantham Farm; fencing to make existing play spaces safer, in the areas of Parklea, Seven Hills, Lalor Park, Quakers Hill and Kings Langley; a new and exciting community water-play area in Schofields, for those hot summer days; and district-scale walking trails in Lalor Park, Quakers Hill and Grantham Farm, to help better connect residents into local active-transport networks. As a mum of two young girls myself, I understand that parents want to provide the very best opportunities for their children, including in the area of recreation, and these commitments are about improving the overall quality of life for families right across Greenway. Another commitment designed to do just that is the north-west Sydney roads package. You don't have to live in Riverstone to know just how bad congestion is along north-west roads, like Bandon Road. The people of north-west Sydney spend an average of three days every year commuting. That's why the Albanese government has committed $75 million to finalise planning and commence initial construction of Bandon and Richmond roads in the north-west growth corridor. We're also taking the politics out of infrastructure planning in Western Sydney, by establishing an expert panel to look at the region's needs. This is an important long-term project for the people of north-west Sydney. It will create local jobs and improve the quality of life for residents who have been for around a decade crying out for action by the New South Wales government. This budget also makes a number of commitments to support Western Sydney jobs, boost skills and assist with cost-of-living pressures, including providing 180,000 places for fee-free TAFE and vocational education, making child care cheaper, providing an investment pipeline of $120 billion in transport infrastructure, expanding Paid Parental Leave, providing more funding and more staff to slash the visa backlog, and improving our disaster resilience and preparedness. This government is creating a better future for all. I look forward to keeping Greenway constituents updated as we deliver on these important commitments. COVID-19: Vaccination 84 16:05 Mr BROADBENT MT4 Monash I've never hidden the fact that I seek advice about my health and wellbeing from a number of different health practitioners. One of these people, an associate professor, contacted me last week regarding the increase in excess deaths recorded in Australia and around the world over the past 12 to 18 months. The associate professor pleaded with me to share these concerns in the parliament, so in the associate professor's words: I'm very concerned there is no real investigation into the causes of these excess deaths. One must consider all possibilities for the cause of the excess deaths, and surely that includes looking at what changes have occurred over the past 2-3 years that might be causative factors? These include the corona virus itself and the implementation of experimental gene technologies. The latter must surely be suspected as a causative agent given the lack of safety data when these 'jabs' were implemented, and the high number of deaths and adverse events logged on the TGA adverse events reporting system. More and more information is coming out about the lack of safety data of this treatment prior to it being pushed on the population worldwide. We know adverse events are seriously under-reported in government reporting systems. Anecdotally we know of the pressure applied to doctors and nurses here in Australia to NOT speak out against the narrative. I am disturbed that there is no mention in the mainstream media of the possibility that these jabs could be a causative agent, as in medicine, and in public health, one must be open to all possibilities, particularly when the time course of events and timing of adverse outcomes raises red flags. What appears to be missing is an open and frank scientific analysis to determine the most likely cause of excess deaths in Australia, one that considers the possibility that the experimental gene technologies have contributed. The TGA in my opinion is not fit to lead such an inquiry, as it probably needs to be the subject of another independent inquiry into its actions in the last three years. Especially as it banned the use of the highly effective, repurposed medicine Ivermectin, resulting in unnecessary hospitalisations and deaths. It is time for the silencing of doctors, nurses, scientists and others with knowledge about health to stop. It is time to investigate whether the covid 'vaccines' have contributed to excess deaths. My medical colleagues who have been close to the front line of care/treatment during the pandemic are in absolutely no doubt that this vaccine treatment is harming and killing people. Ten percent of the 17 percent excess deaths are being put down to 'unexplained deaths'. International groups of medical specialists are attributing most of these excess deaths to the synthetic mRNA gene technologies. This is the proverbial elephant in the room. Petition: Helium Balloons, Raise Our Voice Australia, Narooma High School Robotics Team 84 16:08 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro I'm pleased to present a petition by concerned Australians on the issue of helium filled balloons. Petition EN4351 was signed by 3,354 citizens and has been considered by the Petitions Committee and found to be in order. It calls for the prohibition of the release of any number of helium filled balloons and calls for the regulation of the sale and use of helium to inflate balloons and to stop the release of helium filled balloons into the environment. I would like to thank my constituent Karen Joynes from Bermagui, who has tirelessly campaigned on this issue for many years. We all love balloons, but when they're used outdoors they can escape into the environment and end up in our oceans or waterways and can cause harm to our precious wildlife. In 2019 CSIRO found that seabirds are up to 32 times more likely to die when they swallow balloons than any other form of hard plastic. In 2017, when I was mayor of the Bega Valley shire, we successfully moved a motion to ban the release of balloons at council events and on council managed reserves. At the time, I committed to council to advocate for the banning of the release of balloons at the regional, state and national levels. I am, therefore, pleased to table this petition today. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 176304 Has the petition been approved by the Petitions Committee? Ms McBAIN 281988 Yes. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 176304 The document will be forwarded to the Petitions Committee for its consideration. The petition is accepted. The petition read as follows— The petition was unavailable at the tim e of publishing. Petition received. Ms McBAIN 281988 The Raise our Voice in Parliament campaign was open to all young people in Australia. I received a letter from Oscar, from Bega, who wished to raise this issue in parliament: My name is Oscar (14), and I am a high school student from Bega, which is located in the Eden-Monaro Electorate. Today I am asking our new parliament to accomplish the critical task of improving rural healthcare. People living in rural and remote areas are not getting the adequate health care they deserve. Arguably, the biggest contributing factor to this is a lack of staffing. The Bega District news reported in 2021 that there were 200 unfilled nursing shifts over a four week period. This puts patients, doctors, and nurses at risk. Improving staffing in rural healthcare is important as it will improve health outcomes. Living in a rural area is truly a blessing, so I believe that our parliament could introduce strong incentives, such as monetary and educational benefits, to boost the amount of doctors and nurses providing health care in rural areas. The Bega Valley is a beautiful location, but health care professionals should receive adequate support so they can work here long term. Needless to say, our new parliament must accomplish the task of improving rural health. Health care is a human right, no matter whether someone lives. This has been an issue for a long time, and I ask that our new parliament act. Oscar, we are doing just that. There were over 70 budget measures in the regional budget statement. Just quickly, I'll give a shout-out to the Robo Rebels, the Narooma High School robotics team. They were 2022 Duel Down Under winners at Macquarie University, quarter finalists in the March 2022 FRC Southern Cross Regional in Wollongong and winners of the breakthrough award at the Wollongong Regional FLL competition in November 2021. Well done to the students of the robotics club at Narooma High School. Economy 85 16:12 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright It is said in this place that one of the constants here is change. The tide comes in and goes out politically for either side and has done for 300 years, since we adopted the Westminster system, not just here in Australia but overseas. Effective governments are always held to account by effective oppositions. Can I tell you that, under the Dutton administration, we will be an effective opposition, no question. The government brought to the election a suite of measures, and it is right and proper that those be implemented, as any government would do. But it's right and proper that the Australian Labor Party have an honest and open conversation with the Australian public and don't follow in the same tracks that the United Kingdom's recently ousted Prime Minister, Liz Truss, did by signalling sending a heap of capital, a heap of government money, into the market, into the economy. That petrified the UK markets and sent them into a downward spiral, which forced her resignation. The spend over there was going to have a disastrous impact. No-one begrudges anyone getting a pay rise, but I would ask those on the other side to inquire of the Treasury what the inflationary pressure looks like when pay rises are pushed through, because we see the suite of measures the Reserve Bank has to influence those outcomes through monetary policy. Interest rate movement is one of the tools—one of the few tools—that it has. It can jawbone, and there are a couple of other minor things it can do, but predominantly it's interest rates that it can use. With the inflation number at 7.3 at the moment and being estimated to go up, if we continue to put through more money through the economy through higher wages—like I said, I don't begrudge that those wages be done—we need to have an understanding of what the impact will be on interest rates. As they go up, we as the opposition will walk in here and say, 'Labor, you need to own some of those points in the interest rate going up,' because undoubtedly as people lose their jobs—heaven forbid. I pray that it never happens that anyone loses their house in my electorate or in this nation as a result of inflationary pressure. We left a very strong economy. It was the envy of the OECD. Mr Deputy Speaker Stevens, when those on the other side of this House run out of money, be well assured that they'll come looking for yours. Bush-Blanasi, Mr Samuel 85 16:15 Ms SCRYMGOUR F2S Lingiari Today I'd like to speak about a remarkable man who I've had the privilege of knowing for many years. For more than three decades Samuel Bush-Blanasi has worked tirelessly as a member of the Northern Land Council for the remote community of Wugularr, also known as Beswick. For more than half this time he has done this as NLC Chair and Deputy Chair. Samuel has made an exceptional contribution across multiple fronts. He was a strong supporter of the Blue Mud Bay case, which was based on his mother's country in Arnhem Land. This historic decision by the High Court in 2008 extended land rights to sea country covering more than 90 per cent of the Northern Territory coastline. In March this year, Samuel was critical to the development of the Aboriginal Sea Company, an innovative approach to Aboriginal control and self-determination that will help deliver on the promise of the Blue Mud Bay decision. Samuel has also supported native title holders following the High Court's 2019 landmark judgement in Griffith's case based around Timber Creek that has paved the way for similar compensation claims that will include the category of cultural loss. He has worked closely with the Mirarr traditional owners and land council members in the West Arnhem region to address a number of historical wrongs associated with mining at the Ranger Uranium Mine, the township of Jabiru and the handback half of Kakadu National Park. On a national level, he has been instrumental to push for the reforms in the Australian Constitution, hosting the Top End dialogue that preceded the National Constitutional Convention at Uluru and at the Territory level. Samuel has worked tirelessly towards a treaty in the Northern Territory. I can think of no more worthy a recipient for the Northern Territory Australian of the Year Award, and I send my heartfelt congratulations to Samuel, his family and, of course, all the members of the Northern Land Council, all 90, to whom he dedicated his award. Banks Electorate: Community Organisations 86 16:17 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks On 11 August I attended Step Studio in Hurstville, one of the most vibrant dance studios anywhere in the St George region in Sydney. It was great to catch up with Momo Zhang, the director, and hear more about the activities of Step Studio. There are more than 150 kids involved in this studio. On 28 September they held a performance in Hurstville showcasing the talent of the students, whether it be in jazz, Chinese classical dance, ballet, hip-hop or a whole range of other dance types. There are classes for students as young as two right up to adults. To Momo and Bobo Zhang, the other director, thank you for everything you do in our community. Oatley FC one of the most vibrant football clubs in my electorate. It has grown remarkably in recent years and now has more than 850 players. It has been incredibly well led by Belinda Stanton, who is an absolute dynamo and has grown this club with fierce determination. One-third of the players in Oatley FC are female, which is a wonderful thing. That female proportion of the club has grown very substantially in recent times. I want to thank Belinda for all of her work. I also thank Jason Finlay, who was a very articulate and persistent advocate for the club, and all of the other members of the executive, who have done so well to grow Oatley to some 69 teams in 2022. Connells Point Netball Club is one of the largest netball clubs anywhere in the region. There are more than 250 players in Connells Point Netball Club. Julian Finch and Maureen Finch have been the real nucleus of this club for many years now. It was good to attend the recent presentation at Club Central Hurstville on 9 October. The club has had a very strong focus on growing female participation in sport not only in netball but more broadly. Recently they held a very successful women in sport function for that purpose. To Julian and Maureen Finch; and Sheree Smith, who does so much as treasurer: thank you for your work. Nan Tien Buddhist Temple in Kogarah is a tremendous part of our community. The temple was founded in 2000. Originally based in Hurstville, it was moved to Kogarah a few years ago. Abbess Man Ko is a remarkable leader for the temple and does tremendous work. I want to acknowledge her work and the work of Venerable Miao You, Venerable You Fa and Venerable Jeu Ning as well. Members of the temple are always in the community supporting people in aged-care centres and raising funds for important community projects. Thank you to everyone at Nan Tien for what you do. Floods 86 16:22 Mr 00ATG Maribyrnong SHORTEN (—) (): In Australia we're witnessing communities enduring catastrophic flooding far too often. Just weeks ago my own electorate of Maribyrnong, which I've represented for 14 years, and the neighbouring electorate of Fraser were one of these communities. I visited flood affected areas of Maribyrnong and Moonee Valley on the day the river peaked and was shocked by what I saw. The Maribyrnong River, usually the heartbeat of our community, a place for people to gather for picnics and plays and park runs, had threatened homes, lives and livelihoods. Many flood affected residents I spoke to on that day and the next day were overwhelmed by the losses that they could not even begin to calculate, yet they still managed to think of others. People put everything aside to help neighbours. I heard stories of elderly residents being unsure and reluctant to abandon their homes because of the rapidly rising river, the homes where they'd raised their families and which hold their memories. It was these older community members whom neighbours rallied around and rescued. Older Australians who may not have know there was government support were collected by neighbours and driven to the emergency centre where a Services Australia team had been swiftly deployed to help flood victims. Then there was Darren Syrmington and his family who, with nowhere to live, were victims of a callous act of looting in the subsequent days. Their accounts were drained and credit cards maxed out. Everything that could go wrong unfortunately did go wrong. Darren reached out to my office for help, and we helped. He rang my office just today to say he was appreciative of the good work of my staff at a time when his brain was mush. We were able to at least alleviate some of the stress. And I want to give a shoutout to remarkable Moonee Ponds West Primary School teacher Kim Simmons for bringing Darren's story to my attention so we could have the opportunity to help. The list of people I wish to acknowledge is far too long for the brief time allocated today, but I want to mention the Victorian State Emergency Service, who did at least 60 rescues; Maribyrnong City Council, led by their mayor, Anthony Tran, and CEO, Celia Haddock; Moonee Valley City Council and their CEO, Helen Sui, and Councillor Rose Iser, in particular; Victorian government staff; the Victorian Police; and; of course; all the volunteers. I also want to acknowledge the council workers, the unsung heroes, who've been doing the work on that day and ever since. I acknowledge the federal member for Fraser, Daniel Mulino, who's been remarkably diligent; state members Katie Hall, Ben Carroll and Danny Pearson; and, because floodwaters don't respect electoral boundaries, the wonderful people in my Maribyrnong office, who have fielded hundreds of calls and helped anyone who needed assistance regardless of their address. But my biggest thanks are reserved for the people of the Maribyrnong River corridor. I love our neighbourhood. I admire their spirit and resilience, and their willingness to put their own needs aside to help others. It has just been humbling. Cost of Living 87 16:23 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper My office has been inundated over recent weeks with calls, letters and emails from every facet of my electorate of Cowper on the Mid North Coast by people raising concerns about the increasing cost of living. One of the most poignant examples to come across my desk was from the prominent local businessman from Peter Feros from Dorrigo. If you live in Dorrigo, you'll know Peter and his wife, Lois, and, if you're from the Mid North Coast, you'll know the success story that is the Dorrigo hotel. Peter is concerned that he will need to pass on additional costs to his customers—that is, the increasing electricity costs. Dorrigo is not a town awash with influence. Its residents are hard working and humble, and the average median weekly household income is under $800. Concerned with the increase he has already begun to see in his quarterly bills, Peter engaged an independent electricity broker to find him the best deal. The cheapest tender that was provided was an increase of $25,000 per year. That's $25,000. That's a 59 per cent hike on his current spend. And the primary reason provided for the increase was the closure of Liddell Power Station and the early closure of Eraring Power Station. It wasn't inflation. It wasn't the war in Ukraine. It was the fast-tracked closure of existing power stations. Peter is genuinely concerned— Mr CONAGHAN 279991 I note the interjection by the member for Jagajaga, who has suckled on the teat of the ABC, has never been in business and is not concerned about business owners or about how difficult it is for people in business. The DEP 230531 Point of order, Member for Jagajaga? Ms Thwaites 282212 I ask him to withdraw his comment. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 176304 The member for Jagajaga requires you to withdraw the comment—your reflection on the ABC. Mr CONAGHAN 279991 I withdraw. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 176304 It assists the House. Mr CONAGHAN 279991 How are we allowing the closure of critical power infrastructure without a viable alternative? I understand the desire to reduce our reliance on coal now and in the future, but how are we as a government okay with closing power stations immediately and negatively impacting so many vulnerable people? We're seeing increasing mortgage rates and sky-high inflation. Is this not cutting off our nose to spite our face and reaching for a photo opportunity rather than truly safeguarding our communities, particularly our most vulnerable? Enough of the woke. It's time to wake up, face reality and provide an actual plan. New South Wales Australian of the Year Awards 87 16:26 Ms SITOU 298121 Reid Last week I had the privilege of attending the New South Wales Australian of the Year Awards. If you ever want to be uplifted, this is the event to go to. It was a real honour to meet the nominees and hear about what inspired them to do the work that they do to make our country a better place. They looked around at what was and imagined what could be. They imagined a community where we were supporting and caring for each other. It's a message that we can all take to heart, and I want to make mention of two people in my electorate who have lived out that ethos. Abla Kadous was named last year's New South Wales Senior Australian of the Year. Hers is a remarkable story. She moved to Australia from Egypt as a teenager, trained to be an accountant, got married and had five kids, then started volunteering with a group to shelter women and children fleeing domestic violence. Here, Abla became a champion for her community. In 1983 she helped set up Australia's first welfare service for Muslim women, the Islamic Women's Welfare Association. The group would sometimes even personally house women and children fleeing violence until alternative accommodation could be found. Four decades later Abla is still working tirelessly for her community. The centre she helped set up all those years ago now has 50 volunteers and staff and has branched out to also provide antidiscrimination forums, school-readiness programs, cooking programs and youth camps. She says of the centre she helped set up: 'Working in this centre is my life. I have five children and they all say, "This is your sixth child." I spend nearly every day there.' How lucky we are that Abla dedicated her life to helping make our community better. Steve Dresler, founder of What Ability, was a finalist for this year's New South Wales Young Australian of the Year award. He is an extraordinary person who turned a personal tragedy into a commitment to help others. On track to be a professional footballer for the Parramatta Eels, Steve had to retire early because of a spate of injuries. But he turned that setback into a positive by launching What Ability, an organisation on a mission to bring happiness to people with a disability by providing them opportunities to play sport, exercise and go on adventures. Steve has a vision to make Australia more inclusive. He may have missed out on his dream to play in the NRL, but we are so fortunate to have his drive to make the lives of those with disability better and more fun. Abla and Steve represent the very best of us, and I love the fact that they both live in the electorate of Reid. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 What a wonderful contribution. Thank you, Member for Reid. In accordance with standing order 193, time for members' constituency statements has now concluded. Member for Jagajaga, this is just for your assistance. In relation to your point of order before, you called to the chair, but I couldn't recognise you until you got to your feet, so my signalling was for you to get to your feet so I could recognise you. You were actually in breach of the standing orders by sitting and speaking. Ms Thwaites 282212 My apologies, and thank you. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 We encourage robust debate in the House. BILLS 88 BILLS Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Special Operations and Special Investigations) Bill 2022 88

Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Special Operations and Special Investigations) Bill 2022

Second Reading 88 16:30 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to support the second reading of the Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Special Operations and Special Investigations) Bill 2022. As the shadow minister for home affairs indicated in the House earlier today, the coalition indeed supports the passage of this bill. I commend the comments that she made on behalf of the coalition, and I will just add some of my own to finalise the debate. The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission—formerly known as the Australian Crime Commission—performs a really vital function for our law enforcement agencies. State and Commonwealth agency heads come together to form the board that provides input and directions around special operations and special investigations. The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission does excellent work in looking at some of the really serious systemic criminal issues. They are given extraordinary powers, and we should always be apprehensive and cautious that, when we give agencies particularly coercive powers, we're doing so for good reason. I certainly think it has been evidenced by the performance of the commission over a number of years now that these powers that they have are very important and do assist the commission in undertaking some of their special operations and investigations. These investigations have been into some very significant areas around issues with drug trafficking, issues with the migration system and issues with organised crime, to name but a few. We want to support the ACIC, which this amendment does, by making sure that the proper legislative framework is in place for them to continue to do the important work that they do, with important oversight and restraint of power. Coercive powers are obviously very significant because, in some cases, they provide evidentiary discovery capacity well beyond what could ever be admissible in a trial—things like compelling the giving of evidence and not allowing for the right to silence et cetera. Some of those issues may or may not come up at another time in a debate on another bill regarding corruption. These powers that are given to the ACIC inform the work that they do and allow them to stop bad criminal activity in our nation. So, where it is justified and appropriate and we have the proper protections and safeguards in place, we accept the need for that, and we are happy to support improving the framework. Without being a lawyer—and without having any experience in the criminal justice system, thankfully—my understanding is that this is just about making sure that there is a lot more consistency between various acts that operate and inform the powers that the ACIC use for their special operations and special investigations. I do accept that, if there is inconsistency between different acts and different terminology used around the powers that the ACIC call upon to undertake their operations and investigations, we run the risk of lawyers being able to potentially call into question the important work that the ACIC is doing. By cleaning up the interpretation between the different acts and the terminology used, we make sure that there is a lower risk of that occurring, when the principle of the legislative framework that we have is being honoured by the ACIC. It seems quite clear that what is being proposed in this bill is merely seeking to do that. We certainly support those elements of the bill, and we support the work of the ACIC. We also understand that this type of legislative change is necessary on a fairly regular basis, or other changes to the framework, because criminal activity is developing, changing, particularly with technology and, regrettably, criminals will always look for opportunity and new avenues to exploit people and break the law. That is a simple unfortunate reality of human nature for a small percentage of people in our population. So it is going to be necessary to make sure we are equipping our agencies not only with the resources that they need but also the legislative framework they need to discharge the purpose of their role. Where new forms of criminal enterprise and activity may be identified, new technology provides an opportunity for criminal activity that was not envisaged within legislation. Due to that, we find ourselves in a situation where the proper powers are not in place for entities like the ACIC to do the job we need them to do. We as a parliament should always be responding to that and making those changes where we are comfortable that they are quite reasonable and legitimate. Indeed, in the case of this bill, it is the position of the opposition very much so that these are appropriate changes that do support the ACIC to do the work that they need to do in the modern world that we live in. We commend the work they do, we wish them well and we very happily support the second reading of this bill. I commend the bill to the chamber. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Education Legislation Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022 89

Education Legislation Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022

Consideration resumed of the motion:

That this bill be now read a second time.

16:37 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton Education is the cornerstone when it comes to building a better life. Equity in education is vital to make sure all Australians have the same opportunities. In an egalitarian nation, education should not be about the haves and the have-nots; education should be for everyone. It is the great transformational social policy. It is one of the reasons I became a teacher many years ago, with 11 years of teaching English, geography, history—yes, it is a noble profession—and that is why the Albanese government is removing the discount for people who can pay their HECS-HELP fees up front. This initiative amends provisions to remove the 10 per cent discount on upfront payments made by HECS-HELP students. This will ensure that all students pay the same amount for the same courses, regardless of their ability or their parents's ability to pay up front. This is a commitment that the government took to the last election and we are now delivering on our promise. It is a pretty simple electoral contract that we have: we make a promise, we take it to the election and then in government we carry it out. This upfront discount was reintroduced by Prime Minister Morrison on 1 January 2021, not that long ago. It allowed students who have the financial capacity to pay up front for all part of their contribution to get that discount. I'm not sure how this is fair or equitable to differentiate the amount students pay for their course, based on how much money they or their parents have. So, in essence, this meant that someone who was fortunate enough to have the financial support from a parent, grandparent or family member, gets a financial head start compared to someone who doesn't. The removal of this unfair discount will promote equality so students will pay the same amount for the same degree—equal education for all. With the removal of the discount set to take effect on 1 January next year, it's projected to save $144 million over the forward estimates. These savings will help to fund the extra 20,000 new university places that the Albanese government announced that it will make available. It was pleasing to hear Minister Clare state that these extra 20,000 university places have been allocated to support students who are currently underrepresented in our universities. I remind you about who those are: students from poorer families, students from regional Australia, First Nations students, Australians with a disability and students who are the first in their family to ever set foot in a university. Could I give a bit of a shout-out to the people from my year 12 class from 40 years ago, in 1982. It doesn't seem that long ago, but it was 40 years ago. We're actually getting together at the end of this month to celebrate our class. I came from the little country town of St George, where not many people did go to university. If we can give that little bit of a boost to kids in the bush, I know it's something that many in the National Party would appreciate. I will repeat again that education is the cornerstone of building a better life. It certainly gave me many opportunities in life. I look forward to finding out what the people from St George State High School who graduated in 1982 are getting up to in their life when we catch up at the Aussie hotel later on this month. Education should be available to every Australian, no matter their financial position or their postcode. Another important part of this amendment is the extension of FEE-HELP loan fee exemptions. The FEE-HELP loan fee was initially waived as a COVID-19 relief measure. That started in April 2020 and ceased on 31 December last year. The Albanese government understands that there are still plenty of students who weren't able to work to support their study, and this extension of the exemption until 31 December this year will help them out greatly. This extension is expected to help around 30,000 undergraduate students who access FEE-HELP to continue their studies. The loan fee exemption will be automatically applied for student loans submitted by a provider to the department after the passage of this legislation. Loans made for units of study with census dates between 1 January this year and the commencement of the measure will be adjusted accordingly. Whilst we, as a rule, are against retrospectivity, on this occasion it's a good thing. Another major addition to this bill allows students undertaking microcredential courses, as part of the Australian government's microcredential pilot, to be eligible for FEE-HELP. Microcredentialing is a modern educational trend that's perfect for today, with short, sharp courses fast-skilling the workers that businesses need right now. With the current worker shortages in basically every industry, in every region, in every street and in every town in Australia right now, microcredential courses allow people who may work broadly in a particular industry to quickly attain new skills to meet demands or to get that promotion. It is also great for people looking to re-enter the workforce in a new industry to gain the relevant skills to do so. What this bill will do is amend the provisions of the Higher Education Support Act that relate to FEE-HELP eligibility to allow these microcredentialing students to be eligible for FEE-HELP. The larger microcredential pilot program encourages universities to deliver and develop new courses to help build a more highly skilled workforce through more flexible and industry focused models of higher education. We want to have a robust and skilled workforce of Australians ready to engage in work in new industries and industries of the future. This financial assistance through FEE-HELP will help us build it through microcredential courses. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 16:43 to 16:5 7 Mr PERRETT HVP Deputy Speaker Chesters, long time no see. An additional component of this amendment before the chamber is the better use of unique student identifiers, or USIs, within the tertiary education sector. Since 2021 higher education students have been required to have a USI to be eligible for Commonwealth assistance; however, there was not a requirement for students to provide their USI to their higher education provider or the secretary of the Department of Education, and this has meant that providers, who are required to report students' USIs to the department, have had difficulties complying with the reporting requirements, as they have experienced difficulties in actually collecting that data from their students. This of course has impacted the broader policy aim of the USI to be used as a student identifier right across the tertiary education sector. This amendment addresses this issue directly by clearly linking the student's provision of a valid USI for eligibility to Commonwealth assistance with a requirement to provide this to the provider or the department. This may simply be a technical change, but it's a change that will make life much easier for the tertiary education sector, and it needs all the help it can get at the moment. This is a change requested by higher education providers and this change was drafted after feedback was received by the department. This is an excellent example of the Albanese government listening to and working with stakeholders to achieve good outcomes for everyone. This amendment will also introduce consistency across the citizenship and residency requirements for New Zealand citizens accessing Commonwealth assistance. It will introduce the requirement for New Zealand citizens to be resident in Australia for the duration of the unit of study to be eligible for HECS-HELP assistance and FEE-HELP assistance for that unit. Right now, under existing arrangements, New Zealand students are able to undertake study outside of Australia while accessing our FEE-HELP scheme. This flies contrary to the policy intention, which is that New Zealand citizens who want to access Commonwealth assistance should be residents of Australia while studying. As a government, we also understand that sometimes life throws up some challenging circumstances for everyone, and students aren't immune to the challenges of day-to-day life. That's why this amendment provides exclusions for residency requirements for the entirety of a study unit, where a student had intended to reside in Australia but, through something like COVID, where travel restrictions applied, they weren't resident—so we don't want to punish them, basically, for wanting to study in Australia. Current students will not be affected by this change, as this measure will apply only to students seeking Commonwealth assistance in relation to a unit of study with a census date on or after 1 January next year. The bill also makes other amendments to the Higher Education Support Act to clarify and improve its operation. It clarifies arrangements about enabling courses. Enabling courses help prepare students for higher education study, like a bachelor's degree. The measures in this bill clarify that these enabling courses will not count towards a student's lifetime limit of Commonwealth support. Another minor and technical change contained in the bill is to improve the operation of the Higher Education Support Act, clarifying provisions dealing with higher education providers' obligations to repay the Commonwealth in certain situations. There are also minor and technical amendments being made to the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act, the TEQSA Act. These changes deal with the compliance with the tuition protection requirements as a condition of registration for certain registered higher education providers. The providers affected are those which are subject to part 5A of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act. As with the changes to the unique student identifier, TEQSA were consulted about this change and are supportive of the amendments before the chamber. Returning to the core of this bill: it's about meeting the human right to have equity of access to education. It recognises the important personal, societal, economic and intellectual benefits of education and how this access helps change lives. The removal of the 10 per cent discount for paying upfront levels the playing field for many Australians who simply can't afford to pay all or some of their tuition upfront. It just isn't right to, in essence, charge someone more for the same opportunities simply because they lack the financial resources to pay upfront or don't have wealthy-enough parents. Again, I want to thank education minister Clare for making sure the savings from this change will go to assist more First Nations people, people with a disability, students from poorer families and students from regional Australia—from country towns like St George—who will have the opportunity to access tertiary education. I recommend the bill to the House. 17:02 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest The opposition, as you're aware, Deputy Speaker Chesters, is supportive of this particular bill, the Education Legislation Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022, especially given that it delivers measures announced by the coalition in the 2021-22 MYEFO budget update. The measures extend the FEE-HELP loan fee exemption for students and enable eligible students studying microcredentials to defer their tuition fees to FEE-HELP. Other measures in the bill include strengthening the unique student identifier requirements, aligning Commonwealth assistance eligibility requirements for New Zealand citizens, and minor and technical amendments. The bill will also make minor and technical amendments to section 26A of the TEQSA Act, which deals with the compliance with the tuition protection requirements as a condition of registration. As to the VET FEE-HELP loan exemption, this measure within the bill extends that loan fee from 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2022, encouraging students who have access to FEE-HELP who have been financially impacted by the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic to commence or continue their study in 2022. This is expected to assist approximately 30,000 undergraduate students—a really important measure. The FEE-HELP eligibility for microcredentials also allows students undertaking microcredentials delivered as part of the Australian government's microcredentials pilot to be eligible for FEE-HELP. There have been changes to the New Zealand citizen requirement too. As the previous speaker discussed, there is a requirement for students to provide their unique student identifier to be eligible for help or assistance and to study as a Commonwealth-supported student. There are also minor and technical amendments to the HESA Act and to the TEQSA Act contained in this bill. There is the removal of the 10 per cent HECS-HELP discount for upfront payments of student contribution amounts. I would note at this point that the current HECS debt in Australia sits at $52.7 billion. The last budget of the coalition government committed almost $20 billion towards higher education as part of our record $115.1 billion in total government funding for universities between 2019 and 2024. There was $95.2 billion in teaching and learning, and $19.8 billion in research. In the 2021 budget we funded an additional 30,000 places as part of 100,000 more places over the decade. We have a very strong commitment to rural and regional education and saw this very directly in so many ways. I make no apology for focusing on rural and regional, given they are the people I represent. I look back to some of the issues that we on this side had to deal with during our time. I remember when Labor was in government and the then minister for education excluded inner regional students from access to youth allowance, which had a massive impact in my region and right around more of the inner regional areas around Australia. This was a really serious issue for young students who could not get access to and could not afford to go to university and follow their dreams. It was something that we fought very hard on. While in government, we also committed to regional education through the regional university centres to help students in regional areas access higher education in situ, essentially where they were living or could get to, which is another really important issue in Western Australia. We had three of these, the Great Southern University Centre, the Geraldton University Centre and the Pilbara University Centre as well. I officially opened the one in Albany and saw firsthand how important this is to these young people in the region who were looking to improve their skills and improve their opportunities in life, not just in education. We increased this funding over time and also included funding for additional supported places for students being supported by the centres. That was a really important part of what we were delivering into the regional and more remote parts of Australia. They are doing just a fabulous job. Talking to the students there, I listened to their stories about the opportunities that they had that they never thought they would have, especially to be able to stay in Albany and follow their educational opportunities. This is very important given the disparity between the opportunities for higher education that young people face in rural and regional areas. The Rural Clinical School is also a very important part of trying to not only give young people from our region the opportunity to become a GP or something similar but also to bring people from Perth or from a city area to spend time in a regional community as part of their study. Hopefully, more of them would come back and live and work. We have a shortage of rural doctors and this was part of our approach to get more clinical representation in the regions. I have met so many of those students. Equally, the tertiary access payment we introduced from 1 January was made available for students who live in rural and regional Australia to help them with the costs of moving to study. They were payments of $3,000 to $5,000, depending on where the family home was situated. Inner regional areas were $3,000, and outer regional—places like Scott River and Warner Glen in my part of the world—that was really important. It's the small things that matter when you get two parents with kids who want to go to higher education working their hearts out so their kids can get the opportunity. I remember back to the fight over youth allowance when I met a mum in a supermarket who said to me: 'I have to decide which one of my children can go, and I have five.' If there was ever some wind beneath my wings to fight hard for rural and regional people that certainly caused it. Tertiary access payments also helped to overcome the financial barriers that young students from regional and more remote areas face. There is an additional cost to living away from home. We've done several inquiries in this space. It can be anything from $20,000 up, over and above, plus these young people have to live away from their families and the people who support them while they're doing that. The research and evidence shows that if you live in a rural or regional area you're 50 per cent less likely to have a university degree by the age of 35 than if you live in the city, because people in the city have direct access. This really is an important opportunity that we keep giving young people who live in regional areas. I worked hard to get a university department of rural health into ECU, Edith Cowan University, in Bunbury, in my electorate. We are so short of allied health workers, not only the GPs I referred to through the rural clinical school but also allied health workers. I fought hard for this one because it is so important for our region. We have a very fast growing region. It is very, very attractive to people who are retiring and who choose our part of the world to spend their years in retirement. But that increases the demand not only for GPs and specialists but also for allied health workers. We really need to train more of those people in situ so they stay with us. So many of the people I meet love what they do. They love looking after our more senior citizens or even just being in the health system. For them be able to have this training at ECU in Bunbury is fantastic for the South West. I was so pleased to be able to get this over the line. Edith Cowan will prove to be a very sound partner in this program, and it will be the 22nd university to provide increased rural and regional and remote training across Australia under this program. When you see the shortages in regional and remote areas, you know how important this program is. It helps to support universities to deliver teaching and training to an equivalent or higher, and that is what I think ECU will do. They will deliver the higher standard that I'm sure they are aiming than that which is achieved in metropolitan settings. Most importantly, we know that health professionals who graduate from rural placements are more likely to stay in the regions, and we really do need them to stay with us. We need them to stay committed to what they've trained do, which is provide such essential health and care for citizens of all ages, particularly those people who are of a mature age who are choosing to retire and spend the later years of their life in the South West of WA. We are seriously short of GPs. Unfortunately, the changes that were made by Labor, straight after the election, to the allocation of overseas trained doctors have seen doctors become targets of outer metropolitan areas, attracting them back into those areas. It has become far more competitive for us in trying to retain our GPs. It's an ongoing issue for us to keep fighting for, but I'm really hoping that ECU will able to help with the broader medical profession and that, through the rural clinical schools and other measures, we will see more GPs from our region go away to study and come back when it suits them with their families to live and work in what is a fabulous part of Australia, which is rural and regional. 17:14 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to support the second reading of the Education Legislation Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill and commend the contribution from my colleague the member for Forrest. As the opposition indicated in the shadow minister's contribution earlier today, the coalition supports the passage of this bill. There are a couple of key elements I'll touch on, but firstly I want to start by commending the tertiary sector and, in particular, the three universities in my home state of South Australia: the University of Adelaide, the University of South Australia and Flinders University. I have a lot to do with all three of those institutions. I meet regularly with the vice chancellors, and I myself am an alumnus of Adelaide university and have appreciated my engagement with them. I have a University of South Australia campus in my electorate. In a city the size of Adelaide, our universities are not geographic, really; all the universities have an enormous impact, citywide and statewide regardless of where they're located. They're both multicampus and have a lot to do with my constituents in Sturt. It's been a tough couple of years in the sector, of course. The closure of borders and the impact on international students has been very significant to the university sector in South Australia for a long time. We've been very proud of the way we've attracted international students into our institutions, not just through the universities I might add. But the three universities have all done an excellent job in making themselves sought-after institutions to study at, and all three have a very impressive cohort of international students. I saw media reports earlier this week, or over the weekend, about the return of international students and the fact that enrolments now, at least in the three South Australian universities, are just ahead of enrolments pre-COVID. The significant caveat there is that the international students aren't all physically attending the universities in South Australia; there's still a lot of online learning going on. Frankly, for the benefit of the South Australian economy, I look forward to that diminishing dramatically and, hopefully, ceasing largely as soon as possible. International students make an exceptional contribution and impact both on the South Australian economy and on the South Australian society. They tend to be from nations that have significant multicultural representation in our community, and international students are very well supported by the universities and also by the communities in our city and state who themselves have come from similar nations to make their future in Australia. So we welcome that. As the shadow minister mentioned, a few of the elements in this bill were put forward by the previous government. One that seems fairly common sense is to standardise the USI, Unique Student Identifier, so that it becomes the single required identification for students. That will make the standardisation of reporting on a whole range of metrics a lot more straightforward. I don't see how anyone could see any controversy around that. I also commend and welcome making it easier for people to access enabling courses—that is, for people to not have the enabling courses applied against the limitation that would be put on how much Commonwealth support they can receive. This means we can provide a better pathway towards university qualifications for people that need to undertake some of those enabling courses that bridge the gap between them having access to undergraduate related courses and not. That seems extremely sensible. The one that is probably the most noteworthy, which we've indicated we're happy to support, is to remove any form of discount that is provided to upfront fee payers. The way in which the public accounting works for HECS has always fascinated me, because of course it is effectively using the government's balance sheet and its significant discount to support the financing of student loans, which is excellent. No-one wants to see any curtailment around supporting everyone with the financial burdens of accessing higher education in this country. HECS has been an excellent system, which I availed myself of with my undergraduate degree many moons ago, as I did with FEE-HELP for a postgraduate degree. So that's excellent. This does remove any discount for any portion—either the entirety or a minor element—of an upfront payment. The indication from the government is that has a significant return of revenue over the forward estimates. I understand all of the arguments, which I won't litigate, around the pros and the cons of providing any discount for upfront payment, but in this case we in the opposition are happy to support the government in that reform as well. To reiterate, I support the bill and thank all of the tertiary institutions—in particular in my home state of South Australia, but also across the country. We've had challenges over the last few years which no-one could have predicted. We're very proud of our tertiary institutions in this country. The size of our international student cohort demonstrates that they are held in high regard across the globe. We hope that the years ahead are much more smooth and predictable and see our higher education institutions continue to flourish even further. With that, I commend the bill to the chamber. 17:21 Mr BATES 300246 Brisbane It is well known that we are currently living through a cost-of-living crisis. Families are struggling to put food on the table, rents everywhere are skyrocketing and income support is still woefully inadequate. University students, who are often forced to live on income support well below the poverty line, study full-time and are now faced with rents rising at rates far outpacing inflation and their own incomes. Students and young people seeking higher education must oftentimes work additional jobs just so they can support themselves through their education. On top of this, student debt across the country is increasing at an exorbitant rate. On 1 June this year HECS debt was indexed at 3.9 per cent. This is a substantial increase from last year, when the figure sat around 0.6 per cent. As a result, we're now in a situation where many students are paying off their HECS debt at a slower rate than it is accruing interest, potentially leading to situations where students can never fully repay their debt or where the cost of their degree balloons to even more unsustainable levels because they don't have the income to match the indexation rate. Concerningly, due to predicted increases to the inflation rate, it's likely that indexation could approach nearly 10 per cent. Such a high rate of indexation will make taking on HECS debt impossible for many students and force those studying to cease their education for fear of attracting a debt they will never be able to pay off. My electorate of Brisbane is home to many higher education institutions and to one of the youngest populations of any federal electorate. Many of the students in my electorate have spoken with me about the challenges of studying up to 40 hours a week, on top of having to work unsustainable hours because the rate of income support is so low that they aren't able to cover their basic expenses like rent and food. Many of them have spent entire years navigating the challenges of virtual learning in the wake of the pandemic. After years of struggling to make ends meet and achieve the results they want, they're still left in tens of thousands of dollars of debt. The system urgently needs reform. Once again, we're seeing Australian students being left behind. We're also falling far behind our international counterparts, who appreciate the value of making education more accessible and affordable, and who have seen the vast economic and social benefits that have come from expanding free public education to include the tertiary sector. New Zealand has adopted a policy of one fee-free year of higher education. Even the United States has taken steps to cancel up to US$20,000 of student debt. Once again, Australia is left playing catch up. Tertiary education has the potential to be an incredible force to boost the skills and research capabilities of our country. We need to value it with the importance it deserves, we need to properly fund higher education and we need to ensure it is accessible to Australians of all backgrounds—regardless of class or postcode—because every Australian deserves access to the world-class education we have the potential to provide. We need to give those Australians hope that the financial barriers they face do not make them undeserving of the education they want. The Greens welcome this action that the government is taking on this bill, particularly changes to ensure that all students pay the same rate for courses they are enrolled in regardless of their ability to pay upfront. This is a small step, but we must continue the process of reforming how we value education in this country, because the positive outcomes of higher education are numerous and far reaching. Whether it's increases to innovation, higher workforce productivity or workforce specialisation, we must value higher education and the improvements it brings to both our economy and society as a whole. If we are to truly recognise the value education brings to Australia, we must make it universally accessible for all Australians and remove the financial barriers in place, particularly during the cost-of-living crisis we're currently in. The first step on that path is to acknowledge that no-one should be in debt for receiving an education and to wipe student debt. 17:25 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I want to thank all members for their contributions to this important debate. As I said when I introduced the bill two weeks ago, the Education Legislation Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022 will improve equality of access to higher education and supports the government's commitment to building a highly skilled workforce. Our election commitment to remove the 10 per cent HECS-HELP discount for upfront payments is projected to save $144 million over the forward estimates, savings which will help to fund our 20,000 new university places which have been allocated to students who are under-represented in our universities: people from poor families, people from our regions or remote parts of Australia, Australians with a disability and Indigenous Australians. It's another step forward towards fairer access to higher education for our country. The extension of the FEE-HELP loan fee exemption for a further 12 months will support full-fee-paying undergraduates and their providers as the sector recovers from the COVID pandemic. The bill also supports the development of innovative, flexible and industry focused higher education programs by extending FEE-HELP to the government's microcredentials pilot. It also improves the operation of the Higher Education Support Act by clarifying the treatment of enabling courses and unique student identifier requirements and aligns HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP citizenship and residency requirements for New Zealand citizens accessing a Commonwealth supported place. Once again, I thank all members for their contributions to this debate. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Privacy Legislation Amendment (Enforcement and Other Measures) Bill 2022 95

Privacy Legislation Amendment (Enforcement and Other Measures) Bill 2022

Second Reading 95 17:29 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I rise to speak on the Privacy Legislation Amendment (Enforcement and Other Measures) Bill 2022 without referring to the member for Berowra's contribution. The original bill is a clear demonstration of the Albanese government's commitment to taking privacy, security and data protection seriously. There aren't many people in Australia who haven't had to face the reality of some of their personal data being accessed after the recent Optus, Medibank and MyDeal cyberattacks and many others that have been in the media. I think everyone now has a better personal understanding of the potential for the serious financial and emotional harm that can be caused by a data breach. Since the reporting of the Optus data breach, the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads has had more than 180,000 applications from Queenslanders to change their licence numbers. Locally, at one of the transport and major road service centres in my electorate, in Sherwood, there were lines of hundreds of people wanting to apply for a new licence number. The Department of Transport and Main Roads reported that, in the first two days where Queenslanders affected by the Optus data breach could apply to change their licence, they received 16,000 applications to do so. Compare that with an average five-day week. In a normal five-day week, TMR would process around 30 applications—three zero—so you can see what one data breach can do, and this highlights the sheer size and effect this data breach had not only on Queenslanders but obviously all around the nation. This has emphasised the need for all levels of government, all businesses and all organisations to have an obligation to make sure they are protecting Australians' personal data. The bill before the chamber will provide Australians with confidence that their data will be protected in four ways: (1) significantly increase the penalties, so the stick is there; (2) giving the Australian Information Commissioner new powers to make sure that stick is wielded properly; (3) strengthening the notifiable data breaches scheme; and (4) giving information-sharing powers to the Information Commissioner and the Australian Communications and Media Authority. The Albanese government has moved swiftly at every stage of its response to the Optus data breach, unlike the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments that sat on their hands and ignored the many cybersecurity warnings handed out over the past decade. In contrast, the Labor government's response has helped assure Australians that their compromised identity documents can be replaced. We assisted with coordinating actions between agencies and took steps to enable Optus to share information with financial institutions to detect and prevent fraud. This bill is yet another example of the Albanese government making decisions and acting on the many challenges we all face in the fast-changing digital age. Returning to the first point, this bill will provide Australians with confidence their data will be protected by increased penalties for serious or repeated breaches of privacy. Right now a penalty for a serious or repeated breach is $2.2 million. This bill will increase the penalty to not more than $50 million or three times the value of any benefit obtained through the misuse of information or, if the value of the benefit obtained cannot be determined, 30 per cent of a company's domestic turnover in the relevant period. In anyone's language, that is a substantial increase and it moves penalties away from just being about the cost of doing business to a substantial incentive to increase and invest in cyber and data safeguards and protections to look after Australians. These new penalties mirror those proposed in the government's Treasury Laws Amendment (More Competition, Better Prices) Bill 2022, ensuring an alignment of penalties across Australian privacy and consumer laws. Importantly these new penalties meet the community's expectations about the importance of protecting their personal data. The second component of this bill is about strengthening the Notifiable Data Breaches scheme. It does this by empowering the Information Commissioner to assess an entity's compliance with the scheme's requirements. These assessments are an important educational tool and this power will assist entities in ensuring they are meeting all of their requirements. The Information Commissioner will also have new information-gathering powers in the scheme's reporting and notification requirements. This is necessary to provide the Information Commissioner with a comprehensive understanding of the information that may or may not be compromised in a breach. It will allow the commissioner to assess the particular risk to individuals and to take actions, such as issuing a direction for the entity to notify individuals who have been affected by a data breach—so to avoid the cover-up. The third part of this bill delivers more powers to the Information Commissioner to resolve privacy breaches, such as: powers empowering the Commissioner to publish notices about specific breaches of privacy or otherwise ensure those directed affected are informed; enabling the commissioner to compel entities to take external reviews to improve practices to reduce the likelihood of committing a breach again in the future; to provide the commissioner with new information-gathering powers to conduct assessments; and new infringement notice powers if an entity fails to provide information without the need for protracted litigation. It will also ensure, even in this globalised world, that Australia's privacy laws remain fit for purpose. This bill will do so by ensuring that the Privacy Act can be enforced against global technology companies. Many of these companies will process Australia's information services in other countries, so this bill will amend the act's extraterritoriality provisions to encapsulate these companies in these provisions. This will mean that, even if these foreign organisations do not collect or hold Australians' information directly from a source in Australia, they must still meet the obligations under the act if they wish to carry out business in Australia. One of the lessons learned from the recent breaches is that Australians want and need greater transparency and access to information about what has happened and, importantly, what is happening. To this end, the bill will ensure Australians are informed about privacy issues. It will provide the commissioner an express power to publish a final determination following a privacy investigation and information about a final assessment report. The commissioner will also be able to publish information about other matters, such as an update about an ongoing privacy investigation, if it is in the public interest. The commissioner will also be able to share information with enforcement bodies, alternative complaint bodies and privacy regulators for the purpose of the commissioner or the receiving body exercising their functions and powers. The Australian Communications and Media Authority will also be provided with better powers to share information within government for enforcement purposes. This will drive better cooperation between regulators in order to deliver better outcomes for Australians. We have heard, from the opposition, complaint after complaint about the Albanese government not acting fast enough. However, when you look at things in perspective, those exact same people who complained the loudest about a lack of action need to have a good, long, hard look at themselves in the mirror. Many were part of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government, which, for almost a decade, did close to nothing. Ultimately, no online privacy code was ever finalised or introduced to parliament. To make matters even worse, their proposed code wasn't even linked to responding to data breaches. It didn't contain any measures to improve the Notifiable Data Breaches scheme under the Privacy Act. They ignored the many stakeholders who indicated a preference for the code to be considered as part of the Privacy Act review. Compare that to the actions that the Albanese government has undertaken. Look at the tabling of this bill in just over six months after coming to office. This bill is an important and pressing reform that will make sure penalties for privacy breaches adequately reflect community expectations, and it will ensure Australia's privacy regulator has the enforcement tools necessary to effectively deter the misuse of Australians' personal information. I recommend the original bill to the House. 17:37 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah I rise to speak on the Privacy Legislation Amendment (Enforcement and Other Measures) Bill 2022. Whilst the title may not give it all away, for the public and Warringah constituents, this is very much around data privacy and so very much at the forefront of many people's minds. This bill significantly increases penalties for serious or repeated privacy breaches. It provides the Australian Information Commissioner with a suite of improved and new powers to resolve privacy breaches efficiently and effectively. It ensures that the Information Commissioner has comprehensive knowledge of the information compromised in a breach, to assess the particular risk of harm to individuals. It gives the Information Commissioner and the Australian Communications and Media Authority greater information-sharing powers and it increases extraterritorial reach. In many ways, it is very welcome and much needed. In December 2019, the then Attorney-General announced that the Australian government—the previous government—would conduct a review into the Privacy Act, which aimed to investigate the effectiveness of Australia's current data protection regime to ensure that it protected consumers and their data and best served the Australian economy. Since many of these amendments are the result of that inquiry and certainly very good, the carving out of the provisions of the online privacy bill and their inclusion in this enforcement bill has been prompted by the very recent and significant data breaches. As the minister said in his second reading speech: These amendments are targeted and measured. They respond to the most pressing issues arising from the Optus data breach and other recent cyber incidents. I should say that I've received a lot of correspondence from constituents on this issue, and they are greatly concerned. Some of the aspects that I wholeheartedly support in relation to this measure are the greatly increased penalties, which will provide a real incentive for organisations to properly and thoroughly address how to best protect consumers' data and privacy. But there does need to be real consideration of just how much data is appropriate to hold. I think this is also something that members in this place need to grapple with in relation to political parties and members of parliament: how much data is being held and whether that is being done in a safe way. We know there's a lot of accumulated data in relation to constituents, especially from the major parties, through the course of many years of being in the political system. On that information, there is a real question. What's good for the private sector should also be good for government and should also be good for politicians. I do think there is a question around the data retention policy around members of parliament and political parties that will need to be addressed, and I will be raising that in more detail with the government. This bill also expands the enforcement and information-sharing powers granted to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, and these are tools which will enable far more comprehensive and proactive oversight and effective policy. However, simply leaving it on that basis would be inadequate and naive, and I want to make sure that this is very real for everyone inside and outside. We need to make sure that this is very well understood and that there are sufficient deterrents in the legislation to make sure the private sector in fact does better. We know that modern-day commerce involves a lot of retention of data on how to understand consumers' behaviours and markets and to better target marketing and sales pitches. Of course, with that comes a high level of risk, as we've seen with recent incidents. Ultimately, the inconvenience, but also the risk, falls on the consumer, who inadvertently has that information being held and is really exposed in a way that I think is unacceptable. It is the reality of our modern world that we are all connected. So much of our habits, practices and lifestyles are in the form of data and are held, but we need to make sure legislation is updated and modernised to keep up with our modern world. In relation to some of the feedback I've had from constituents, it's really important for me to convey to the government and to the parliament the concerns so many people have. A lot of them have been quite surprised at the extent of information and data that have been accessed, when they will know and when they will tell me. When data breaches occur, the issue is that need for very good, clear, prompt communication with impacted parties, and that, I think, has not always occurred from the private sector. Another constituent has written to me and said that he felt his attempts to replace his licence and Medicare card, stop his credit agency's report and lodge a police report illustrated the disjointed processes, inconsistent information and number of agencies not knowing what was required. He found that incredibly difficult and time-consuming to navigate. Others have very much urged me to urge the government to fix these problems rather than waiting for the storm to pass. I would have to say that, so many times in this place, we have passed legislation in a reactive way. We are fixing a problem when the cat is already out of the bag and we've already had the problem. It's really important to have inquiries or audits around current legislation and whether it is, in fact, fit for purpose and fit for the challenges we are going to continue facing. We know cybersecurity and data is our current reality, but it is where so much will be determined in the future. Another constituent raised with me the Optus events. From their perspective, the ongoing federal government has failed to deal with this, and they raised their feeling that Australia is out of step with many similar jurisdictions, such as the EU, in terms of having clear, unambiguous legal liability for individual directors for these types of data protection breaches and their feeling that the government still fails to listen to analysts, industry leaders and lobby groups around what best practice should look like in this case. I must say, I have certainly grappled with this myself, in trying to understand what is best practice in other jurisdictions and how that should be applied here to my own retention of information. So I think it behoves all of us to be very mindful of this aspect of our constituents' lives and how much this data retention impacts everyone. But I do commend this bill to the House. I commend the government for acting upon it. I have some questions, though, for the Attorney-General. For example, when will the Attorney-General's review of the Privacy Act be complete and a timeline provided for introduction and implementation? What additional changes are being considered to the review, given recent data breaches? When will the investigation into Optus be complete? How will its recommendations be handed out, and will they be made public? Will there be an investigation into the Medibank data breaches? As to the obligation to include how data breaches are managed as part of risk management, should that be mandatory for businesses and agencies, to ensure a seamless and efficient process? And, of course, how will the government ensure that this happens? We need to be more innovative, creative and collaborative in how we develop and implement regulations. The on-the-ground problems need to be remedied. What is the Attorney-General's plan to achieve this? The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner can and should take a more active role in assisting and working with business, especially small business, to implement crucial legislation—in particular, this bill—and provide better consumer outcomes. We know that, for small and medium businesses, it is incredibly hard as soon as regulatory regimes change and they have to comply—especially if they are from a non-English-speaking or migrant background. So it always comes back to this: when we change laws, we must ensure there is adequate support for small business to be able to actually comply with and understand their obligations. We must also be diligent and thorough in pursuing those who fail to comply, and, for me, there is still a bit of a question about what action will happen in that space. So this is a great first step, but I urge the government and the department to continue looking for more solutions, because data retention and breaches and privacy are very much our problem, now and for the future. 17:47 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa Over the past few months, we've seen significant, high-profile data breaches, with the personal data of millions of Australians being compromised. Many have been forced to suspend their lives to avoid serious financial consequences. And, unfortunately, this is becoming more common and will continue in frequency if nothing is done about it. According to the 2020 Australian Community Attitudes to Privacy Survey conducted by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, Australians were already concerned about their data. Seventy per cent saw the protection of their personal information as a concern in their life, and yet only 24 per cent felt that their privacy was well protected. Australians deserve to feel that their data is safe, because often the information at risk is about their identity. It's passport numbers, bank account details, licence numbers and Medicare details, and, with the latest Medibank Private breach, even health records. A leak has the potential to cause immeasurable damage to a person's life, and that potential can cause extreme stress. We've seen that in the recent high-profile data breaches at Optus and Medibank. I've had affected constituents tell me that they are in a constant loop of anxiety and fear. They're unsure about what has been compromised, when it was compromised and whether the fact that they have changed their licences or passports will make a difference if the compromise continues. These data breaches cost Australians not just financially but socially, and the companies that require personal information from their customers must ensure that it is secure. The industries most at risk are those that hold incredibly sensitive information, with health making up 18 per cent of the breaches that occurred between July and December 2021 and financial institutions coming second. Australians must be assured that these vital industries are protecting their data, and the government is doing all it can to ensure this is the case. That's why this legislation is so important. We can't let the breaches that have already occurred go by without a reaction, and we cannot ignore this moment; we must learn from it. The Albanese government has introduced this bill as a targeted response, incorporating the lessons from the past data breaches. Unfortunately, despite the increased sensitivity and awareness of the personal data companies hold, it is users that are still being left to organise what has happened to them, and so many companies are still very underprepared both proactively to protect this data and reactively to ensure that, in the event of a breach, they assist their customers. That is what this legislation seeks to enact. That is why the bill will increase the penalties for privacy breaches from $2.22 million to $50 million. Companies that hold the personal data of Australians must know there are significant consequences if they fail to protect it. There is no longer an excuse for this. The increased penalties will send a serious message to companies and to Australians that personal data is just that: personal, and it should be kept safe. Increasing penalties are important. However, in the absence of other measures, it will not be enough. The bill contains several measures to modernise the Privacy Act to better protect Australia. Enhanced enforcement powers will be given to the Australian Information Commissioner. The commissioner will have greater power and will be able to require entities to undertake external reviews in the event of the data breach and conduct assessments on compliance and obligation, even if they do not collect the data of Australians information directly. In an increasingly interconnected world, data collection can be complex and intricate, and data can be transferred between entities that may not operate servers in Australia. It's time Australia's privacy laws were modernised to account for this type of data management. Australians can be assured that our government is doing what it can to ensure that data breaches do not occur and that, in the event they do, the regulatory bodies will be able to act fast to reduce the damage. It's the least that Australians can expect. Two reiterate the point, this is not trivial. If leaked, it could be potentially destructive to a person's life and their financial security. In 2020, 59 per cent of Australians experienced issues with the handling of their personal data in the previous 12 months, including unsolicited marketing without consent and the collection of data that was unnecessary. That number is far too high, and this bill is the first step in reassuring Australians in the face of these latest data breaches, which unfortunately are not exceptional. Between 1 April 2018 and 31 March 2019, the OAIC received approximately 1,000 data breach notifications. Between 1 July 2019 and 21 March 2020, it was almost 60,000. IBM has estimated in a report that they recently released that the average cost to businesses of a data breach is $4.1 billion. The report highlights the fact that many companies are deploying greater security frameworks, but there are still a substantial number of businesses who just aren't. The longer it takes a company to detect a breach, the worst off Australians are, and this metric isn't improving, with the report noting detection now takes weeks longer to be noticed. The increase to the penalty will incentivise companies to act proactively. And, if need be, our regulatory bodies will use the power given to them by the legislation to address the failings of entities that do not provide the information required by them under the Privacy Act. Additionally, Australians expect all levels of government and regulatory bodies to work together when faced with a large-scale data breach. The commissioner will have increased powers to share and disclose information with enforcement bodies, complaint bodies and privacy regulators. Again, their situations are time sensitive, and information sharing between different levels of government and different regulators is essential for containing the potential damage. Importantly, this legislation will only be the beginning. With a review of the Privacy Act due by the end of the year, the government will work to further strengthen and modernise our existing laws to suit the fast-growing digital environment. I, and I think many in my community, will be glad to see our government act to prevent future data breaches and to hold these companies to account. I commend the bill to the House. 17:55 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I start by sharing the extreme apprehension, concern and anger of members of my electorate who have been affected by data breaches in recent times. Obviously there have been two very high-profile examples—Optus and Medibank. In the case of Medibank we're still seeing the consequences of that unravel before our eyes. Many might be aware of the threats that have been reported in the media that the release of information could still possibly be imminent. People quite reasonably should expect their personal medical information to be protected. It is very much a concern that we could see—and I hope we don't—data that was stolen from Medibank released publicly and the privacy of potentially millions of people breached as a result of that. Like I said, medical information in particular is very sensitive and personal. We should have very great concern for people who may be potentially affected by that. These two breaches have really shone a spotlight on the information that is collected by private companies, the apparent ease—evidently—of it being plundered by criminals and that fact that we probably haven't fully appreciated what information is recorded and retained by private companies. It has evidently been straightforward and easy for that information to be accessed. Why is there such a flimsy regime of protection in place for such sensitive data? I'm not defending either company involved, but we should also remember that clearly and obviously these are not two isolated examples. In fact, the examples we know about are a lot less concerning than the ones we don't know about. The data breaches in recent times have shown that there is an enormous public relations impact on companies when it is revealed that they have lost important sensitive information on their customers. There is some indication now that Optus have lost about 10 per cent of their customer base since the revelation that they lost sensitive information on their customers. That 10 per cent may well increase in the future by way of reputational damage. I'm not aware of what the impact on Medibank has been, but I would think it's reasonable to assume that there will be an apprehensiveness amongst their existing customers and their future customers. In the case of Optus we know that it was not only existing customers but also previous customers—in some cases going back years. They were no longer even customers of Optus, yet their information was stolen from a private telecommunications company, which you would think would have some of the highest data protection standards, given the line of business that they're in. These are extremely concerning events that have happened in recent times. The point I make on reputational damage is that I'm also concerned, without any evidence, that there could be other companies that have suffered breaches that have considered—or will in the future consider—concealing those breaches on the basis that the damage to their business would be so significant, as they've seen the reputational impact on those businesses that have in different circumstances gone public on the data breach that they've had. That indicates even more that we need to respond by making sure that we've got the strongest possible regime in place. The Privacy Legislation Amendment (Enforcement and Other Measures) Bill 2022 is really an interim bill. The Attorney-General has indicated that the review into the Privacy Act that was initiated a few years ago is hopefully progressing as rapidly as possible and that more comprehensive legislative change will be able to be brought to this parliament as soon as possible, because what is proposed in this bill by no means addresses a whole range of other issues that I am certain will be identified through that review into the Privacy Act. The Privacy Act was really conceived in the 1980s and has no doubt been amended piecemeal on an ad hoc basis over the intervening decades, but the fundamental legislation was conceived in a time before all sorts of technologies and all sorts of abilities to retain data, particularly in the digital world, that now exist. I certainly look forward to an opportunity to participate in legislating a dramatic overhaul of the Privacy Act insofar as what's required to better protect data, and also to put a much higher onus on all those that retain data, particularly major companies with major customer bases of Australians that keep information that can be used in a very harmful way against those people if misplaced or stolen. We know that data theft, particularly in the digital world, and the impersonation of people in the digital world is going to become an ever-growing area of crime to be greatly concerned about. We need to be acting to make sure that our legislative processes are as strong and robust as possible. In the last parliament, we debated a number of bills related to critical infrastructure. I really think that data protection is in that same sort of place. I recall, in contributing on those debates, that we put significant requirements in place around critical infrastructure that was not in the government's hands as well as critical infrastructure that's in the government's hands. For privatised critical infrastructure we put a serious regime in place for reporting cyberattacks and other risks to those assets. The data of Australians is very much an asset and is very much critical. It's not just incumbent upon us; it's vital and it's a responsibility we have to the people of Australia to make sure that we've got the strongest protections in place. That includes making sure that penalties are in place. Where we're dealing with companies that keep a lot of data, there has to be a framework around what they can keep; what strength and hardening of the storage of that data is in place, perhaps putting stronger standards around what they can keep, what they can't keep and for what periods of time; and what the penalties are for them when, through clear negligence and not following those requirements, there is a breach. I accept that in this bill there are some interim measures, but we are very much waiting for, as rapidly as possible, a broader set of legislative reform to come forward to the parliament. I definitely support the shadow Attorney-General's amendment on this bill. Nonetheless, we will support the bill beyond that through the parliament and look forward to further reform in this area and hopefully in the near future. I commend the bill to the chamber. 18:03 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I thank the honourable members for their contributions to the debate on this important bill. The Privacy Legislation Amendment (Enforcement and Other Measures) Bill 2022 is a priority for the Albanese government and sends a clear message that entities must take privacy, security and data protection seriously. Data breaches have the potential to cause serious financial and emotional harm to Australians. Increasing penalties for a serious or repeated breach of privacy will incentivise entities to take stronger privacy and cybersecurity measures to protect the personal data that they hold. Setting these penalties at a higher level will accord with Australian community expectations about the importance of protecting their personal data. The maximum penalty, while operating as a statutory cap, does not otherwise constrain the exercise of the court's discretion to impose a penalty which is appropriate to the seriousness of the misconduct and harm or potential harm. This will be complemented by a range of enhanced enforcement powers to equip the Australian Information Commissioner with the tools necessary to take effective and efficient enforcement action where necessary. Greater information sharing arrangements for privacy and telecommunications regulators will ensure Australians are informed about emerging privacy issues and will ensure these regulators are able to work together to take prompt action to minimise harm to Australians. The bill is an essential part of the government's agenda to ensure Australia's privacy framework is fit for purpose and responds to new challenges in the digital era. I confirm that the government will carefully consider submissions made to the inquiry of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, including submissions from business, industry and consumer advocates, and will consider the committee's report and any recommendations made. I also note that a number of submissions have referred to issues which are relevant to the broader review of the Privacy Act being undertaken by my department, which is scheduled to report by the end of the year. This review will inform the government's consideration of further reforms to ensure our privacy law remains fit for purpose and responds to new challenges in the digital era. This bill is an important and pressing reform that will make sure penalties effectively deter the misuse of Australians' personal data and that will ensure Australia's privacy regulator has the enforcement tools necessary to resolve privacy breaches efficiently and effectively. The bill is a reflection of community expectations and demonstrates the Albanese government's commitment to keeping Australians' data protected. I thank all honourable members of this House for their contributions to the debate and commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Berowra has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be disagreed to. Question agreed to. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Amendment Bill 2022 101

Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Amendment Bill 2022

Second Reading 101 18:08 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen I proudly rise to support the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Amendment Bill 2022, as it demonstrates that the Albanese government is showing up for those who are serving and those who have served our country. I reiterate the acknowledgement of service given by previous members speaking on this bill and add my voice to those remarks. The bill will provide and help fulfil a range of recommendations from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide to better support those who have served. We need to move quickly because there is a real sense of urgency about this. Far too many veterans and current service personnel are falling through the cracks and not getting the support that was promised to them. We have to improve the government's capacity to support ex-service personnel, and we must act quickly because the lack of action over the last couple of years has been nothing short of disappointing. We also know that this bill will help with personnel retention in military service. This is a key priority for this government and an important factor in making sure Australia's defence capabilities are strong and growing every day. This is one of a number of measures we are taking, and we are working with Defence to fix the current issues. I want to stress the importance of pushing this bill through to help with those objectives. The Albanese government is determined to do better for those who are doing so much and have given so much for our country. This is especially important in communities around McEwen, where we have a high proportion of Defence housing in places like Mernda and Doreen. These housing opportunities not only give stability and opportunity to ex-service personnel but also help grow and enrich our community. I support the bill because I'm passionate about supporting veterans, but also because I know that supporting and giving veterans the stability they need ultimately has a positive impact. This bill delivers on another one of the Albanese Labor government's election promises. We know that veterans and many service personnel have been overlooked and at times forgotten. With the cost of living rising and housing affordability being a huge issue across all of Australia, these factors are felt keenly by those who have served, which is why our government is prioritising this legislation. We are implementing this policy to be as effective as possible by tackling this with a four-pronged approach. This can be summarised as: expanding the access to the scheme, taking the time restrictions off when people can apply, fixing the current ongoing subsidy issues and addressing the administrative processes that need to be updated. The Labor government is committed to improving this program to make it more effective and, frankly, to help more people. We are doing this by increasing early access to the scheme, allowing defence personnel to have access to the benefits of this scheme earlier in their service. Practically, what it means is that those who are in full-time service will have access within two years of service and those who are in part-time service will have access within four years. This will have a run-on effect of decreasing the time that people will be eligible for the subsidy tiers, allowing members and ex-service personnel to have better access to the scheme more quickly. This will be retroactive for those who have left the Defence Force for compensatable reasons and didn't qualify for the scheme. It will help push those eligible up to another tier, due to their time of previous service. This is tackling the issue of many previous personnel having slipped through the cracks. It will give more opportunity for stability when people leave the Defence Force and undertake the big task of re-engaging in civilian life. Numerous reports have come out recently saying that it can take years in some cases, and veterans might have to work many years through that transition into civilian life. So the bill is removing the condition that veterans must apply within five years of leaving the Defence Force. We all know what the frequent moving that comes from being a member of the Defence Force means. It can take time to establish roots and find a place that can provide the best opportunity for people to transition out of military life. The removal of the time constraint will allow veterans not to rush into the scheme. And this is an acknowledgement that the circumstances of defence personnel and their families' lifestyles are incredibly unique and involve different challenges to settling down. Growing up in Broadmeadows, we often had a school full of what we called 'Army brats' who were in and out. By the time many of these kids were in year 8 they'd travelled the country and been to nine or 10 different schools. We know the issue that caused the families then, not only just for the kids but also for their parents—particularly for the parent who wasn't a member of the Defence Force. Being shifted around and then trying to create new connections in a new community and develop that was very hard. That's why we've also got to extend this service to the surviving partners, who have similarly been impacted by the nature of having partners who've served in the military. It's so important for families to be able to have those roots and those connections. One of the big issues facing Defence today is the shortage of personnel entering our defence forces and staying. It's getting that stability, trying to find those roots where you can settle down, give your kids the opportunity that we all want and think we all deserve but also dealing with the uniqueness that is ADF life, where you're not in the one place all the time and you're going to be moved around. These challenges are hard, which is why locally we push really hard to try to get as much information as we can about Defence homes in our area, to make sure that as new people come in we can give them the opportunity by saying just the simple things like, 'Here's your local Men's Shed,' or 'Here's your local social services,' or 'Here are the better pizza shops.' These are all things that, when you move into a community, make a local community, but it also gives them the opportunity to meet up with social groups and like-minded people, ensuring that, when they come into our communities, they feel welcome, they feel part of us and they enjoy their time there, because we know—as is the nature of defence—that they're going to move on eventually. But if we can make their time and stay in our communities better, then that's a very positive thing that we can do for defence personnel and their families. This is a sensible and responsible approach in making sure that we provide stability and look after their families, even during a transitional period. In addition to those measures, the bill tackles the shortfalls in current legislation by creating a power to make sure that there is a way to continue paying subsidy amounts even when an error might have been made. It will mean that people who are recipients of the scheme are protected from administrative mistakes that can suddenly make the entire subsidised amounts due. The hole in the legislation put people who were in precarious financial positions under unnecessary stress. This measure is responding to concerns raised by Defence, and the government is doing what it does in acting quickly to make sure no more personnel are put under the unnecessary stress that comes from being suddenly cut off through no fault of their own. The current inflexibility does not allow for human error and genuine human mistakes, with many people being taken off the scheme for small personal mistakes or mistakes made by a third party. As we know, we need to have that human interaction when we're doing these things so we don't end up with robodebt situations where automatic things are done, you have no say in it and you get the bill later on. That is unacceptable and easily avoidable. Allowing some room for genuine error is only right and fair. This bill seeks to support the administrative side of the scheme and create a process to adjust payments that have already been made. It will allow for both the making and the recovery of any payments that are out of order. We are making sure there are proper processes and guarantees of good governance and transparency to make sure that this scheme is doing its job. This small change will not only streamline the process to handle any issues, taking stress off recipients in the scheme, but also ensure that the scheme is working effectively. If passed, this legislation will come into effect on 1 January 2023. That cannot come soon enough. We are making sure that anyone who has missed out due to the previous restrictions and policy gaps can be allowed to resubmit their applications. This is a testament to this government's commitment to making sure that current and future defence personnel are actually receiving the support they deserve. We know the sacrifices they've made can have huge impacts on the lives and livelihoods of those who have served. So the Albanese government is working hard to reduce those challenges. I do acknowledge that the opposition is supporting the bill. That's important. I think it shows that we can have bipartisan bills where we sit there and focus on what is right and what is fair rather than on what is politically good. There are many veterans that we deal with every single day who have suffered dramatically through their time in service. The more that we can do to help them and help support their transition back into civilian life to be active and positive members of our community—we should be doing more of that. It's important for us as legislators to make sure that we do the right thing when we see there's a problem and act quickly to say, 'We know this is an issue. We've got to fix it and fix it quickly.' I think that's what we've seen being done in this. Within five months in office, we've brought this in and we'll bring this forward. It's part of a program that's focusing on veterans. In saying that, I think of Minister Keogh yesterday. We had a veteran who'd been waiting over 1,000 days to have his claim heard—not even approved; just to have it heard. That's just appalling. That is not what we should be doing. I don't think any of us sitting in this room would say that that's fair and reasonable. The DVA has had a real problem in the way that it has been working with veterans and how it has been supporting veterans. Through contacting Minister Keogh directly, we were able to make sure this veteran had his claim not only assessed but approved in 24 hours. For nearly three years, this poor fellow had been under stress, waiting. But he's not alone. He's one of many who are going through this situation. He is one of many who have been suffering because of the backlog that is being worked through at the DVA. That's something we've really noticed. We often say, 'Change the government, change the nation.' Well, we've seen a change of government, a change of minister and a change to a positive attitude. I know there are many other veterans out there who are in this desperate situation, but we have to do everything we can to work together to get this sorted as quickly as possible. It is important that governments always stand to support the wellbeing of veterans and defence personnel. It is why I support this bill. I hope that we can have a speedy passage of this bill and get it through so that we can get things rolling as quickly as possible together as an entire parliament to do the right thing for the people from whom we expect so much. 18:20 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt I rise to commend the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Amendment Bill 2022 to the House and reiterate the excellent contribution made by the member for Herbert in the chamber earlier today as the shadow minister responsible for this area, along with the member for New England. I would like to start, Deputy Speaker Wilkie, by thanking you and all those in this parliament who served our nation for that service. We are debating bills relating to supporting our veterans and, obviously, they are extremely important. We are also very lucky that the debates are so well-informed by members of the House and the other chamber who are veterans, who have served our nation and who have their own significant experience of the challenges that veterans face and the ways in which we can do better. We all know that we can do better for veterans; indeed, we have a royal commission under way into veteran suicide which will report when it is ready. I am sure that is going to have recommendations that we as a parliament will need to engage on. I would hope that reform in an area like veterans' affairs is almost always something that is bipartisan. We shouldn't even use the term 'bipartisan' anymore, because, I suppose, it should be unanimous within the chamber from all members. This is a bill that I am quite confident all members of the House will be very comfortable supporting. It loosens the criteria that is in place to support veterans to buy a home. How could anyone oppose that? It is excellent that the scheme has been in place since, I believe, 1991, from memory. It has been reformed over the years, but this is an opportunity for us to improve and increase the support that is provided to veterans to buy a home. We in the coalition always look for opportunities to do more to support our veterans who have served our nation. We are also very supportive of home ownership and of helping anyone, not just veterans, with the really important economic security that comes from buying a home. Veterans obviously have unique challenges in buying a home by the very nature of their service in the armed forces. It is likely that they won't have an enormous amount of control over where they may be posted to or deployed to, whether that is within country or overseas, and that is a unique disruption that not many other people experience in their careers. If we all think about the logical progression in our adult lives towards the security of buying a home, that is particularly disrupted if you are serving in the armed forces and you don't have an enormous amount of certainty about where you will be stationed or deployed to, not only where that might be but how frequently that might change. It would be very difficult to make a commitment towards housing at times—not always, but at times—in line with what those of us who don't have that uncertainty in where we will be domiciled on an ongoing basis will have. The scheme really does recognise and support the fact that it is more difficult for those who serve our nation to be able to, with the same amount of certainty, enter the housing market. It, therefore, provides support to overcome that. I know that Defence have made the point in reviews, in estimates et cetera that retention is as much a focus for them as recruitment. Initiatives towards retention in some circumstances are more important than recruitment. We obviously want to help and support those who join the armed forces to stay for as long as we can keep them for, given the enormous amount of resources put into recruitment and training. Providing more secure economic certainty for them and pathways after they leave the services makes sense to assist in the retention of service personnel. The logic of that has been clear by the reality that we've had this scheme since 1991. There is a lot of sense in helping to improve access, expand access and make it a lot more straightforward for veterans to access the scheme. The bill achieves exactly that. Further reform in this area may well come to light based on the outcomes of the royal commission. All members of parliament have veteran communities. I'm sure we all engage with them very deeply and thoroughly. Sometimes that is in important acts of commemoration, like the one we will have this Friday for Remembrance Day. I am sure most members, like me, have more than one RSL in their electorate. We do our best to get to as many of those commemorative events as we can at various times through the year. In this country Remembrance Day is very significant, but there is also Anzac Day, Vietnam Veterans' Day and more. I have in my electorate the suburb of Dernancourt, which is named after a village in the north of France where there was very significant Australian engagement in the First World War. We would all have similar specific commemorations that occur, depending on our electorate. We engage with our veterans through those opportunities but also of course sometimes, regrettably, we engage with veterans when they need help and support. At times that is helping them navigate some of the challenges in dealing with the government in getting access to the services that they are quite rightly entitled to. The member for McEwen, the previous speaker, had a specific example that he is quite rightly proud of. He assisted a veteran who was struggling to get an outcome through the bureaucracy. Equally, I'm sure any member of parliament has at times had veteran constituents who needed their support to get access to the services that they absolutely deserve and the supports that they need. In my view this bill also goes towards the prevention of future risk to veterans. The economic security of home ownership is certainly a big part of the sort of support that we haven't always provided to veterans. We haven't always done as good a job as we could have and that can exacerbate some of the challenges that they have in re-entering civilian life after their service. Economic security is always going to be front and centre to that. The challenges in getting access to government services exacerbates that. In my view the economic security of owning a home will go a long way to helping more veterans have the support that they need for the life that they create after their service to our nation. We know the value of home ownership in any circumstance. It is extremely reassuring and, in fact, relieving. It puts people in a position to have the sort of stability that they would hope to have in the life that they are creating for themselves after serving our nation. With those comments I commend the bill to the chamber. The DEPUTY SPEAKER C2T It being 6.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192(b). The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 104 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Economy 104 16:30 Ms CHANEY 300006 Curtin I rise today to talk about the changing economic relationship between the generations in Australia. Australia's millennial generation is widely forecast to be the first generation since Federation that has worse economic outcomes than the generation before. Individual wealth of older households is increasing significantly faster than those of their younger counterparts. In fact, the gap between the wealth of the old and the wealth of the young almost doubled over the last few decades. I want to talk about how we need to address the implicit generational bargain that underpins the relationship between younger and older Australians, and how we set our tax and spending priorities. Intergenerational economic fairness is an issue that we need to fix if we want our communities to enjoy rising living standards. This must be done in the context of a wider community discussion about what we care about. Our working-age demographic is shifting, and our wealth distribution is shifting with it. There are fewer working-age Australians to support our elders. When I was born there were more than seven Australians of working age for each person over the age of 65. This has now declined from seven to about four. Young people aspire to move through the same life stages as earlier generations—a quality education, a stable and well-paid career, buying a home, starting a family and building wealth for a secure retirement with dignity. But, instead, many young people are fearful of what their economic future looks like. They're struggling, in a financial environment that's increasingly difficult. Housing is becoming more expensive, the tax burden is increasing, and job prospects and pay are flatlining. Last year, ABC's Australia Talks survey found that three out of four 18- to 29-year-olds believe that young people will be worse off than their parents. Even overall—across all age groups—59 per cent of Australians agreed with this statement. This is not about pitting generations against each other. It's not about arguing whether the boomers or gen Y or the millennials have it tougher. It's not about avocado toast versus free university. It's about looking at how we design our tax and spending so that successive generations can be optimistic about their future. When my husband and I bought our first house in the 1990s, the median house price was about 4.2 times the median annual income; it's now double that, at 8.5 times. Today, younger Australians are less likely to own a home than young people were in the past. In 1981, seven out of 10 30-year-olds owned a home. In 2021, the census showed that only four did. An asset price boom over the last 20 years has benefited homeowners, who are typically older and pay relatively little income tax in retirement, while disadvantaging younger workers, who have suffered lower wage growth and pay more income tax. As humans, it's natural for us to care about each other. An underlying assumption we make is that working age Australians contribute to the care of older and younger generations, and can expect the next generation to support them in the same way. But as our population ages, the burden of this care is falling on a smaller cohort of working-age Australians. Working-age Australians are also underwriting the living standards of older Australians to a much greater extent than earlier generations did for their elders. Accounting for inflation, in the eighties and nineties an average elderly household of people over 65 received $16½ thousand per year in support from taxpayers. Today that figure is 65 per cent higher, even though superannuation was introduced to reduce the financial burden of retirement on taxpayers. So, not only are there fewer working age Australians per older Australian, there's significantly more support paid as well. There are controversial and difficult issues to be addressed in this, which is why it will be so important to make it a broad community-based discussion. There are trade-offs and legitimate expectations. Young people want to be able to aspire to the same milestones of financial security as previous generations, and older people not only want to live with dignity but also want to leave a legacy of a functioning society to their children and grandchildren. The concerns I have raised are not just my own. Successive governments have acknowledged and investigated this issue of intergenerational unfairness. Every five years the Australian government releases an intergenerational report. The 2002 and 2007 reports highlighted the future budget pressures from a steadily ageing population. The 2010 report emphasised the challenge posed by climate change. In the wake of the Global Financial Crisis, the 2015 report illustrated the long-term sustainability of alternative fiscal policy scenarios. The 2021 report painted a dire picture, with budget deficit forecasts for 40 years, net debt still at 34 per cent in 2061 and the interest cost of servicing that debt growing to 1.7 per cent of GDP. I commend this government for undertaking to release the next intergenerational report next year, earlier than it is due. But the intergenerational report has not traditionally contained recommendations and this is a missed opportunity. I challenge the government to take this opportunity to kick off a full and frank inquiry into intergenerational fairness. A coalition of youth-organised groups—Think Forward, the Foundation for Young Australians, Youth Action, Youth Development Australia and the youth affairs councils from several states—are supporting this idea. They take inspiration from the 2018 House of Lords inquiry in the UK. The report from this UK inquiry, Tackling intergenerational unfairness, published in 2019, observes that intergenerational fairness had become an increasingly pressing concern for both policymakers and the public. The UK inquiry found that the relationship between older and younger generations is still defined by mutual support and affection. However, the action and inaction of successive governments risks undermining the foundation of this relationship. Many in younger generations are struggling to find secure well-paid jobs and secure affordable housing, while many in older generations risk not receiving the support they need because government after government has failed to plan for a long-term generational timescale. This inquiry would need to look broadly at what a good life means to different generations. There is an assumption built into the way I'm talking about it that generations value the same things. This should be tested. This would fit as part of a broader community discussion about what as a country we value following on from statement 4 in budget paper No. 1, Measuring what matters, which is the government's discussion paper about introducing a wellbeing framework to the way we approach our economy. Countries such as Wales, Scotland, New Zealand and Iceland are having this broad community conversation about what actually matters and are moving towards implementing a wellbeing framework in how they think about what their economies are for. The Australian government has indicated a desire to start using a broad range of measures that more accurately reflect what we value than GDP. It will be vital this is built on broad community engagement and views rather than sitting in Treasury. While it may take longer to build consensus on what we care about than it would for Treasury to adopt a predesigned model from another jurisdiction, this engagement work is essential in rebuilding trust in our democracy and building a common understanding of the context in which we will need to make difficult decisions. With high but reasonable community expectations about support for the aged, for children and for people with disabilities, revenue will need to come from somewhere. While no one likes to talk about tax, this is not a problem that will fix itself. We need to either reduce our expectations of support or be open to new ways of paying for it. This was raised a decade ago in Ken Henry's review of the tax system but not much has changed. Understanding generational differences in what we value and how we want to live through an intergenerational fairness inquiry would inform longer term thinking and provide a mandate for some of the economic reform that has ground to a halt over the last decade. At the last election, communities such as mine in Curtin indicated that they wanted to see longer term thinking in policy development and an optimistic and courageous vision for the future of the country. Now is the time to start these national conversations: What is important to us? How does our tax and spending system reflect what we value? How do we make good on the intergenerational bargain to support people at the vulnerable beginning and end of life in exchange for the promise that we will keep making things better? I'll continue to work with the government and other stakeholders to support these longer-term discussions to ensure that we're focusing on the things that matter and making structural decisions that do not unfairly burden our children and their children. Cost of Living, Health Care, Infrastructure, Education 106 18:40 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa It's a great honour to represent my community of Werriwa in this place. Recently I've reached out to the electorate of Werriwa to ask for their top concerns at the moment. Overwhelmingly, their responses have been the cost of living, affordable health care and job opportunities. We know the cost of living has been a pressing issue for Australians all across the country, with more and more people having to choose between feeding themselves and their families and filling a prescription for life-saving medications. This is not what we want for Australia. One of Australia's greatest achievements is our healthcare system, and as a government we are committed to strengthening it, which is why the Medicare task force was established and Minister Butler is seeking further reports about Medicare. I've met with constituents, especially those with chronic conditions, who make choices about which medications they can afford. This unfortunately has only become more and more common. We are meant to take pride in the fact that our healthcare system is fair and equitable. Last week I met with Natalie, the owner and pharmacist at Chemistworks at Edmondson Park. We discussed the changes that the government has made to reduce the cost of medicine. Natalie was very supportive of the changes. She detailed for me the conversations that she and her staff have every day about what medications can be taken less frequently. Clearly it is distressing for a professional like Natalie to answer these questions. She knows that the treating doctors believe that it is in the patient's best interests to take medications as directed, but she also sees the struggle it can be for families or pensioners when they can't afford their medication. The changes will see that people in my electorate who need to fill two scripts a month save up to $300 a year. This is part of our government's plan to address the cost-of-living crisis and will also strengthen our healthcare system so that it remains fair and egalitarian. The people of Werriwa told me that Medicare is their top concern. Our government has committed to delivering 50 Medicare urgent care clinics, which will bulk-bill urgent care to take the pressure off our emergency departments. Of course, we have multiple strategies to change and improve the current challenges for our economy. In the recent census it was confirmed that Werriwa has a higher percentage of families with children than the New South Wales and Australian averages, so it's mums and dads in Werriwa who will significantly benefit from the changes to childcare fees next year. Our policy will cover 96 per cent of families, or about 7,400 families in Werriwa. Families will now have a choice to work more hours and days, addressing the skills shortage to some extent and making working that extra day worthwhile. Under this policy, 7,400 families should benefit. Families earning a combined income of $120,000 with one child can save up to $1,780. These families can choose to work additional days without worrying about the extra cost of child care. With childcare costs increasing by 41 per cent over the last eight years, it has never been more important for the government to help families ensure their children get affordable and adequate care. Child care helps children in so many ways, not only allowing parents to work but readying them for a life of learning and curiosity. Werriwa is a fast-growing electorate with more young people and more young families, and these savings will directly benefit those in my community as well as thousands of families all around the country. I am very proud that our government has done that. For far too long people in our part of the country have been neglected and overlooked. The people of Werriwa will finally benefit from the actions of a government that cares about them. Up to 65 per cent of Werriwa's workers leave the electorate every day to work. They battle every day with the lack of planning of both state and federal governments, which means that commutes can often be long, taking them away from their families and reducing their opportunities for leisure or exercise. The lack of investment by state governments in roads and rail, with projects taking too long to start, is taking its toll in my part of south-west Sydney. That's why projects like the Western Sydney airport are so important to our communities. The stimulation from this generational infrastructure project will provide almost 28,000 direct and indirect jobs by 2031 alone, and the economic activity it will generate will be substantial for our communities. Our region will be linked to the airport by the M12 Motorway, another piece of infrastructure. It will produce 2,000 jobs during construction and shorten commute times to the airport for workers. And it has substantial federal government funding. Our region, especially Werriwa, contains some of the most tolled suburbs in Sydney, so the last thing they need is another toll road. And the M12 has no tolls. Whether they're on their way to work or on an outing with their families, they need to spend less time on the road and not pay tolls for the luxury of using government-funded infrastructure. The 2021 census, which was taken at the height of lockdown, showed that people in Werriwa were still more likely to drive to work compared to the rest of New South Wales and were less likely to work from home. Of course, this is directly related to the important work those in my community do. They are the nurses, the firefighters, the police and the aged-care workers. They deliver food to supermarkets and shops. They are our teachers. They were essential workers during the pandemic. That's why good infrastructure is incredibly important to Werriwa and why Labor is committed to it. The massive growth occurring in suburbs such as Austral and Middleton Grange and the congestion on roads, especially at the Cowpasture Road and Hoxton Park Road intersection, are impacting these residents. That is also why the Albanese government will deliver on the election commitment that I made during the election campaign, with the minister for infrastructure, to create a $6 million link between Aviation Road and Middleton Drive at Middleton Grange. These suburbs should not be isolated from the rest of the local area, and workers should not have to face long queues to get out of their suburb. I am really glad to be part of a government that is supporting this development and addressing the concerns of my community. We know that infrastructure is vital to job opportunities for my community, but educational opportunities are equally important. Whether it be K-12, or university or vocational education, everyone deserves a good education and the ability to acquire skills for well-paying jobs. Unfortunately, over the past decade, our education system has been undermined at every turn, with record low funding to our higher education system. Under the previous Labor government, university funding was at 30.3 per cent of total education funding. By 2019-20, this share had sunk to 24.2 per cent, and there were massive lay-offs in the university sector. As a result of this neglect, the proportion of applicants who get an offer has gone down. This, coupled with decades of consistent underspending in our TAFE system, means that people don't have the opportunities they did 10 years ago. And we are feeling the effects of the gutting of TAFE right now, with the chronic skills shortage in every sector of our economy. This is the legacy of a previous government, but it won't be the legacy of ours. People in my community are less likely to hold a bachelor's degree, an advanced diploma or a certificate IV or III, compared to the rest of New South Wales, and those in Werriwa are also less likely to be studying at TAFE or university. So, with nine in 10 jobs in the future requiring some sort of VET qualification or university degree, the people of Werriwa would be significantly impacted if nothing were done to address these changes in funding. But our government is going to do something about these problems. We are delivering an additional 20,000 university places for those in under-represented areas, with regional, remote and outer-suburban areas being prioritised. But that's only one aspect of our plan, because we'll also deliver 465,000 fee-free TAFE places and invest $100 million to support 10,000 apprenticeships in new energy jobs. This will help close the skills gap we are experiencing in the near-term, but it will also build up the skills of Australians for good, well-paid jobs. I know our communities are worried about the lack of education and job opportunities, and I will continue to voice their concerns. I want those in my community to know that I will continue to fight for them. The government that I am now part of has the ability to help alleviate these stressors. And we will govern for everybody. Blood Donation 108 18:49 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass Each year around one in 30 people give blood across the country, providing whole blood, plasma and platelets, to support Australians with conditions like cancer and blood diseases, trauma patients, pregnant women and new mothers, to live full and healthy lives. Every blood donation helps to save three lives. However, with just three per cent of Australians donating blood, we must look at encouraging more Australians to donate blood where possible. Through the height of the pandemic, countries across the world were struggling to maintain blood supplies, as COVID lockdowns created a change in people's movements and lifestyles, and a wariness about being out and about led to many regular donors cancelling their donations when the omicron wave took hold late last year and into the first half of this year. The Australian Red Cross estimated that 100,000 donors were sidelined by coronavirus strains in the past few months when infection surged around the country. The number equates to around 20 per cent of the nation's public donors who either caught COVID-19 or were feeling too sick to walk into a donation centre. In late May, Red Cross Lifeblood put out an urgent call for more than 17,000 donors to help raise supply, as the stocks plummeted to a few days supply due to a surge of the flu. In the northern Tasmanian electorate of Bass, which I represent, there are everyday members for our community who roll up their sleeves to save lives, people like 26 year old Hayden Hill, who reached a milestone of 100 donations last year. Inspired by his aunt and nurse at the Launceston General Hospital, Hayden first began donating blood age of 20, seeing blood donations as a quick and easy way to help somebody in need. He said, 'I wanted to try it but I was initially a bit nervous. Then, once I did the first time, I realised it was easy. You just roll up your sleeve and you are saving three lives every donation. Across the world we know there are a lot of people who need blood transfusions.' There is a demonstrable need to increase the number of Australians giving blood, and I applaud the Red Cross Lifeblood for the life-saving work that they undertake every day and for their commitment to encouraging more Australians to donate. Earlier this year Australia lifted the ban on blood donations for anyone who had lived in the UK from 1980 to 1996. The ban was originally introduced in the year 2000 due to the potential risk of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease or CJD, commonly known as mad cow disease. New modelling has shown that the risk is incredibly low, allowing for the ban to be lifted, giving over 700,000 more people living in Australia the opportunity to donate blood. In recent years Lifeblood Teams, a social responsibility program for workmates, friends, team mates and communities who want to make a difference together, has helped more Australians donate blood. In Tasmania alone, donors who are part of a Lifeblood Team made up about 43 per cent of the donations made across the state in 2020, with more than 900 teams contributing in that year alone. However, today I want to shine a spotlight on an issue that still exists as an obstacle to both increasing blood donations and to overcoming discrimination faced by our LGBT community. That is the barrier to gay, bisexual, transgender and gender nonconforming Australians who have sex with men donating blood unless abstinent. A lifetime ban was placed on sexually active gay men in 1983. This ban was put in place at a time when HIV technology was relatively new and largely unreliable due to the window period—a term referring to the time, between someone contracting HIV and antibodies showing up in a blood test. By 2000 the regulations were revised allowing a deferral period of 12 months, and in 2012 this was reduced further to six months. Under current regulations, men and the trans community are unable to donate if they have engaged in sexual activity with men within the previous three months, essentially requiring a section of the community to practise abstinence before being able to donate. I would like to be very clear that I certainly understand and support necessary and appropriate blood screening regulations to ensure the safety of blood supply in our country. However, constituents within my own community and across Tasmania have expressed to me that the current ban on blood donation unless practising abstinence for a period of three months sends a message that member for the LGBTIQ plus community, in particular gay men, are a threat to public health, which, particularly in this day and age, is an archaic and inappropriate message to put out to the Australian public. Australia actually led the world when we removed the lifetime ban on blood donations from gay men, with other countries soon following. However, we are now falling behind other countries, including the UK, which have moved away from the policy of a deferral period, instead introducing a more equitable approach which is that anyone, irrespective of their sexual orientation, their gender or their partner's gender, is asked to complete an individual assessment. This approach looks at the risk based on sexual behaviour rather than the so-called group that an individual may be assigned to, meaning that the distinction applies equally to heterosexual people who may also be at risk of contracting and passing on HIV as well as other bloodborne diseases. Dr Sharon Dane is the author of a report commissioned by Just.Equal Australia that reviewed current data and modelling and compared bans on gay blood donation, like Australia's, with a policy to screen donors for their individual risk. The report found that the latest international research shows that there is no meaningful risk attached to lifting the current abstinence requirement for blood donation by men and trans women who have sex with men and replacing it with a new policy of screening donors for their individual sexual safety. Dr Dane said: Modelling suggests this would actually increase the amount of safe blood available to those in need of blood products. Australian researcher Jennifer Power said in 2016 that the difference in how the gay community are treated compared to the heterosexual community, regardless of sexual behaviour, speaks to the 'trust that reveals the subtle (and not so subtle) ways in which homophobia discrimination plays out.' Power continues: Understanding discrimination in the context of blood donation can be complicated because it is not clearly about human rights. One may not necessarily have a 'right' to donate blood. It is on these grounds that gay advocacy organisations have been criticised for calling out blood donation bans as discriminatory. But it is discriminatory to the extent that restricting men who have sex with men from donating blood reflects and reinforces the perspective that gay and bisexual men are unreliable and require strict laws to regulate their actions—laws that are not applied to other groups. Just a few months ago, a wonderful man in the northern Tasmanian region which I represent left a comment on my Facebook page after I published a post on the importance of organ donation. Rick, a gay man who advocated heavily for marriage equality during the plebiscite a few years ago, and a registered organ donor, commented on my page, saying: Here's an interesting thought. Why are my organs ok to donate but not my blood? He told me: When we're told it's about calculating risk, it reinforces to others that we are lesser than or that HIV is a gay-only disease. It completely misses the fact that 24% of new HIV cases were heterosexual and that most gay people living with HIV are undetectable. My team at the office all wanted to give blood and make an it a regular team excursion—so they did their first one, and I stayed in the office. Because I couldn't, there was never a second one. He went on to say: Can we have a gay blood bank? One where you can accept that blood and share it with other gay people who would rather live. I understand there are many reasons why people can't give blood however all of these reasons are based on circumstance not on identity. Again, I want to make it clear that I'm in no way demonising the critical work of Lifeblood Australia, and I understand the need for precautions. However, there is now research available indicating that a move to implementing criteria based on sexual-behaviour-based screening for all donors, regardless of gender and orientation, would be considered safe. The UK and Canada moved to this model very recently, and Australia should follow. I understand that the Therapeutic Goods Administration is reviewing the report submitted by Just.Equal Australia, and I'm hopeful for an outcome that will both protect the blood donation supply in Australia and remove unnecessary discrimination. Mining 109 18:59 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson I make no secret of the fact that I am a proud supporter of the mining and resources sector. I'm also the proud daughter of a coalminer, and I'm even prouder to be the member for a resource-rich region. Recently I had the great pleasure of touring Western Australia's magnificent Pilbara region on a tour organised by the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia. The delegation of MPs from state and federal parliaments, and industry representatives from across the resources sector, came together to learn more about the commitment the mining and resources sector has to meaningful partnerships with our First Nations people. We wanted to familiarise ourselves with the efficiencies of the industry and, importantly, the contribution it is making not only to our economy but, quite frankly, to the future for all of us. The Pilbara region of north Western Australia extends south from the De Grey River to the Ashburton River, and as far inland as 720 kilometres. This magnificent region is not only rich in Aboriginal cultural heritage but also a logistical marvel in the way that it coordinates vast distances with the resource sector that works within these magnificent and vast landscapes. You really cannot get it until you take it in with your own eyes. Flying across the Wheatbelt of Western Australia was a tapestry for the eyes, to say the least. It was just so incredible. More than 157,700 people are employed in Western Australian mining and resources, with the sector representing more than 45 per cent of employment in the Pilbara region alone. This region is home to 58,000 people and supports 63,500 jobs, with many people flying in to go to work. That's why those figures are somewhat different. I thank the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia and congratulate them on such a well-organised and coordinated tour. It was no mean feat. It was headed up by their dynamic and recently appointed CEO, Rebecca Tomkinson. Rebecca ran the Royal Flying Doctor Service in Western Australia before she took up the role with the Chamber of Minerals and Energy. She is breaking down barriers and she is a force of nature, and I know that she will bring with her some of that critical time-management and logistical knowhow that is so imperative in the Royal Flying Doctor Service to the resources sector, not only for Western Australia but also for Australia more broadly. Rebecca and her team are building more new foundations for industry and ensuring the government has a better understanding of the critical roles the sector plays in our national economy—and, indeed, in the state economy of Western Australia. I want to thank the whole team at CME, but make special mention of Adrienne LaBombard, Roannah Wade, Susan Cull and Keelie Hoskin, who helped make the trip happen. I was also delighted to join my colleague and friend Madeleine King, the Minister for Resources, for some of the trip, to see firsthand her home state and the industry that she's so passionate about representing. During our three-day tour of key resources operations we visited Chevron on Barrow Island, which is a class A nature reserve and quite an incredible LNG facility, Rio Tinto, Woodside, Mineral Resources, FMG and BHP. Reconciliation and respect for the land are continuous topics and, to be frank, the mining industry understands that there is a long way to go, and that they need to do much more than just mine coal and fossil fuels. But they're doing a good job of understanding where the improvements need to be made. We also went to see Wodgina, which is a lithium mine, and it was incredible as well. Minerals like lithium and iron ore are a major part of our future and continue to contribute to new and exciting technologies. It's also important that people understand this, and I think that, as parliamentarians, we haven't supported these industries as well as we could have. I want to be the first one to put up my hand and say that we all need to be doing more to understand that these technologies that we all love—our iPads, our mobile phones and all of the things that are happening around the globe—come to us because of minerals. Whether it be coal, iron ore, lithium, antimony—all of the things that we see on the periodic table—it just can't happen without those minerals that are extracted from the earth. I know how people categorise mining; they want to lump it into 'just digging stuff up and shipping it out'. Let me tell you, that extraction of those critical minerals and fossil fuels is how our modern, sophisticated society is able to function the way it does—make no mistake about that. So I get really uptight when people say: 'We want to keep coal in the ground,' and, 'We don't want to have gas,' and, 'We don't want to do this.' If we're not doing those things, we'd better switch off the lights, put out the cat and go home, because, quite frankly, it will all be over. I'm very grateful to those stakeholders for hosting us and showing us their impressive operations as well as briefing us on their continued commitment to our First Nations people. I was especially delighted to learn about the continued successes of Indigenous employment schemes and see the benefits of these corporate citizens investing back into our communities out in the Pilbara. Fifteen per cent of the Pilbara's population comprises Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people, with many Pilbara communities facing really complex social, housing, health and education challenges. Fortunately, the resources sector is stepping up in this way. For many, many decades, it has been stepping up, in fact, to invest more in social programs and infrastructure to help tackle some of these really difficult socioeconomic challenges. I commend the work being done and acknowledge the passion and commitment of the many in this region to better relationships to embrace a brighter future for our First Nations communities. They're working out there. They're living out there. It is just so meaningful that our First Nations people and these organisations and companies have such a great connection. Furthering my understanding of some of our country's biggest operators just reinforced for me the continued importance of mining and petroleum exports and the role they have in our economic recovery for the years to come. It's such an important thing. The annual economic output of the Pilbara was $106 billion in the last decade. That's between the 2011-12 and 2020-21 financial years. I'll just say that figure again: $106 billion in 10 years. Let it sink in. There are many schools, hospitals and roads that we all use that have been funded from the resources sector. The mining industry has also contributed $254 billion in company taxes and royalties. That's $142 billion in taxes and $112 billion in royalties. For context, total spending on health in 2019-20 was estimated to be $81 billion; total spending on the NDIS costs around $22 billion a year; and total spending on the age pension and income support for senior Australians costs just over $50 billion annually. That's just putting some of those numbers coming out of the resources sector into context for you. So it is clear that, if we want to have things like the age pension and the NDIS and all of those other fabulous services that so many Australians so richly deserve and depend upon, then we have to find the money from somewhere, and it's the resources sector that is providing much of this money. So, before we go knocking them, we need to be really clear that we're not biting off the hand that's feeding us. It's clear by comparison that the economics of Australian mining, just in the Pilbara alone, are invaluable to our nation's prosperity. The mining and energy sector is a vital part of my own electorate, and I am always seeking ways to better understand the technologies, the research, the workforce and both the opportunities in it and the challenges that the industry faces. This experience has reinforced my admiration for the sector and the individuals that make it happen. My electorate of Paterson plays a major role in keeping the lights on in my home state of New South Wales, and for that I am forever grateful. And I am forever grateful to those men and women who, every day, put on their gear and go down a coal mine, an iron ore mine, a lithium mine or whatever mine it is and draw up our resources: thank you. Mental Health: Emergency Personnel 111 19:09 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper I wish to speak in relation to the need for greater support for our frontline emergency personnel. This is something I spoke about in my maiden speech. I will read a short excerpt. I said: … I spoke of the difficulties of the job. I'm lucky that I came out relatively unscarred. This is not the case for so many emergency personnel. Year after year, I have seen my former colleagues fall by the wayside with post-traumatic stress disorder, simply to be forgotten or discarded—made to fight the system to receive the care they require, not to move on but simply to survive. Many do not. As much as 20 per cent of emergency workers are impacted by PTSD. Between 2001 and today, 68 serving police officers across the country have died by suicide. This does not take into account those who have left the force; nor does it take into account any other emergency service organisation, past or present. These are the people who serve and protect us. We as a government must do much more to serve and protect them. This cannot be passed off as a state issue. We must work collaboratively as a government to do all we can for those who put themselves in harm's way for us. Over the past three years the member for Wide Bay, the member for Fisher, the member for Herbert and I have worked with a fellow by the name of John Bale. Many of you would know John; he was the co-founder of Soldier On, which provides support services and programs for returned veterans. He identified that, in some circumstances, veterans weren't comfortable going to the services provided by the ADF. We worked with John over three years to secure funding for another organisation which he co-founded called Fortem. Fortem was a mirror image of Soldier On but for emergency service personnel. In my experience, police will often leave the police force and have no support at all. Many of them are institutionalised; they've been in the job for 20 or 30 years and have seen the most horrendous things. The same applies to emergency service personnel. Whether they're volunteers or paid is irrelevant. Many of them don't feel comfortable going to the services provided to them, and many leave their employment angry. We can't explain how PTSD affects rational thinking. So I was very, very pleased that, over the past three years, we were able to obtain substantial funding and were successful for Fortem. We have a Fortem in Port Macquarie, and it works really well. When we had the drought, then the bushfires, which were significant—we lost hundreds of homes in my electorate—and then the floods, where we lost more homes, and businesses were inundated, people needed support from an agency that understood and from people who had had lived experience, and it was working well. We were overjoyed that Fortem received funding of $10 million in the last budget. That was to go not only to opening further offices or branches around Australia in Townsville, Ballina, Albury-Wodonga, Gippsland, Dubbo, Nowra, Newcastle, Sunshine Coast, Darwin, Launceston and Perth but also for the upkeep of those services in the places they were already established. It was an amazing thing. So you can imagine the disappointment, not only of Mr Bale but of all the 50 employees around Australia and of those of us who had worked so hard, to find out that $8 million of the $10 million had been ripped away from the funding over the next two years. That will mean that 50 people who are supporting our emergency service personnel will no longer have a job. More significantly, those people who fight our fires and those people who go to work and put their lives on the line will not have that support there—not only them but their families. I can tell you the effect that dragging a body out of the water or consoling a mother whose child has died has on you, and, if their support services are not there, we'll continue to see deaths. We'll continue to see people struggle with mental health. We'll continue to see the breakdown of families. This decision makes no sense, and this is above politics. I'm not pointing my finger at the other side. Some of these officers that will miss out live in Labor seats. The people in your seats will miss out. So I'm urging the members on the other side to speak to their powers that be and ask why this has happened. Fortem went through a competitive tender and was successful in the competitive tender, and now they're being told: 'No, sorry, you're not going to get the $8 million. You now have to go through another competitive tender,' when they've already put everything in process, everything in plan. They have the infrastructure. It was working. Please speak to the Prime Minister—I've written to the Prime Minister—and ask him to reinstate that for the people who fight your fires, who get in those boats during floods, and that's in times of disaster. Every single day they come out. They go to car accidents. They operate the jaws of life to get people out of their cars. They scrape people off the road. They go to suicide sites. They are the people who do and see the things that we don't want to do and see. So please go back to your party room and ask the question: why can't you reinstate that $8 million? It is a drop in the bucket for what those people do for us. I will talk, just in the last couple of minutes, about veterans. There is a lot of great work that has been done for veterans to support veterans, and one of those things are the veterans' hubs around Australia. I have the largest cohort of veterans in my electorate in New South Wales: 9,000 veterans. We have one advocacy place, and that is in Coffs Harbour. It is a room that is stacked to the ceiling with boxes full of DVA claims that they're trying to process. I worked with veterans advocates over the last three years—Richard Calloway, Justin Poppleton, Louise Freeman and Sean Berkwitz—on a hub-and-spoke model that would service the whole of the Mid North Coast: Grafton, Coffs Harbour, Port Macquarie and Taree. That's four centres for the same price as one centre of $5 million allocated to other seats. That money was announced after the last budget last year. Unfortunately, in this budget, that $5 million was redirected. It was absolutely devastating for my veterans. They had been told they had the money, and now we have to start again. The veterans won't travel to Tweed Heads, three hours away from Coffs Harbour. They simply won't seek the services that they need. So, again, this has to be above politics. I'm asking the Prime Minister. I've written to you: please, $5 million is a drop in the bucket to service and support those people who served for us, who served for Australia. Please reinstate the $5 million for our hub-and-spoke model. Make sure our veterans have the services they require. Please do the right thing. Floods 112 19:19 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I want you to imagine that your home has been flooded not once but on three or four separate occasions and sometimes twice in a week over the last two years. Each time, as you finally see the water receding and you start the clean-up—throwing out the whitegoods, pulling out the furniture, lifting up the flooring, tearing down gyprock—you then have the BOM and the SES warn that more rain is coming, maybe not this week, maybe next week or next month or any time until early 2023. Do you repair and replace or do you wait? Or the bigger question: Do you stay or do you go? For many families in the low-lying most flood-prone streets and lowlands of the Hawkesbury, there is no point asking the question because there is no way out. Who will buy in such a flood-ravaged place right no and for what sort of price? Will it allow families who have worked hard to pay off a mortgage buy something in a less vulnerable area? Then there is people's sense of not wanting to subject others to what they have been through. As Jodie Saint from Windsor described to me a few months ago, her family discussed moving house after, in her words, their home was basically flooded every single time the Hawkesbury has been flooded. One of the youngsters said to her, 'If we sell, we will have to come back and help whoever buys this house because they will get flooded too.' Ten days ago, I wrote to New South Wales Premier Dominic Perrottet welcoming the announcement of a joint state and federal funded buyback, retrofit and rebuild scheme for flood affected homes in the Northern Rivers. My question was: Where was the New South Wales plan for the Hawkesbury? Why had New South Wales not sought similar federal support for our region, one of the most repeatedly flooded areas in the country? Our situation is on a different scale to the catastrophe of Lismore and its neighbours but in fact that is why a buyback scheme in particular could have such a positive impact. We know which streets are the first to flood. In fact, most of us have a pretty good idea of which specific houses are the most quickly affected. In one street, I know there are half a dozen homes now for sale or for rent. People don't have the energy or appetite to bounce back yet again and some of them would take a fair way out. Dave Young in Windsor and his family have suffered the trauma of multiple floodings and then the tragic loss of their wife and mum, Naomi. Since the 2021 floods, I have seen them, smiles on their faces, tackling the clean-up time after time. With lessons learnt with each flood, they created a more resilient home until the last flood, the largest since 1978, took its toll. Naomi's death, a real devastation for the whole community, came after they had been shuffling between hotel rooms while insurance was being sorted. Now rising interest rates makes the future look bleak for Dave, who wants a government buyout to give him a chance to get his family onto solid ground. Then there are people like Darryl in Windsor, who has also been flooded multiple times but doesn't want to leave. He wants to make his home more resilient. Like many people, he has an upstairs and would like to be able to make the downstairs robust so that his large clan don't have to squeeze into a dining room and lounge room while the downstairs is being fixed. These are all very reasonable asks from people who have been through a lot. Dave and Jodi and Daryl's families are just three examples of many people in the Hawkesbury who need the New South Wales government to release a comprehensive plan for the Hawkesbury fast—buybacks, retrofitting and rebuild. My hope is that the New South Wales government is already working on a voluntary buyback and retrofitting plan. I would hope that an announcement is made soon so people's lives are not in limbo for any longer and so they have another option in front of them to provide a sense of hope for the future. When my kids were really small, we were pretty much a one-income family, as my business was in it embryonic days. We had one car between us, were living in Winmalee with limited public transport and we were facing those challenges of paying a mortgage and car loan with high interest rates, not dissimilar to so many other families today, even though it was 30 years ago. The pressures were different but the result was the same—financial stress and anxiety about how to pay the bills. That is why our government's changes to make childcare cheaper and to reduce the cost of medicine are important now to help families make ends meet. Of course, cheaper medicines will also help older people, and we've gone even further for seniors, with the higher income test in place for the Commonwealth seniors health card, meaning more seniors will be able to access medicines at similar rates to pensioners. These are budget measures that have a deflationary effect because they reduce people's costs. They help the hip pocket without pushing up inflation. My experience as a young mum is why I've been so committed to ensuring there are great local parks for families to use in my community and why I'm delighted that the budget contained funding for big upgrades for both Glossodia and Mount Victoria, areas that have often been left off the list for improvements. For Glossodia we're providing $3 million to bring alive the long promised upgrades to Woodbury Reserve. It's a community that has been waiting a really long time for some decent facilities. Like my time as a mum with kids in Winmalee, a long way from other facilities and with poor public transport, these kids and their parents and grandparents need a place close to home to enjoy. I note that the New South Wales government, in its pre-election benevolence, has followed my lead and contributed funds to this project as well. Hawkesbury Council now has more than $8 million to make this park and play space a real jewel for the people of Glossodia. I look forward to their consultation with the community and with me about what that funding will deliver. At the top of the mountains, on the edge of the electorate which is so often overlooked, Mount Victoria, there is $1 million to double the bushfire recovery funding that Blue Mountains City Council received and has not yet used. The additional funding is designed to enhance memorial park and give it the love and attention it's missed out on for decades. We want to see an accessible and well equipped community playground that can be enjoyed by both locals and tourists alike. It's about great facilities close to home for locals but also about providing a good reason for those from further afield to stop and support local businesses. The community are already being encouraged to talk to Blue Mountains City Council about what they would like to see at memorial park. You can do that on Saturday 12 November from 2 pm to 4 pm and Thursday 17 November from 11 am to 1 pm at memorial park. I encourage people to start talking about their vision. The recent budget guaranteed $1.8 million funding for the shared bike and walking track from Hawkesbury Heights to Winmalee, something that locals have fought for for decades and I have made commitments on over several elections. For some people who aren't local it might not seem like a life changer, but I well remember when the path was constructed along Hawkesbury Road in Winmalee when my kids were young, allowing so many of us to push prams and take kids on trikes, bikes and scooters, and allowing older people needing a steady surface to finally get out and walk. It can be a sanity creator and a life changer, and I'm very proud to be delivering it. The budget confirmed that Glenbrook Oval's upgrade, which will benefit, among other groups, the Glenbrook Little Athletics, will go ahead, with $2.5 million to bring this facility into the 21st century, hopefully with a working PA system and a door wide enough for the high jump mats to be taken comfortably through so the mums and dads who volunteer can have decent facilities. There's one more election commitment that is designed to help ease pressure on families, particularly those with toddlers. The budget provides $15,000 for a Blue Mountains toy library to help families manage the rising cost of living and help children reach their developmental milestones. We'll be working with Belong Blue Mountains, who will lead the toy library service. This will allow the purchase of safe and fun age-appropriate toys and equipment that can be lent out to families to vary the weekly play routine. These are the sorts of things that will ease cost-of-living pressures for families but still allow them to provide the richness to their kids that we know makes a difference. It's going to take a range of measures to deal with this, and I'm proud that we can put some of these in place straightaway. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:29